1980-12-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in view of the tug-of-war that is taking place between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) over the Crowsnest freight rates. In Calgary, two weeks ago, the Minister of Transport said, "A task force on the Crow rates would be desirable"; one week later, also in Calgary, the Minister of Agriculture said, "There won't be any more studies done on the problems of the rail system and Crow rates". I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House call upon the government to get its act together, have its ministers communicate and forget their rivalries, and provide western producers with a single policy and a definitive explanation of its future intentions vis-a-vis the Crow rates.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the province of Ontario has decided to place an industrial waste site in South Cayuga, without a realistic environmental study, without an environmental hearing and contradictory to the MacLaren report, which did not choose South Cayuga as one of the 17 original sites, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty):
That this House direct the government to investigate this decision and report to the House on the propriety and safety of this action.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas political stability in Poland and in eastern Europe in general could be undermined by any further economic hardships for the Polish people, and whereas the Government of Canada should take a constructive lead in encouraging stability, prosperity and peace, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urge the government to help stabilize and rebuild the Polish economy; that Canada join with other nations, such as West Germany and Australia, which are willing to provide much needed food commodity credits and other economic assistance to the Polish people and government; and that the Prime Minister contact leaders of other governments to seek and co-ordinate multilateral economic assistance.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE OF FOREIGN TOURS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the executive of the parliamentary press gallery has proposed a motion to its membership opposing attempts by the Prime Minister to place limits on news media members travelling with him on future foreign tours and reaffirming a "no limits" policy on news coverage of the Prime Minister while he is travelling on state business, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):

December 9, 1980
That the Prime Minister cease his attempts to use this means to select the journalists covering him and demonstrate his respect for the principle of freedom of the press by returning to past policy regarding news media coverage of foreign tours.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, one of the provisions of the budget was a 50 per cent manufacturers' investment tax credit for designated areas. In response to a civil request to the minister responsible for DREE by my colleague from York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for the data base used to select these designated areas, the minister indignantly stated he was shocked that that inference was used, indicating that anything but the most scientific and fair methods were used to determine these areas.
In view of this, in view of the fact that families in Queens county and several other areas in New Brunswick represented by Conservative members have average incomes, which is one of the criteria, well below most areas included in the program, all represented by Liberals, and in view of the fact that $12,285,000 of the $12,692,000, or 96.8 per cent, of the community development project moneys in New Brunswick went to constituencies held by Liberals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury:
That the minister include the entire province of New Brunswick as a designated area in the 50 per cent manufacturers' investment tax credit program.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of pressing necessity. Last night, at the age of 40, John Lennon was shot to death. John Lennon, through his songs as a member of the Beatles, and on his solo albums, did much to shape the thinking of young people during the sixties and early seventies. His vision of love, peace and human harmony was a major influence in
shaping the consciousness, the hopes and dreams of a generation. His musical contributions helped change, unalterably, popular music and ohr culture. John Lennon is dead; but his work is reflected in the hearts and minds of millions of men and women, in Canada and the world over.
I therefore move, Madam Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) and supported by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger):
That this House pay tribute to the outstanding cultural contribution of John Lennon and express its condolences to his wife Yoko Ono and his family and friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. We have rising unemployment; we have a dollar that sinks lower in value every day; we have business forced to borrow money at rates in excess of 17 and 18 per cent; we have the spectre of an 11.5 per cent inflation rate next year. It is a condition labelled as "stagflation". I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House do immediately constitute a special seven-member task force committee to inquire into the fiscal and monetary policy conducted by this government and the Bank of Canada and for this purpose review the evidence taken before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in its inquiry into interest rate policy in the Thirty-first Parliament and call such witnesses as the committee deems necessary in order that Canadians can be assured that Parliament, if not this government, is prepared to deal with "stagflation".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 9, 1980


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the importance of agriculture to our national economy, with interest rate increases and farm operating costs rising faster than the consumer price index, so that net farm income will grow only slightly in 1981, in spite of consumers facing at least a 15 per cent increase in food prices next year; in view of major fuel oil, diesel, gasoline and probably fertilizer costs yet to be added in the coming year; in view of the questionable impact of the Minister of Agriculture on the deliberations of the Minister of Finance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of Finance be examined for fiscal fitness by those interested and capable in agricultural economics and bring forward an assessment of present government policies in the context of Canadian and world economies to determine the effects on our agricultural community and to submit recommendations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the fact that a delegation representing businessmen from my constituency and the mayors of Rouyn-Noranda came to Ottawa to meet with Department of Transport officials concerning the installation of equipment which is absolutely essential for the Rouyn airport, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras):
That this delegation receive the whole attention of the Department of Transport, which attention it should have got a long time ago.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He must have noted that employment in the Canadian construction industry is down by 50,000 Canadian workers, half of those workers being from Ontario alone and 30 per cent from Quebec. If the minister has noted that, will he tell us whether any study is being given to some type of new approach to stimulate the construction industry in this country, bearing in mind the minister gave such short shrift to the mortgage interest and property tax program of the Clark government which would have ensured that those 50,000 Canadians would not be out of work today as they are?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have noticed the variation in employment in the goods-producing industry, which includes construction. Having noted that, I have also noted that the over-all, seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Canada decreased over the past month, that decrease in unemployment having been registered in almost all regions of the country.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, surely that reply is only reflective of the callous attitude of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -which hands us seasonally adjusted figures but ignores the fact there are more Canadians out of work today than there were previously.
My question is again directed to the Minister of Finance. Has he noticed that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has stated that the decision to deem marginal manufacturing liable to federal sales tax has created a great groundswell of concern among their members, a groundswell that has not been experienced for a long time and has contributed to the unemployment with which we are now living in the manufacturing sector? If the minister is aware of CMA's comment that by simply redefining manufacturing to include marginal manufacturing he is triggering more unemployment in this country, will the minister correct the mistake he made in his budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that the unemployment rate for November, 1980, is precisely the same unemployment rate which existed a year ago when the hon. member's seatmate brought in a budget which, if it had been accepted by the House of Commons, would have had very serious and deep effects on the unemployment situation in Canada. I want to tell the hon.

December 9, 1980
Oral Questions
member today that I am following quite a different fiscal policy from that which he supported a year ago.


An hon. Member:: What a disaster.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, this Minister of Finance does not have to tell anyone in Canada that he is following a different fiscal pattern.


Mr. Nowlan:: It is irresponsible.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With the falling dollar, the rising interest rates, the rising unemployment-in numbers, not statistics- the rising inflation, that fact is obvious to all Canadians.
Will the minister answer my question? CMA has indicated that by changing the definition of manufacturing to include marginal manufacturing with respect to the implementation of sales tax, he is driving more and more manufacturing into foreign lands and creating more and more unemployment in this country. If the minister is aware of this, will he tell the House that he is going to correct the mistake that now exists in his budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there was absolutely no mistake made in the budget in moving to this change. The idea was to provide for greater equity within the tax system and to provide equality of treatment for Canadian producers in comparison with imported goods. 1 would think that that objective would appeal to the hon. member.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, the only equal treatment in the budget is that everybody is getting shafted equally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. I remind the minister that there were 787,000 people unemployed in November. The minister has forecast this will average 1,026,000 people during 1981. He also forecasts that food costs will go up 12 per cent in 1981 while the latest forecast of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is that food prices will go up 15 per cent. The minister's solution is to suggest that Canadians accept a lower standard of living. The Prime Minister's solution is that Canadians should change their priorities and spend more on food and less on other things.
My question is this. Will the minister reconsider those solutions, which are unpalatable, and now bring in a budget? We have not yet had one. We just had a cop-out attached to a smash and grab raid on the energy industry. Will, he bring in a
budget and policies which will help Canadians overcome unemployment and help them overcome inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member in case the facts have escaped him that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is down from 7.6 per cent to 7.3 per cent. This decrease in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is due entirely to an improvement in the employment situation. Over the past year, the number of new jobs has increased by more than 200,000. The unemployment rate today in Canada is less than that existing in the United States. These are some of the facts the hon. member conveniently forgets. I wonder whether he could think up some new questions which have not been asked 20 times in the past two weeks.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the only thing that can be said of the minister is that he has the guts to answer and the Prime Minister has not. However, his answers are still not satisfactory. Let me point out to the Minister of Finance that the reason the adjusted figures are down is because the labour force totals are down in Newfoundland and Ontario as workers there have given up looking for jobs, knowing there are none to be found. If the minister looks at the Economic Council of Canada report on Newfoundland, he will see the phenomenon described in ample terms. The minister has forecast unemployment for over one million Canadians next year. He has forecast increases in the cost of living of 10.2 per cent and in food prices of 12 per cent. These have since been revised upwards.
In a speech in Halifax on September 9 the minister said and I quote:
Let me assure you that it was to create jobs, improve living standards and promote greater equity that I took the position of Minister of Finance.
If the minister took the position for that reason, how is it that jobs are being lost and that over a million will be unemployed next year? He is now telling the Canadian people to lower their standard of living. His only concept of equity is that Canadians cease spending on other things and spend more on food. Will he explain why he is still minister if that is his reason for being minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, may I just correct an error which crept into the hon. member's rather excited, frenzied and repetitive question, a question by the way that he picked up from the hon. member for Broadview which was asked and answered about two months ago. Let me tell the hon. member he is wrong in talking about the labour force. We have scored this improvement in employment in Canada despite virtually no change in the labour force in the country. The hon. member ought to get his facts straight before he poses questions.


John Carnell Crosbie: You get yours straight.
December 9, 1980


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, the minister says he keeps hearing the same questions. Regrettably we on this side keep hearing the same answers and they are totally inadequate. I would like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say on this question. I point out to the minister that Statistics Canada reports, and 1 quote:
There is no significant change in labour market conditions compared to the previous month.
Statistics Canada recognizes the real numbers of more than one million unemployed and the minister should acknowledge that. On the weekend the Prime Minister gave advice to Canadians who could not afford the high cost of food by telling them to change their priorities. Would the Prime Minister tell the people of Canada, since it is estimated that one out of four in the labour force is going to be out of their job some time next year, what advice he would give to those people who will be unemployed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will take notice of the question, Madam Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure the unemployed in Canada will take great consolation from the Prime Minister's indifference as revealed in that answer. The Minister of Finance, in spite of his boasting, has forecast an increase in unemployment going upwards of some 150,000 next year. Since factories are operating at the lowest level in two decades, bankruptcies are up and housing starts are down, will the government recognize at long last the serious problems in the Canadian economy, show some concern and bring in some programs which will create jobs instead of higher levels of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would refer to the budget he would realize its main impact is to create jobs-


John Carnell Crosbie: Which budget? How many years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -through the $15 billion it plans to raise through the energy package over the next three years. For that reason we wish to have the support of this House in passing these budgetary measures as soon as possible.


John Carnell Crosbie: You said that yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Prime Minister will re-read the budget with care he will note an unemployment increase forecast of more than 1 per cent, which means an increase of 150,000 unemployed. Since the Prime Minister has expressed recent concern about the problems of the Third World, which are indeed real, does he not think there is just more than a little hypocrisy in that expressed concern when he ignores the real human problems here in Canada?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, do I understand from the Leader of the NDP that I should stop being concerned about the poor in the Third World?


An hon. Member:: What about here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then what is his suggestion, Madam Speaker? The difference between his party and ours is that we can deal with both subjects. We do not have a one-track mind like the NDP.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It relates to the allegations made in this House and elsewhere last week regarding the export of some critical and crucial nuclear components to a banned country, namely, Pakistan, by three Canadian citizens. 1 understand more serious charges have now been laid against these three Canadian citizens.
Why, when the police investigation ended two and a half months ago, after the media raised the question and after the question was raised in this House, have the more serious charges only now been laid?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will understand it would not be proper for me to comment on charges which have been laid and on a case which is now under way.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Obviously I am not asking the Solicitor General to comment on the merits or the demerits of any prosecution now taking place. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the serious allegations that pressure from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs, through the Solicitor General, caused the minor charges to be laid in the first place. That has nothing to do with the case. This concerns improper pressure on the police of this country.
Did the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce withdraw their pressure on the minister so that these charges have now been laid, or did the RCMP lay these charges in contravention of any direct instructions from the Solicitor General?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, no pressures were put on the RCMP working on this particular case. The laying of charges is a police decision made on the basis of whether adequate evidence in available to sustain charges.
5528

December 9, 1980
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. After his fiasco of a trip to Saudi Arabia where he humped through that country and after jetting to Europe for discussions there, the Prime Minister is now planning another junket to Latin America and Africa. He is using a Boeing 707 government jet refitted in what is termed a "comfortable configuration". He is limiting accommodation for the press and continuing the policy of restricting access to, and coverage of, himself on a trip which is made at public expense. What criteria, aside from favouritism, is the Prime Minister using in designating seats on this plane with respect to press coverage of his next trip?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the use of the 707 and its comfortable configuration, my understanding is that it is exactly the same plane and the same configuration the hon. member's leader used when he flew to the Commonwealth meeting in Africa last year, so I see nothing exceptional about this. It is the plane which has been used by myself and was used by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister.
As far as the press is concerned, my understanding is that the press can send who it wants to whatever events it wishes; but if members of the press want to come on this plane, their numbers will be limited and it will be up to them to choose who they want to send. The reason for this is that some of the countries we are going to-and went to on the last trip-have indicated that they would appreciate it if we did not come with 40 or 50 press people. We are trying to meet that courtesy but, of course, the press is always free to cover every one of my events which takes place publicly in any of the countries I am in.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I think the question here is that of access to the Prime Minister on a trip paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. We have the substitution of "mouseke-teers" in this country by a "junketeer" in the person of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lumley:: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister is leaving our country to take these trips at a time when we are having a serious constitutional debate, when unemployment is reaching unprecedented levels-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is decreasing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and energy policies are causing great division and collapsing activity in our country. The Prime Minister approved the expenditure of in excess of $60 million for advertising and manipulation of public opinion in this
country. Can he not see his way clear to dedicate part of this money to ensure that there is free coverage by the press and not just coverage by what I might term the sycophants of the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to see the hon. member now joining the Leader of the New Democratic Party in describing as junketeering a trip which intends to show Canada's concern for the some billion human beings in this world who are very poor, who go to bed hungry every night and who do not have enough money to live in proper sanitary conditions. If the hon. member is condemning this approach by this government to try to help the plight of the Third World, he can form an alliance with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and let the public judge his position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are doing it in secret.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the discrepancy between the projections contained in the budget and the so-called medium-term document which was released at the time of the budget and the figures which are now developing with respect to the state of the Canadian economy. 1 remind the minister that on page 25 of his budget speech he said, and I quote:
The fiscal projections are based on the medium-term economic projections described in a companion budget paper.
If we look at the unemployment figures which are being compiled for the year 1980, we see that it will be necessary to have a figure of under 6 per cent in December in order for us to meet the figures which are projected in the budget by the minister on a year-over-year basis. We can see the number of conflicts in the figures with regard to food prices which have now been released and projected for the next year. Most estimates, apart from those of the Department of Finance, show rates as high as 14 per cent or 15 per cent from the Bank of Commerce and 16 per cent from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
If it can be established-and I suggest it can-that the projections in the budget both with respect to unemployment next year and to inflation next year are shown to be entirely off base and do not reflect what is really going on in the economy, does the minister not think that it is time for the government to re-think its economic policy to take into account what is clearly a worsening situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty in acknowledging to the hon. member that these projections are
December 9, 1980

bound to be revised as conditions, not only in Canada but in the world itself, change. When I gave the budget speech I thought I made it clear that all projections in the budget were at risk. I believe I made that statement in the budget speech. I think it is a reasonable one, and 1 assure the hon. member that I do not intend to feel apologetic if certain projections which have been laid out for 1981 or even earlier are not realized because of changing conditions. Projecting the economy is a risky business, and I find that economists are more often wrong than they are right.


Bob Rae: So are Liberals.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is no surprise to the hon. member, but I will tell him that if the basic conditions which are outlined in the budget change, then I would of course reconsider the posture which I adopted in the budget. Elowever, I projected inflation and unemployment and I developed a fiscal program which I felt was the best possible one to deal with the situation this country will face over the next year.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for that answer and point out to him that on Thursday night people in Toronto were treated to a statement by his deputy minister with respect to the inflation problem. He cited a number of factors which meant that inflation was a worse and more severe problem than the department thought only four weeks ago. In light of this fact, the fact that the unemployment situation is clearly worse than projected even in the budget and that the government is prepared to accept an 8.7 per cent official rate of unemployment next year, which means 1.4 million or 1.5 million real unemployed people-which is important-I would like to ask the minister in what way he plans to change the government's policy since he indicated in his first answer that he does not hold to the projections. We are not talking about statistics in the sky. We are talking about whether real people will or will not have jobs next year and the prices real people will be paying for their food next year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has talked about inflation, which undoubtedly is a very serious problem, and the chances are that it will not abate in the near future. However, every proposal I have heard from him, from his leader and from every member of his party, if adopted, would add to the inflationary problem.


John Edward Broadbent: That is absurd.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is absolutely the case that every proposal in the form of increased spending and in the form of instructions to the governor of the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates, if adopted, would really show the country what inflation could be like under a New Democratic Party government.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, my question should be diverted to the Minister of the Environment. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it appears he has sneaked out for coffee. Possibly the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary can answer my question.
I am sure the minister is aware of the action taken by the province of Ontario in establishing an industrial waste dispoal site in South Cayuga, as pointed out in my motion under Standing Order 43, without holding an environmental hearing.
I am equally sure the minister is aware that it will replace all 12 existing sites in Ontario, that it is on agricultural land and that it will require transportation of toxic wastes through the greatly populated agricultural heartland of Ontario.
Has the minister or his department taken or planned any action pertaining to this obvious denial of the individual's right to be heard?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister, I shall refer to him the question asked by the hon. member at the earliest opportunity and ensure that the hon. member receives a full reply.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary question? I would not think so since the minister is not here.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Yes, 1 do, Madam Speaker. I am sorry there is not someone opposite who could have given me some sort of answer.
I am sure the minister will know that this site rests between Lake Erie, a national waterway, and the Grand River, which is a major tributary to Lake Erie and is of national importance. This site is only one mile from the Grand River, Madam Speaker, and it is on a type of land that is shrinking only too quickly at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put the question. Supplementary questions must be kept fairly short.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Would the minister please answer my supplementary question, since I see he has returned?


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Since a national waterway is involved at a site only 40 miles from Niagara Falls and the Love Canal and only 40 miles from the constituency of the hon. member for Hamil-

December 9, 1980
Oral Questions
ton West, and since this is a matter with which the minister has been involved, will the minister have his department check into the propriety of this decision and ensure that proper studies and tests are carried out to protect the residents of the Great Lakes area?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: As the hon. gentleman knows, we are dealing here essentially with a question under the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Ontario, but given the very evident concern he has expressed, I will have my officials look into the matter.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or, in his absence, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, in the absence of both of them, I wonder if I might put my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns a memo delivered to my office this morning which says, in one line, that we can expect, as members of Parliament, a low-key announcement or a press release on the resumption of forced metric conversion coast to coast on January 1, 1982, this announcement to take place in late December or early January at a time when the public and the press are still in a festive period and not on the alert.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Would the Prime Minister advise the House if a decision has been made by the Privy Council, the cabinet or any of his ministers to proceed with forced implementation of metric conversion in the retail food sector on January 1?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member say who signed the memo, Madam Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Pierre Trudeau.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advised the House that they were considering proceeding with metric conversion on January 1, 1982. My question to the Prime Minister is this. In light of his minister's confirmation of the intent and in light of this notice, would the Prime Minister confirm to the House that it is a fact that the government is going to proceed coast to coast in the retail food sector with metric conversion on January 1, 1982?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have a minister present who could deal with the substance of the question, but the hon. member prefaced his question by saying he had received a one line memo, if I understood him correctly. Could he tell us who signed that one line memo so that we know with whom we are dealing in the House?


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, this is not my supplementary question, but I will tell the Prime Minister that it was his own ministry which confirmed to the House that forced metric conversion will proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who signed the memo?


An hon. Member:: Who is questioning whom around here?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this.


An hon. Member:: It's gossip, that's what it is.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: This is not gossip.


An hon. Member:: They don't sign memos.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: My question deals with an American press release today. The American press has notified the people of the United States that Congress is not going to proceed with forced metric conversion for ten or 15 years in the retail food sector in the United States. Would the Prime Minister state in the House that, so far as metric conversion is concerned, we should be in harmony with our trading partner to the south and not be an island unto ourselves. My supplementary question is this. His ministry has confirmed that we might proceed with metric conversion on January 1, 1982. Would the Prime Minister confirm that there has been a decision to proceed, or are we being given no direction? Will there be metric conversion, regardless whether or not the United States is with us?


Some hon. Members:: Put the question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, hon. members here have difficulties when hon. members opposite do not follow the rules and introduce all kinds of preambles to their questions, trying to use preambles to convey falsehoods or spread rumours which are unfounded. I wish the hon. member would come clear and give us a copy of that memo so we could know to whom he is referring.


An hon. Member:: Answer the policy question.


REGIONAL AND ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance who is from Nova Scotia. On July 23 of this year, a fire in Lockeport, Nova Scotia, destroyed the National Sea Products fish plant which was the major employer of some 300 people in the community of 1,030 people. Could the minister indicate to the House and to the people in that community who are
December 9, 1980

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
dependent on the fish plant at what stage negotiations are now between DREE and National Sea Products for the reconstruction of that plant, and if one of the stumbling blocks to the reconstruction is the high interest rate policy followed by the government?


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I should like to mention to the hon. member that the policies of this government are not a factor in the decision to go ahead with assistance to the fish plant at Lockeport. The feasibility of proceeding with financial assistance to that fish plant is being investigated at present by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and we believe we will have a recommendation from the Nova Scotia office very shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECTS OF FISH PLANT CLOSURE ON UNEMPLOYMENT
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, it was my information that the region had referred that decision to the federal government by now.
I should like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister is aware of the fact that the closure of that plant has indeed affected approximately 20 smaller fish plants in the area and a number of fishing vessels. It has also led to the unemployment of 200 people as of now and a further 100 people in the near future, people who are highly qualified to work in fish plants. Has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans been in contact with his colleagues, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and has he made any recommendations to those ministers on how we might overcome this highly unacceptable situation in Lockeport?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, yes, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have been working together. One of the problems is that the application to replace the plant was predicated on a considerable increase in production, and this is an area which is highly competitive and where, in fact, fishermen are sought out by the plants for their products. We have said that we could see a replacement of a plant of the same size as the one which burned down. In that sense we would support the recommendation, but we would certainly not support a recommendation for an increase in the capacity of that plant or of other plants in the area because the area is already quite well equipped with fish processing plants.


POLAND-POSSIBLE INTERVENTION BY U.S.S.R.-INQUIRY RESPECTING ACTION TAKEN BY CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who will know that Admiral Falls, the chief of the NATO military committee, has said:
The ability of the Soviets to intervene in Poland is such that they could do it with very little warning. Indeed I am talking of hours, not days-
The Prime Minister will know that leaders of other nations have warned that such an intervention would destroy detente. I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House whether he or his Secretary of State for External Affairs has yet called in the Soviet ambassador to Canada to express Canada's concern about Soviet troops massing around Poland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not called in the Soviet ambassador as yet.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us why that elementary step has not been taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because I communicated directly with Mr. Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we would all be interested in the contents of that communication. I would ask the Prime Minister why it has not been made public and to affirm that it will be made public.
While he is is on his feet, and since he indicated that, rather than dealing through ambassadors, he has been responding to this question by correspondence and conversations with other world leaders, will he indicate whether he has had any response from the other world leaders to whom he made reference the other day, what has been the nature of that response and the nature of the plan which is being evolved by Canada and other countries to try to deal with this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 gave the answer to the first part of the question in the House the other day-


Mr. Forrestall:: Whose side are you on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that Canada has been concerned about trying to establish some collective attitude vis-a-vis the threats in Poland and vis-a-vis the possible disturbances there. The other day I answered by indicating what communications I had had with other summit heads of government and state.
As to possible co-operation, there is such consultation, as I suggested, taking place now in NATO, with the Secretary of State for External Affairs being present and consulting on the subject with our allies. Also there will be a meeting in Paris in a few days with like-minded countries to consider a possible alleviation of some of the economic problems in Poland. There

December 9, 1980
Oral Questions
will be consultation on this subject, much along the lines suggested by the member from Vancouver-


J. Michael Forrestall: You are not prepared to pay for it, and you know it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite clear what-


J. Michael Forrestall: Come clean.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the hon. member could discuss this matter with his leader and come together on some kind of coherent policy on their part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister neglected to answer the question whether he would table the communication with Mr. Brezhnev. Also he neglected to indicate why that communication was not made public in the first place.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because, Madam Speaker, we are not trying to get political credit; we are trying to get the West united against a possible danger to the West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Under the rather feckless new fighter aircraft contract, McDonnell-Douglas cannot be held responsible for "excusable delays", a very broad category which includes "any action of government". As the United States government has delayed the defence systems acquisition review council decision on F-18A production, and as the Australian government has postponed its decision on a possible F-18A purchase, has our government received any notice of delay as required by the contract?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, we have not received any notice of delay under the contract.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In the new fighter aircraft contract, the October 31 payment, milestone No. 5, brings the cumulative total payment to $25 million; but that payment was subject to "completion of a review of contractor progress by the contract authority", that is, the government.
Was the review made, was it satisfactory, and was the payment made?


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, with reference to that specific contract, I will have to inquire and inform the hon. member.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one posed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Since he has difficulty posing questions on Poland, I thought I would ask this question of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has apparently completed its preparations for a possible intervention in Poland, and that the United Nations, under Chapter VI, article 34 of its charter, may have its security council investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, would the Prime Minister say whether he is prepared to ask the United Nations Security Council, through proper channels, to proceed under the terms of article 34 in an effort to maintain world peace?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, certainly I think that is a most worthy suggestion and I will bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board concerning two important subjects that normally prompt questions at year's end. First I would like to know whether the hon. gentleman has decided upon a definite policy concerning public servants who will retire before December 31-more specifically, will they receive cost of living indexation for the year in which they retire, and what indexing rate will apply for the current year?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question, we still intend to bring in amendments to the act concerning the
December 9, 1980

particular matter raised by the hon. member. As far as the indexation rate is concerned, we will be announcing soon the rate that will apply to the current year.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question which I should direct to the minister of manpower and immigration, but in his absence-


An hon. Member:: He is here.


An hon. Member:: He is half here.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am sorry. My question is directed to the minister of manpower, who was hiding behind the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Some four months after the destruction of the National Sea Products plant in Lockeport, Nova Scotia, unfortunately only 33 per cent of the displaced work force have found new employment. Since an estimated 200 former National Sea Products employees have filed for Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits, and some 25 of these workers have yet to receive a cent of assistance in the last four months due to bureaucratic red tape, will the minister take steps to open a temporary office in the town of Lockeport in order to handle the claims of these citizens who are really unemployed through no fault of their own, through what is really a disaster?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, although the hon. member was a little late in recognizing who the minister is, the name of the department is the Department of Employment and Immigration and it has been that way for two years.


Miss MacDonald:: Lloyd who?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would answer the hon. member by saying that we have a procedure whereby we establish consultative committees in towns affected by industrial change, strikes or lay-offs. We are quite prepared to establish such a committee to work with local citizens and provincial authorities to respond to the conditions the member described. 1 will ask my officials to look into it right away and give him a report.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Since the only recourse of many of these people is municipal social assistance, which will cost the county of Shelburne an estimated $40,000 per month from now until spring of until some employment opportunities are provided, what special steps is the government planning to take to help ease this financial burden?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would point out that welfare payments are already covered to the extent of 50 per
Oral Questions
cent of the cost by the federal government through the Canada Assistance Plan program, but I indicated to the hon. member that we will be looking into the situation, establishing a Manpower consultative committee if it is required, and working with local authorities to provide for any remedial solutions. As soon as I have a proper assessment of the conditions, I will give him a report and make sure that we take the steps that are necessary.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It has become obvious that there is a tremendous need for long-term strategy as it relates to research and development. Not too long ago the chief research director for the Lamon-tagne Senate committee estimated that if we had had 1.5 per cent of our gross national product devoted to research and development we would have generated 1.52 million new jobs and $15.4 billion in additional exports.
Research and development requires long-term planning and there is none. The minister stated not too long ago that he would tell the country in a few weeks when the government will be prepared to bring in its long-term funding arrangements. Could the minister inform the House and the scientific community in this country when the government will be prepared to lay out its long-term funding plans in order to bring research and development to 1.5 per cent of the gross national product?


John (Moody) Roberts: Very soon, Madam Speaker. I look forward to some opportunity early in the new year to be able to present our proposals in this regard.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. He mentioned in committee it would be two weeks, and that was a week ago. I have noted in another press release that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce suggested spring, 1981; I hope it will be sooner.
My supplementary question also relates to research and development and university funding. The universities are in a state of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is not necessary for the hon. member to respond to the minister's answer before asking his supplementary question. The hon. member should go directly to his question.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I will go immediately to my question. Will the government commit itself to a review of existing fiscal transfer arrangements with the provinces to ensure that Canadian universities will in the future receive provincial support at a level commensurate with national

December 9, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
research and development targets? Will the government also ensure that university research in industrial and technological development is related to provincial as well as national interests?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. member read his question rather quickly and 1 am not sure I caught all of the nuances. If he is asking whether there is a review under way of educational transfer arrangements, I would say that in the general reconsideration of the established programs financing arrangements, that is taking place.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On November 28, 1980, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) raised a question of privilege in which he objected to the use of the term "McCarthyism" by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who had applied that term to describe certain actions of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In turn, the hon. member for Calgary Centre objected to the use of the term "separatism", which had been applied by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to describe a position taken by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and others. A spirited debate ensued, which I followed closely, and which demonstrated to my satisfaction that however opprobrious the terms "McCarthyism" and "separatism" might be, they do not fall within the general class of words such as "crook, demagogue, idiot", and so forth, which have been ruled unparliamentary.
Whether one approves of the connotations or not, the words "McCarthyism" and "separatism" have become part of the political vocabulary and therefore their applicability is a matter of interpretation and debate in which the Chair has no role.
Furthermore, I would suggest that Erskine May offers a useful test of unparliamentary language at page 445 of the nineteenth edition where it is stated:
From time to time the Chair has intervened to deal with the use of certain expressions in debate, which, in the context in which they were used, were abusive or insulting and of a nature to cause disorder.
It seems to me, therefore, that to be unparliamentary in the true sense, the language must be both abusive or insulting and give rise to a certain disorder.
Having said all of that, however, I would draw the attention of all hon. members to another passage in the same edition of Erskine May at page 429 where it is stated:
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.


MR. BROADBENT-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. TRUDEAU DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a separate question of privilege. Earlier in the day in the question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in answer to me and a member for the Conservative party, suggested that the New Democractic Party does not share his stated interest in problems of the Third World. Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is that the Prime Minister was misstating reality, of which he ought to have been aware. I want to make it known that this party has always made it abundantly clear to anyone who would listen that we will support any effort to alleviate poverty in the Third World. Furthermore, we will support the Prime Minister with respect to his trip abroad, which he plans to make after Christmas. If he comes back with a commitment made by Canada to do at least what the average Scandinavian countries are doing for the Third World, he will have the support of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: But the point raised in the question by myself was that the Prime Minister should begin at home, as well, in showing concern for the problems faced by Canadians. They are not mutually exclusive concerns.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a question of privilege. 1 think he realizes that. He did want to make a point, and I suppose he has made it.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that there was not a question of privilege by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), I simply want to indicate that I was not standing on that same question of privilege because I think the Prime Minister's statement was beneath contempt. I refuse to answer that stupid kind of accusation.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: 1 have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant).


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting many members of this House. It concerns some of the actions, or perhaps lack of actions, by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. December 9, 1980

Axworthy) in the matter of granting ministerial approval for Canada community development projects.
It has come to my attention to date that so far in Manitoba only 12 projects submitted by local advisory boards from the whole province have been approved. Each and every one of these 12 projects originated from the Winnipeg ridings of St. Boniface and Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Coincidentally, these are the only two ridings held in Manitoba by the Liberal party. I submit that such action is inexcusable. How can the minister, at a time of tremendously high unemployment-indeed, we heard questions earlier this afternoon about the state of unemployment in this country today-play petty partisan politics with job-creation programs?
It is not bad enough that we learned today that the only projects so far approved come from Liberal ridings, but we also learned that for some reason there will be a further delay in approving the remaining projects in Manitoba. Under the guidelines established by his department some of these projects were to have started on November 17. Iam willing to accept the delay of a few days, or perhaps a week to a week and a half, but it is now reaching beyond an acceptable length of time. By the time these programs are approved it will be after Christmas and the new year before work will be started on those projects.
This is not the first time this has happened. Last spring my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), asked the minister to explain delays in approving Summer Youth Employment projects. At that time we were told that because some members had not followed the rules which the minister had laid down we, the members of Parliament, were the cause of the delay. However, we found upon closer scrutiny that this was not really the case and it was an unfair charge. What cannot be the subject of debate at this time, though, is that members of Parliament from Manitoba have played by the rules. Some local advisory board recommendations have been sitting in the minister's office since at least November 12 but we have not heard a word on these projects, other than those few projects I mentioned earlier in the Liberal ridings.
How can we members of Parliament be expected to perform our jobs if ministers of the Crown engage in, what seems to me to be, seemingly petty activities? The minister and his department set up the rules, and in Selkirk-Interlake we followed those rules. We set up the local advisory board. They met and held two or three meetings. They made their recommendations. We received good co-operation from his officials in Winnipeg and I understand that they have forwarded the recommendations of the local advisory board to the minister's office. At this point we come to the foul-up. The minister seems to have thrown a spanner into the works.
Today we learn that there are a further 3,000 people unemployed in Manitoba. My riding of Selkirk-Interlake has an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent, the highest rate in Manitoba. Unemployment rates in Winnipeg North Centre,
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
Winnipeg North, and the Churchill riding are all very high. Yet the minister has seen fit to approve projects for Manitoba in the wealthy suburbs of Winnipeg, such as St. Boniface and Fort Garry, where, by his own department's calculation, unemployment is the lowest.
What are the priorities of this minister? Why has he chosen to put partisan interests ahead of the economic well-being of his own province? Among my roles as a member of Parliament is the selection of applications for the Canada community development programs. This role was defined by the minister. By subverting this process and by not approving the programs until much after the start-up date, he is denying me the right of properly fulfilling this role. I submit that this violates my privileges as a member of Parliament.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you understand how important this matter is, and I hope your ruling will allow us to straighten out this unfortunate situation and get people to work in the province of Manitoba and, indeed, in other provinces where there may be these same kinds of hold-ups. There are areas in my riding which have unemployment rates at the present time of some 95 per cent, due mostly to the closing of the fishing season. For the minister or his department to hold up these programs at this time is unconscionable and I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you give a favourable ruling on the matter.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I want to point out to the minister that two years ago Canada Works in Manitoba was allocated $9.5 million, under a Liberal government. This year, two years later, when unemployment is higher, the allocation is $2.5 million, less than 30 per cent of what we received two years ago. Two years ago in the two constituencies represented by myself and my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the allocation for Canada Works programs was over $2 million, and half of that was for native employment. This year the allocation for the Canada community development program is just over $400,000. That is less than 20 per cent of what we received two years ago.
We are told that the reason for the reduction is that the rate of unemployment is low in our city and that in my constituency there are only 904 unemployed native people. I do not know from where the minister or his department collected these figures, but I am sure that the minister knows that the survey done by the Winnipeg school division showed unemployment rates of 50 per cent in the core area of the city.
I refer the minister to an article written by Val Werier, respected Winnipeg columnist, which appeared recently in the Winnipeg Free Press. He quotes the comments of some of the school principals in charge of schools in the core area, and I would like to take a moment to put some of them on the record. The principal of David Livingstone School said:
The unemployment rate among the school parents is 53 per cent.
That is in his school. The principal of the Aberdeen School
says:

December 9, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
Of 370 students, 80 per cent are of native origin. Unemployment among parents is 55 per cent.
The article goes on to say that at the William Whyte School, of 383 students more than half are from families with single parents and with an unemployment rate of 55 per cent.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that the hon. member is not applying his remarks to the point of the question of privilege. I have seen no indication of a question of privilege yet. If the hon. member wishes to be helpful to the Chair, he should focus on his arguments to prove the privilege.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I was just coming to that, but allow me to put on the record one more quotation from the article. The principal of the William Whyte School is quoted as saying:
We are talking about a Third World right within our own city.
That comment is apropos of the questions raised earlier today.
My question of privilege arises because we co-operated with the minister, despite the very low allocations for our areas. We appointed our advisory committees to work on the applications, and they followed the guidelines laid down by the minister and his department. The applications were examined and screened, and the best ones were sent forward to the minister. Here we are in December with a very high rate of unemployment in the core area of Winnipeg, and the minister has not seen fit to look at and approve the applications which have been recommended so that these people who are unemployed can get on with the job. We are talking about people who are living in real poverty and slum conditions. It is a disgrace that the minister has not-and I would say it is for political reasons-seen fit to move these applications forward.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to address myself to the purported question of privilege brought forward by the combined forces of the Manitoba New Democratic Party. In saying that I underline the fact that it has less to do with privilege and more to do with politics, obviously in the Conservative tact. I spent 12 hours in this House yesterday on estimates, at which time hon. members had every opportunity to raise any question, make any comment, or bring anything to my attention. Neither of the hon. gentlemen who raised the question of privilege had the courtesy or the respect to raise this issue during that period of time. It suggests to me that they are simply using this particular opportunity to make a political point.
In so far as the question is concerned, the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) is dead wrong. The projects for Manitoba constituencies were approved well over a week ago and sent to the regional office for distribution. There was no hold-up in my office. I approved something like 900 projects in the past week which were recommended by all parties, and I intend to approve the rest of the projects this week.
The projects for any one constituency were not held up. As far as I know, the projects for Manitoba were approved, but I do not know why there was a hold-up. I will check into it, but it must be somewhere between my office and the regional office.
It would have been far more in keeping with the procedures, rules and conventions of this House if the hon. member, rather than protesting so much, had had the common decency to call my office, and he would have received that information. It is not a question of privilege, but a question of sheer street-barrel politics.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I will cut the debate. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) knows he cannot speak twice on the same question of privilege. I will not entertain any other hon. members on the question of privilege because, as it was posed, I did not find a prima facie case of privilege. The hon. member might perhaps have a legitimate grievance, but he certainly does not have a question of privilege. The matter is a perfect subject for debate, and the hon. member should perhaps take advantage of the proper time to introduce that debate, but that is up to him.
In his intervention the hon. member said that the minister had not played by the rules. The rules to which he referred were not the rules of the House of Commons. The hon. member also said that the minister established the rules and that everybody is required to follow those rules except the minister. I reiterate that these are not the rules of the House of Commons and, therefore, the entire matter is completely outside my jurisdiction. So, if as the hon. member has suggested, the matter needs to be straightened out, I would suggest that the two hon. members straighten it out between themselves. Certainly it is not a matter in which the Chair can usefully intervene.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE '80s
Third report of the Special Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s-Mr. Allmand.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth Report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Peterson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
December 9, 1980

Hon. E. F. Whelan (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act.


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

\ English]
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE '80s

Hon. Warren Alimand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: that the third report of the Special Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s, presented to the House this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,641, 1,679 and 1,736.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Admiral Robert Falls originally appointed a special defence adviser to the Prime Minister as a way of technically getting around regulations preventing him from being paid his salary by the government while working for NATO and, if so (a) on what date did he (i) commence (ii) cease to receive a salary for such position (b) was the cabinet order appointing him revoked and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has the government found an alternative method of paying public funds to Admiral Falls and (a) if so, what are all the details (b) if not, is the stipend to Admiral Falls being covered by interests other than the Canadian government or is he working for nothing in return for accommodation and accoutrements therein being supplied to him by the government in Brussels, Belgium?


David Michael Collenette: 1. In accordance with a standard procedure. Admiral R. Falls was appointed a special adviser to the Prime Minister in order that his salary could be set and reviewed in the same way as are the salaries of senior public servants occupying positions in agencies and departments in Canada.
Order Paper Questions 1 (a) and (b) and 2.
Admiral Falls began to receive a salary effective May 31, 1980, and continues to receive such salary. Until October 2, 1980, Admiral Falls was paid under the authority of the order in council appointing him special adviser to the Prime Minister. On October 2. 1980, that order in council was revoked, as an amendment to the Queen's regulations and orders had been approved by Treasury Board on September 18, 1980 which will allow Admiral Falls' salary to be set by the Minister of National Defence on the advice of the committee of senior officials on executive personnel.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answers to questions numbered 1,484, 1,485 and 1,488 (a) whose signature appears on the manuscript of the answers and is it that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (b) which state in part, "1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: ... ", on what date was the Parliamentary Secretary informed and what was the name and job designation of the person who informed him?
2.	(a) Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation owned by the people of Canada and is it responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State (b) is it government policy that the CBC is the only Crown corporation that does not have to answer questions by members of Parliament on its internal management, administration, etc. and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Will the government consider making the CBC accountable on all of its operations to Parliament and, if not, for what reason?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Standing Orders of the House of Commons provide for ministers and parliamentary secretaries to answer questions and table documents in the House. The government takes full parliamentary responsibility for its answers to questions.
2. (a) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is owned by the Queen in Right of Canada.
(b) No.
3. The government supports the policies it has on several occasions laid before the House of Commons.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a $2,828,535 order for ammunition with Canadian Arsenals Ltd. under contract number MA20.3689502 and, if so, (a) for what type of ammunition? (b) how many rounds will be purchased?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (a)	(1) Cartridge 105 mm Tank Target Practice
Discarding Sabot With Tracer C36A2.
(2) Cartridge 105 mm Tank Target Practice Discarding Sabot With Tracer C36A3.
(b)	(1) 2,942 Rounds.
(2) 4,558 Rounds.

December 9, 1980
Supply


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 42 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Between April 20, 1968 and May 22, 1979, what was the total amount spent, contracted for or authorized for furniture, equipment or appurtenances ordered by the government for the offices of cabinet ministers including the Prime Minister?
2.	Of the various ministers involved, what were the top four in order of expenditures and what were the total expenditures in each case for any portfolios that such individuals held?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 8, consideration in committee of Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Francis in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Vote No. 1
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman and hon. members, I welcome this opportunity of reviewing with you the spending estimates of Agriculture Canada. My department's activities touch the lives of all Canadians every day and so I am glad that you and I will have the chance to explore in the public eye just what Agriculture Canada is doing to assist our basic agricultural
industry and also to safeguard the health, and the pocket-books, of Canadian consumers.
I believe these next couple of days will serve to highlight the tremendous importance that the agri-food industry will continue to have in the development of our great country.
In this context I want you to realize that Agriculture Canada operates with only 1.3 per cent of the total federal budget. Mr. Chairman, that is something that a lot of people do not understand. When asked how much money is spent on Agriculture Canada by the federal government, a lot of people who one would think would know better, estimate anywhere from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, or 12 per cent. But, Mr. Chairman, only 1.3 per cent of the total federal budget is spent on Agriculture Canada and, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, we run the best ship of all and take second place to no one! That amount is extremely modest considering the benefits agriculture brings to all Canadians.
I would like to pause for a moment to consider the record of achievement of the Canadian farmer who has always faced a multitude of hardships and challenges. Consider the geographic and climatic adversities, where less than 10 per cent of our 2,272 million acres of land can be farmed.
Fully two-thirds of Canada cannot be used for any commercial agriculture due to climate and soil limitations. And of the remaining one-third, most is limited by too much moisture, rockiness or steepness. There are only about 200 million acres of potentially usable land and to date we have developed about 174 million acres. But really less than 24 million acres out of the total is top class land in the climatically favoured areas. In short, the Canadian farmer has had to do much more with less than his counterpart in many other countries.
We have about 3 per cent of the world's farmland and yet we are producing a sizeable percentage of the world's food- up to 6 per cent of the world's wheat and barley; 12 per cent of the world's oats, and 2 per cent of the world's meat and milk products.
Not only are the Canadian farmer's outstanding achievements heralded on the world's stage, but the accomplishments at home are just as remarkable. For example, between the years 1975 and 1978 the productivity of the Canadian farmer was almost twice that of the labour productivity of other industrial sectors. As a matter of fact, if you go back even further, 20 years ago each of our farmers was producing enough food to feed less than 30 people, and now the Canadian farmer can produce enough food to feed more than 55 people. And, what is more, it is estimated that by the year 2000 one Canadian farmer will be feeding nearly 200 people. If you travel from coast to coast, you will find that the average Canadian farmer produces nearly $3,000 worth of food more than his counterpart in the United States. In my opinion, the work of the Canadian farmer is second to none and that is a fact that I feel, from time to time, we do not pay enough heed to.
Right now, one out of every four Canadians works in a food-related job, from production to processing to transporta-
December 9, 1980

tion to retailing to farm machinery manufacturing, and so on. The agri-food industry generates billions of dollars of income. As a matter of fact this year gross farm income alone will surpass $15 billion, and when you take into account that every dollar made in farming is multiplied by three as it works its way through the economy, the impact on all of Canada is significant.
One of the more important factors of late for the Canadian farmer has been the stabilization of the marketplace. The Canadian consumer has been given the opportunity to buy food, good Canadian products at a reasonable cost, while at the same time the Canadian farmer has been able to depend on a reasonable return for his labour and investment most years. To take the peaks and valleys out of farm markets and deliver more in the way of confidence for the Canadian farmer has always been one of the priorities of my department.
We have instituted assistance programs on several fronts that include transportation, storage, and insurance. We have made payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act when farm prices have fallen drastically. The Agricultural Products Board has bought and processed surplus fruits and vegetables when this action was needed to stabilize prices.
But the bottom line has always been to create an atmosphere of stability. Another example is crop insurance. This year Canadian farmers increased their crop insurance coverage by about 30 per cent. Our higher spending on crop insurance in 1980-1981 represents about $23 million of the more than $62 million requested in the supplementary estimates. I feel crop insurance is one of the major security blankets farmers have to provide real income stability.
In many parts of Canada people do not realize who pays for crop insurance. The Government of Canada pays 50 per cent of the producer's premiums. The producer pays the other 50 per cent, and the administration is run and paid for by the provinces. In some parts of Canada you would think the federal government had nothing to do with this insurance program. For instance, if you read the brochures on crop insurance in Saskatchewan, you would hardly know that there was any federal participation in it.


An hon. Member:: You are learning from Fleming.


Eugene Whelan: Crop insurance is there in case there is a disaster. When the funds run out we have to make up 75 per cent of the funds to be raised in the event there is not enough in the fund itself. Many people are not aware of that fact either.
In addition, this past year there were other programs to help farmers faced with crop losses. These included the Herd Maintenance Assistance Program and the Fodder Procurement Program, and other federal responses to the drought in the west and in northwestern Ontario. The Fodder Procurement Program, which is administered by Agriculture Canada, could cost about $16.8 million, but we do not think the amount will be that high. However, that would be the utmost. The
Supply
herd maintenance program is administered by the PFRA. This program will cost over $60 million to maintain the herds in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, part of Alberta, and also in part of northern Ontario.
The popularity of several other Agriculture Canada programs has meant that an increase in funding was necessary. For example, growers of storable crops have shown a great deal of interest in the Advance Payments for Crops Act, and have increased their involvement to an extent where $3 million will be needed to cover the interest payments on these loans to farm co-operatives and commodity boards making advance payments to their members. This $3 million is because these funds are interest free.
These funds are being used more and more extensively all the time. We instituted this program four years ago. It helps farmers make payments for farm operations that year without distress selling. British Columbia uses this program more than any other province or part of Canada. People in British Columbia are now in a position, using this program and also the fruit and vegetable construction financial assistance program, to assist the industry in constructing storage facilities. They told me the other day that B.C. will be exporting more this year than before, even though the competition is rough.
Last year B.C. exported apples to 34 countries. That is as a result of this program which this fiscal year will require more than $3 million to cover the cost of the program. I would not be surprised if they are back to ask for more money because of the applications which we have already received for this assistance in building storage for fruit and vegetables.
At the outset of my remarks, I said that the Canadian farmer's record of achievement under adverse conditions has been remarkable. One factor that has gone a long way to help has been Agriculture Canada's involvement in research and development. Our scientists are working to develop new plant strains and superior livestock, so that the Canadian farmer will have even hardier and more efficient raw materials and livestock to work with in the future. At present Agriculture Canada conducts about one half of the agricultural research performed in Canada. The division is shared 98 per cent by government, and 2 per cent by provinces. The rest is covered by universities, etc.
As a matter of fact, although there have been recent cuts in departmental expenditures we have protected and increased the budget for the research and development component of departmental activities. This year our budget was nearly $155 million, or about $5 for each man, woman and child across the country. But if you are just relating it to a per capita expenditure for those people involved in the agricultural sector, the figure then is closer to $ 122 per person.
I am proud that our involvement in the research and development field represents one of the highest dollar figures and one of the best results of any country in the world. I strongly support the federal government's plans to increase over-all research expenditures from .9 per cent of the GNP to 1.5 per

Supply
cent by 1985. We have a number of valuable research projects that could start if we got additional funds.
There has been a lot of talk about Canada's natural resources of late, having to do with energy. But what about the energy source, food, that fuels the human body? It, too, is a renewable resource, supplied by a great force in this country, namely, the Canadian farmer.
In this House we must never underestimate the importance of agriculture to the economy, history, culture and national unity of this great country, Canada. It is in that spirit that I come before you today requesting your support for Agriculture Canada's programs so that we may continue to lend our whole-hearted support to those who supply this nation and the world with the lifegiving resource of food.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Chairman, I hoped that in the minister's statement he would have answered some of the questions which I have in mind. Unfortunately, he chose to deal in general terms with the activities of the department and the industry. 1 am positive that we will demonstrate today and tomorrow that bringing the Minister of Agriculture's estimates before the House is to again draw to the attention of the House and Canadians the absolute necessity of maintaining the agricultural industry's health, strength, and vitality.
I am certain that during the course of this session we will be able to illustrate in numerous areas that the government has ignored many of the serious problems facing the agricultural community.
Agriculture, in our government, was at the centre of decision-making. If you look at the record during that short period of time we were in office, it would be very difficult to challenge that statement. The record will demonstrate that we delivered on our promises and we fulfilled our commitments. In contrast, the industry under this government more often than not simply receives lip service, brief bursts of attention and indications of action, actions which seldom, if ever, materialize or develop.
When we assumed office the department and the industry were still reeling from the cuts delivered unilaterally in August, 1978, by the Prime Minister's office. Within our brief term of office we reinstated those programs and restored the funding. For example, we added person years to the inspection branch and we added some $13 million to the research division.
I am sure you would agree, Mr. Chairman, that that is support, not neglect. But let us look at the record of this government. Shortly after the February election this minister made a commitment to do something about the problem of high interest rates. He made that commitment here in Ottawa before 1,000 farmers. I had the opportunity to attend that meeting. I expect the Minister of Agriculture supported his cabinet colleagues regarding support to the home owners and regarding support to Chrysler Corporation. On numerous occasions when the minister was speaking in western Canada he has said that if he had his way he would financially support Massey-Ferguson. Now that we have interest rates reaching
almost those same levels they were at a year ago, what does the minister have in mind for special assistance and help to farmers? He will have another opportunity to deliver on the promise made last spring to the farmers here in Ottawa.
Second, the minister made a commitment on behalf of the government to raise valuation day values to December 31, 1974, levels. That was a campaign commitment. I have a copy of his campaign literature. He made that statement time and time again. We, of course, would support that. I remind the minister that our budget last December dealt quite appropriately with the subject of capital gains. The minister voted against that proposal. I could forgive the minister if he would match our provision, but after two opportunities he has not delivered anything. That is obviously neglect, not support. My second question would be, when can we expect the minister to match our commitment with reference to capital gains?
I will move on to the third area and deal with his commitments respecting the Farm Credit Corporation. Here the minister made two promises or commitments. The first was to enlarge the corporation, and the second to maintain the interest rate advantage. These are commendable commitments. There is no question about that. Again the record reveals no additional funding has been secured for the Farm Credit Corporation. Second, he raised the interest rate to 13 per cent, the highest level on record in the 50 or 51 years history of the Farm Credit Corporation.
We increased funding by some $50 million. In addition, we prepared legislation for the corporation to seek additional funds from non-government sources. I would like to know the status of the legislation and if the minister can provide matching funds as we did a year ago.
Fourth, the minister indicated that all fuels used in the on farm production and delivery of food would receive some cushion. That is not my word, it is directly from the national Liberal campaign commitment. The document indicated that these fuels would receive some cushion to shield them from the effects of accelerating energy prices. What did we get? Instead of the cushion promised, the agricultural and food industry got the axe from the minister. Instead we got an energy policy which will double the cost of farm fuels in two years and quadruple farm prices in five years. To make matters worse, our security of supply and self-sufficiency has been severely threatened. In fact it was not until last week that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources placed farm fuels for some production in the top priority.
Fifth, what has happened to the minister's agriculture export corporation, a Crown corporation promised by the Prime Minister in western Canada in April, 1979, almost two years ago? We have supported the need for such a structure since 1974. While we were in office the necessary cabinet document had been prepared. What has happened? Has someone canned Canagrex? On the subject of export sales, we were always concerned about the number of agricultural sales people in our embassies and consular offices around the world.
December 9, 1980

I believe there were about six. During our short period in office we were able to hire two, and I believe we made preparations to place a third. How many additional placements have been made since the minister was appointed Minister of Agriculture for a second term?
Sixth, again referring to a campaign commitment of the Minister of Agriculture, he attracted a great deal of attention on this issue. He said that if re-elected he would immediately renegotiate the level of chicken imports from the United States to Canada. The Liberal campaign document refers specifically to that subject. What is the progress on this issue? Has there been any progress on this promise?
I know the minister went to Paris and China. I have no reason to believe he went to Washington concerning this subject. It is rather interesting that during the time the minister was in China, the United States made a very significant wheat sale to that country. Can the minister advise us whether he was able to make any additional wheat sales to China? I know he is not directly responsible for selling wheat on behalf of the Canadian government. Did he make any other significant sales while there?
We accepted our responsibilities with regard to that issue. The minister will well remember, going back as far as 1973, that he made some very definite commitments to do something about the level of chicken imports. At that time it was about six million pounds. When we assumed office, it was approaching 60 million. We certified the national agency. We renegotiated the import level, a level which gave the Canadian producer about 94 per cent of the domestic market. The minister's hide was saved last summer because of high sales in the United States of that product and because of the very hot, dry summer there. The minister made this definite campaign commitment to renegotiate the level of U.S. chickens coming into Canada. The real question is, when will he fulfil his responsibility and commitment?
I now come to the seventh area I would like to talk about and pose questions to the minister. It is a very important subject, research and development. The minister stated that when he assumed office, funding and research activities would be increased. Again we see no evidence of the minister keeping that commitment.
Increased research funding is vital. We have achieved our present levels of productivity and efficiency largely, if not totally, as a direct result of the efforts of research. Since 50 per cent of all agricultural research is carried on by Agriculture Canada, it is absolutely necessary if the agricultural food industry is to supply the food requirements of Canadians, and indeed others throughout the world in the future, that we continue to increase funding publicly and encourage greater private efforts in the area of research and development.
The minister stated earlier that not that many years ago one farmer fed himself and four or five others. Today that has increased to between 50 and 60. By the year 2000, that food producer will be expected to feed over 200 people.
Supply
With that thought in mind, and when one takes into account what will happen in world population growth, our research people face a real challenge. I am confident that our research people have the capabilities and expertise. There is no question about that. However, we will only meet those challenges if our research people are properly funded. We realized the importance of research and, as I indicated earlier, clearly demonstrated our commitment by increasing this funding by approximately $ 13 million.
The eighth area I want to deal with is the minister's promise that all agricultural products would be protected to the extent of $250,000. I refer to the amendment to section 88 of the Bank Act. We have those changes made, but the level of production is not the level of $250,000 promised by this government. It is $100,000, which is less than half of the promised level. The minister looks at me with some skepticism.
I am only quoting the minister directly from his campaign document.
I realize the minister, on behalf of the government, has introduced two of our measures, first, the provision to allow the deduction of wages as expenses paid to the spouse in a farming operation, and secondly, the meat import law. Because of the very low priority given to agriculture by this government, these measures still may be a long time in coming into effect. I would hope to get a definite commitment today from the minister with reference to the timetable for these two pieces of legislation. If the minister could ever get House time we could give him the clear commitment today that we could move both of these pieces of legislation through this House certainly within half a day.
Then there is Canfarm, this being the eleventh area I am going to touch on. The government has clearly broken a commitment, has clearly broken an agreement made back in 1979. We honoured our commitment while being faced with this very same issue a year ago. We provided $1.2 million and a loan guarantee of $4.2 million as called for in the 1979 agreement. If the minister has so much faith in the operation of Canfarm-he and his officials, during committee hearings in the last couple of weeks went clearly on record by indicating that Canfarm services were excellent ones and that they were doing a great job-if he has so much faith in the Canfarm services president, Peter Hannam, then he had better start demonstrating it by dollars and deeds rather than words. Mr. Hannam is a very capable farm leader and he is absolutely correct when he states he has been betrayed by-


Eugene Whelan: No.


John Wise: Yes, he did, Mr. Minister. He said that directly to me. I did not read it in the newspaper, I talked to him directly. Mr. Hannam is a man of his word. He has been betrayed by your government and, in fact, by the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Shame!

December 9, 1980
Supply


John Wise: The twelfth area deals with dairy policy. We hear all kinds of rumours about the future of the national dairy policy. I would be the first person to go on record and indicate that that policy has worked extremely well over the last ten years for both consumers and producers alike. I want to make it very clear that we stand fully committed to the continuation of that dairy policy. We expanded the dairy policy with specific emphasis on the export side. Can the minister, in view of the rumours that are going across the country-I know that producers and producers' organizations are calling members of Parliament in all parties and from all sections of the country-give the assurance that the national dairy policy will in fact continue to receive support at the same level in the future?
1 know my time is running rather short, Mr. Chairman. I have touched on only a few of the problems facing the agricultural industry. My colleagues will touch on some of these in more detail during the course of the next two days, and on other issues as well.
The sad and disappointing fact is that, as far as this minister is concerned, and as far as this government is concerned, there is often a recognition of these problems. They do not ignore them; they do recognize them. Usually there is some plan of action or an intense signal to the industry, and false hopes are given. Unfortunately, too often no action is ever taken. The minister indicated in his opening remarks that he would welcome the opportunity to respond to these questions.
If you assess the promises made and the promises kept by this minister and by this government, a very dismal record is revealed. I regret to say this minister, who represents the most important segment of our whole society, this minister who is supported by a most capable departmental staff-in fact I would say the capabilities of the staff of Agriculture Canada are second to none when we compare them to other people in other branches of the public service, and I speak from experience and I make no reservations in placing that on the public record-referring strictly to the record the minister succeeds only at one thing, and that is failure. That disappoints me very much.
It is the official opposition who feel strongly about agriculture and the agricultural food industry. We had no difficulty convincing our caucus members that we should set aside two days in the House of Commons to talk about the problems, and to try to work together to do something about them.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I just came from the Canadian Agriculture Outlook Conference and it was a slightly different atmosphere. I never attended such a positive meeting and met such a group of happy farm leaders from all over Canada, from one coast to the other. It was the most productive and positive meeting they have attended. They look toward 1980 and future years with optimism, the hon. member, the former Minister of Agriculture, makes remarks about research. We have not let down research at all, and it is holding its own. I wish I could say the same for all other branches of the
department. We have been accused of spending too much money.
When he talks of high interest rates, let us look at some of the facts. He said we have not done anything and that we have been successful at failure. Right in his own community I bet he has neighbours who have interest-free loans, advanced loans on crops in store-


The Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the minister. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no unanimous consent. I must interrupt the minister.


Mr. Ostiguy:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline very briefly the prospects for Canadian agriculture during the eighties. Most people will recognize the importance of agriculture for the Canadian economy as concerns income, job creation and commercial value both for domestic trade and our dealings with other countries. Indeed, the spill-over effects of the primary sector of agricultural production on our economy as a whole are so numerous that it is nearly impossible to define them or make a complete list of them. Even so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a brief analysis of the impact of agriculture on our economy by giving a short outline of the situation and by trying to forecast what the future holds for us during the next decade.
In the past, agriculture was mostly considered a way of life. Before World War II, more than one-third of the Canadian population lived in a rural environment. At the time, there was a very diversified subsistence agriculture which aimed at meeting first the needs of rural families and second those of local and regional markets. The processing sectors in the field of food products were mostly primary sectors. They included small businesses which depended on local resources and which produced only for their own area. Their activities were limited to primary processing of basic food products such as flour, butter and bread. Each community had its dairy, its flourmill, its bakery, its small grocery store; the milkman was also a local producer. Today, Mr. Chairman, the situation has changed considerably. Agriculture has become a specialized industry, the first link in the agri-food business chain, which meets the specific needs of a society that has evolved tremendously in the last 40 years.
Farmers represent less than 5 per cent of the Canadian population today; however, mechanization has made up for the decrease in the farming, in the rural community. Concurrently with the advent of mechanization, research developed new
December 9, 1980

crops and new strains while improving the quality and the genetic potential of our livestock. Our veterinarian inspection and disease control systems have made of our country one of the top-ranking in the world today for the excellence of its stock. Canadian agricultural producers have benefited incalculably from them and, as the Minister of Agriculture said a while ago, the SI50 million budget earmarked for this research is very high in terms of the Canadian population; it is the envy of all farmers around the world. Naturally, all those elements have contributed towards increasing in no small measure the efficiency of Canadian farmers each of whom can now feed, on an average, 60 other persons. That evolution and the increased productivity of our agricultural producers must be paid for; that is only normal.
In 1961, capital investments in Canadian agriculture amounted to roughly $19,000 a farm. Today, that figure is closer to $200,000 and often exceeds it. Farmers, as well, have had to face steep increases in their production costs such as the cost of fertilizers, pesticides, machinery and equipment, and higher interest rates. It is estimated that Canadian farmers inject over $6 billion annually into the Canadian economy in production costs. And that figure is bound to grow with the rising cost of energy.
But higher production costs also affect the other links in the agri-food business chain. A basket of groceries still costs less in Canada than in any other industrialized country in the world; that we owe, 1 think, Mr. Chairman, to the performance of our farmers, mechanization and our highly technological processing plants. The processing of food is the main manufacturing industry in this country and it too is severely affected by the rising cost of labour and energy. In fact, it has been the main cause of the ever higher cost of food in the last few years. Last year, Canadians spent about $30 billion on food. That amount was paid to the cashiers of supermarkets and restaurants. Which gives us an idea of the magnitude of the business figures of that industry, at least at one end of the chain, that is, the consumer. At the other end, Mr. Chairman, we have the three main elements of the agri-food business chain, namely production, processing and retailing which, directly or indirectly, give jobs to almost a quarter of a million Canadians; in other words, one Canadian worker in four is closely or remotely involved in agriculture, the production of food, or the agri-food industry.
In addition to those who derive their income from this branch of economic activities, all Canadians benefit from our trade balance in agriculture. Our farm exports exceeded $6 billion last year and we have registered a trade surplus of $1.4 billion. This year our exports and trade surplus should reach the $8 billion and $3 billion marks respectively. Mr. Chairman, this means an influx of foreign currencies which helps strengthen our economy tremendously. And as the Speech from the Throne and the Minister of Agriculture have indicated the government's intention to introduce fairly shortly a bill
Supply
dealing with Canagrex, a farm product export corporation, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that this corporation should be made a responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, because it would help our producers, processors and Department of Agriculture compete in foreign markets and hopefully reduce our trade balance. This important corporation should be established in early 1981.
All economic activities in agriculture have a multiplier effect on our economy as a whole. An average of 88 per cent of all farm returns generated are transferred to other areas. The sales of farm and farm related goods account for 25 per cent of all employment within the Canadian wholesale industry.
As a matter of fact, the farm industry is responsible for some 14 per cent of all Canadian shipments. Finally, agriculture ranks second among the five main primary industries in Canada and represents 7.3 per cent of the GNP for all industries.
As hon. members can see, various factors have contributed to the extraordinary growth of agriculture to make it one of our main industries. These factors have affected agriculture in the same way as the other areas of our society, by boosting demand for consumer goods and contributing to the ever growing complexity of the farm industry.
It is a series of data and facts which can give us a good idea of the development and present conditions of agriculture and its economic impact in our country. We cannot however forget farmers who are the main architects of the achievements which I have just highlighted. They are the mainstay of that development in our Canadian agricultural system and in the marketing of our foodstuff. They are the instigators of that development, they have provided the required structures and the necessary protection for their survival, progress of their sector, their own prosperity and the welfare of all Canadians.
To make progress, farmers needed protection at the production and harvesting stage against the whims of nature as well as the market level with is often subjected to cycles which can ruin even the richest ones. The various programs set up by the federal and provincial governments have facilitated to a large extent the stabilization of the production sector. Producers are also organized to plan the marketing of their products and thus lessen its risks.
Agriculture Canada, Mr. Chairman, offers an extensive series of programs which help provide necessary stability to the primary sector of agricultural production. First, crop insurance protects farmers against weather conditions enabling them to recover at least part of their production costs since it is a federal-provincial cost-sharing program to which the farmer is also asked to make a financial contribution.
We need only recall that a few years ago, when the federal government implemented the crop insurance program in co-operation with the provinces, very few farmers took advantage of it. It started with one crop, one type of production. Then it

December 9, 1980
Supply
expanded to the point where today nearly all farm production is covered by crop insurance. The federal Agricultural Stabilization Act provides farmers, in years where the market for so-called "designated" commodities is poor, with income equivalent to 90 per cent of the average market prices in the five previous years. This rate is also indexed to reflect variations in production costs.
The year 1979-80 was not a good one for hog production and the Agricultural Stabilization Board provided producers with subsidies which compensated for the difference between the cost of production and the selling price. In fact, I think the board, which is under the authority of the Department of Agriculture, contributed $53.5 million, and I am certainly proud to say that 36 per cent of Quebec producers benefited from these Agriculture Canada subsidies.
As far as credit is concerned, the federal government, through the Farm Credit Corporation, helps farmers get longterm loans at preferential interest rates. For example, hog production has prospered to its present state in Quebec certainly because the Farm Credit Corporation was the first to grant loans for hog breeding facilities. In fact, it granted hog producers 80 per cent of their loans.
On the marketing side, the structures established by the federal government to help producers market their products have certainly helped stabilize production. While it was openly criticized a few years ago, for example, the Canadian Egg Marketing Board, now provides egg producers with an adequate level of income from their production and guarantees consumers adequate supplies at reasonable cost. This stabilization system applies to production, prices and supplies and ensures the stabilization needed in this sector, which in turn benefits consumers.
The marketing of industrial milk is another good example of the efficiency of the supply-management systems. After a period of expansion, milk producers have experienced certain difficulties adjusting their production levels to domestic demand for processed milk products. The Canadian Dairy Commission succeeded in stabilising the situation and balancing offer and demand. For the past two or three years this sector has been expanding because of advertising campaigns designed to boost consumption, because of exchange programs set up by the Canadian Dairy Commission and because of the dynamism in the search for new outlets on international markets. Some will say that the rate of growth is rather slow. It may be so, Mr. Chairman, but it is preferable to advance slowly but surely than experiencing drastic increases that generate disorder on the market to the detriment of that very sector. Many producers would suffer from it, some would even lose their shirt on such deals, and in the end consumers would foot the bill.
The dairy program is a good example of intervention by the government which, with its production subsidies, is increasing producers' income while allowing consumers to buy at reasonable prices a basic and nutritional product. This system also enables us to maintain a certain level of production and consumption and that, once again, for the benefit of the production sector and a sound nutrition for all Canadians. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the levy system to pay for export marketing directly involves producers who are thus called upon to be responsible, at their level, for the smooth running and prosperity of the whole agri-food industry. Marketing is now the level setting in motion the different components of the Canadian agri-food industry. A lot of other programs carried out by Agriculture Canada could be mentioned. In fact, the department is responsible for the implementation of over 40 acts and regulations.
Another area of activity in the department, namely research, thus far represents the sector with the greatest impact on agriculture. Studies were made on crops, livestock, plant protection and animal disease. Those subjects of research will remain very important, Mr. Chairman, in the research programs of the department but present economic realities give a new direction to research in agriculture. Spiralling energy costs emphasize the need for studies on the replacement of conventional energy sources by so-called renewable energy sources. We are also trying to find a means to integrate biological elements in the fight against plant and animals pests to reduce the use of chemicals which are too expensive and which are harmful to the environment in the long run.
Mr. Chairman, those are only a few examples of the efforts made by Agriculture Canada, by its minister and by its team of civil servants to help the agriculture food industry make continuous progress. This is not by far a comprehensive report on its activities and programs. I should simply like to demonstrate that the department is determined to play an active part in the development of agriculture at all levels and that it intends to continue to take the leadership in the agriculture food business in Canada. But what will the department's future role be?
The world population is growing at the rate of 2 per cent a year. It is estimated there will be 6.4 billion people in the year 2000. The demand for food will increase proportionately. Mr. Chairman, Canada has the potential to expand its production considerably. We have the arable lands, the manpower and the technology to do so. We have the best arable lands throughout the country. To meet the demand, we would have to double our agricultural output before the year 2000. That expansion will have to be based on the development of new domestic markets to replace imports and expansion of foreign markets for a dynamic marketing of our products. In view of the higher cost of energy there will have to be the political will to encourage investment in that area to be able to meet the demand in underdeveloped countries.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps the minister can reply briefly, I hope that early in 1981 the agricultural export corporation bill will be tabled in the House which, of
December 9, 1980

course, will benefit Canadian farmers, processing plants and also underdeveloped countries and will enable us to give them the food assistance they need. It is the duty of all of us, Mr. Chairman, and I am confident the Department of Agriculture will be able to move forward.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to listen to the outline of the work of the department as presented by the Minister of Agriculture in introducing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the current year, which we will be reviewing in the next couple of days. The minister has been Minister of Agriculture for a long time.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He has been presenting to the public the views of the Department of Agriculture. In effect, he is the image of the department and has been that for quite a long time. The hon. member for Essex-Windsor was involved with farm organizations even before becoming Minister of Agriculture. As someone watching him from a distance, I have always been impressed by the image he projected as the voice of the farmer.


An hon. Member:: Good grief, who are you talking about?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I have also been impressed by the image changes he has gone through. During one election he lost a little weight and became "lean, mean Gene", to use his words. Recently he purchased a green cowboy hat and changed his image so that he is now "lean, mean Gene in green".


Eugene Whelan: I never bought that hat; it was given to me by some westerners.


An hon. Member:: It helped to change your image.


Eugene Whelan: I have had it for over three years.


An hon. Member:: Watch it, look what happened to Jack Horner.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Some of the recent speeches which the minister has made have focused on uniting the country, and on the need for a united country. I think it is a very laudable objective and no one takes umbrage with it. The minister has put on a fine performance, but it has been an excellent projection of form rather than substance. When we look at the substance, we find that during the years the minister has been the head of the Department of Agriculture there has not been a lot of progress. There have been some changes within the department in the way in which it works. The people in the department are doing an excellent job, but there is no direction. We heard the minister talking about uniting the country, but where is the agricultural policy showing this?
Supply
Some national policies have been developed, many of them before the minister came into office, such as crop insurance, cash advance programs, and the dairy policy. These are national approaches. A number of approaches were initiated by producer groups such as the Broiler Chicken Marketing Agency, the Egg Marketing Agency, and the Turkey Board. They have taken a national approach and have done a lot to unite the country and hold it together. If a national approach is not taken to a policy area as vital as agriculture, it is very difficult to hold the country together.
The country cannot be held together with fine speeches or swift political manoeuvring. There must be a social and economic base which is national in scope if the country is to remain together. These marketing programs have provided such an approach. They were cognizant of that partly because they were initiated by producer groups. They have done a job and have contributed to holding the country together.
I should like to compare that to the agricultural policy which we perceive in western Canada. I live very close to the operation of the former minister of transport, Mr. Otto Lang, and I saw the program he was trying to impose upon the people and farmers of Canada. It was an approach which regionalized the country, broke up groups of farmers, and attempted to deal with commodity groups. Also he tried to provincialize the commodity groups by ignoring a national approach on the part of farmers who went to him to discuss farm policies, and by the public recognition given to very small, regionalized commodity groups. It contributed to the breakdown of the communications system as it applied to producing farm policy. Also it played a role in breaking down the country to the point where the minister is now calling for national unity among farmers.
I think national unity is the right approach for the country. I should like to spend a little time today dealing with a few policies which we think would contribute to national unity and provide better incomes for farmers. Not only would they provide better incomes for farmers, but they would contribute to a more certain supply of food at a more standard cost to consumers.
When we talk about the need for more self-sufficiency and programs which take into account the kind of production which is economically feasible in the country, we must look at the import-export policy, particularly the tariff one. I am not sure the government has spent a great deal of time worrying about a tariff policy to protect the fruit and vegetable production which the farmers of this country are capable of maintaining. We have become very dependent upon the import of a lot of fruit and vegetables. For example, in 1965 we imported 33 million pounds of tomatoes. By 1976 it had increased to 96 million pounds of imported tomatoes, and by 1979 it was up to 128 million pounds. There is a fairly large and active tomato-producing area in the country. The acreage has been shrinking as the imports have been rising. There has been no move on the part of the government to intervene. Perhaps it is tied to the marketing system which has developed with the chain stores.

December 9, 1980
Supply
The chain stores appear to be avoiding domestically-produced goods on a seasonal basis. They seem to prefer to import tomatoes from southern California and Mexico for 12 months of the year, rather than face the inconvenience of a three or four-month domestic production run. They tie themselves in for 12 months of the year and let the domestic industry die. The government has not provided any tariff protection to ensure that that does not happen.
Grain marketing requires a national approach as well. The Regional Marketing Board of the Canadian Wheat Board was established with the approval of producers, and in fact the power of the board was extended by the producers and the provincial and federal governments approximately in 1948 when a plebiscite was taken in at least two prairie provinces requesting that feed grains, oats and barley, be included and marketed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. A very clear mandate was given by the producers to the various provincial and federal governments involved. They wanted their feed grains marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board.
The kind of thing which has developed from that has been unhappily watched by a great number of farmers in the west. They watched the Conservative minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, reduce the power of the Canadian Wheat Board as it applied to the marketing of feed grains, and exempt feed mills from the powers of the board. Also they watched Mr. Lang, when he was minister, extend that exemption to all feed mills across Canada and reintroduce the open market for feed grains. There was no vote. They ignored the previous vote which indicated approximately an 89 per cent support for the Wheat Board being in charge of the marketing of feed grain. There have been protestations that farmers will be asked to state their preference soon or in coming years. The policy has been in effect for about seven years, and there has been no vote and no change in policy.
A recent development was an interesting one. The advisory committees to the Canadian Wheat Board and to the Canadian Feed Board, which represented consumers from British Columbia to the eastern part of the country, both agreed unanimously that the feed grain marketing system should be put back under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board. Producers found it more useful. They have found they are losing between $50 million and $60 million per year through taking lower prices in the open market. The consumers of feed grains decided they wanted to return to feed grain marketing since they want continuity of supplies. They want to know there is a supply of feed grain awaiting them when they go out to purchase it.
What was the minister's response with respect to this? He has been non-committal as a result of the joint motion by the two advisory boards. He has only said, in committee, that he is in favour of orderly marketing. He has refused to specify what he means by "orderly marketing". In the research I have done
I found that in a response which he made to a study by the Saskatchewan Natural Products Marketing Council on the losses farmers had incurred in Saskatchewan because of the feed grain policy, he preferred the free market system of selling feed grain. This does nothing to unite the country. It ignores the requests and the will of the producers and consumers. It has slowed down the move, which is a necessary one, to have a national feed grain marketing agency so that we can avoid the kind of foofaraw there has been recently in Ontario where some Ontario producers became convinced they were done out of a market for barley because of Wheat Board actions. This is a development which did not seem to have been possible as time progressed. However, had the grains all been marketed under the Wheat Board, Ontario producers would have been able to participate in that market on an equal basis and would not have felt discriminated against.
As well, under the Wheat Board system we have been able to import varieties where necessary under special licence, to increase productivity or to introduce into the marketing system, in the Wheat Board area, new varieties of barley and of feed wheats which might not likely have been introduced otherwise. I think this national approach would have been of benefit in obtaining new internationally-produced varieties such as Summit barley, Klages barley and Glenlea wheat. This would have avoided some of the reactions we are now receiving from maritime farmers who think they are being left out when it comes to having new high-yielding varieties available to them. They have been sold on the idea of having a type of plant breeders rights system. Most of the benefits of plant breeders rights are available to the producers of Canada now through the Wheat Board, marketing boards, and seed marketing institutions, if we will use them.
When it comes to a national approach in uniting the country, we can look to potato marketing. We again see a regional approach with respect to this. Five provinces in eastern Canada are setting up a situation in which the east will be pitted against the west. Processors are making ready, they are prepared, and the processing industry is already moving out west. That industry has seen the writing on the wall. They have decided to become entrenched with an alternative system further west. They have attempted to and are already moving to develop a countervailing source of supply in the event that the regional eastern agency is established and does become partially successful in influencing price.
We have seen the same kind of non-attention given to national marketing with respect to agricultural policy as it applies to pork marketing. Eight of the provinces have provincial marketing boards. There is a need for a national agency with a national approach. In the interim, the trade, the processing industry and the feed manufacturing industry are shifting, not west this time, as is happening with the potato industry, but they have shifted east into the province of Quebec.
The open market feed grain policy and the lack of a national pork marketing policy have created a climate where an alternative system is developing and flourishing in an attempt to
December 9, 1980

keep other parts of the country divided. It is not a political type of division. It is a straight market, economic type of division. It is the kind of power game large corporations play. It is the kind of power game which can only be counteracted by federal intervention and by an agricultural policy which takes a national approach and attempts to keep the country together. This can and would counteract this type of thing.
I think beef marketing is where the minister has shone the most. He has been very eloquent in talking about the archaic system we have as far as beef marketing is concerned. He has described it as coming out of the middle ages. He has been very hard on the beef marketing system. He is the Minister of Agriculture and he has held that post for a number of years. He has a very highly developed, highly technical and experienced marketing staff. We spend close to half of the department's budget on marketing, as we should. Yet, has he directed that marketing staff to bring up another system? He has been critical of this system. He has been in a position to do something about it. Where is his plan? Where did it go? We have not seen any evidence that he has directed people to draw up an alternate method of marketing beef. He has produced no new and improved method of marketing beef. He has simply ridiculed the present system and he has challenged everybody to work toward something better.
The point I wish to leave with the minister is-and we will be discussing specifics later on during the course of the debate-if farmers are to be exhorted to unite, what good example do we have from the minister to create unity in the beef, potato, grains and pork industries? Where are the examples? What has taken place? What has the minister proposed and what is he doing? The evidence is not there. We see the big hat. We listen to the words. We await the policies.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, first I wish to raise a point of order. I find the procedure a little hard to follow, especially when members question me and make accusations, and then they refuse to give unanimous consent to allow me to answer the questions. With my inability to get unanimous consent I then take away from the time, from the democratic right of this side of the House to participate. It is not correct, Mr. Chairman, that if I take the time to answer I am taking the time of one of the members on this side of the House? That is the way I understand the procedures here. If I were sitting in the gallery I would think it a little rough that when a former minister asks me questions and I seek unanimous consent to answer, they will not give it to me. It appears they do not want the answers to the questions. I do not know if I have a point of order, or if I understand the procedures correctly. Could you clarify that for me, Mr. Chairman?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: I will attempt to do so. The speaking time allotted to all members, including the minister, is 20 minutes. I would indicate to the minister that in previous sittings of Committee of the Whole there have been some instances where parties have agreed internally that certain of their members would split the 20 minutes. That has
Supply
usually been split in two periods of ten minutes each. But the time allotment is 20 minutes.
With respect to the matter mentioned by the minister relating to whether or not he would have to seek from members of his own party time out of their allotment of time in which to respond, that is not correct. It is not an allocation of time to a party. It is an individual member's allocation of time.
If I understand what the minister is suggesting, then possibly a member from his side of the House might give up some of his time in order that the minister may answer. I do not know how it could be worked out mechanically. It can certainly be done with a little planning in advance, if the Chair is advised and the House is made aware of the arrangement. It has been done previously over the past couple of days.
I also realize that the minister is attempting to solve the problem that occurs when he is asked a series of questions but is unable to respond because the allotted time of the questioner has expired. I do not have an answer to that problem. The minister makes what seems to me to be a good point, that perhaps there is a problem with procedure in that regard, but it is the procedure with which we are working at the moment. I can only say that hon. members have now heard the minister's comments on that problem and presumably members who choose to use their entire 20 minutes will be aware that even if they do ask questions they will not obtain an answer if the 20 minutes have expired.
I go back to the other aspect and say that if the minister wishes to make arrangements with other members of his own party, the House has not objected to this procedure in previous sittings in this Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Chairman, I was one of the hon. members who objected to the minister having the time to answer the hon. member for Elgin, and it was based on my experience in this committee during discussion on the transportation estimates. An hon. member is allotted 20 minutes and he can use that time in any way he sees fit. The minister should realize that his own parliamentary secretary also spoke for 20 minutes, and if it was important enough for him to make some comments on the comments of the hon. member for Elgin, he certainly could have used part of the 20 minutes allotted to his parliamentary secretary or, for that matter, used the entire 20 minutes.
The only way in which this committee can operate properly is if we all adhere to the 20 minute time limit. For example, as the next member to speak from our party I intend to ask questions of the minister. In this way hopefully we can have an exchange with regard to some of the various areas in which I am particularly interested.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, much can be said for this matter on both sides. Yesterday during the Employment and Immigration estimates, several Liberal members used their 20 minutes to make a speech. That is their right, but the purpose of this exercise is to obtain information from the ministers. I

December 9, 1980
Supply
would also suggest that sometimes the minister, by reminiscing and taking a long time to answer, wastes our time as well.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, may I say briefly that the system seemed to work fairly well during the last four days. Each member who gets the floor is allowed 20 minutes, and he has the right to use the full 20 minutes or he can speak briefly and leave time for questions. If the minister will be patient, I am sure he will have plenty of time to answer questions as the committee proceeds.


Denis Éthier: If there was a point of order in terms of an appeal to the Standing Orders, 1 do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter any further. In any event, I recognize that the minister has somewhat of a difficult point and that he might, by consultation with the members of his own party, be able to resolve that point with a shuffle in the time arrangement.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, which side of the House will speak next?


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Lisgar will be the next speaker. As is the custom during normal debate on a bill, the Chair recognizes alternately members from the left and the right. There is a proportion as between members of the three parties which is hopefully adhered to. May I now recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to correct the impression which the Minister of Agriculture has left with regard to agricultural research. I do not believe that the minister meant to leave the impression that he or his government increased the research budget in the main estimates which were being discussed earlier. Those main estimates were prepared by the former Progressive Conservative government, and in that context the research portion was allocated before he became the Minister of Agriculture once again.
My first question centres on the area of grain and grain exports. It has been my understanding, since I became a member of Parliament in the early seventies, that if it was not for grain and oil seeds Canada's agricultural picture would not be very rosy. These two grains are the basic export thrust of our country. They make the balance of trade picture in agriculture look very good.
As the minister knows, or should know, world trade in grains and oil seeds has more than doubled. The United States has benefited mostly from this statistic. Since 1961 their exports have tripled and their share has grown from 48 per cent to some 59 per cent. Canada, Australia and Argentina have slipped from 31 per cent to 25 per cent over that same 20 year period from the early 1960s to 1980. This would indicate that we have a long way to go in encouraging and increasing our agricultural exports.
A good many people in this country, particularly in western Canada, are vitally concerned over this drop and the fact that we have not been able to move back up to the level of exports
which we enjoyed in the early 1970s. There has been some discussion, most recently by the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, on what has been called an assured marketing system. If what I know about this assured marketing system is correct, it would mean that the Canadian Wheat Board would purchase all the grain at the end of the crop year at the initial price on the farm. What would happen then-for example, perhaps they would simply lock the bin-has not yet been worked out.
I am surprised that the bureaucracy in Ottawa would be considering this idea at this time when the government is low on cash. While I thought they would listen to the proposal, I did not think any action would be taken. It is my understanding that this approach is being considered and that the cost figure which is being mentioned is upwards of $.5 billion in terms of maximum expenses if the program went ahead.
My question to the minister is this. How closely is this approach being considered by either the minister's department or by the grain group? Would the minister also comment on whether or not there will be any studies on this particular program? If my memory serves me correctly, the Wheat Board Advisory Committee wants some kind of decision on this particular program by the start of the 1981 crop year. I believe it was Roy Atkinson of Saskatoon who put the matter forward. Would the minister comment?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of what the hon. member is discussing. Is he talking about feed grain or wheat? The Wheat Board Advisory Committee and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board Advisory Committee met and recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board take over total control of all feed grains.


Jack Burnett Murta: That is right.


Eugene Whelan: That was a recommendation they made in case no other system could be devised to provide equity in the feed grain system. I do not know what is going to come of that, but I think it is great that these two groups met to discuss a problem which they recognized. The Wheat Board and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board would have to give the matter some consideration, and then it would have to come to the government for further consideration before it could be approved. It is only about a month since the two groups made that recommendation so I do not think there has been detailed study of it.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, even if the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board are both considering this matter and make a recommendation, obviously the program will come to nothing if the federal government has not studied it. Does the minister know if his department or the grains group propose to study the matter so that they will have their own information available?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, many of the farm organizations have made suggestions about how the feed grain system
December 9, 1980

should operate. This is one such suggestion from two different groups, and I must answer that we are continually reviewing the program and it is under concentrated review at the present time.
It may be of interest to the hon. member to know that I received an advance copy of the agriculture report of the Canada West Foundation the other day which stated that this should all come under the Canadian Wheat Board, or else be on the open, free market-that it should not be half and half. That is another suggestion.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get drawn into a philosophical discussion of what should or should not come under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. I assume from the minister's answer that there is a study which will be released in due course. I suppose the government will then decide whether there is any financial or other justification for this fairly major shift that would obviously have to be taken at substantial cost to the government.
My second question is one that was raised at an agriculture committee meeting some time ago, about the grain embargo. To all intents and purposes the embargo is finished, although it is sometimes difficult to know that from what the minister responsible for the Wheat Board says when he makes statements in connection with it. It has been said that the money going to western farmers would be in the neighbourhood of $60 million to $80 million. It has also been said that the money would be paid, if not before the end of December, then at least sometime in January.
Can the minister confirm whether the figure of $60 million to $80 million is accurate, and whether the moneys will be paid out to the farmer as promised by the government, in the month of December or in January?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, the hon. member has two questions. The First one is whether the embargo is over. 1 believe 1 should say it is because we are back to normal trading with the U.S.S.R.
The second question is whether there will be compensation for farmers who lost income because of the embargo. That remains to be seen, Mr. Chairman. The final report has yet to be submitted, and 1 hope this will take place within a few days. When it is, I shall make a submission. I cannot tell the hon. member at this time how many millions of dollars will be involved, it must be fulfilled. We picked up the commitment from the previous government that compensation would be paid to farmers for the commodities under embargo. I have not been informed that this commitment will not be fulfilled.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, I have another question concerning grains, something that has annoyed many farmers in western Canada. This particular matter is over and done with, but I would be interested to know whether it could happen again. Apparently Ontario has been buying barley from the Canadian Wheat Board at a price much lower than that on the world market at the time of purchase, and has been selling its own barley at the higher world market price. One hears about
Supply
western alienation, Mr. Chairman, and it is little things like this that contribute to that feeling.
Last Thursday I attended a meeting of 300 farmers in Manitoba when this matter was brought up. There is not a lot of money involved, but the principle is important. They are willing to sell their barley to Ontario, but when Ontario farmers then sell their own barley on the offshore market at a higher price, they begin to wonder what kind of country they are living in. 1 understand that the Canadian Wheat Board was not in favour of this action but was overruled either by political pressure or by the minister.
As I said, there is not a lot of money involved as only about 800,000 bushels of barley were sold, but if this symbolic gesture were made in some other part of the country, say, Ontario or Quebec, 1 know it would give rise to the same kind of problem. From a western point of view it does not seem right. I would ask the minister to comment on this matter and I would urge him most strongly not to allow this type of thing to happen again.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the Ontario barley sale that the hon. member refers to normally takes place over a period of five or six years. It is true that a permit was issued by the Canadian Wheat Board after an order in council was passed. I was not in Canada at the time. One of the hon. members' colleagues mentioned that I was in China. I was not involved in this action but I was fully aware of it before I left, and it appeared to me to be a normal sale. The permit was for 30,000 tons, and 15,000 tons were accumulated on order, to be delivered. I understand that it just left the country within the last week.
If I had anything to do with this sort of thing again, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that I would not take the same action. I received strong representations from the ministry of agriculture in Ontario on behalf of the barley producers of Ontario who normally made these sales, that it was hurting their market. It should be understood that the barley produced in Ontario always sells at $20 to $30 per ton below western barley. A different pricing structure governs it, although 1 do not know why that is.
It burns me that the people who sold that barley-one is a multinational-probably made more money on the sale of that barley than farmers made in three or four years by producing a ton of barley. Yet all it took was a scratch of a pen. That annoys me more than anything and it is why I would never make representations for them again. The Ontario ministry of agriculture asked us to make the representation to the Wheat Board and the Government of Canada that it was important that these barley sales be made. The barley is produced in the New Liskeard area and other parts of Ontario, and has always been sold to a commercial market which they wanted again this year. The permit was issued for 30,000 tons and they accumulated approximately 15,000 tons, which was loaded recently on two different boats.
The hon. member intimated that the Wheat Board supplied the barley. Mr. Chairman, the Wheat Board has not supplied

December 9, 1980
Adjournment Motion
barley to eastern Canada for domestic consumption since last April. The barley that was supplied was offboard barley that producers can supply or not as they like. The vast bulk of the barley consumed in the last five years was offboard barley because of the price structure decided upon by the Chicago corn competitive price that they use. That has been to the advantage of barley producers for a couple of years since that program has been in effect. However, it can work both ways. It rarely works to the advantage of producers. Mostly it works to their disadvantage. That must be changed. All I am saying is that is has been blown way out of proportion.
There is another thing about which not much has been said. I am speaking about long-term barley sales which are made three years ahead. The buyer makes as much as a 100 per cent capital gain on that. People will not ask for compensation for that. I am suggesting that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, on behalf of the producers in British Columbia and eastern Canada who use barley, make the same kind of long-term agreement to barley, perhaps three years or perhaps five years. If a 100 per cent profit is made, no one will say anything. I say treat them the same way as any farm buyer of barley, but make them sign that kind of a contract so that barley producers in western Canada will know what they will receive and the eastern person who is producing that product, meat, pork or beef, is in a better position to provide more stability to the production entity for the consuming public in Canada, at the same time. This is especially true with commodities on cost-price formulae. It is very easy to forecast a year ahead, under those kinds of programs, approximately what the cost of production will be.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, there are about two minutes remaining. I have a brief question for the minister. When does he anticipate an increase, hopefully in the $2 range, in the initial price for wheat? Will it be before the end of December or after?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, if I go by what western producers tell me, they want an increase, but not before January 2. I have been to many meetings, as one member has already mentioned. An increase is wanted, but not before the end of the year. Western producers want this increase in the new year, starting in January. I think at that time it will be considered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Denis Éthier: Order, please. Before I recognize the next hon. member, may I deal with the proceedings tonight. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-The Canadian economy-Tax incentives for industry locating in slow growth areas; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-National Revenue- Income tax deductions from wages of spouses in unincorporated businesses; the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revel-stoke (Mr. Parker)-Northern pipelines-Expropriation of land in British Columbia.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Blaker in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Vote No. 1
Mr. Veillette:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleagues in bringing my humble contribution to the debate on the estimates of Agriculture Canada.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure of meeting one of the directors of the dairy producers' federation of Mauricie. He gave me a message to convey saying, as soon as you get a chance to speak to the minister, do congratulate him on his current dairy policy. Now, Mr. Minister, those were the very people who, in 1976, came here to the Hill and tried to disguise you into a snowman by throwing powdered milk at you. Mr. Minister, you know the courage of those good old farmers. And they also can appreciate gallant people like you for, at the time, it took courage on your part to take over control of the dairy production, knowing full well that the decision was politically disastrous, but knowing also that it would benefit Canadian dairy producers as a group.
Mr. Minister, you showed foresight then and 1 am happy to see that dairy producers rejoice today and pay you this tribute. A giant step has been made in the last ten years toward recognizing the value of the farmer and ensuring him the standard of living he deserves. Still, that is no reason for reducing the assistance the department gives that group of the agricultural sector.
Mr. Minister, rumours have it that Treasury Board intends to cancel the $2.66 per hundredweight subsidy paid to dairy producers. If expenditures must be cut, it can be done in many other places without attacking dairy producers. I beg of you,
December 9, 1980

Mr. Minister, do not allow Treasury Board to slash your budget. I know you as a fighter and I am sure you will be able to convince the members of the cabinet, and that you will not let them push you around. Moreover, you may rest assured that I will support you if you need soldiers and that all hon. members representing rural ridings such as mine will also rally behind you, for if these subsidies were automatically cut off, we would be faced with an increase in inflationary forces which are our common enemy. Should these subsidies be cut off, the prices of butter and powdered milk would rise by at least 30 cents and anywhere between 15 and 20 cents a pound respectively. I should like to pause now, Mr. Minister, so that you may tell me what you think and whether these rumours are founded.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge whatever of any such recommendation. One of the hon. member's constituents has made a comment about the minister being a fighter. That would be something to make me fighting mad. I believe we have the best dairy program of any country in the world. It is a healthy program and one of the best managed programs in the world. It is under review. It is a program I agreed to, and I know of no such recommendations whatever.
[ Translation]


Michel Veillette: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about something else. I am referring to the financial assistance provided to our young farmers who want to purchase land. The whole rural community is aware that under the Farm Credit Act, they can borrow up to 100 per cent of the total value of the livestock, lands and buildings. But you know that to operate a dairy farm, they also need quotas the value of which often exceeds $50,000. What happens, therefore, is that young farmers can purchase the land and equipment they need under the Farm Credit Act, but the Farm Credit Corporation does not recognize the value of the quota as a guarantee for the loan. It means that young farmers must pay some money that many have not and consequently they cannot fulfil their wishes and take up farming as the trade of their choice.
Canada now has specialized agents in the sale of agricultural farms travelling through the country to find lands for Europeans who would like to settle in Canada, namely Belgian, Swiss or Dutch people. I have nothing against those people who arrive in Canada loaded with money and purchase our lands with thousands or millions. I am even pleased to see that Canadian farmers selling their lands for a good price. However, this is the reason why I disagree. I do not see why the sons of our farmers cannot obtain the necessary assistance to carry on and till the land which our forefathers have cleared without being bound to leave our heritage to foreigners due to lack of money or government assistance. I would like the minister to tell me whether he is considering the possibility of increasing the funds earmarked for the Farm Credit Corporation.
Supply


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the lending policy of the Farm Credit Corporation, the amount of capital it requires is presently under review. No matter what is done federally, we cannot provide all the equity needed in the agricultural industry. Even though 74 per cent of loans is made to farmers between the ages of 17 and 35, more money is needed in the Farm Credit Corporation.
Inequity in the agricultural industry is increasing more than one would imagine, especially in those provinces which have so much money they do not know what to do with it. For instance, in Alberta a young farmer can borrow at 6 per cent interest. He has a tremendous advantage over someone producing the same product in Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec and competing for the domestic or international market. I repeat that we are reviewing the Farm Credit Corporation.
With regard to quotas, this is a provincially run program. This adds a tremendous cost to young farmers becoming involved in farming. Something must be done not only with regard to dairy quotas, but turkey quotas, and in fact any quota with a value on it. This should be reviewed.
There is little action I can take other than to see the national marketing programs continue. We must try to squash such things as companies accumulating quotas. That is not my idea of a national marketing agency, provincial marketing board or a joint national marketing agency in order to preserve the Canadian family farm. Although it has not reached a dangerous position, it is gradually creeping toward that.


Michel Veillette: Mr. Chairman, the same problem comes up every year at this time, especially in the cheese industry. During the year, this industry helps to dispose of dairy products which would otherwise be considered surpluses which the Canadian Dairy Commission would have to purchase. These cheese dairies, two of which I visited recently, are now short of milk. Those who are able to get large quantities of milk during the summer produce and store their products and pay for storage from their own income.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it would be possible for department officials to find a way to encourage dairy producers to produce as much during the winter as during the summer, as this would be the ideal solution in my opinion. I know we have had and still have several programs to encourage dairy producers to produce as much in the winter as in the summer. However, with the subsidies we now give to dairy producers, we could perhaps find a system which would stimulate producers to produce during the winter, which would certainly solve the problem. I do not know whether the minister and his officials have tried to find a solution, but I believe it would be greatly appreciated by the industry if some program could be developed. I await the reply of the minister.
80092-s s

December 9, 1980
Supply


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the whole dairy program is geared to producers who produce 12 months of the year. 1 do not have the figures with me at this time, but there is an amazing number of farmers who produce 12 months of the year, producing high quality fresh milk for the dairies and the cheese factories. Production of our specialty cheeses and other cheeses has increased tremendously because of this factor. Some regions of Canada, possibly because of climatic conditions, are not doing this, but they may not have the processing facilities geared to that kind of production. We would like to see close to if not 100 per cent of our dairy producers producing 12 months of the year. Our cost-price formula is geared toward 12-month production, not seven or eight months.


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Minister, I would like to touch briefly on one of the answers you gave my colleague from Lisgar. You were mentioning that Ontario barley always sells on the world market below the price of western barley. The point my colleague was making is it is now selling higher than western barley going into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
1 would like to take up something else you said. You mentioned that the corn competitive formula causes some anomalies and it will have to be changed. I think 1 understood your correctly. If so, I would like your comments. I will take a little longer so that you can think while you are sitting there rather than while you are standing, which would only take up extra time.
A statement was made by you to the Quebec Farmers' Association in Quebec. I quote:
The "Crowsnest rate" and the feed freight assistance program have reduced the cost of grain shipped into Quebec and thus lowered the cost of producing hogs and poultry here. These subsidies have resulted in benefits for western grain growers, but they have also decreased the natural comparative advantage for livestock production on the prairies and given assistance to livestock producers in the east.
Also, the "Crowsnest rate" has favoured the growth in Quebec of processing plants for meat, flour and vegetable oils since products processed in the west are not eligible for the preferential statutory rate, while the raw products are.
Because of that statement I would like to ask about some statements made by your colleagues. The Minister of Transport called for a task force to study the Crow rate. The disorderly senator in the other place said there will be no change in the Crow for some time. You, Mr. Minister, said you are sick and tired of studies and committees on western transportation problems and there will be no more. Does this mean you are going to stay with the status quo and deprive the people of western Canada of the natural advantage to the other provinces in Canada, are you going to go along with the Minister of Transport in his supposition, or with the disorderly minister from the other place?


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The atmosphere in Committee of the Whole is more relaxed. It is quite common for members and ministers to address each other directly. It is the responsibility of the Chair to remind hon. members that it is preferable and in accordance with the rules
if they address one another through the Chair. In other words, when speaking of another member, the reference is "the hon. member has said", rather than "you".
Second, whatever style of debate we may accept, it might be wise to leave the members of the other place, who do not have an opportunity to defend themselves in this place, without reference to "disorderly". It may not be the best form. I do not say that it is out of order. I just want to note that it could be a small problem the hon. member might consider, because this might go on for days.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member that I was talking about domestic barley prices producers received in Ontario. As history will show, they are always lower than what a western producer receives for barley or what it would cost to have western barley put into that area. There is a discrepancy there. I never said what it sold at, at world price, because I do not know, and I cannot find out what the traders were able to accumulate as a profit. I am told that if a profit was made it was not passed on to any of the producers.
If the traders made an unwarranted mark-up on it, this is the kind of thing that makes one angry. I am sure the hon. member's party condones this great multinational type of operation and this type of world sales program. When we talk about some of the Canadian Wheat Board operations, the hon. member may have some reservations about it. I have talked with him in private conversation and he has told me whom he supported as far as marketing grain was concerned.
I said if we were going to do anything about the Crow rates, and something must be done about them, then it had to be fair for our grain producers so they would not be put at a disadvantage with any other group of grain producers with whom they compete. It must be that kind of system we develop. I did not say it should not be touched or changed. It should be changed.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport, has the right to say "task force" if he wants. I was not aware he was suggesting a task force when I was questioned about that in western Canada this past week. We have volumes and volumes of studies on rail transportation, Crow rates, and what should be done and should not be done. There may be an interdepartmental group looking at it, and if that is the case I am in favour of that kind of task force. This way it may be done quickly and a solution reached.
I mentioned before that the livestock producer and the grain producer in Canada, in some way, must come to realize how important it is to both of them that they survive. If the hon. member wants to read some of my old speeches, he may do so. They were before his time in this House of Commons. When I was in western Canada I said they were dependent on one another.
Eighty per cent of the feed grain produced in Canada is consumed in Canada. The biggest customer for a feed grain producer is the Canadian livestock-poultry producer. If I were a grain producer I would make sure my biggest customer was
December 9, 1980

looked after the best, and then take care of the other 20 per cent. Some years they buy and some years they do not buy. The livestock producers, be they in the east or the west, are the best consumers and the best users of domestic feed grain produced in Canada and should be well looked after. For instance, the freight rate structure and those types of things should encourage, the processing of those products produced in western Canada. It was pointed out earlier, and I have admitted, that some of the freight structures were not that fair so as to encourage this processing. It was fair to the grain producer but not to the livestock producer in western Canada.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, regarding the compensation which is due and is just to the producers of western Canada, and indeed all of Canada, because of the embargo imposed on sales to the Soviet Union-the suggestion was made by the hon. minister-it is his hope that the higher prices farmers would receive this year would make up for the lack of money they lost due to the embargo. Eligher grain prices, of course, will not make up for the lower prices caused by the embargo. The two are entirely separate issues. Elave the producers of western Canada been set up by an answer given to my hon. friend and colleague from Vegreville to a question posed to the Minister of Transport who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board? The hon. member for Vegreville asked, and 1 quote:
Does the minister feel that more than the embargo limit of 3.8 million tonnes of grain could have been sold and delivered to the U.S.S.R. in the last crop year and. if so, on what does he base his assumption?
The answer to that question quoted from Hansard is no. Because we could not have sold more grain according to the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Agriculture is saying he believes there should be compensation payable, can the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether there is a difference of opinion, or is it one way the minister and this government are seeking of moving aside a little from the commitment made by the past government and which this government has accepted?
Regarding the feed grain policy, 1 would like to recall a comment made by my colleague from Lisgar, and some statements made by advisory committees to the Canadian Wheat Board and to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. The advisory committee to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board is not an advisory committee to the minister. The advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, I would assume, is not an advisory committee to the minister. On the point of supposedly unanimous support given to the proposal that all feed grain should be placed under the Canadian Wheat Board, I have information here which tells me at least four members of the advisory committee to the Wheat Board were not in favour of this proposal.
While we are talking about the cost of feed grains in our country today, I should like to quote an article from the Saskatchewan Natural Products Marketing Council publication in the province of Saskatchewan. It begins by criticizing the open market system, saying that:
Supply
In this study we use the street price for feed wheat, oats and barley quoted by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for a 25-cent/cwt freight zone.
Further on it says:
Since August 1, 1974, the private grain trade has been permitted to buy feed grains on the prairies-
And that includes all the pools, and all the line companies.
The publication goes on:
Prairie grain producers have always felt that western grains should be marketed in the most efficient manner possible, and... reflect the actual charges (justifiable cost) of handling, transporting and marketing the grain.
It also makes mention of the fact that elevator companies have charged an excess profit margin, and this is using Saskatchewan Wheat Pool statistics from the province of Saskatchewan, on feed wheats of 24 cents per bushel, on oats of .07 cents per bushel, and on barley of .04 cents per bushel.
I would just like the minister's thoughts as to the cause of some of this excess profit which has been collected by all elevator companies because of the open marketing system.
I would like to give the minister one more statistic which was released on Friday, October 31, 1980. The price for 3 CW feed wheat export in store at Thunder Bay was $251.12 per tonne. For the same wheat, domestic feed Thunder Bay, the price was $175.80. That is a $75 a tonne difference in what we are asking for export wheat and what we are asking for the same wheat for domestic consumption. 1 would like the minister's comments on that, and I would like to know if he feels that the corn competitive formula has anything to do with this process.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the question asked by the hon. member is technical. I do not have that information before me, but 1 should have it after supper, and I should be able to report to him at that time.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to another topic. There has been much discussion, and I believe the minister announced that there will be a statement on the regulation of 2,4-D and MCPA before seeding as to whether they will be removed from the market or further regulated.
In spite of the precautions which have been taken with respect to 2,4-D, no health problems have been documented scientifically. In the province of Saskatchewan we grow about 17 million acres of wheat in a normal year. About 75 per cent of that wheat is sprayed for broadleaf weeds in any given year. Of those 17 million acres about 15 million acres are sprayed with 2,4-D. If 2,4-D is removed from the market, food production in Canada, worth about $10 billion a year of which $6 billion is exported-which is 12 per cent of our total accounts payable-will be lost.
I would like the minister to answer these questions. What chemicals would be available to replace 2,4-D, and at what cost? I am referring to 2,4-D or its counterpart MCPA. Which of the weeds which have all but disappeared would return? How would farmers' yields and incomes be affected and

December 9, 1980
Supply
how would total farm production and, ultimately, export sales be affected?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, it is because of dioxins that we are concerned about 2,4-D. There are approximately 1,000 types of dioxins. Only three are possibly deadly. We have to isolate them. We have to make sure we know which ones they are. We are undertaking all the scientific studies and chemical studies which can be made at this time. I do not think 1 should just ban 2,4-D or ask that it be banned. We work closely with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare because of the good that 2,4-D does,
I agree with the hon. member that farming could not be carried on without some other type of material if 2,4-D were not available. We could not ban 2,4-D just like that and still expect the type of production from farmers we are getting at the present time. We could not expect there to be the production of cereal grains, corn and many other crops which we see today. Some people suggest that we should ban 2,4-D. It is like saying that because there are one thousand varieties of spiders but only three poisonous varieties, we should kill all one thousand varieties to make sure we get the three poisonous ones. I do not intend to recommend that with respect to 2,4-D.
The hon. member made some suggestion that we were trying to get out of paying even if there was reason to pay compensation for farmers' lost income. I did mention that farmers had received higher prices for their grain. I did mention earlier today that some farmers said that they do not want initial payments before January 1. They told me that in Tisdale, the Battlefords, Saskatoon, Regina, Ste. Rose, Dauphin and Morris, and I can think of many other places. They told me that in Lethbridge too. If the final tabulation of the whole grain sales system shows that we owe farmers money-this pertains not just to western farmers because there could be some farmers in eastern Canada who are commercial grain growers also and who are also involved-I do not feel this government would be in a position to say no. We could not welsh on a commitment we have made, so no matter how anyone tries to interpret anything I have said, 1 never intended to say we would welsh on a commitment we made.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's remarks with respect to the chemical 2,4-D. I know he understands how important it is and that if there happens to be something wrong with 2,4-D and there is no substitute, the farmers of western Canada and, indeed, in all of Canada would be in deep trouble.
I am not too sure what the Eddy Arnold song about places in western Canada the minister has visited had to do with my question.


An hon. Member:: Hank Snow.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I was out in Tisdale too, and we had a little more success in Tisdale than the minister.
I would like to go on to the Farm Credit Corporation. Last year approximately 20,000 farmers approached the Farm Credit Corporation for assistance. Those approaches are documented. There were probably many more who did not fill out application forms, but only 5,700 transactions were completed last year. That was last year, and as a result of a shortage of funds in the Farm Credit Corporation it is forecast that this year 1,000 fewer farmers will be receiving funds. Would the minister explain to the House the steps he has taken to broaden the base of farm credit?
In the estimates there are approximately $16.8 million for emergency assistance to prairie livestock producers affected by drought. I recall some press releases in June and July in which the federal government committed about $67 million for drought assistance. I would like the minister to tell me how much has been paid out to date and how much will be paid out.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, we have said how much we have estimated. We have never been conservative in our estimates. We have always been quite liberal, and we have never had to use all the funds. For instance, we set aside $7 million for transportation. We used only close to $6 million for transportation. That was arranged with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the transportation of forage for livestock. There was a meeting yesterday morning. It appears we will be spending very close to $67 million both on forage aid and on the herd maintenance program. The herd maintenance program is under the PFRA which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. That agency is administering the herd maintenance program through the people who administer community pastures and that type of program.
However, it appears that it has been well received. I believe
35,000	applications are being processed at the present time under the herd maintenance program. I am going by memory again, but I believe more applications have been received under the forage assistance program in the last two weeks than in the previous two months, so it appears that farmers now have more time to fill out applications. However, they are being processed. Review boards are set up immediately for applicants who feel they are not being dealt with properly. Applicants who have been turned down will have a review board to appeal before. We hope that many of these claims will be settled before the end of the year. I believe that approximately 9,000 have been settled already under the herd maintenance program and probably a couple of thousand under the forage aid program. They are speeding along as fast as they can, but they hope that in the new year, in January, many of these claims will be settled.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman, first of all, perhaps 1 should put into perspective some facts that are misinterpreted or miscontrued by the misinformed. Perhaps I should put on record, before going further, the fact that last year gross farm receipts in Canada amounted to $13.9 billion and our exports
December 9, 1980

amounted to $6.1 billion. This would indicate that Canadians paid something like $7.8 billion to the farmers for food produced and consumed in Canada. Now if we were to divide $7.8 billion by 24 million Canadians, we would find that, on an average, each consumer paid $326.65 per year, or 89 cents per day. If we assume that we eat three meals per day, the Canadian consumer paid the Canadian farmer 29.8 cents per meal for food produced and consumed in Canada.
In fact, a recent survey of the cost of a 21-item food basket, in U.S. funds, shows that Canada has the lowest priced food of any of the following countries, in this order: the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, West Germany, Argentina, Denmark and Japan. The closest of these for similar items was $58.02 for the United States, compared to $55.58 for Canada, and the highest was Japan at $135.10 for the same food basket.
It alarms me, Mr. Chairman, when I read about a consumer spokesperson who recently assailed the farm producing sector and indicated that the consumers were suspicious of our marketing boards. Yet after having made this charge, she admitted, without doing any research, that she believed the return to food producers was equal to that realized in other industries. Of course, she did not say whether she was referring to the Chrysler Corporation, Massey Ferguson or Imperial Oil, nor did she mention the surveys of the USDA food basket report to which I referred earlier, or the report by Mr. A. Cayer released in November, 1979, on the egg industry in Canada, in which he states in conclusion, at page 77, that:
Consumers in Toronto have paid less for eggs than their counterparts in New York, since the implementation of central pricing by CEMA.
Mr. Cayer goes on to point out that:
Analyses carried out by a number of groups over the past five years have been misleading because their use of selective indicators did not adequately reflect the longer-term trends or the significant fluctuations in currency values or in the industry.
Now if this consumer were sincere and well informed, she would have pointed out that in November the retail price of beef increased to $2.64 per pound, and the farm price dropped by 4 cents per pound. This meant an increased spread of 15 cents per pound between the producer and the consumer in one month. In Ontario the retail value of the OFA food basket was $39.69, up $5.48 from November, 1979, or an increase in the farm retail spread of 19 per cent in one year. The farm retail spread is the cost to the consumer of processing, packaging, distributing and merchandising food.
This same consumer spokesperson wondered if farmers were using up the organic matter in the soil or damaging the land by the weight of large machinery. Here again the weight of large machinery has nothing to do with the organic content in the soil. The loss of organic matter in the soil is usually caused by poor soil management or improper crop rotation, not by compaction. In fact, as equipment has become larger and heavier, the size of the tires has increased, resulting in better flotation. It is easier to understand this when we realize that whereas one Canadian farmer could feed five other persons not too many years ago, he can now feed upward of 70. Our
Supply
Canadian agricultural industry is the most efficient in the world.
I will never cease to be amazed, Mr. Chairman, that we allow food into Canada which could just as well be grown domestically. In fact, we import almost $2 billion worth of food which could well be grown here in Canada. One of the most blatant examples of these imports occurred last summer, when two Ontario supermarkets carried only imported peaches, despite the availability of a bumper crop of Ontario peaches. If the workers in those countries where the imports originated had received wages comparable to those of our own workers, I could accept this competition, but when we are competing against wage rates which are in some cases only half ours, consequently involving a lower standard of living, we must ask ourselves: are we importing cheap food or are we importing unemployment? I could also accept some of these imports if the consumer were actually the benefactor, but in many instances the cheaper imported price serves only to give a wider profit margin to the importer.
Another point that I wish to make in regard to food imported into Canada is that these merchandisers are not usually interested in serving the less populated areas but rather concentrate in the Montreal, Toronto and Windsor corridor or the Vancouver area, leaving Canadian processors to serve the more scattered population, or areas where distribution costs are much higher. Are these imported foods produced under the same environmental restrictions as those applied to our own Canadian producers, and does the chemical content conform to the restrictions applied in Canada for our own producers?
I believe, however, that Canadians have taken this vital part of our economy for granted for too long. The recent drought in western Canada and the southwestern U.S., the lower than expected crop yields in Russia and China, indicate the delicate balance of our world grain supplies. In spite of this situation, our market prices for grain are influenced by one of the most unpredictable pricing systems ever devised; I refer to the speculative futures market which is supposed to be geared to supply and demand.
Last week the price of soya beans, for example, dropped by about $1 a bushel. The reason for this drop was not oversupply and it certainly was not an anticipated increased crop in Brazil, because it is still premature to estimate the success of this crop which was planted a few weeks ago. It was people speculating on the commodity markets, speculating and gambling on the basis of the very food we eat, while people on other continents starve.
Mr. Chairman, we in Canada have a better system, a system which, while it is often the victim of speculators in other countries, resists the efforts of manipulators and ensures a more stable return to producers and fair prices to the consumers. I am convinced that as Canadians we can do much more to produce that $2 billion worth of imported food in Canada. As an example, just last week I had the honour of presiding at the opening of Canada's first peanut plant, and was delighted with the quality and flavour of our first Canadian commercial

December 9, 1980
Supply
crop of peanuts. I can see a tremendous future in this area. I want to commend the Minister of Agriculture and Agriculture Canada for their contribution under their New Crop Development Program and the research which made this project possible. I want to commend them also on the other projects that are on stream.
With regard to increased exports, we can also provide the vehicle which would assist our producers to enter into contracts with other countries wanting to buy food, long-term contracts if possible, providing our producers with the incentive to produce a product, knowing that they can sell it at a profit. Canada is one of the few countries of the world which has the vehicle in place to plan production for specific domestic and export markets. I believe the potential could be one of several billion dollars. Of course the spin-off effects will benefit all of society.
The other area I should like to touch upon is the concern that there may be a world grain shortage a few years hence. We realize how delicate the balance is at the present time. If there is a world grain shortage, a world food shortage could naturally follow. With proper planning and research I am convinced Canada could double its output of protein. It is in this area of research that I commend Agriculture Canada for the work it is doing. In the years that I have been farming, however, 1 have noticed what seems to be a shortening of the summer growing season. Those of us involved in farming operations have adapted accordingly.
I am particularly enthused about one interesting aspect of research, that is, research in the area of photosynthesis or the process whereby a plant converts sunlight through its leaves to protein and energy. If we could speed up this process, we could push back the geographical and climatic barriers which curtail the production of specialized crops in more northerly regions or colder climatic zones, thereby strengthening our potential to increase food production.
There are some questions which I want to ask the minister. First, has the research division of Agriculture Canada been conducting research on photosynthesis with the goal of speeding up the process, and what have the successes been at the present time? Second, in the area of research, can Agriculture Canada forecast world crop conditions with infrared sensing equipment in the summer months, and are they doing any work in the area of measuring solar radiation and its effects on different crops? Third, in keeping with the support of national farm organizations in Canada for the concept of a Canadian agriculture export corporation, did the deputy minister of agriculture discover any unserviced markets for food on his recent trip to Mexico, and what is the potential value of those markets? Last, with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation, is any consideration being given at the present time to making funds available to young farmers who want to become established farmers and, using this as a mechanism to stop the purchase of farm land by foreign owners and absentee landlords? This is a very serious situation in some areas of the nation, and I should like to see it dealt with.
I would appreciate any comments the minister may have in reply to my questions.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the Farm Credit Corporation is an old institution which was set up to assist farmers and members of the community, especially those who had been turned down by some other lending institution. In this First instance, the Farm Credit Corporation was to be a lending establishment of last resort for farmers. It was not to be "the" lending institution. At one time nearly 70 per cent of all loans made to farmers in Canada was under the Farm Credit Corporation; now it is something like 40 to 50 per cent of all loans made to farmers. We still think the Farm Credit Corporation has a place in our society. All the countries with which we compete in agricultural production and markets have tremendous lending associations, Crown corporations or similar organizations which are either funded or administered by the government in some fashion or form.
It is felt by some-but certainly not by myself-that all loans should be provided to farmers from the private sector. It is not my intention to go in that direction. My intention is to reorganize the Farm Credit Corporation to make it into the kind of organization we have always wanted, so that our farmers will be in the position to borrow from a lending institution which has a feeling for the farming and rural community of Canada. We want such a lending institution.
We shall be presenting new legislation to the House concerning amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation early in the new year. I had hoped that it would be before the House of Commons prior to Christmas, but it does not appear that we will have the time.
Dealing with the area of new markets, the deputy minister and a small group recently visited Mexico and Cuba. They, with the Canadian Feed Manufacturer's Association, presented a program in Cuba which showed how to use Canadian feed to its utmost in feeding swine. The mortality rate in Cuban swine was 5.5 per cent, but when Canadian feed was used the mortality rate immediately dropped in weaning pigs to about .3 per cent. So, there is a potential market there for perhaps
200,000	tonnes of feed per year. There is an increased possibility of new markets in Mexico in many new agricultural commodities, different varities of wheat, different dairy products and different oilseed products.
I just want to say that we are very optimistic, because Mexico indicated that it will spend nearly half of its oil earnings on food to upgrade the nutrition and protein intake of its people. If it does that, it will be spending about S20 billion in the next couple of years on agricultural products, and it is up to us to get part of it. We will try to get part of it, and that is what the deputy minister and the group were doing in Mexico.
In the first part of January we will be returning to Mexico to try to ensure that some agreements are signed for the purchase of these products. In some instances our producers may have to change their production for markets which will be long-term in nature. I think a conservative estimate for the
December 9, 1980

first year would be about a $500 million increase in trade in agricultural products with Mexico.
When we talk about in-house research into the use of solar energy, we are increasing research directed toward maximizing the efficiency of breeding for higher yield. The higher priority areas include growth analysis, the rates of accumulating solar energy, the partitioning of photosynthesis, the rate and timing of plant development of nitrogen metabolism. Perhaps we are not doing as much as we would like, but I can assure the hon. member that we are moving in that area because we figure it is a very important one.


Denis Éthier: Does the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex wish to continue, or would he prefer to call it six o'clock?


Ralph Ferguson: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Denis Éthier: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Denis Éthier: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Ferguson) had the floor.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, when time was called at six o'clock I had been speaking about some of the excellent research and development being done by Agriculture Canada. If we look at the poultry and livestock sector in Canada we will recognize that one of the biggest turkey hatcheries in North America, with the best breeding stock, is located in my constituency. In the area of laying hens, egg production and broiler production one of the best operations in the world is located in the Cambridge area. We all recognize the standard of excellence which has prevailed in the dairy industry, beef cattle and horse sectors of Canada over the years.
I would like to ask the minister if the present system of parental blood typing, which is being conducted through the Department of Agriculture, will be continued in Canada. We have the best expertise in this field in the world. There was some concern by Canadian livestock breeders that this program might be farmed out to private institutions. Could the minister assure us that this program will be continued.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much of this parental blood typing will be carried on. I do know that we will be blood typing horses. The horse breeders of Canada will be paying for it. We do intend to recover the full costs of this project. It will cost the government nothing to do this for the horse breeders. Elorse breeders are asking us to do this. The swine breeders are also asking us for parental blood typing. It
Supply
is a very costly undertaking for us to become involved in. We just do not have provision for it in our budget unless we are to get full recovery. It appears the horse breeders are the group most inclined to go along with this, more so than any other group in the livestock area.
I cannot tell the hon. member any more about it now. We have met with the swine breeders and the sheep breeders. Both groups want this kind of project. The cost per animal subjected to these tests is about $60. For an animal which is only worth two or three times that amount, there is concern about spending that much money. These groups want it done in Canada. We want it done in Canada. If these tests are conducted in some other part of the world, for example the United States of America, the results would be put into their computer systems. The result would be that they would know more about our livestock industry than we would.
We want to continue with this testing but in order to do so we must find a more economical way of doing it in some of the livestock industries.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. It gives me a chance to say a few words in support of Canada's number one industry-our agriculture industry. It is an industry of which we are all proud.
I know the Minister of Agriculture feels he is doing a good job. I would be surprised if he thought otherwise. However, all is not well in the agriculture industry in Canada today, and the government must take a large share of the blame. I say that for two reasons, Mr. Chairman. First, the government, through the Department of Agriculture and other agencies, is deeply involved in the private sector of agriculture. For that reason the government should recognize the symptoms of an illness in the industry as quickly as anyone else. Second, the government is not as quick to jump in and help this industry as they were when trouble developed in other sectors, such as the automotive and heavy machinery industries. In fairness to the minister, though, it may be that he does not have the support in cabinet that some of his colleagues seem to have.
The agriculture industry in Canada is facing problems that are serious enough to threaten the very future of food production in our country unless we take steps now to identify them, and then to deal with them. There is a large degree of interrelationship between the problems facing the agriculture industry, just as in other types of industry. But unlike most other industries, the effects on the food industry could be both immediate and long range. Some of these problems are inflation, high cost of production, high cost of good farm land, the lack of ready sources of low cost financing for capital and other operating costs, and uncertainty and instability in the marketplace.
The deadly combination of inflation and high interest rates is driving farmers out of business and making it impossible for many young people to enter the agriculture industry. The

December 9, 1980
Supply
young couple fortunate enough to buy a family farm for reasonable terms will lock themselves into a future in the agricultural industry, but what about those who have to buy on the open market? To put it simply, the average young couple today would not even be in the running for that type of money. More farmers leave the land every year. Some of them get fed up with the low rate of return on their investment and their labour. When that happens many of them look around for a likely buyer, and it is often a developer who plans to take the land out of production.
While 1 am on this subject, I would like to point out that every year tens of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land are taken out of production and used as sites for industries and other non-agricultural purposes. This has the additional effect of pushing up prices of other farms in the area. Other farmers, even if they are hard workers and conscientious, find themselves caught between poor market conditions and high interest rates.
Last year the pork producers were forced to sell hogs at less than production costs. When they looked around for money to restock and weather the poor market season they simply could not afford to go further into debt at today's interest costs. In far too many cases, the farmer cannot turn to any private or government agency for assistance which he can afford. I think many, if not all of them, are waiting for the low interest rates which were promised by the Minister of Agriculture to farmers during the last election campaign. Could this be yet another example of the minister's lack of clout in cabinet?
The decrease in the number of dairy farms in our country is real cause for concern, if not alarm. I think some of my colleagues have given this figure before, but it is worth repeating. This has me deeply concerned, both as a member of Parliament from Ontario, and as a consumer. I do not know how many of those lost farms are in Ontario, but I suspect it is too many.
Between 1971 and 1979 there was a decline in the number of dairy farms in Canada from 129,000 to 70,000, a loss of
59,000	dairy farms in just eight years. In that same period the number of dairy cows and heifers in Ontario declined from 986,300 to 770,000. This leads me to believe that a large number of the farms that were pulled out of the dairy business were in Ontario. Mr. Chairman, to me these are dangerous signs, signs that can no longer be ignored.
It must be admitted that improved production methods and good management resulted in only a slight reduction in milk production in that period, but I am sure there is a limit to the process by which fewer farms and fewer cows can produce the same amount of milk. I believe we are close to that limit, and since the population in Ontario is increasing at a faster rate than that of any other province, the decline in dairy farms and dairy cattle in Ontario concerns me in a more personal way than it does some other hon. members.
I have been told there is some concern in the dairy industry as to what the federal government has in mind with regard to the present national dairy policy. I do not believe the dairy
industry is being given enough information about the government's plans. They want to know and, indeed, they must know whether or not the government plans to make any major changes in the national policy and, if so, what will those changes be? They do not want to know the day or the week before they are brought in, but well in advance. I venture to say that it would be unwise for the government to plan any changes to the dairy policy without consulting the industry.
I would like to get back to interest rates for a moment because there is no question that high interest rates represent the greatest single stumbling block to a healthy agriculture industry. There is no question that this issue will have to be addressed by the minister and his colleagues in cabinet in the immediate future. Interest rates creep into every segment of the industry and it is the smaller farm units that are hit first and hardest by spiralling rates. For instance, the cost of farm marchinery has increased due to inflation. Most farmers are forced to buy machinery on time and when one adds the effect of inflation and high interest rates, one can see that it becomes more and more difficult for small farmers to purchase modern machinery and equipment.
Next to modern, efficient machinery, perhaps the most important single thing to a small farmer is fertilizer. Crop yield and crop quality are vital to any farm operation, and this means judicious use of the right kinds and quantities of fertilizer. Unfortunately, the price of fertilizer has been rising at a rapid rate over the past few years, and this is cutting into the profits of all farm operations. In some cases where farmers cannot absorb these higher costs, they are abandoning the use of chemical fertilizers altogether. I am sure this results in a decrease in yield per acre as well as a decrease in the quality of crop.
These are some of the problems facing the agriculture industry today in Canada, but there are others. I have not touched on the end result of all this investment in money, time and labour. 1 have not mentioned the marketplace. If a farmer does not make it in the marketplace, as the saying goes, he just does not make it. And there are problems in the marketplace in Canada today.
In many respects it is a case of feast or famine. For example, we are all familiar with the plight of potato farmers last year and the year before. Last year potato producers took a real beating. They could not sell their crop and potatoes were dumped almost anywhere to get them out of the way. This year potato prices are up and so are carrot prices. Next year anything could happen with any number of farm products. We do not know what is going to happen and that is bad for the producer and the consumer.
It seems, Mr. Chairman, that the market in food and food products jumps from one extreme to the other from year to year. It either hits the bottom or the top, rising and falling, sometimes out of control. It is no wonder so many small businesses go under every year and so many small farms are taken out of production. The rate of failure among small businesses and small farm operations is increasing every year.
December 9, 1980

It should be mentioned here that it is not only the farms, or the producers which are decreasing in number. It is happening across the whole spectrum of the food chain. There are fewer producers, fewer wholesalers, fewer processors and fewer retailers. I believe a case can be made that control of the food industry in every sector is being concentrated in too few hands. About a month ago the Toronto Star reported that Canada suffered a deficit in foreign trade in manufactured food of $245 million in 1979 compared with a $50 million surplus in 1971. Why was it not the other way around, considering that the Canadian dollar is depressed, and our products should have been highly competitive in the world markets?
There is something seriously wrong when we cannot even take advantage of a greatly depressed dollar to sell Canadian processed food products to a hungry world. I would have thought that our products would have been in demand, but apparently that is not the case.
Perhaps this might be a good time for us to look into the question of trying to get a larger share of the foreign cheese market. There was a time when Canadian cheddar cheese was in great demand. I would like to see some energetic, imaginative and aggressive initiatives taken so as to get back into the world market in a big way.
While we are at it, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should also consider stepping up our public relations with the consumer and producer. The federal government should take a lesson from the Ontario government and provide more useful information for the Canadian consumer. There should be more information published by the government on all aspects of the food industry, from the producer to the processor to the wholesaler. Not enough is known by the consumer about what happens to a product when it leaves the farm and moves down the chain, to the table. Good public relations and good information can remove many misconceptions from the mind of the consumer, and that would only be proper, because it is the consumer who pays the bills.
Mr. Chairman, I was interested in an article which appeared in one of the leading newspapers. This article, datelined Jordan Station, appeared in the Toronto Star on October 16, 1980, and begins as follows:
The price of an egg quota has gone past $17.55 a bird and is heading toward $20 in Ontario, according to testimony before the Ontario Farm Products Appeal Tribunal here Wednesday.
Mrs. Cornelius Super of Tavistock testified that a bid of $17.55 a bird to buy quota from a Seaforth area egg farmer was turned down in September. She and her husband bid $ 150,000 for an egg quota of 8,546 birds.
The farmer countered by offering the quota for $20 a bird, she said, while stipulating that the bird cages would go with the deal.
But Mrs. Super testified that taking the cages would have represented a cost rather than a benefit because they were in such poor shape that 'the man wanted to get them out of there, I guess.'
Selling the cages with the birds might give the farmer some tax benefits because taxes on the sale of quota might be higher than on the sale of cages. The official sales price reported to the egg board, which must approve all quota transfers, could also be lowered.
The egg board has claimed that the going price of quota, as reported to it When transfer applications come in, is running about $10 to $12 a bird.
Supply
It is articles like this appearing in our leading newspapers that make the consumer very suspicious. Eggs sell in chain-stores today for approximately $1.19 per dozen. I do not say that' is an unfair price; in fact, it is a reasonably fair price. But what would the consumer think after reading about $17.55 being offered for a laying hen quota and $20 being asked, with the cages-which are of little value-included. This is something that our agriculture industry must be concerned about. The price of the commodity must be presented fairly and I do not think an article such as this does so.
Many things are done by the Department of Agriculture that I think are beneficial to both the producer and the consumer, but there ought to be a little guidance-not too much, mind you-and a little forecasting by the department about what the future may be. We need a cushion to carry us over the lows and highs. That can apply both ways, of course.
These are some of the things the retailer is complaining about today, Mr. Chairman. I think the cost of the consumer's food basket today is a reasonably fair one but I also think much more could be done for the Canadian consumer by the food industry.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, may I say in reply to the hon. member's remarks about egg quota prices that quotas on every commodity, are under the authority of the provinces. The hon. member suggested we take a lesson from the Ontario government. I should like to tell him that we do not follow their advice. It is the Ontario government that allows quota prices to become so unrealistic. No two provinces run quotas in the same way; in fact, some of them put no value on quota at all and only redistribute quotas when a farmer sells out.
The hon. member used the price of grade A large eggs as a reference. The average price of all grades of eggs in Canada today, in 1980, is less than $1 per dozen. Not many countries in the world can make such a claim and have such a healthy egg producing industry as we have. Not one penny of tax money has been put in the egg producers' pockets since the scheme started eight years ago.
1 wonder if the hon. member could bring to my attention the case of even one egg producer who has gone bankrupt. Egg producers in Canada are the most efficient in the world. The feeding formula used to call for over eight pounds of feed to produce one dozen eggs but today a dozen eggs can be produced with less than four pounds of feed. The efficiency of the egg producing industry is the most startling in all agriculture.
The mortality rate used to be 25 per cent or higher, per year. At the present time it is .5 per cent in a laying flock. That is phenomenal, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. member also mentioned dairy farmers. Today there are 50 per cent fewer dairy farmers in Canada than there were 12 or 15 years ago. There are one-third less cattle, but more milk of a higher quality is being produced than 12 or 15 years ago. This efficiency is the envy of the world.
A rumour has been going around to the effect that the dairy farmers' quota is to be cut back. I do not know where that has
5560

December 9, 1980
Supply
come from, Mr. Chairman, unless it is a bit of political mischief. It has not come from the Dairy Commission or any study that we know of. If anything were to be done in this area it would only be after full consultation with the dairy industry.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the Agriculture Outlook Conference that took place in Ottawa in the last two days. All the farm leaders of any significance a from across Canada were present, as were representatives of agribusiness.
Mr. Chairman, I never heard a more positive group in my life talking about the future of agriculture. There has been mention of small farms disappearing, but that has been an ongoing problem. Each province in the country has different programs, which may arrange to provide loans to farmers, help in the division of farms, etc., as I mentioned earlier. Also, Mr. Chairman, there are more young people in agriculture today than at any time in the last 50 years.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Chairman, in the last few months I have raised in various committees and in this House, several questions concerning chemicals and pesticides. I have done this not out of political motivation, because the question is not an ideological one. I have done it because I am scared. I am scared that in a relatively short period we are altering the evolutionary development of millions of years.
Some of my concerns were expressed in a recent article in the science section of The Globe and Mail. It was written by Mr. Kieran. He said:
Indeed, many advanced technologies possess as much inherent potential for destruction as for good, and dangerous components become ever harder to discern and control. At the same time, the poisonous byproducts of previous technical 'advances' are starting to come back to haunt us with a legacy of irreversible environmental degradation. Other destructive pressures from within challenge society's ability to respond wisely in this age of accelerated change.
I am scared because hundreds of millions of gallons of new chemicals are used every year on a massive scale. These are distributed over the landscape and throughout the food chain. These chemicals are affecting the chemical composition of our environment which has taken millions of years to develop. Such a major change should require the utmost care, concern and consciousness. For us as human beings who have been occupying this planet for a very short period of time to have such a dramatic influence on the physical world in which we live is surely presumptuous. If we do that, we must do it with the greatest amount of care possible. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that the government has been taking all the necessary precautions and care. I am concerned by the tendency of government to be somewhat secretive about its dealings. Ever since this new Parliament has convened I have been asking various departments, including the Department of National Health and Welfare, to let us know how many chemicals and what chemicals were tested faultily by a company called Industrial Biotest Laboratories. I was not the only one asking for this information. Provincial governments have done so. The government has still not released an accurate list of all the
chemicals in use in Canada today. Proper studies do not exist to let us know whether the widespread use of these chemicals is safe for the present and future of the human race.
I am concerned when I read about statements made by officers of the Department of Agriculture who suggest that too much detail on labels could lead to increased violations of laws, or to more charges being laid by environmental groups. In the latter case the department suggests that labelling of pesticide and herbicide products should not be too scary. They say these things should be handled in such a way as to avoid law suits and avoid concern by environmental groups. When I asked about this statement in committee, I did not receive satisfactory answers. In fact, I got evasive answers. Every day there is something new in the newspapers. It makes one very scared to read about these things. Today we found out about dioxin traces in chicken livers. A product is applied to preserve wood shavings used in chicken coops. It contains dioxins of a dangerous type which have now been found in chicken livers. This information was available a year ago. However, the public was never informed about it. We hear about these things by reading The Globe and Mail. It was stated in today's Globe and Mail that this information was released at an international conference two months ago in Rome.
If we continue to use hundreds of millions of gallons of herbicides and pesticides and other new chemicals, one of the first criteria should be an open policy about their use. Unfortunately, as I have indicated before, this has not been the case.
Recently the Minister of Agriculture issued a press release which stated they have found some of the dioxins in 2,4-D, but I ask: how new is this information? In 1970, Doctor Samuel Epstein pointed out in his testimony before Senator Philip Hart's subcommittee that 2,4-D contained dioxins. In 19701971, the plant science research division of the United States department of agriculture examined samples of 17 different pesticides derived from chlorophynols. They also found dioxins.
We have also learned that the Department of Agriculture has acquired some new technology. In 1980 they have discovered dioxins in 2,4-D. We do not know what action the government will take on this matter. Here again there is a time lapse.
Unfortunately, technological changes were introduced without fully examining the results and the effects of these technological innovations. Yet, when it is discovered that they can be harmful or that they are harmful to the environment and to people, a long period of time elapses before corrective measures are taken. Essentially, in terms of technological innovation, the government, as indeed most governments-in the "socialist" world and the "free" world face the same problem, because this is not an ideological matter. They react to technological changes too slowly. It is a reaction, rather than knowing ahead of time what dangers to look for. We are beginning to pay the price. Whole parts of our natural environment have been despoiled. Studies from the Department of the Environment show that lindane is a major health concern but it is found in most surface waters on the prairies. In fact, it has
December 9, 1980

found its way into the whole food chain. It has found its way into the animal biological chain, from worms to insects, to birds, etc. The chemical composition of our environment has changed. For what purpose may I ask? I fear the Department of Agriculture has worked too closely with the chemical industry. The Department of Agriculture should be concerned with the welfare of farmers and not with the welfare of the chemical industry. Some of the claims which the chemical industry is making should be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, 1 have come across an informative article from BioScience, volume 27, No. 3. It is suggested that the increased use of herbicides and pesticides has done very little in recent years to decrease the destruction of crops by pesticides. Speaking about the United States, the article reads:
Despite an increase in the use of pesticides from about 100 million pounds in 1947 to about 1.1 billion pounds in 1974, crop losses due to pests have not declined but have remained at an estimated 33 per cent. Losses due to insects have nearly doubled, increasing from about 7 per cent in the 1942-1951 period to about 13 per cent in 1974. In corn production, for example, losses from insects have been increasing. A 3.5 per cent loss was reported for the period 1942-1951, a 12.0 percent loss for 1951-1960, and about a 12 per cent loss for 1972-1974.
What I am afraid of is that Canadian agriculture has ended up on a treadmill, in a "squirrel-gig" situation where more and more pesticides and herbicides are needed to control the number of insects. The insects develop immunities to the new chemicals which are produced and the chemical companies come out with more and more potent chemicals which have an increasingly permanent and adverse effect on our environment and upon human health. I am concerned that the Department of Agriculture has not dealt with the chemical companies with suspicion or concern.
We are also concerned about the effect it has on the health of the population. The government has stated in the past that it has not come across any cases of pesticide poisoning. I will quote again from the same article drawing attention to the situation in America where chemical poisoning has occurred. I quote from the March 7 issue of BioScience, volume 27, No. 3:
As many as 14,000 individuals may be nonfatally poisoned by pesticides in a given year, 6,000 seriously enough to require hospitalization ... In the United States about 200 fatalities occur annually. None of the poisonings and fatalities were apparently due to eating foods treated properly with insecticides. Groups particularly prone to exposure to pesticides and poisoning are farm field workers and pesticide applicators-
There is an effect on health. Cases can be documented across this country. For example, a homeowner in Alberta may buy a pesticide product off the shelf in a hardware store, use it at home and end up with toxic poisoning. Farmers in my constituency tell me about the adverse reactions they have experienced when mixing chemicals, using the applicators and spraying their fields.
There is a concern about health. The whole story has not yet been told. We do not have the technique and the ability, nor are we looking for the adverse health effects on the farm population as a result of the widespread use of herbicides and pesticides. Many of these products are sprayed. They drift and
Supply
get trapped in small towns. Studies show very high levels of 2, 4-D in downtown Saskatoon. The winds swept the chemical there and it remains trapped.
It is important that the government be open about the question of herbicides and pesticides for several reasons. It is important that the public know the extent and full cost of the use of these chemicals so that we can in a fair way balance the pros and cons of their continued use. If we do not know the true costs to health and the environment, we cannot make a judgment. In a democracy, we depend upon full information so that the public can make those types of decisions. As long as the cost and the adverse effects of such a wide use of chemicals are not made public, we can never make a democratic decision.
The second reason is that in the end we must develop ways to control weeds and pests. Any reasonable person will recognize that the dumping of hundreds of millions of gallons of poison on to the earth cannot go on for years and years. An end must come to it. The soil, earth and environment cannot stand hundreds of millions of gallons of additional toxic waste.
We have to develop other less harmful ways of controlling weeds and pests. As long as we do not know the true extent of the social and environmental cost of the extended use of chemicals, there will never be public pressure to develop alternatives. 1 urge the minister and the department to put more effort into developing alternative ways by which weeds and pests can be controlled, ways which will not be so harmful to the farmer and the environment.
Intensified use of insecticides has resulted in several major problems, first, a greater portion of foods contaminated with insecticide residue than in the past; second, a larger number of insecticide poisonings; third, continued environmental pollution problems from pesticides; fourth, increased use of energy in pest controls, and fifth, increased food costs for the consumer.
We must remember that the cost of herbicides and pesticides has been increasing every year. The development of resistant strains has necessitated increased use of these products. First reading has been given to amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. When it next comes before the House, we will be proposing several amendments along the line of extending the act to include the Department of the Environment and the department of health. I am not the only one who believes that. On July 16, the deputy minister of health wrote to the deputy minister of agriculture suggesting that the department of health should be covered by the Pest Control Products Act. I concur with her.
Registration and use of these new chemicals must be treated in a more responsible way. The long-term effects must be known. Instruments must be developed to handle these products, instruments that are meaningful in the twentieth century, not the nineteenth century as at present. I hope the minister will seriously consider some of my suggestions. On future occasions and in future committees there will be opportunities to discuss this matter again.

December 9, 1980
Supply


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I will reply to the hon. member as quickly as I possibly can. The hon. member talked about finding dioxin in chicken livers. This is well below the safety level. In the most recent incident, it was 1.4 parts per billion. That is the highest level. It is natural to find that anything in your system will show up in your liver, but to make a comparison, it is like comparing one foot with the distance to the moon. That is the amount of dioxin in a chicken liver. It is far below the danger level.
When talking about how bad things are, I am sure the hon. member recognizes that while the situation may not be perfect, it is much better than ever before. One of the most severe criticisms I received from all parts of Canada, western Canada in particular, was when I banned the importation of pesticides which were not certified in Canada for use by farmers on their own farms. I did that because I did not feel they came up to our regulations. We are moving to a better chemical industry in Canada. It is wrong for the hon. member to create fear in minds of people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We are operating safer than ever before with regard to regulations for pesticides and so on. Recently some pesticides and herbicides for home gardens were banned. It was found that the people who were using them were not trained to use the product. They sometimes used twice what was required and the products were distributed around their neighbourhoods.
There are about 75 different kinds of dioxins. The most dangerous is 2378-TCD. We are using the most modern equipment in history to test these products. As the hon. member said, we are finding out things we did not know existed. For instance, Uniroyal, one of the largest chemical companies in Canada, has approximately 40 people with Ph.Ds and doctorates working on these products and working on hundreds and hundreds of them every day. The hon. member has intimated we are in the back pockets of the chemical companies. If he knew what the chemical companies thought of the Minister of Agriculture he would know this is not so. We have some of the strictest rules of any country in the world-maybe not strict enough-and before any company can use a pesticide it must be registered for use in our country.


Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to rise and speak to Bill C-47 with regard to Canadian agriculture. Obviously, in the few minutes allowed me, I shall not be able to deal in depth with the problems of agriculture in Canada; still, I should like to deal with the efficiency of Canadian producers, research, marketing, export products, farm credit, processing and inspection services.
Mr. Chairman, I could not possibly not mention and pay tribute to Canadian farm producers who only 30 years ago, fed
barely five persons. In 1980, they are feeding about 55, and in the 1990s they will be feeding at least 150. We must pay tribute, Mr. Chairman, to the dynamism of our farm producers for their magnificent performance in every field of activity in the country. I take my hat off to them because, in a country like Canada, where the climate is quite harsh, one can certainly say that compared with producers in the United States, the only country in the world that produces 12 months out of 12, year in and year out, our farm producers really do quite well, and we only pay 1 to 2 per cent more for our own agricultural produce off the shelves. I want to congratulate our Canadian producers and tell them this: the least expensive of all grocery baskets is found here in Canada, despite a difficult climate, and despite the small population in some parts of the country. I really cannot understand why, in some quarters, there is constant beefing about our producers supposed lack of efficiency, when we know full well that as compared with the United States, Europe and even Japan, our grocery basket is the pride of our country and the envy of all the other countries in the world. So, Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to pay tribute to our farm producers and encourage them to continue to develop, to modernize and industrialize their farms at the rate we have witnessed in the last few years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if we want to maintain the high rate of productivity of our agricultural class, the government, through the Department of Agriculture, must ensure that research is pursued at suitable levels, so that highly productive strains can be found and our producers can offer the consumers farm produce at consistently reasonable prices.
Mr. Chairman, when one speaks of research, one thinks of highly productive new strains, but we must not forget either that farms have to be owned where the results of the research performed throughout the land by our government agencies can be applied.
Still, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the minister that, with a view to stimulating research carried on in experimental farms where a lot of time is lost, now and again the Department of Agriculture should investigate very efficient farms which have experienced a high rate of productivity and request the close co-operation of those farmers to promote research in our country. Mr. Chairman, I think that the more new strains we can get and the more we insist on research, the more efficient our farmers will be for the benefit of our consumers.
In addition, I do not want to forget our Agricultural Products Board. We know quite well that several of our agricultural products are among the best in the world right now. We only have to consider our pork as well as our grain and we soon realize that several countries envy the quality of our food products. I would like to suggest to the minister that our Agricultural Products Board be expanded. As far as export is concerned, we all recognize that it is the Minister of Agriculture who is most aware of the problems and who is closest to the agricultural community. I also disagree with letting other
December 9, 1980

departments control the export of our farm products, because it often happens that officials in trade missions do not know our farm products. I am convinced that there is none better qualified than the Department of Agriculture to sell our products in other countries or convince them of the quality of these products.
I would like to deal briefly with marketing because the agricultural sector's efficiency depends on marketing which can provide adequate income for our farmers.
1 would like to raise another point which, 1 think, could help us provide more protection for our farmers. We all know that several distributors or wholesalers in Canada have packaging permits, and they often lower the quality of the products by picking the top quality products and selling the rest in other containers.
I would therefore suggest to the minister that repackaging permits be prohibited since the Department of Agriculture has in recent years made funds available to farmers for the establishment of repackaging, classifying, washing and distribution facilities. Mr. Chairman, I think that if we want to keep these centres, which have proved efficient and which will serve all farmers who can use them, then we will have to implement stiff regulations to protect these investments and ensure compliance with Department of Agriculture regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch upon the explosive issue of farm credit. More and more Canadian farmers are being asked to mechanize at the same rate as the rest of the world. [DOT]
One thing for sure, agricultural producers have perhaps not been treated fairly when they have asked for financing. I would suggest to the hon. minister that our farmers be increasingly treated as businessmen or industrialists, and I shall tell him why. More and more, when a Canadian industry wants to reinvest or use its profit for its business, it is given tax rebates.
In agriculture, Mr. Chairman, every time a farmer makes a profit he does not enjoy the same tax privileges or advantages which, in my opinion, would greatly encourage producers to reinvest in the farming industry without having always to depend on government subsidies, and they would then be able to become more independent and more productive. In my opinion, this would be one of the ways to provide incentives which could help the Department of Agriculture meet its objective of having Canada play its role of feeding the developing countries.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the hon. minister to examine this problem so that once and for all our farmers may be treated as businessmen and receive the same tax exemptions, provided they reinvest their profits in the farm or in agricultural improvements to increase their productivity, which would
Supply
result in better products on the market and acceptable prices for all consumers.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that the role of the agricultural producer is to feed the consumer, but not at any price. Of course, I agree that the cost of each product must be taken into account. We should not be shocked if the prices of agricultural products increase occasionally. We should stop harassing politically and economically the same 5 per cent of our population by always asking them to make sacrifices to feed the whole country. I am not shocked when the price of a dozen eggs, a bag of potatoes or a quart of milk goes up from time to time; I believe that everything is going the same way in this world and that the price of everything must rise, and I agree with all hon. members that we must still maintain a high rate of productivity.
I believe that, by providing strong incentives, we can maintain this high productivity which has always been typical of Canadian agriculture, and I am proud to repeat this evening, Mr. Chairman, that Canadian agriculture is among the most productive in the world, and I want Canadian producers to be aware of this fact.
I would now like to deal with the processing sector. We all know that, because of the cost of energy, fertilizers, manpower, farm investment, and so on, we no longer have the right to throw away lower quality products which are rejected following an inspection. I hope that the minister will examine this problem today and that we will build more processing plants in this country to make greater use of lower quality products which are often put aside or simply thrown away. We cannot tolerate such a thing in view of all the costs and all the energy needed to harvest these products which cost just as much as first grade products.
Therefore I invite the Department of Agriculture to give serious consideration to that problem. Mr. Chairman, I should also like to deal with climatology, a field where I think we lack development in this country because we have so few experts in climatology. I remember that all summer long the opposition referred to the drought in western Canada. They said that it would bring about higher costs for food, that we would have less abundant crops.
However, I think that in a vast country like Canada, Mr. Chairman, a more developed climatological service would be absolutely necessary because last summer, as we know, while there was a drought in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba, Quebec and the maritime provinces were flooded. Mr. Chairman, I think we can help our farm producers by offering them a much more sophisticated climatological service in order to enable them to plan their crops a little more.
I would not want to overlook the inspection service, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian inspection service is truly outstanding given the fact that the high quality of our products is acknowledged throughout the world. Our inspection service

December 9, 1980
Supply
exists, however, for the sole purpose of monitoring the quality of the commodities sold to the consumer.
I should like to mention one weakness. In my opinion, the inspection service should protect farmers against the wide range of chemical products being offered on the market and being advertised as likely to miraculously double or even triple various crop yields which they fail to do more often than not. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that no effort should be spared to protect uninformed farmers against the improper use of these chemical products. Moreover, I would not want to ignore either the remarks made by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who has a tendency to speak as though we were still in 1940. 1 would simply remind him that we are in 1980. As a potato grower for some 20 years, I can say that I have used chemicals and that I have never had any problems with them because I would strictly follow the directions on the labels. Perhaps I should add, for the benefit of the hon. member for Regina East, that I was a DDT user. Although I used it extensively, I never experienced any problem with it in the forties and fifties. But 1 must tell the hon. member that he does not know anything about chemicals and that he has a tendency to suggest that all farmers are inefficient nincompoops. He is wrong! What he says is unfounded, because our farmers are the wisest users of chemicals in Canada. They make the best use of them. I suggest to him also that if he made further inquiries, he would realize that most of the chemicals used in this country since 1975 are biodegradable. He only has to look for the meaning of the word biodegradable and he will then agree with me that none of the chemical products used in this country are dangerous and he should therefore once and for all stop scaring consumers who do not know where to go. This is the sort of thing that scares people and originates from politicians who propagate all kinds of lies. It is sheer ignorance. I daresay the companies, the government and everbody else have at one time or other asked the House that chemicals be free from certain ingredients and that consumers be also protected from these things. We should stop once and for all scaring the whole population. People can think for themselves and have a great deal of respect for politicians. If we want to keep this respect, Mr. Chairman, we have to be honest with the consumer.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, some day if all ideologists such as the hon. member for Regina West were to get up for breakfast and find no egg or toast, they would wonder what happened. There would be no egg or toast because farmers would have listened to clowns like the hon. member. If they did, they could not produce enough wheat in Canada to feed Canada, let alone help feed the rest of the world. So you must have a little judgment-


Mr. Benjamin:: It takes one clown to know another one.


Fred Alward McCain: That would qualify you, sir.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You just qualified.


Fred Alward McCain: There are a few little things which will grow in the wild, such as berries and so on, and one does not seem to need anything more than perhaps a fire to produce blueberries. Raspberries also will come after burn-out, so if that is the kind of fodder the hon. member wants, if he wants to go back to nature and the land which we inhabited a few hundred years ago, I suggest that is what he would get. I agree totally with the hon. member for Portneuf, who said, "don't scare the country to death in a needless fashion." It is abusing the farmers and the public who eat their produce to talk in such language as that, with so little knowledge of the facts, because there are, including the hon. member for Portneuf and myself, probably two dozen other members in the House who have lived with, worked with, farmed with and needed the chemicals which he condemns to produce the food without which he would starve. Let us use a little judgment.
I will say that he did caution the Department of Agriculture very properly. We in Canada are not doing the kind of research we should be doing to know in time what chemicals we should or should not use. Perhaps we are not providing the necessary cautionary instructions needed on some of the chemicals which we use, and I wish we could improve on that. However, to denounce totally the use of chemicals in agriculture is to ask the rest of the world to submit to starvation.


An hon. Member:: You want to have it both ways.


Fred Alward McCain: You would like to have it both ways. You would like to listen to the ideologists and eat too, and the two do not go together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Just be quiet. The minister will do enough talking but you be quiet. You will have your turn.
Yesterday I went to two different meetings, Mr. Chairman. There is no question about that because here are some of the things I was told. I was told that there is a long way to go for the government-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Chicoutimi rises on a point of order?


Marcel Dionne: I should like to say to my dear colleague that my constituency is not Portneuf but Chicoutimi, please, and I thank you very much.


Fred Alward McCain: I thank you for your correction. We have one point in common and I do not know how many more we will discover before the night is over, but potatoes will be all right.
I was accosted by a gentleman down there who asked, "What in the world is this government doing? Is it not aware that Canada is quite capable of self-sufficiency, and that the moves which the government has taken are leading us further
December 9, 1980

and further from self-sufficiency? We are even importing chicken."
There was another fellow there who said, "Look, I am really concerned about the flour industry in Canada because there does not seem to be any way to stop the dumping of flour from foreign jurisdictions, and our industry is in jeopardy as a result. Someone is trying to buy a market and hope they will have a corner of it." I suppose the minister and 1 did not meet that fellow. Another fellow came up to me and said that the mushroom industry in Canada is having trouble. "At the moment we seem to have a good corner on the fresh mushroom market, but as the industry is expanding for fresh protected mushrooms, we will need a processing industry." He said, "It is futile to hope we could ever grow mushrooms for processing." These people want a chance to make a living and they do not want to have the product come in from sources where costs are unrealistic in relation to Canadian costs. They want recognition of the fact that farmers have a right to live, even if they grow mushrooms. Whether or not the minister thinks so in Windsor is another question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He only grows magic mushrooms.


Fred Alward McCain: We need an additional preference for domestic products. As an example of what can be done let me point out that when we did have a surplus of onions we had a promotion program which worked to relieve materially the surplus and to increase domestic consumption of Canadian products. It improved the situation.
There was another fellow from Atlantic Canada who came up to me who asked, me, "What are you going to do about a subsidy on feed grains, because the livestock industry in the Atlantic area will starve or choke to death. It cannot survive on the present basis." I do not know, Mr. Chairman. We have a good bunch of farmers in Canada and we have some good programs in agriculture, but everything is not as rosy as some people would like to say it is.
I have a few little questions which I should like to put to the minister. The minister has complained that he has not had a chance to answer questions, so I will put one to him and if he does not take too long to answer it in Committee of the Whole House, I would like to ask him some more. My first question is whether or not the department had a cost-benefit study before it adopted a resolution on seed potato production? The regulations which were passed have a very significant impact upon cost.


Eugene Whelan: First of all, Mr. Chairman, a statement was made about mushrooms and the hon. member will not get away with it. I am sure the hon. member knows-and if he does not he might want to search the library in his office-that under our tariff negotiations we put a 20 per cent tariff on imported canned mushrooms, plus about 18 cents on the Canadian dollar, so that the producers have a benefit or protection of about 38 per cent if they want to can mushrooms in Canada. I do not know what more we can do.
The hon. member asked whether we had a cost analysis for the program. The answer is no.
Supply


Fred Alward McCain: Would the minister have any conception of how much the increased cost per acre will be for the methods which will be necessary to comply with the regulation, and does he have any idea of the cost of machinery replacement which will be necessary in order to plant in the fashion prescribed by the regulations?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows full well why we acted as quickly as we did. We did so because we had to protect that industry. So we put in some severe regulations. There is no doubt about that. They are important to protect that industry. If we are going to expand the seed market which he and many of us have talked about, it is just not possible to do it without those strict regulations. We had to act very quickly, in response to his representations, amongst others, about what we should be doing to make sure that those seed potatoes we export are free of disease.


Fred Alward McCain: I should like to ask the minister what we got in return for the regulations which we introduced. Does the minister have the assurance that we will in fact have open access to the European Economic Community, because it was only for this community that these regulations were required?


Eugene Whelan: We do not have it at this point in time, but there is an old saying that you shall be known by your actions. We hope we shall have that access. Not only have we made such a representation but my colleague, the Minister of State for Trade, has made such a representation to the EEC and to those countries with which we are having difficulties. .


Fred Alward McCain: The answer is that we do not have access, that we went into this situation without a quid quo pro, without the assurance that we would have the market. I should like to ask the minister now, through you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not we have permission to ship to the European Economic Community during this marketing season and, if so, when did we get it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that not only do we have to appear as good as Holland and Denmark and some of the other countries with which we are competing, we have to be as good and our legislation has to be as good. If we can develop our seed market in the world from half of 1 per cent to 1 per cent of the world seed potato market, that is what we all want. We expedited the passage of those regulations. We have not hurt a soul as far as I am concerned, and they will have to meet those regulations. They can forget about the potato seed industry anywhere in the world if they are not going to meet the health standards that the other countries are demanding. If we are to compete with Holland and Denmark, 1 repeat, we must have those regulations and we must adhere to them.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Victoria-Charlotte.


Fred Alward McCain: Could we try Carleton-Charlotte, sir? I will forgive you, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Chicoutimi will forgive me.

December 9, 1980
Supply
Mr. Chairman, there is an element of logic in what the minister said regarding the answers on the inspection structure, but I wish to ask him one more question. In view of the costs he has imposed by these regulations, without any quid pro quo agreement with the European Economic Community, would he explain why he has exacerbated the problem by suggesting for the first time to Canadian potato farmers that he will charge them for seed inspection?
If ever there was a time in the history of the Canadian potato seed business when producers needed to be encouraged by free inspection, it is now. It is not a matter of imposing now an additional charge over and above the costs of machinery, handling, storing, etc. which are imposed by this regulation without a quid pro quo agreement before starting. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate a substantial market for Canadian seed potatoes outside the European Economic Community. I agree that we need to be inside the EEC, but it is a matter of negotiating on a quid pro quo basis from the beginning. Why have farmers been told that they will be charged for seed potato inspection after the other requirements have been imposed on them without any reward?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member is aware that we had discussions with the provincial ministers of agriculture concerned. The provincial minister of agriculture for New Brunswick approved of this program. It is a cost-sharing program. It is not totally the responsibility of the producer; it is the responsibility of the producer, the province and the federal government. It is in the true spirit of confederation, if I may put it that way. It is what we call a unified approach. We are sure that we will come out with the best program ever for seed potatoes. When Canagrex is formed and we are selling seed potatoes, we will be able to guarantee disease-free potatoes. There will be no suspicion that they have ring rot or any other disease. We will be able to say that our potatoes are better than the ones from Holland and Denmark. We cannot say that at the present time.


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, we can.


Eugene Whelan: Unless we adhere to these strict rules and regulations, we will not be able to say it. So, it was a necessary step to take. I have not heard the kind of dissension about this program which the hon. member is trying to put across tonight. That has not been indicated in the correspondence I have received. I have visited potato growers in other parts of Canada who are subject to the same control. The potato growers of Alberta had some concern about it, but when I went to them and explained it, I came away from the meeting with the feeling they understood that it would be good for them and good for us also.


Fred Alward McCain: Would the minister ask an economist in his department to estimate the additional cost of the production of potatoes for seed, for table stock and for processing so that it will be down in black and white? Would he ask one of his
experts if he has ever tried to grow netted gem potatoes from whole potatoes never touched by a knife? If so, how should they be planted to get a yield fit for processing, whether it be in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Alberta? Obviously the minister has not asked those questions. It is necessary for these potatoes to be planted whole, if I understand the regulations, unless the department has backed off. It is just not a practical way to grow certain varieties.
Will the minister undertake to get the information I have requested? I would like to know the additional machinery, seed and storage costs. Also, will the minister restrict the Canadian market to nothing but Canadian potatoes? If so, where does he expect to find potatoes for consumers during the middle months of the season? We do not and cannot produce them, and we cannot trade with any country which is subject to the problems the minister is trying to preclude. He knows the objectives as well as I. We are both in accord with the objectives, but the means used to attain the objectives are extremely expensive. I just want to know if the minister realizes what costs he has imposed.
I have one further question. Would the minister explain why his department representatives recommend that onion growers with low incomes should receive $12,000 per farmer, while potato growers receive $4,000 for the same reason?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what statistic the hon. member is using.


Fred Alward McCain: It was a release from the Department of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: When we look at the amount of money we have put into potatoes and compare it to the amount of money we have put into onions over a period of years, both of them could probably use a better marketing system. From 1974 to 1978 we spent $46,800,000 in potato stabilization. If Mr. Chairman will excuse me, we might as well have poured the money down a rathole because it did not make the potato industry-


Fred Alward McCain: They will be glad to hear that all over Canada.


Eugene Whelan: -that much better; it did not stabilize it that much. It helped some growers to stay in business, but their marketing system is still one of the most horrible. Perhaps there is one which is a little bit worse, but I will not mention it at the present time.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister's answer is in no way related to any of the questions 1 asked.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With all due respect, the hon. member has a few minutes left in which to make his point. The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member made comments about the officials. The deputy minister went to North Africa to talk to the people there about what kinds of potatoes they wanted,

December 9, 1980

what kinds of potatoes we could supply. We know we can supply the kinds of potatoes they want; we know the kinds they want. We know we will have to plant potatoes here which we can guarantee to be disease-free.
1 cannot give the member the answers he is requesting tonight that quickly, but I could have them for him tomorrow in a more detailed form when we resume consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Market risk insurance is included in the program. We are participating in that with the producers and the provinces. The provinces have been told that we must move on this. We have met with the provincial deputy minister of Prince Edward Island on this subject. The provinces want research and development, the hon. member wants research and development. These are being co-ordinated with the program through the food production inspection branch in Ottawa. It is a split-up program. We do not make excuses for it. The hon. member has said, "You are not doing enough", and when we move, he says, "You are doing too much". I do not understand.


Fred Alward McCain: The questions I have asked have not necessarily denounced the problem totally, but does the minister understand the costs he has imposed? Obviously he does not.
What will happen to the general trading relations which have existed between Canada and the United States, for example, without whose supply consumers will not have any potatoes? The processing industry will not have any potatoes for the summertime because they can neither be stored nor produced for that purpose in Canada at this time. Perhaps research will develop a system whereby we can, but there are problems associated with it.
I fully appreciate that there has been discussion between the minister in Ottawa and the ministers in the individual provinces. There is no question about that, but my information is that some of the agreements which were achieved were not necessarily kept in full as the federal government proceeded after the regulations were made. However, I will not go into that aspect at the moment.
Will the minister commit himself to getting and publicizing the per acre costs imposed by this change? I want him to find out what has been the results of tests conducted on Canadian seed versus Dutch seed or European seed of any kind in the foreign markets which Atlantic Canada is now supplying. The answer he will receive is that Atlantic seed potatoes which were planted in test plots in an international competition are indeed showing better results in the last year than the tests on the seeds of other competitors. The minister mentioned Holland. Holland at the moment is experiencing a cyclical problem which we have been experiencing for the last five years. Are they, in fact, able to comply with the regulations themselves? That is the argument we must put forward. Can they, in fact, comply themselves with the regulations which we have imposed here? They are exposed to table production and to the flight of insects from one jurisdiction to another, as is Atlantic Canada, as is any other agricultural area in Canada. I think
Supply
the answers to these questions are pertinent to the potato industry.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Dubois:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to participate tonight in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and on the dairy policy announced last summer, and then to comment on the situation in the province of Quebec, and to show how Quebec milk producers benefit from the Canadian dairy policy.
As of August 1, 1980, the price of industrial milk was raised from $14.68 to $15.26 a hundredweight, that is 3.9 per cent more. Hon. members know that the last increase had been announced on April 1, 1980. Worthy of consideration at the time was the fact the support price paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission for butter went up to $1,592 a pound. That is a raise of 8 cents a pound.
As a member coming from a rural area of Quebec, I noted particularly that the minister had announced the Government of Canada would pay $2.66 a hundredweight for industrial milk produced for the domestic market and for the export program.
My colleagues from Quebec and those from other provinces will remember that at their last convention in Winnipeg Quebec Liberal members had endorsed an important resolution to have the support price for industrial milk maintained at $2.66 a hundredweight. Quebec industrial milk producers thought it was a highly significant factor and it had to be maintained. Effectively, after legislation had been passed, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the department announced that the price would be maintained.
What must be noted in my opinion is that the requirements of the domestic market as established by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee were still at 100 million hundredweight even though it was felt at the time that the supply could increase during the dairy year.
The government thus authorized higher export quotas, from three to five million hundredweight. Given the situation of the dairy policy, it can be said that we in Canada have a somewhat particular situation.
My colleague from Chicoutimi was saying a few moments ago that the food basket costs less here than in other countries. He was absolutely right because 1 have here a table from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that in Canada, in U.S. dollars, the same food basket costs $55.56 as opposed to $58.02 in the United States. The other countries included in the comparisons are Australia, the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, West Germany, Argentina,

December 9, 1980
Supply
Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and Japan where the same food basket goes for $135.10. It must be realized that the Canadian food policy situation is very important.
I would also like to deal with the Canadian policy as it affects Quebec. Many people complain and tell us that Quebec never got its fair share under the agricultural and dairy policy. It can be said that various federal as well as provincial sources confirm that between 20 and 25 per cent of the federal agriculture funds are spent in Quebec. During the last few years the annual budgets of Agriculture Canada and other associated agencies totalled about $700 million. As we know, close to 50 per cent of the Dairy Commission budget alone is spent there, and that exceeds $130 million a year. Between $9 and $10 million are provided for research and more that $20 million for the administration of animal health inspection services, grants and so on in the province of Quebec. Those agencies were spending in Quebec about $160 million or 23 per cent of their total budgets. So I do not think it is a striking and true example of neglect toward Quebec by the Canadian government in agriculture. In 1976 Quebec had 18.7 per cent of the agriculture population of Canada, 15.2 per cent of all farms and their farm income represented 13.5 per cent of the Canadian total. According to those criteria, Quebec has not been neglected by the federal treasury.
If we compare the percentage of Canadian income with the number of farms and examine the budgets of the Canadian Dairy Commission, many people who are not necessarily Quebec federalists can protest as much as they want but it is obvious that federal and provincial sources contradict those facts. Furthermore, the budget mentioned earlier does not include the amounts paid to Agriculture Quebec by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion within the agricultural subsidiary agreement in which the federal contribution amounts to $61.9 million which represents 60 per cent of the total budget to be spent during the period from 1975 to 1982. So, this is one more case where Quebec receives its fair share.
Now, in respect of the votes of the Department of Agriculture, 1 have some questions to put to the minister regarding the dairy policy and some other policies of his department. First, I should like to ask him what are the amounts allotted. Here again 1 put the question for the information of those who are not aware of the amounts paid by the Canadian government for some programs. Most of the time they know that the cheques are coming from Quebec City, but in fact the money is coming directly from Ottawa. I wish to know what are the amounts of the subsidies, what assistance is given for the construction of silos, the purchase of drying equipment for grain and feed, the purchase of combines and for underground drainage. We know that a lot of money is coming from Ottawa and I wish to know if the minister could tell us the percentage or the amounts that Quebec receives from Ottawa for those programs.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the program the hon. member is talking about is one in the course of which we have signed an agreement with the province of Quebec in lieu of removal of feed freight assistance. The program for silos and other equipment is not broken down but $33,500,000 of federal funds were allocated for that program. In Ontario the program would account for $13,400,000.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances maybe we should have more publicity about the amounts which are going to Quebec directly from Ottawa as mentioned earlier, because as I realized during election campaigns, a large number of Quebeckers are not aware of its source, particularly concerning the silo construction program. The Quebec farmer does not actually know how much comes from Ottawa and I think it might be appropriate to consider better advertising or at least better information about this funding situation.
1 will now turn to another matter, the situation of the Agricultural Stabilization Board. About the way this board dealt with the problems of the Canadian hog producers, we know that last May the Government of Canada granted some $46.5 million to hog fatteners. Unfortunately, quite a number of my constituents are complaining of incredible delays in the payments made by the board. The situation is the same for the weaner pig producers, to whom the Canadian government granted $6.5 million. Concerning finishers, 1 would like to know how many applications have been received and how many cheques have really been mailed. I would like to know the same about the weaner pig producers. How many applications did he receive and how many cheques have been mailed? Very recently when we were making inquiries we were told that should arrive in a few days. We have been getting this answer for quite a while when making inquiries. Many of my constituents who are hog producers are complaining about that delay. I would like to have an answer to my question concerning the cow-calf producers and weaner pig producers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the total number of applications received under the market hog program for stabilization is 24,778, and the number of applications processed for payment is 14,332. The two provinces with the most applications were Quebec with 3,427, 1,274 of which are processed and Ontario with 9,482, 6,029 of which are processed. In the weaner pig program, there have been 5,890 applications received and 1,678 have been processed. Since 58 per cent of the applications to the hog program have been processed, it should be finished by the end of December, 1980. Payments made to date under the hog program amount to $19.9 million.
December 9, 1980


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answer, and I do hope that concerning weaner pig producers-I believe we have not been able to get any answer concerning pig fatteners, or finishers-the minister would give me the answer as well because the program was announced sometime later during the year, namely, in August. We are getting many telephone calls from producers who are waiting. Would the date that the minister has just indicated for pig fatteners, late December, apply as well to weaner pig producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused. There are only two programs, one for weaner pigs and one for the finished product. 1 did not give the figures on the weaner pigs. There have been 5,890 applications of which 1,678 have been processed. The two provinces with the most producers are Quebec with 3,220 applications of which 1,076 have been processed and Ontario with 1,005 applications of which 236 have been approved. The percentage processed to date is 28 per cent. This kind of program requires more checking to determine whether a farmer is really a weaner pig producer. We must be very careful because it is government money we are spending. We hope that those which are not finished by the end of the year will be finished by the first month of the new year.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Chairman, 1 thank the minister. As regards the assistance program to the provinces under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, 1 would like to know what are the real amounts spent on cold storage? What are the amounts for which the Government of Canada is committed with regard to cold storage through the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the projects to which the hon. member has referred are programs for cold storage, controlled atmospheric temperature storage and jacketed storage. From 1973 to 1980, 97 projects amounting to $10,743,869 were started. The number of applications for the fiscal year 19801981 is 42. That is how fast this program is growing. There will not be enough funding for all of these programs and some will have to be carried into next year because it is rapidly becoming the kind of program which we want it to be. We will be placing Canadian vegetables in cold storage and they will be as good as the day they were picked, on Christmas day, New Year's Day, St. Patrick's day, Valentine's day, and right up to the day the new products come on the market.
From 1973 to 1980, 23 projects were started in Quebec with a total value of $2,263,633, and in Ontario 32 projects got under way with a total value of $2,780,753. The province which spent the most money, although it had the same number of projects as Quebec, was British Columbia, which had a total expenditure of $3,807,125.
Supply
These programs allow for the export of a larger quantity of a product. For instance, British Columbia is now exporting apples to 34 different countries around the world. Quebec has used the program for apples, carrots and other vegetables to supply the state of New York and that area of the United States for a good part of the year.


Jean-Guy Dubois: One last question, Mr. Chairman. Although we produce a lot of milk in Canada, we unfortunately import a lot of cheese and similar products. 1 would like to know what is the proportion of department funds going to our processing industry, because I feel we have the potential here, with our milk production, to produce our own cheese and dairy products without such a high volume of imports. What is the percentage of the funds going to processing plants?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the import quota for cheeses was 50 million pounds. Before that quota was established, there was no quota and one could import as much as one wanted. The quota was then changed to 45 million pounds. The increase in the production of Canadian cheese over the past six years has been phenomenal, particularly with regard to specialty cheeses. I believe over 70 different varieties of cheese are made in Canada. We can compete with any country in the world and we are giving the other countries a lot of competition in this area.
Fast year we exported to the United Kingdom and the United States six million pounds of cheese, although Canada is a net importer of cheese. The cheese which goes to the United States is mostly specialty cheese. We are now exporting about ten million hundredweights of milk composed of evaporated milk and instantized whole milk powder which is equivalent to 90 million pounds of cheese. 1 did not know that figure until now. I knew we were exporting a tremendous amount of condensed milk, which is better for us because we have less butter, less powder and less storage costs. All of these things make it better for the dairy industry. 1 repeat again, our dairy industry is the healthiest in the world.


Mr. McLean:: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to have enough time, with the concurrence of hon. members opposite, not only to ask some questions but to get a response from the minister. 1 regret that it may only be possible to raise the questions so, since the minister's colleagues have not permitted time for his response, I hope he will be prepared to reply in writing.
1 want to inform the minister that today, in this city, the Status of Women Canada held a debriefing session of delegates to the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women, held in Copenhagen. The debriefing was attended by representatives of women's organizations from across this country.
One of the major sections of the report entitled "Report of the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women" in which Canada concurred, deals with the place of

December 9, 1980
Supply
women in agriculture. I should like to remind the minister that Canada concurred in a request to all governments concerning the place of rural women. The report reads as follows on page 106:
3. Requests governments to ensure that rural women:
(a)	Are provided with education, technology and training suitable to their needs, as identified by them in order to improve employment opportunities in rural areas;
(b)	Have access to credit and financing mechanisms on a basis of equality with men, and flexibility in the institutions which deliver credit services to rural women;
(c)	Are encouraged and assisted to attain key leadership roles in rural communities and organizations;
(d)	Are encouraged and adequately trained to participate actively in co-operatives and other organizations concerned with marketing;
(e)	Have free access to participation in rural industrialization programs.
The minister will have had that background in mind as he prepared his speech. 1 have in front of me the speech he delivered to the conference of farm women. A report in the press noted that the minister was there, made a number of statements and left before he could be questioned. In his absence, a number of questions were raised.
As we consider the estimates, I should like to raise some questions. 1 regret that hon. members opposite have not permitted the opportunity for a response. Some of these questions arise from Canada's concurrence as stated in Copenhagen, some from the minister's speech, and others from the failure of the minister to respond to the farm women.
First of all, the question was raised of farm credit and lending practices as they apply to women, and discrimination in that area. The minister will be aware that section 5 of the Human Rights Act, 1977, provides that no person should be denied access to goods, services-that is, credit-on the basis of sex and marital status, among other stipulations. This makes it illegal for a bank or the Farm Credit Corporation to deny a woman credit solely because she is female or because she is single, widowed or divorced. There is a problem, however, about defining credit as a service and many women are denied credit for this reason. Obviously, section 5 should be revised to include credit discrimination. There are problems with the denial of credit to women. If a woman does not sign for a loan to her husband's farm, she does not incur any financial responsibilty, nor does she establish a credit rating. If she is then left alone-widowed or divorced-and wants to secure financing to continue operating the farm business, she has no credit rating.
The FCC does not recognize the woman as a legitimate business partner in a husband-wife partnership. The policy entitles individuals to apply for a maximum of $200,000, and partnerships for a maximum loan of $400,000. However, a husband and wife partnership may receive only up to the individual maximum of $200,000. This discriminates against individuals on the basis of marital status. It also discourages spousal partnerships.
My question concerns farm credit. The minister told the conference that his officials were considering recommendations for change. That was a week ago. This issue was not new
at the time the minister spoke. What steps is the minister taking to ensure that the federal government adopts equal credit opportunity guidelines similar to those outlined by the province of Ontario, which guarantee that both single and married women will be granted credit provided they have adequate credit qualifications?
Will the minister press for a better definition of the clauses in the Human Rights Acts dealing with services and ensure that a separate section dealing with credit guidelines is incorporated in every act? Does the minister plan to establish education programs to inform farm women as to the necessity of acquiring credit history as well as how to obtain and use credit?
In the three minutes left to me, Mr. Chairman, I hope to pose some questions about women in agriculture and the CBC, and the discrimination practised regularly in the way farm women are depicted by broadcasters. As the great champion of farm people, will the minister bring to the attention of the CRTC, the dissatisfaction of women's groups, and in particular, farm women's groups, over their portrayal in the media?
I wanted to ask the minister about opportunities for young farmers. In his speech he mentioned the number of female graduates but, he neglected to point out that there is less and less opportunity for them because of the declining number of farms from 480,000 in 1961 to fewer than 340,000 in 1976. Given the current rate of inflation and the poor farm credit standards I have just outlined, how does the minister see this increased number of women graduates being able to set up farms? How are they to be involved in the agriculture industry?
I also want to ask the minister about the appointment of women to boards and whether he concurs with his colleague, the minister responsible for the status of women, in terms of affirmative action. As he knows from the responses of farm women, 15 per cent of federal appointees to 160 agencies- that is, 181 out of 1200-are appointed to farm-related boards. In the United States, 33 per cent of federal appointees are women. Is the minister "on board" with affirmative action, given the direction of the Speech from the Throne with its four references to women? Where is the action? The minister has been in his present portfolio for ten years.
I should have liked to speak to the minister about unemployment insurance opportunities and the fact that of 15 categories, farm women are among those who are being discriminated against and are unable to claim unemployment insurance in the event of losing their jobs through separation or marital discord.
I wanted to ask the minister if he had discussed this matter with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the farm women of Canada expect to be included with other working women as beneficiaries of unemployment insurance?
I regret that I cannot ask these questions, Mr. Chairman, because my time has run out and that I cannot get a response
December 9, 1980

from the minister on these issues so important to the women of Canada and to the viability of farming in this nation.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that an investment tax credit of 100 per cent would be an excellent incentive for development of the Atlantic region which suffers from regional disparity. It would create taxpayers and simply defer their tax payments until their investments in new industry or expansion are recouped with no loss and, indeed, a net gain for the federal treasury. The government's subsequent decision to offer the lower 50 per cent investment tax credit in parts of the region only tends to contemplate competition within the region instead of strengthening the region as a whole so it can compete fairly with other regions of Canada.
I suggest that the real debate is not whether one locates in a part of a province, but whether resources in one region or another are more attractive for manufacturing or processing. Here DREE can and should operate to equalize an unfair imbalance based on development, transportation, infrastructure, financial resources and training.
I have to confess that I find it very confusing to attempt to rationalize the minister's program. The stated objective is to promote industrial development in those parts of Canada most adversely affected by economic disparities. I find it very difficult to rationalize this approach with the application of the program spread over every province and territory in Canada instead of concentrating on regions which suffer from disparity.
I am not clear whether it is a requirement of the program or only a general target that only 40 per cent of a province qualifies for this benefit and, in either case, why, if more than 40 per cent of a province qualifies under the other program criteria should these areas be excluded from the program. While these discrepancies remain unclear, a quick reference to the areas that are identified in relation to those that are not, raises other questions.
Take the province of Quebec for example. The areas identified range from Bonaventure through to part of Saguenay and nouveau Quebec. The average incomes in these areas related to the latest Revenue Canada figures available range from
Adjournment Debate
$8,115 to $10,756. The unemployment rate ranges from 8.2 per cent to 20.2 per cent. The employment to population ratio runs from 37.2 per cent up to 53.3 per cent. These are the areas that are included.
In the same province a quick reference to figures for Mas-kinonge shows an income figure of $7,883, an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent and an employment to population ratio of 46.6 per cent. In Charlevoix the income figure is $8,689. The unemployment rate is 13 per cent and the employment to population ratio is 41.5 per cent. L'lslet has an income rate of $7,780, an unemployment rate of 9.3 per cent and an employment to population ratio of 44.3 per cent. These are the areas not included, and they appear to be worse off. There are others.
In another part of Canada, a designated area has an unemployment rate of 7.7 per cent, an employment to population ratio of 62 per cent and an income figure of $11,399. It is included.
There must be little wonder why I asked to have the data base and any related information that was used in arriving at these designated areas tabled in the House.
In the case of New Brunswick I can only say that I have no quarrel with the areas that are included because the segment includes Kent county which has an average income per family of $6,736 to Restigouche county which has an average income of $8,442. But the question becomes more complex when I try to understand why counties such as Queen's county, which has an average income of $7,453, Carleton county which has an average income of $7,397, and Victoria county which has an average income of $7,205, are excluded. So, too, with Charlotte county where the average income is $8,239. The incomes of families in these counties is certainly in the same bracket as those which are included, and as hon. members can see they are lower than some of the ones which are included.
When I look at these discrepancies and note the fact that every area in the Atlantic provinces that is included, with one small exception-part of Guysborough county in Nova Scotia-is represented by a member of the government caucus, questions arise in my mind and there are questions put to me by other people which I simply cannot answer. I would, therefore, like to have the statistical information upon which this program is based.
Generally, the attempt to touch every province and apply an arbitrary rule limiting the benefit to 40 per cent of the population of any one province and excluding the farming, logging and mining sectors, has diminished the value of a basically good idea with serious contradictions caused when the minister spreads DREE too thin and too far and fails to focus on regions of disparity.
My strong recommendation based on the information available to me is that all of the Atlantic provinces should be identified for purposes of this tax benefit and that the 40 per cent rule, if indeed it is a rule, be abandoned.

December 9, 1980
Adjournment Debate
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has indicated to the Senate finance committee that the revenue foregone would be held to $15 million. The senator from the Miramichi in New Brunswick referred to this amount as "minuscule". This being the case, the need to focus on those areas most in need is all the more apparent.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of his April 21, 1980, statement, the minister indicated that he would be reviewing the need to provide further tax incentives of the type suggested in the December 11, 1979, budget for industries locating in the slower growth regions of Canada.
In the period between that time and the budget of October 28, this review did indeed take place within both the Department of Finance and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The result, as announced, has been the establishment of a new, very generous, investment tax credit designed to promote growth in those areas of Canada which are in greatest need of economic aid.
The new incentive provides a tax credit of 50 per cent of eligible expenditures. This credit may be deducted directly from the other federal taxes payable by the company making the investment. This level of credit compares to the current investment tax credits of 7, 10 or 20 per cent depending upon the region of Canada in which the investment is made. Expenditures which qualify will be for new plant and equipment in most manufacturing industries in those regions which represent the 5 per cent of the population with the lowest per capita income, and the highest rates of unemployment.
This is a very generous measure. It acts to reduce the cost of the capital equipment in a new installation to one-half of what would otherwise be the cost to the company.
As it is a deduction against other taxes payable, the credit will provide a substantial incentive for successful firms to expand their operations into regions of high unemployment and low incomes. Thus, the incentive will attract firms which will provide a stable employment base of long-term economic benefit to these regions. The measure is experimental in nature. It represents an additional weapon in DREE's arsenal of programs to address regional economic disparities.
With regard to the hon. member's second question concerning the timing of the legislation for the small business development bond, the detailed description of the measure is in the public domain, and will be tabled in Parliament shortly. In addition, in order to allow firms a greater opportunity to take advantage of the measure, the deadline for making such loans has been extended three months beyond the original expiry date until the end of the first quarter in 1981.


NATIONAL REVENUE-INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES OF SPOUSES IN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESSES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on December 1 I put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) asking him if in fact the government was going to allow wages paid to a spouse working in an unincorporated business as a deduction for income tax purposes. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his economic statement last April indicated this would be the case. Since then there has been some concern expressed by small businessmen, at least in my district, as to this deductibility.
Small business is a very important part of the Canadian economy. Some 95 per cent of Canadian firms can be considered small or medium-sized businesses in this country. They account for something like 24.5 per cent of the total sales in the country and represent about 42 per cent of employment in Canada. Also, they contribute around 30 per cent of the business gross national product of the country.
I am told that in 1980 there are some 600,000 unincorporated small businesses in Canada, many of them very small. However, many of these small businesses are proprietorships and are unincorporated for one reason or another. Often the spouse works in the small business as a partner or associate. Certainly this arrangement has made many small businesses successful working on this basis and has contributed in a mighty way to the strong position of these business enterprises.
Naturally, I was delighted when the Minister of Finance announced in his April statement that wages paid to spouses working in a small unincorporated business would be deductible for income tax purposes. Lo and behold, during the past few weeks I have had small businessmen coming to me indicating that the income tax department is refusing to accept the contributions deducted from the spouse for income tax purposes. When I put the question to the Minister of National Revenue he indicated that there were problems with the legislation because income tax amendments apparently have to be passed in the House before the bill becomes effective.
I should like to reiterate to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue that I believe it is absolutely imperative that the government honour this commitment made in April by the Minister of Finance. Because of the importance of small business, whether it is a farm situation where the spouse works making the business a success, or whether it involves working professionals who are not incorporated and their spouses work along with them, perhaps not full-time but certainly part-time, those concerned are entitled to wages and are entitled to have those deductions for income tax purposes. I hope the Minister of Finance will be able to clarify this situation for the benefit of the 600,000 or so unincorporated small businesses across the country which are assuming the new tax provision will be implemented and will be in effect for the 1980 taxation year.


John Leslie Evans: As you know, Mr. Speaker, under the present income tax rules and as the hon. member has pointed out, a taxpayer who employs his spouse in his unincorporated business is not allowed to deduct as a business expense any remuneration paid to that spouse.

December 9, 1980

Concurrently, any remuneration received by the spouse, who is generally the wife in her capacity as an employee of her husband, is also excluded from the spouse's income. Similarly, where a taxpayer is a member of a partnership which employs his spouse, a proportional part of his spouse's remuneration relative to his share of the partnership business is deemed to be received by him and is not included in the spouse's income. That is the current situation under the existing law.
These rules were meant to prevent income splitting between spouses so that the total income between them would effectively be subject to lower income taxes than if received by only one. However, because the recipient spouse is usually the woman who, through the rules, is denied income and the attendant Canada Pension Plan coverage, various women's groups made strong representations for the removal of these provisions.
The December 11, 1979, budget of the former government included a proposal to remove the rules applicable to the remuneration paid to the spouse of a taxpayer who is an employee in his or her unincorporated business or partnership. This proposal was reintroduced in the April 21, 1980, financial statement by the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), and the ways and means motions were presented to this House. The related draft legislation was released to the public in August, and proposed consequential amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, which would allow the spouse to receive income coverage under the plan, have also been prepared.
Amendments to both the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan are intended to be effective retroactively to January 1, 1980, and await enactment into law. The bill including these amendments will be introduced in Parliament shortly. As previously mentioned by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), taxpayers have been advised to govern themselves by the proposed amended legislation, and the Department of National Revenue will be accepting the source deductions in anticipation of the enactment of the legislative amendments which will be applicable to the 1980 taxation year.
I think the points raised by the hon. member with regard to whether this legislation will be introduced in time for this tax year and whether it will apply retroactively to January 1, 1980, have both been responded to. In fact, the answer is yes to both those questions.


NORTHERN PIPELINES-EXPROPRIATION OF LAND IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss a problem related to the expropriation of lands by Foothills Pipe Lines to build a pipeline to carry natural gas to the United States. On November 21 I posed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), and the following was his answer:
It was not possible to find time, but nonetheless we have succeeded in reaching a situation whereby the private companies building the pipeline agree to be bound
Adjournment Debate
by the particular bill introduced by Senator Olson in the Senate. So in effect, the people concerned can benefit from the provisions of the bill which unfortunately has not yet been passed by the House.
The land has already been expropriated under the Railway Act. If the recommendations of Senator Olson's bill were to be followed as the minister indicated, the next procedure would have been to allow public hearings so that the people's voices could be heard. That was not done.
Second, the minister would have appointed a negotiator to negotiate a settlement between the company and the owners. This also has not been done. Third, if that could not be carried out according to the senator's bill which was passed in the Senate but not in the House, arbitration would have been the next step, which would have called for three arbitrators to be appointed to hear the case and make the final decisions. That also has not been done. Instead, an injunction was arbitrarily obtained and police force was used to carry out that injunction. These people were told that an arbitrator would be appointed and their case would be heard. What happened is altogether contrary to what the minister said in this House on November 21. I ask that the minister carry out the procedures laid down in the senator's bill.
Also I want to express a few more concerns because I asked personally, before the Alberta natural gas company was allowed a permit to export natural gas to the United States, that public hearings be held in my portion of the riding.
I want to speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about some of the people whose land may not be expropriated but who could be affected along with other people. I should like to comment very briefly on what was said by Senator Olson when the bill was being discussed in the other place. He said:
At the committee hearings one of the senators advised us that there were certain mortgage companies-and I think he mentioned CMHC in particular-which would not favour advancing a mortgage on a dwelling that was less than 600 feet from a high pressure gas line-and that, of course, would be 600 feet on each side. There are regional planning boards in certain parts of the country which have rules as to what they will approve, and give a building permit for, with respect to distances from high pressure gas lines.
I want to say that 107 miles of this pipeline will go through my riding and many people could be affected, even though their land will not be expropriated. They might find, a year from now, that they do not qualify for a CMHC loan because they live within a certain distance of that line. I think it is imperative that hearings be held now to give an opportunity for these people to express their concerns.
I want to criticize my fellow members from Alberta who are faced with the same problem because this pipeline will cross through Alberta properties. I want to say that if we are going to start using the 1919 Railway Act in order to build a gas pipeline to export natural gas to the United States at the expense of Canadians, then it is time this government started to realize that there are some serious problems out there and they had better deal with them.
I think it is indicative of something that four small land owners in Yahk, British Columbia should be the ones to bring

December 9, 1980
Adjournment Debate
forth this problem and have it presented here in the House. I think the Liberal Party of Canada should be ashamed of itself that it allowed Foothills Natural Gas Pipeline to expropriate property and provide such a small amount of money for the land it is expropriating. I think it is time that the minister and the people involved got together and solved this problem.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, neither the Northern Pipeline Agency nor the National Energy Board, under their respective acts, has any authority regarding compensation for land required for pipeline purposes. I understand, however, that the Northern Pipeline Agency has used its good offices in the past to explain the law as it stands to land owners. In previous instances, the agency has been instrumental in a satisfactory agreement being reached between land owners and the pipeline company. Unfortunately, in spite of their best efforts, officials of the Northern Pipeline Agency did not meet with much success in the case involving the land owners in southern British Columbia.
The company, in the first instance, seeks to reach an agreement by offering a certain sum of money to the land owner. This may be subject to further negotiations. When the pipeline company and the land owner cannot come to an agreement, the company must then act under the provisions of the existing law, which is the National Energy Board Act and the related provisions of the Railway Act. In these circumstances, the compensation paid to the land owner is not arbitrarily determined by the pipeline company. Under the arbitration procedures set out in the Railway Act, the company establishes, through the services of an accredited appraiser, a current market value for the lands required. The land owners may also seek the services of an appraiser. The ultimate decision as to the compensation to be paid is made by a presiding judge of the county or superior court, depending on circumstances.
The hon. member may argue that the expropriation of land under provincial legislation is more satisfactory than under the Railway Act. While the procedures for expropriation differ, there is no evidence to show that one law is more advantageous to either the land owner or to the company than the other in terms of compensation paid. Further, it must be understood that in the case of the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, we are dealing with a federally regulated pipeline which is bound by the provisions of the Canada-United States Transit Pipeline Treaty. Under this treaty, compensation for lands taken for pipeline purposes must be paid on a non-discriminatory basis. Further, Foothills cannot be expected to pay a higher compensation than is the prevailing rate in similar circumstances for other pipelines.
The government is well aware of a need to revise the present legislation to deal with all aspects of compensation. It was Senator Olson, then chairman of the Special Committee on the Northern Pipeline, who introduced Bill S-12 in the Senate in 1978. Senator Olson, since becoming the minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency, along with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have both expressed their general support for the provisions of this bill. When the legislative timetable permits, the bill will be brought forward for further consideration.
Finally, the Foothills Pipe Lines Company has indicated that if Bill S-12 should be passed into law at some point prior to the completion of the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline project, it would be prepared to make adjustments which further reflect the new approach provided for under Bill S-12.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the minister's promise? [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, December 10, 1980