1980-12-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English 1

Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on this important and widely recognized International Human Rights Day. I wish to draw the attention of this House to the plight of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who disappeared at the end of World War II after helping to save the lives of at least 20,000 Hungarian Jews. Mr. Wallenberg was taken into custody by the Soviets on January 17, 1945. Reports that he is still alive and being held in the Soviet gulag have come from various sources, most recently from Soviet jews who have emigrated to the West. Since both the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) have clearly stated their support for further investigation of Raoul Wallenberg's case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the government give priority to raising the plight of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg with the Soviet delegation during the first session of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe being held in Madrid.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?
Sor.e hon. Members: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has announced the establishment of a $4.2 million program to assist native fishermen on the west coast because of limited fishing time, a poor season, intense competition in the industry and other factors, and since non-native fishermen have also suffered economic hardship during the past fishing season, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House recognizes the severe economic hardship faced by many west coast fishermen this winter and therefore directs the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to seek advice immediately from his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has responded too expeditiously to this serious problem, in order that together they may devise a fair and equitable program of economic assistance for all deserving Fishermen, whether they be native or non-native.


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.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that today is International Human Rights Day, since this Liberal government has refused to take any concrete action to settle the case of the 3,000 employees, mostly women, who are members of the general service component of PSAC, even though the government lost this case at the Human Rights Commission over six months ago, and since Treasury Board spokesman John Campbell has been quoted, in referring to the delay, as saying, "It's a sign that we don't want this case to become a dangerous precedent", and has further indicated that the government will not make a comprehensive proposal on this matter for several months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That, in the spirit of International Human Rights Day, the government reverse its regressive and sexist position and establish a "precedent" that would not only accept the principle of equal pay for work of equal or comparable value, but would also demonstrate that the government is willing to become a positive influence in establishing human rights among its employees.
December 10, 1980

5.0.	43


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.


CALL FOR INVESTIGATION INTO METHOD OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency concerning the answering of hon. members' questions by cabinet ministers and with particular reference to a Privy Council document, a copy of which has come into my possession, headed "Secret. Not to be photocopied or reproduced". I intend to raise this matter as a question of privilege at three o'clock this afternoon. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That in view of the fact that highly questionable, vicious, suspicious, surreptitious subterfuge is being secretly used by the government to deal with legitimate questions asked in this House, as evidenced by a Privy Council document, the House respectfully requests Madam Speaker to order an immediate investigation into the situation with particular reference to any parts played therein by Michael Pitfield, the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister. Finally, that an order be issued that all files in existence at this moment which will shed light on this matter be sealed and placed under guard to avoid the possibility of deliberate, diabolical destruction of evidence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO CANADIAN SKI TEAM-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which should meet with the approval of both sides of this House.
Canadians everywhere rejoiced with the Canadian ski team as it took four of the top five placings and had five racers in the top seven. In effect, they stole the show at the opening downhill event of world cup skiing held in France earlier this week. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House extend a message of congratulations to the coach and members of the men's ski team that has brought credit to themselves and in so
doing has done much to encourage the sport of skiing in Canada and to enhance the reputation of Canadians in international competition.


Madam Speaker:: I am reluctant to consider that it is urgent and pressing to send congratulations, even to a wonderful ski team. I am afraid we will have to restrict ourselves with regard to sending congratulatory messages to people.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On October 13 of this year an illiterate farm worker, Markus Kateka, was sentenced to death by a South African court sitting in Windhoek, Namibia, on a charge of aiding African nationalist guerrillas. In view of the fact that the accused was not involved in any act of violence, and in view of South Africa's illegal occupation of the international territory of Namibia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House urge the Canadian government to protest to the South African government the illegal sentence against Mr. Kateka, and further pressure South Africa to commute that sentence and to end its occupation of Namibia in compliance with United Nations appeals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House and introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the construction of the Hull-Masson highway is jointly financed by the federal and provincial governments on a 50-50 basis; considering that the eastern limit of the national capital area is situated in Masson; considering that the Quebec government has stated its intention not to extend that highway to Mirabel; considering the importance of that highway for the economic development of the Ottawa region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre):
That the federal government consider the opportunity of extending the eastern limits of the national capital area to make sure at least that this new region will
December 10, 1980

be entitled to a federal contribution, since it is perhaps at present the only way to meet the economic needs of the area, because the Quebec government, instead of increasing the funds earmarked for its road system, is reducing them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That the Prime Minister cease and desist from telling older people to do without things they already do not have in order to pay higher prices for their food, and that instead he agree to an increase in the amount of the old age pension so that Canada's senior citizens can have a decent Christmas and happy New Year.


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.


WELFARE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the increasing magnitude of problems facing the ever-growing number of single parent families, and in view of the fact that 9 per cent of all Canadian families fall into the category of single parent families and about 50 per cent of them have incomes below the poverty level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the government give the highest priority to solving the ever-increasing problems of single parent families and make efforts to solve these problems as soon as possible.


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.
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the economic development of the Montreal region is tremendously important, and that the city of Montreal, as well as the Quebec and Ottawa governments, have shown considerable interest in various projects, being aware of the conflicting views of the Quebec and Ottawa governments on the economic summit to be held in Montreal next summer, and of the need to favour the interests of metropolitan Montreal residents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to call as soon as possible a meeting of all Quebec and Montreal officials in charge of economic development, to obtain their co-operation and make this summit a tremendous success.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question, which I hope will not be too exciting or frenzied, is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It is in connection with the annual report of the Economic Council of Canada made public today. That body, of course, is an independent agency of the government set up to give objective forecasts and estimates. In their report, they project that this year real wages, after discounting for inflation, will be reduced 2.2 per cent for working Canadian men and women. Their real wages will be down 2.2. per cent in real terms this year as a result of inflation and other factors. They forecast that in 1981 they will be down 2.4 per cent and in 1982 they will be down 0.1 per cent. In his budget, the minister forecast a decrease this year of 1.5 per cent, an increase next year of 0.4 per cent and an increase in 1982 of 0.9 per cent.

December 10, 1980
Oral Questions
At the time he made these objections, the minister said they were cautiously optimistic. Of course, in light of what is happening, they were recklessly optimistic. Will the minister tell us whether he will be changing his projections? Does he agree with the projections of the Economic Council of Canada? What action is he going to take to try and reverse this loss in purchasing power and standard of living for the average Canadian wage and salary earner in this country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the Economic Council of Canada for providing a further set of projections which can be useful for the purpose of analysing onward trends in the Canadian economy. On the basis of the projections to which the hon. member refers, and which I have not yet had a chance to examine, I have not decided to launch any new programs or change any budgetary measures.


John Carnell Crosbie: Ten months of inactivity, Madam Speaker. Let us not talk of trends. Let me give the minister present facts. At the moment the Canadian dollar is trading at 83.33 cents to the U.S. dollar. We are approaching our all-time historic low. Retail sales seasonally adjusted for October were down 1 per cent-not up as they should be around Christmas-led by autos. There is a drop in sales of automobiles of 7.7 per cent in real terms. We have a situation where the Conference Board of Canada reports that 47 per cent of businessmen expect price inflation in the next six months and 49 per cent expect the same inflation rate. Obviously the government is not impressing anybody with its inflation battle. Do not get excited or frenzied, gentlemen; just wait for me to finish my questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In view of these facts-not trends but actual facts which the Canadian people are becoming frenzied and anxious about-what action is the minister going to take to reverse this deplorable economic condition?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman has listed a whole series of economic indicators, each of which require considerable analysis to reply sensibly to the question. Let me make two points. It is a fact there is pressure on the Canadian dollar because of the very wide differential which exists between short-term interest rates in Canada and in the United States. Today, for example, the prime rate in the United States is up to 20 per cent and the equivalent rate in Canada is about 15.5 per cent. In those circumstances, and in view of the relationship which exists between our respective capital markets, it is not surprising there is considerable pressure on the Canadian dollar.
The hon. member asks me what I intend to do at the moment. I certainly do not intend to bring in any form of controls, which is the only direct approach one could take to overcome the influences from the U.S. capital market.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the minister is a perfect illustration of the fact that misery loves company. The only
comfort he can give is that interest rates are higher in the United States. Well, ours will be higher later in the week. By the way, there are solutions other than wage and price controls. For instance, we could have a government the people are convinced intends to fight inflation. That is one example. The famous American economist, Otto Eckstein, has said this;
The collision between a stubborn inflation and moderate money supply targets is producing interest rates that will stop the economy's growth in early 1981.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Who is Otto Eckstein?


John Carnell Crosbie: He was the chairman of the council of economic advisers to the U.S. president. Naturally, the minister would not have heard of him. Who has he heard of? Otto Eckstein said this collision is producing interest rates that will stop the economy's growth in early 1981.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Take your time, John. Wait till those yahoos quiet down.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would the minister please ask his colleagues to be quiet?
Would the minister advise the House whether he agrees with this general forecast of economists and whether the economy's growth will be stopped in early 1981 by high interest rates? Does he agree or not agree?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is not my practice to be put in the position of agreeing with every possible opinion expressed, even by a former famous economist in the United States-


An hon. Member:: To a former president.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and especially a question addressed by a former finance minister. There is too much "former" in all of that for my taste. It is much too early to accept the hon. member's source or his question, because nobody at this time can foretell with any accuracy or precision the movement of interest rates over the next several weeks, let alone the next several months.


INQUIRY RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO LOW-INCOME CANADIANS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the House and the government that this is no laughing matter. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Friday the Prime Minister advised Canadians that if they wanted to maintain the same amount of food on the table, they should cut their spending in other areas. According to the latest Statistics Canada figures, low-income earners in this country spend 82.6 per cent of their income on food, shelter and clothing, which is significantly higher than the definition of poverty of Statistics Canada, which is 62 per cent of one's income spent on food, clothing and shelter.

December 10, 1980

In the midst of this economic crisis which the minister knows will lean heaviest on the poor, the working poor, the unemployed and the old age pensioners of this country, and given the minister's statutory responsibilities as minister of welfare for this country, what steps does she propose to recommend to her colleagues so that low-income Canadians will at least have enough money to spend on heat and food?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I was not in the House on Friday, and I have not read the context of the answer, but everybody knows, especially those people mentioned in the answer of the Prime Minister, about the commitment of the Prime Minister and the government to them. The last increase we obtained of $525 million in July of this year taken through the surtax on corporate profits has been translated into a $35 increase per month in addition to the usual indexation every three months. We have decided to maintain indexation the way it is. That is the best way we have every three months of catching up with the exact increase in the cost of living. 1 think that is a very serious response to a concern which is felt by all at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I do not know on what food basket the minister bases her assertions. Given the escalated rise in the price of food, estimated at anywhere between 15 per cent and 20 per cent-and that includes increases in the prices of eggs, bread and milk-because increased energy prices, fuel oil prices and food prices have all but eaten up the $35 increase in the guaranteed income supplement, and given the projected one million unemployed next year, is the minister at least prepared to tell the House that she will give consideration to entering into discussions with her provincial colleagues to see what help the Government of Canada can provide to low income earners, the working poor, the unemployed and the old age pensioners of this country who will suffer because of the actions of this government? The minister has the power to do that under the Canada Assistance Plan. I ask her if she will at least take that into consideration.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I have just completed a two-day federal-provincial meeting with my colleagues, the ministers of social affairs of Canada. Some of them told me that they do not accept my raising the GIS by $35. I do not know if they will say that publicly. Our stand is still that as soon as the economy permits we propose to increase the benefits of single pensioners to put them just above the poverty line in order that all seniors in the country will be above the poverty line.
The hon. member asked what food basket we used to calculate indexation. 1 have gone through theoretical exercises to analyse the food basket and to see how it affects seniors. Other proposals put to me would leave seniors worse off than the actual indicators we use. The Conservative party has the philosophy that indexation of social programs feeds inflation. We will retain the full indexation of social programs.
Oral Questions


PROJECTED INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, having heard the last part of that answer, which was quite laudable, we will see what the Liberal party is prepared to do about the poor in general. Last weekend the Prime Minister suggested to Canadians that, because of the increase in food costs, they should change their priorities. The Agricultural Outlook Conference which concluded yesterday stated that food prices will go up as much as 20 per cent next year. Low-income earners in general-not just pensioners-spend some 31 per cent of their income on food.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he say today that the government will take special measures now for all low-income Canadians so that they will be able to continue to eat the things they need? Because they cannot afford to change their eating priorities unless they stop eating entirely.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said in answer to an earlier question, we cannot predict with certainty what the situation will be in the course of next week. The hon. member is asking a question based on his assumption of what the figures will be next year. He is like the former minister of finance who is basing his questions on the assumption that there will be one million unemployed next year.


An hon. Member:: That is your minister's assumption.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of National Health and Welfare has just answered the question asked by the Leader of the NDP by indicating that the policy of this government was to help first those who need it most, and that will be our policy in the years to come.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's own Minister of Finance made a forecast of the rate of inflation for next year which was just as bad as the inflation in the current year and, as everyone knows, if the forecast is going to go anywhere, inflation is going to be marginally worse, if not substantially worse, rather than better than the forecast. Therefore, the Prime Minister's answer is no substitute for programs to meet the food needs of the poor in the country.
1 should like to ask him the following question on a related matter. Since the spread between what the farmer is getting for what he produces and what the consumer pays, according to the most recent data, has actually increased, providing good grounds or good cause for profits for companies such as Loblaws, which went up by some 30 per cent recently, and IGA, which went up by some 33 per cent, will the government demonstrate its concern, at least at this level, for food prices by having a fair prices commission which would have the authority to investigate price increases and, where they are unjustified, order rollbacks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, had the Leader of the NDP listened to the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare he would have had the answer to his

December 10, 1980
Oral Questions
question which, no doubt, he was busily preparing. The minister just went through answering the concern of the hon. member as it concerns inflation in the year to come by indicating that this government had indexed old age pensions and other pensions so that they follow the rate of inflation as it goes up and compensate people on welfare for the higher rate of inflation by providing a higher rate of pension.
So far as the other part of the question regarding rollbacks is concerned, I have urged the hon. member before to explain how the federal government under the present constitution could roll back prices which are essentially under provincial jurisdiction.


John Edward Broadbent: As I politely explained to the Prime Minister before, he could use the same constitutional authority he used to bring in wage and price controls.


An hon. Member:: That is right; he never listens.


John Edward Broadbent: What was good to control wages is obviously not adequate for the Prime Minister to control prices. We understand that well on this side of the Elouse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask him another question, because he has rejected two approaches. In order to maintain the purchasing power of low-income Canadians in particular, will the Prime Minister at least consider announcing before Christmas an income tax reduction for middle and low-income Canadians so that they can continue to eat the essential foods?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to say this, because I know that on another constitutional matter I have the support of the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I must point out to him that his knowledge of the constitution apparently does not extend to the areas which permitted us to apply wage and price controls.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And these are your friends?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish the member in the second row would learn to control his sphincter; it would be easier then to get an argument across in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Heaven hath no fury like an NDP member scorned!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the leader of the NDP will remember that when we brought in wage and price controls, it was after two years in succession that the provincial premiers had urged the federal government to take some firm and drastic action to control inflation, and even then, when we appealed-


An hon. Member:: You took no notice of the provincial premiers in the constitutional talks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I said about the member in the second row applies also to members in the back row of the Tory party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, answer the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, two weeks ago, met with Mr. Giscard d'Estaing and Chancellor Schmidt. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in his note to Chairman Brezhnev last week, he included a briefing regarding the discussions he had held with Giscard d'Estaing and Chancellor Schmidt.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to understand that correspondence between heads of state and heads of government sometimes is privileged, and I consider this particular correspondence as privileged.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I am simply asking the Prime Minister about what is apparently established protocol, and I should like to refer to his news conference of November 7 at which he spoke of the friendship protocol which he signed with the Soviet Union in 1971. At that time the Prime Minister said:
Wc would do the same if I were to visit the United States, or something, or see a leader of some other country, we would have the Russian ambassador informed of the discussions.
In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has already shown its true colours in Afghanistan and is apparently preparing for a repeat performance in Poland, I wonder if the Prime Minister would show the firm resolve of the Canadian people to the Soviet Union by renouncing the friendship protocol which he signed in 1971 and cutting off that source of briefing which apparently Chairman Brezhnev has been getting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the sentiment of the Canadian people with regard to the situation in Poland was
December 10, 1980

expressed by this House a few weeks ago when a member of the Liberal caucus moved a motion in this House, which was unanimously supported, indicating the concern of the Canadian government and people regarding events in Poland. I think any further comment must be made while keeping in mind the single most important enjoinder which we are getting from Polish leaders of various sorts, that as this time the West would be wise to show restraint in its political and military posturing.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, 1 should have liked to address my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology but in his absence I will address it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is a serious question involving, not patchwork payments today for the unemployed and for people below the normal income standards, but rather a long-range approach to job creation through science and technology research spending.
The National Research Council has made a clear point of having every dollar spent on research into true job creation being returned 20 times. I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us what plans he and his ministers have after almost a year in office for research spending of a specific nature into such things as rail transportation and the other things at which we are good, which will result in true job creation for young Canadians on whose behalf I ask this question.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the government has already made known its intention to encourage the increase in spending on research and development to 1.5 per cent of the GNP by the mid-1980s. I am pleased to report to the House that it is the intention of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment to indicate early in the new year a more comprehensive framework policy which will guide our actions in that particular direction.


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINISTER
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, I guess we are reassured by that, but the future seems to be put off from week to week and from month to month, and we will be waiting anxiously to hear the specifics of this policy early in the new year.
Would the Prime Minister recognize that after only four months the last government realized the need to separate the two hats of the minister so as to give full attention to research and development, the most important matter to which we can address our minds in the country today? Would the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister consider changing the responsibilites of this minister, to give him full-time responsibilities rather than diluting his efforts in other areas like the environment, which is important, but also in some lesser roles, such as running to Her Majesty with rather less important things like constitutional matters?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will consider the representations of the hon. member, but I hardly think that the success of the previous government is an encouragement for me to organize my ministers in the way they did.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Last Friday in the House I tried to learn from the government how recent events had affected the cost of Canada's fighter procurement program. Two days ago the minister told the House that he had no intention of renegotiating the contract with McDonnell Douglas. In light of this, could the minister confirm that, using per aircraft costs supplied by the United States navy, the total cost of the Canadian program now exceeds $5 billion? Further, will the minister confirm, if the United States purchase of F-18s is reduced to 1,044, which is very likely, that the Canadian program costs will then exceed $6 billion?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I should like to indicate to the hon. member that his figures are completely askew; they are completely inaccurate. In effect, the number of aircraft which will be purchased by the Americans in the 1981 fiscal year has been increased from 48 to 60 aircraft, and every indication is that the aircraft which will be ordered by the American navy for the 1982 fiscal year will be superior to that initially envisaged. There is no difficulty in the American McDonnell Douglas company meeting its obligations under the contract. I point out to the hon. member as well that a ceiling is contained within the signed contract, and that ceiling will be met.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, 1 wish I shared the minister's optimism. Last week 1 also tried unsuccessfully to determine whether McDonnell Douglas was living up to its obligations as set out in article 34 of the contract between Canada and that company. In the last couple of months, over 500 workers have been laid off at McDonnell Douglas in Toronto because there is no demand for DC-10s and DC-9s. Could the minister tell the House if McDonnell Douglas is living up to its commitment of $83 million worth of work on these aircraft in 1980 and a similar amount of benefits in 1981? Further, could he tell us in what other areas McDonnell Douglas might be falling short of its offset promises?

December 10, 1980
Oral Questions


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, there is every expectation that the obligations under the contract relating to the offsets will be made. The milestones identified to date have been satisfied. There will be an announcement on Tuesday of next week relating to one part of the offset package. Unfortunately, 1 will be in British Columbia and will be unable to participate. 1 am aware of two other specific areas where there will be investments directly related to the offset package, and those are meant for western Canada as well. In next Tuesday's package, an announcement will be made relating to an offset within the province of Quebec.
In terms of the lay-offs in Toronto which the hon. member properly identified, those are related directly to the softening of the civilian market in terms of the product of McDonnell Douglas, namely its DC-10 and DK-10.


IMMIGRATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that the minister now has under consideration a special plan whereby victims of the Italian earthquake would be admitted to Canada as visitors for three years with permission to work, will the minister say whether he is also prepared to consider special measures for victims of the Azores earthquake, many of whom have been living in tents since last January?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we have closely examined the situation in the Azores. We have asked our immigration officers in Portugal to visit the area and report back to us any serious changes. At this point in time they report that rebuilding is taking place in a very effective manner and that the government of Portugal is making every possible effort to correct the problems which resulted from the earthquake. If there are continuing problems, we would be prepared to look at the representations of the government of Portugal, or of members of Parliament such as the hon. member for Trinity, to see if any further actions are required.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On November 17 there was a press release from the Department of the Environment which said, in part, the following:
Mr. Roberts pointed out that Canada faces a similar energy dilemma to that of the United States. "We, like our neighbours to the south, have to achieve energy self-sufficiency .. . We too are looking for alternatives to our dependence
on foreign oil which will involve increasing our use of domestic coal . . . The political will to do this in Canada is strong and we must demonstrate this to the United States."
In support of the minister's statement, I moved a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on November 19 that the House support the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment in his efforts. I stated that the House should express its unanimous support for the principle which had been stated, "that the political will to do this in Canada is strong and we must demonstrate this to the United States". The Liberal caucus, the party of the minister, turned down my motion.
In view of the fact that the minister is repudiated by his own party, can the Prime Minister tell us who is speaking for the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of State for Science and Technology in this country? Who can we expect and anticipate will develop a meaningful program for research and job creation? Who speaks for the department, the minister or the Liberal caucus?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, to the degree that the question was coherent, let me attempt an answer. In response to an earlier question, I indicated that the minister intends early in the new year to inform the House of a comprehensive policy in terms of research and development; he will be doing that.
In so far as the question relates to alternate forms of energy, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is on record, as is the Minister of Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment, as saying that any coal conversion which we encourage and foster in the Atlantic area will require the observance of the strictest environmental controls.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the coherence is quite simply that the minister has been repudiated by his Liberal colleagues and the government; that is the coherence of the question. I assume the Prime Minister will adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Scarborough East of splitting that particular ministry, because obviously the minister is not competent to wear or capable of wearing both hats. I ask this question in order to ensure that jobs are created in this country and in order that the Prime Minister ensures that both of these departments, under new ministers and new direction, are funded properly so that job-creation opportunities are available in this country under a comprehensive and competent program of research and development.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, we will.


INQUIRY RESPECTING FUNDING OF FUSION PROGRAM
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment. My question arises out of a position which the minister took approximately five months

ms-
December 10, 1980

ago with regard to fusion research in this country. At that time he expressed reservations about the research and development program for fusion in Canada. In the interim I would have hoped that the minister would have had an opportunity to view some of the advantages which there might be for Canada in the areas of metals, fuels, fuel handling and in laser development for industry and medicine. In the meantime what we have had is a continuing program, with $2.1 million dedicated to fusion research. That is only enough to stall the programs in the situation they are in now-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Science and technology seems to be a marvellous pretext for long preambles to questions. Could the hon. member come to his question?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary able to give this House an indication whether or not the government is prepared to support a research and development fusion program which will allow Canada to maintain its presence in an international atmosphere?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, first of all, I say with kindness to the hon. member that he has very badly misrepresented the position of the Minister of State for Science and Technology as he expressed it in the estimates committee some months ago. At no time did the minister suggest, either to the press or in committee, that he was against fusion research. What he did say is that there are a number of questions which need to be addressed. He said there are a number of cautions which need to be kept in mind.
I suggest to the hon. member that he avail himself of the opportunity later today to go to the special task force on alternate forms of energy, of which, 1 believe, he is a member, and put his views forward there. We will look forward to receiving them.


Madam Speaker:: A short supplementary from the hon. member for Bruce-Grey.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, that will be difficult. The continued amount which is dedicated to that fusion research program is $2.1 million. That is the testimony we have from the minister. I ask this question in view of the International Atomic Energy Agency's representation that Canada is not spending enough, in view of what the minister of energy has said, that he is prepared to see the advantages for Canada, and because Edward Kitner, the head of the program in the United States, is prepared to write Canada into the program. Will the minister through the Ministry of State for Science and Technology dedicate the $2.4 million extra which is required to open the window for Canada into the technology of the world?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, we have heard the member's representation and we will certainly take it under advisement.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


PROCESSING OF VICTIMS OF ITALIAN EARTHQUAKE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I understand that representatives of the minister's department met recently with members of the Congress of Italo-Canadians with respect to the earthquake disaster in Italy. I understand that the members of that organization made certain proposals to representatives of the minister's department with respect to speeding up the movement of the victims of that earthquake to Canada. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to look at those proposals and does he have anything to report?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have been concentrating primarily on the first wave of applications under the family class to make sure that those applicants could be brought to this country as quickly as possible. The latest report we have is that about 700 to 800 applications have been made at our embassy in Rome. We are processing those applications right now and the first of the victims of the earthquake are coming to Canada.
In the meantime we have had meetings with representatives of the different organizations in this country as well as keeping in touch with the Italian government to see what other kind of assistance we might be able to provide. My department is presently examining some of those proposals and alternatives. As soon as we discover how they might be applied effectively, we will be prepared to make an announcement to hon. members.


David Orlikow: I understand that among the proposals discussed with representatives of the minister's department there was a proposal that as many of the earthquake victims as possible who could come to Canada as visitors at the present time be permitted to come. The proposal is that after they are here and after the situation has settled somewhat in Italy, those who would like to stay in Canada permanently be permitted to be processed here in Canada. In this way they would be given permission to stay in Canada permanently rather than having to return to Italy in order to apply. I wonder if the minister would give consideration to that proposal from the congress of Italo-Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a slight correction. The proposal he speaks of was a proposal which came to us from the Liberal leader of Ontario, Mr. Stuart Smith. 1 believe it is a proposal which has a great deal of merit. It would provide the opportunity for those who are displaced or homeless in the earthquake area to come here and receive temporary residence rather than staying in a refugee camp. 1 told the Ontario Liberal leader that we would be prepared to consider that proposal and endeavour to see if we could also provide some opportunity for those who fall under that plan to work and go to school while they are here. Again, it is something which is presently under advisement and we
5584

December 10, 1980
Oral Questions
will report as soon as we have made a careful calculation of that very excellent proposal of Dr. Smith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As the minister is aware, the national dairy policy ended on April 1 of this year and has not yet been renewed. An extensive interdepartmental review of Canada's dairy policy is under way, which has given rise to many serious concerns among dairy farmers. One report which has been gaining considerable momentum among dairy farmers is that their market share quota might be reduced by one-third. Can the minister say whether or not there is any truth to this particular statement? Will the minister state what the government's attitude is toward the future of Canada's national dairy policy, which is the best in the world according to one famous Canadian?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned there is not one bit of truth to what the hon. member says is being circulated. It is a bad rumour concerning our very healthy dairy industry. I cannot add any more to my reply at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Limited, I address my question to the Minister of Labour. It is with regard to that corporation's practices. The chairman of local 673 of the United Auto Workers at de Havilland Aircraft last week charged very seriously that de Havilland is ghettoizing its female workers by refusing to allow them to apply for work on the factory floor with the effect that one-tenth of 1 per cent of the female workers at de Havilland work on the floor, at the same time requiring factory experience if a promotion is to be granted. Given that de Havilland is a federally-owned corporation, could the Minister of Labour assure me that he will be taking action immediately to correct this very unhappy practice of a corporation which should be setting an example in the Canadian workplace?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the charge has been made by one party to a collective agreement and is not the basis upon which action of the type he suggests can be taken. If, indeed,
there has been any discrimination against women workers in the assignment of work or in relation to their application to work on the floor, the remedies under the Canada Labour Code are quite clear, action can be taken and a proper adjudication made on whether or not there has been such discrimination. I suggest to the hon. member that that is the appropriate action in such a circumstance.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the minister appears to be suggesting that in a company which the government owns workers should have to rely upon the law and not upon the owner of the company-their government.
Will the minister undertake to investigate this matter, given the seriousness of this allegation, given that it is a federally-owned company, and given that I presume the minister believes that companies we collectively own should set an example? If the allegations prove correct, will he advise de Havilland to correct their practices by setting an example, rather than making those people go to court?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member as the labour critic for his party would be fully aware that Labour Canada can only continue to fulfil its role, either to government-owned corporations or privately-owned corporations, in the same way; that is, by remaining an independent party between the two. Obviously, in that sense the remedy for any such breach is clearly provided. If the hon. member wants to make a representation as to what management should do, then I am sure he is cognizant of the fact that I am not the minister responsible for the operations of the company. He should make those representations elsewhere.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to thank you for recognizing me; it is very kind. My question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, if I may have his attention.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am talking to Gene.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Prime Minister can either answer from where he is or from his seat, it does not really matter. He can talk to Whelan later.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have to choose between two big guys.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Over the past couple of weeks I have wanted to direct a couple of supplementaries to the right hon. gentleman. My question has to do with the Prime Minister taking shots at Quebec and Alberta. Since the separatist campaign is gathering pace, fuelled by the fear that Ottawa will in time turn the screws even tighter and change the face of the west, its economy and its politics, is the Prime Minister playing
December 10, 1980

down western separatism as a minor replay of the Quebec game?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in spite of the fact that the hon. member has taken several weeks to prepare his question, I wonder whether he has not changed the subject for the object. I am not taking shots at Quebec and Alberta; they are taking shots at me. If the hon. member will travel to these two provinces, he will see that this is the case.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, we have just had another perfect example of the Prime Minister being glib and misbegotten.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Prime Minister's view of western separatism is as accurate as his pronouncement that Quebec separatism was dead. Is this what he is saying about western separatism? It did not take me two weeks to prepare that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I wish that the hon. member had taken two weeks to prepare that one. When I said Quebec separatism was dead, it was on the eve of the 1976 election-


Steve Eugene Paproski: November 16.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when the Quebec separatist party did not have the nerve to run as a separatist party, because it agreed with me that separatism could not win.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is why they got 14,000 people at the Forum last week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that the political experts in the NDP are guffawing at that one. 1 wish they would answer my allegations. If separatism was a winner, why did the separatist party not run on a separatist plank and hold its referendum on the separatist plank? Because it knew that separatism was a loser, Therefore, I was right, and I believe that the same thing is true for Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will wait and see, Pierre.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to make a statement in relation to today's supply proceedings. As hon. members are aware, the special order passed by the House on Tuesday, April 29, 1980, states that today is the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 1980, and that all questions necessary to dispose of the Appropriation Act based on the main estimates shall be put at twelve o'clock midnight without further debate and amendment.
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
However, the special order does not cover the Supplementary Estimates (B). Pursuant to special order, the House will be sitting today from two o'clock to twelve o'clock midnight without interruption. It would be the Chair's intention when twelve o'clock midnight is reached to interrupt the proceedings in progress and put every question necessary to dispose of all the remaining stages of Bill C-47, the Supplementary Estimates (B), and the bill based thereon, without further debate or amendment.
As was the practice in the past, the supply bill based on the supplementary estimates will be distributed to hon. members as soon as possible. Is it agreed that this will be the procedure which will be followed tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt). If hon. members will bear with me, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has given me a notice of his question of privilege but has not included a statement on what that question of privilege will involve. It is quite clear in our Standing Order 17 that the Chair requires a notice and a written statement on the object of the question of privilege.
Recently in the House another hon. member failed to give me a statement on his question of privilege, and upon my making a similar remark, he offered to co-operate with the Chair and give the Chair a written statement. He raised his question of privilege the following day. I point this out to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, and I regret that he has not submitted a complete statement on his question of privilege.
I do want hon. members to be on notice that the Chair in the future will require statements on the object of a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 admit that in my notice I named the subject but did not go into a statement of detail, the reason being that on previous questions of privilege I have raised in this House in the eight years that I have been here, I simply said that I would like to raise a question of privilege at three o'clock, or whatever time, and named the subject. This procedure has never been questioned before. I am aware of the Standing Order, but I felt that it had become the custom of the House-rightly or wrongly, as the case may be-to indicate my intentions as I have done in this case.
I would certainly be glad to meet with the Speaker afterwards and present the evidence which I feel pertains to this subject if I could be permitted to proceed now.

December 10, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt


Madam Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member. I was merely putting hon. members on notice that in the future 1 would require that the procedure be followed. One of the advantages of being new is that one does not fall into different habits, and reads the standing orders as they are. It is quite clear to me that a written statement is required, and I will require a written statement.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, for some time there have been a number of us in this House, including myself, who have wondered about and questioned the peculiar delay on the part of the government in furnishing information to the House, particularly with regard to answering questions on the order paper, the answers to which might be embarrassing, or considered to be embarrassing to the government. We have frequently been assured that everything is being done as speedily as possible, that there is no political interference, that honest answers are always given as soon as they are available and, in short, that the government is doing the very best it can to be co-operative with the House.
I have always doubted such assurances and expressed such doubts in the House in the past. But now the matter becomes one of a most serious nature that infringes on the privileges of members of the House, because of the existence of strange and peculiar guidelines of a top secret nature laid down by the government in regard to the answering of questions by cabinet ministers, which indicate that this House may have been duped, misled, or cheated by a possible government attempt deliberately to withhold truth from the members of the House and consequently from the Canadian people.
As evidence of what I have been saying, Madam Speaker, I possess a copy of a document originating in the Privy Council office and apparently known to the Prime Minister's office which is marked "secret-not to be photocopied or reproduced". The document is headed "sensitive topics" and also gives the information that the topics listed were in effect to be treated as sensitive when questioned during the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament, that is, up to the defeat of this government on May 22, 1979. I have determined from sources beyond reproach that the same instructions have been reintroduced by the government in this session of this Parliament and they have applied since this government was returned to office after the election of February 18, 1980.
I hope you will permit me, Madam Speaker, to read the document as it would be impossible to judge my question of privilege without the contents being known, on which my question of privilege is based.
At the outset may I say that I realize when something happens outside the House it is usually ruled not to be a question of privilege inside the House. In this case, however, I draw specific attention to the fact that, while the document was issued outside the House, its provisions have been applied inside the House.
The sensitive topics listed by the government for the attention of ministers include items numbered A to Z in this document. In most cases it can be clearly noted that questions on the order paper asking for information on matters mentioned have either never been answered or have been treated with non-answers, which adds proof to the fact that the list has been applied to the method in which the government has acted.
First, in regard to myself as the member for Leeds-Gren-ville, the document contains a direct interference with my privileges by instructing cabinet ministers as to the sensitivity of, and I quote directly, "any question in the name of the hon. member for Leeds." In other words, this government, presumably on the highest authority of Michael Pitfield and/or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and/or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and perhaps others, has circulated secret instructions to ministers which, in effect, tell them to hamper and tamper with legitimate questions asked in this House by myself and others. I submit, Madam Speaker, that this interferes directly with my ability and that of others to conduct our duties as members in this House in the manner that we should and, therefore, is a breach of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The other subjects listed in this startling document are as follows, and each speaks for itself as to where it interferes with our privileges. I should therefore like to quote the document exactly. It is marked "SECRET-Not to be photocopied or reproduced"-with the heading "Sensitive Topics." These are as follows: travel by the Prime Minister, ministers or public servants by plane, train or taxi; official residences; all expenditures by the Prime Minister, ministers, public servants, departments or agencies for goods, buildings or services; all expenditures for government programs; loans, grants or tenders awarded by any agent of the federal government; Prime Minister's, ministers' or public service establishment or salary figures; regional offices of ministers or departments; possible or alleged conflicts of interest; consultants, consultants' studies or contracts for consulting; lawyers retained by departments or agencies; government mailing or publication lists; advertising or publications; former Liberal candidates or office-holders; former public servants; Statistics Canada; CBC Radio-Canada and Radio-Canada International; Crown companies; relocation of departments or agencies; ports or railways; payments to provinces or municipalities; Dominion-provincial relations; bilingualism-official languages policy; invasion of privacy; freedom of information; individual, non-continuing items that might be identified-whatever that might be-and, finally, as I said earlier, any question in the name of the hon. member for Leeds.
To summarize, Madam Speaker, questions on these topics, if answered forthrightly, would indeed be sensitive and embarrassing to the government, and the document clearly illustrates that the government is not approaching the making public of information from a standpoint of proper disclosure but, instead, on the basis of political considerations.
December 10, 1980

There is no question in my mind that this situation interferes with my privileges and with the privileges of all members in the Elouse of Commons in that it limits our ability to operate as we should in our capacity as members.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that all files of the Privy Council office be sealed and placed under guard, pertaining to this subject, to prevent any possible deliberate destruction this afternoon for the purpose of hiding evidence. I also realize, Madam Speaker, that it may be necessary to reserve judgment for a day-or even two days, 1 do not know-on the point that I have raised because you will no doubt wish to examine a copy of the document, hear other argument, and consult precedents. Therefore I ask to be permitted to reserve my right to move a motion that this be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the event that it should be decided that I have a prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Leeds-Gren-ville (Mr. Cossitt) so that you may consider the point he has raised. The hon. member apparently has quoted from a document which he cannot table under the rules of this House, although I suppose he could append it to Hansard. It is a document whose veracity has not been determined so we are not sure what he is reading from, or who wrote the document. We are not even sure of the origin of the document.
As I have pointed out before, Madam Speaker, the government tries to answer all questions of all hon. members. In particular, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and I have been talking about this on the floor of the House for a number of weeks. I should like to point out that we have answered about 56 per cent of the questions posed by the hon. member. He asked 242 questions out of the 1,854 on the order paper. I grant that we have answered 69 per cent of all questions, so his proportion is slightly less, but I can assure him that we do not discriminate between members.
I can categorically deny that any instructions have been issued to me, or by me as the person responsible in this House for tabling these questions, concerning the answers, the form of answers, or the people who should be answered or in what priority. I categorically deny that. This is a wild allegation of the sort we are used to hearing from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


David Michael Collenette: It does concern me that there are some questions on the order paper that have not been answered for a long time, in particular questions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 15, 22, and a few others in the two digit range. It is true that they are all in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville but he should not imply that there is any conspiracy afoot. It so happens that many of the questions he asks are so complex that it takes a lot of work and a lot of money to get the answers. I think I have proven by what I have just said that we
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
have done a reasonably good job of answering his queries over the last few months, and I undertake to achieve even better results for the hon. member.
It is my contention that the hon. member does not have a question of privilege. He is being treated in the same way as all members of the House; that is, we try to answer his questions along with those of other hon. members without bias or limitation.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) has informed me that he would be prepared to agree to append the document that he dealt with, to Hansard. I hope the government is agreeable that this be done. Let us start right there, so that this Privy Council document to which he referred is available. I trust there will be agreement by the government.
The issue is not the number of questions that have been answered; the issue is not the cost of answering questions; the issue is not even the right of a member to ask questions, and the issue, I must say, is not whether instructions have been given to a parliamentary secretary. The issue, Madam Speaker, is the existence of a document that is now on record in the House, whether the parliamentary secretary knows about it or not, which makes special reference to a special kind of question and which, because the answer may be inconvenient, gives special instructions from the government or a senior public servant within the government, or within the Privy Council office.
The question, therefore, is not how good the government has been about answering questions in terms of numbers; it goes far beyond that. We are really talking now about whether, as a result of a statement, a position, a document or something that exists, the right of the member of Parliament has been impeded not just to put questions on the order paper but to have some expectation of answers to those questions.
The allegation made by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville is quite clear, and it cannot go unanswered, that there is a special instruction-the parliamentary secretary has indicated only that he does not know about it-that exists within the Privy Council. That is the allegation, and that allegation must be answered.
I do not know how one can argue that this is not a question of privilege. I refer to Beauchesne, the fourth edition, page 59, citation 70, as follows:
Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at any time by any member, whether he has previously spoken or not.
I am sure that in every free Parliament anywhere in the world it is not customary to have a government direct an injunction that questions cannot be answered against a particular member of Parliament whom they do not like. I think the issue is quite important. It is not an issue of costs. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville is prepared to stand and tell his constituents: "Of course, it costs money to answer questions."

December 10, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
But as a member of Parliament he has a right to have answers to those questions. The people of his constituency will make a judgment as to whether or not those questions ought to be answered. They have made that election in favour of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville who has been returned to this House on four separate occasions since 1972. The issue is not one of costs.
There has been an allegation by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville that the document does exist. There has been a statement from a parliamentary secretary that he does not know about it. Therefore I think the matter must be held in abeyance. But certainly no member of this House, whether it is the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville or any member representing any constituency in the country, can labour under that kind of burden with respect to his right as a member of Parliament to have answers to questions that he has posed. This must apply to all members; to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who asks an equal number of embarrassing questions of the government. He is the best questioner on the government side in terms of the numbers of questions he has on the order paper. He has that right to ask those questions, and both the hon. member for Vaudreuil and the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville have the right to answers.
I think there is a question of privilege. I want to reserve the right on behalf of the House to argue the point further, if it is necessary, to convince you of that, Madam Speaker. We cannot operate if that document exists. The first step with respect to dealing with the question of the authenticity of the document is to have that document affixed to today's Hansard. Then perhaps the investigation can begin by you, Madam Speaker, and by other officials.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise simply for the purpose of making a suggestion. It seems to me that if this document exists-the one to which the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) has referred-and if it is an authentic document, then there is a pretty serious question of privilege. At the moment, he is the only one who has it. It seems to me that either the document should be appended to Hansard so that we can all see it-we have to follow that route because being a private member he cannot table it-or provision should be made for copies of the document to be supplied to Your Honour and to representatives of the parties so we can all see it.
As I say, we should have a chance to look at it so as to make a decision before we proceed. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that it be held in abeyance is a good one. I underline that by making the suggestion that the matter be held in abeyance until at least party representatives and the Chair have had a chance to see the document or copies of it.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot hear the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) twice on his question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I simply want to confirm what my House leader has said. I have expressed my willingness to make the document available and to have it appended to Hansard. 1 know that as a private member I cannot table anything, but if that procedure is acceptable to the Chair and to the House, I will be glad to make the document available to the Table at this time. The only other point I might make-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make another point.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, if we accepted as a matter of principle that private members table any document they want when they want, we would risk becoming submerged, and I believe that in this case I have every reason to object to the request of the hon. member to table papers which, more often than not, I am sure, would come close to being-I shall not use the expression I had in mind but everyone knows the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) and I am afraid that if 1 gave consent today on behalf of my party we would risk being flooded by an ocean of more or less relevant documents on his part.
Madam Speaker, 1 do not object if he wants to show the document to his friends. He is quite free to do so. This does not bother me, but as far as the House is concerned we are not here to examine every question raised by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. There are already a great number of questions in his name on the order paper. My parliamentary secretary gave a very appropriate reply when he said that we are dealing with his questions on the same basis as any other query. A great many of the questions on the order paper are in his name. We do not complain about this. On the contrary, he is the one who complains and every time he does so we take the opportunity to remind him that we reply to a large number of his questions, even though they often refer to nearly every department.
We do not criticize him for the fact that these questions cost the taxpayers a lot of money. We could do so, Madam Speaker, but to be fair to the House as a whole, it is quite normal that when we try to provide answers, we also try to achieve some balance and use the time at our disposal to provide replies to the greatest number of members possible. However, the hon. member can be assured that as far as I am concerned and as far as the government, my parliamentary secretary and the public servants are concerned, no instruction has been given not to reply to the questions asked. On the contrary, instructions are to try to provide to the hon. member the most complete answers possible to as many questions as we can.
Having said this, I would like to refer to the fifth edition of Beauchesne concerning the very important issue of questions. On page 129 of the fifth edition, it is noted that there are two types of questions asked in the House. There are, of course, the oral questions which we all know and which are asked when
December 10, 1980

the subject matter is urgent, and there are also the written questions when there is no urgency. The only difference between the two types of questions, Madam Speaker, is that when they are asked orally, it is because, in principle, they concern an urgent matter. What occurs in practice is another matter but I do not want to debate the point. Second-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, this has nothing to do with the question of privilege I raised. 1 do not know why we cannot stick to the subject, and not who has how many questions on the order paper and what percentage has been answered. The question I raised is basic. Is this government dishonest? Has it been instructing cabinet ministers to tamper with answers to questions on the order paper? We are getting sidetracked by the parliamentary secretary and by the President of the Privy Council about how great they are and that only as many questions can be answered. But there have been no answers to questions about Goldfarb for about four years, and that is getting a bit ridiculous. If they want to argue and debate, and that is what they are doing, then I should be allowed to do that too. But that is not the point; that is irrelevant. I know from the sources that this document came that it is accurate. If they deny it, then they have destroyed it this afternoon since I raised the matter in this House. I have asked that it be added as an appendix to Hansard because I am quite willing to do that.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, please excuse the hon. member. As I was saying, there are two kinds of questions: oral questions and those that are put on the order paper. Furthermore, Beauchesne gives a whole series of criteria on the basis of which questions are acceptable or not; in the case of written questions these will be found on pages 129-131 and in that of oral questions, on pages 131-133. Were those criteria applied rigorously, the question periods would obviously be much shorter, and the order paper would be much less crowded.
Setting aside that remark, Madam Speaker, because I do not want to start a debate at this point, I should like to point out that Beauchesne goes on detailing the criteria that apply to questions on page 133, he edicts the principle that:
Ministers may decline to answer any question whatsoever.
Once again, at the beginning of my remarks, I took great pains to indicate that generally we make considerable effort to answer the questions, all of them, and as completely as possible in theory on the basis of parliamentary practice; and according to commentators on the Standing Orders of the House, we are not obliged in any way to answer a question, whether it be oral or written. This is very clear in citation 363 of Beauchesne on the matter, and I quote:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed.
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
Madam Speaker, that cannot be expressed more clearly for the purposes of the question of privilege now before you.
If we were to follow to the letter our parliamentary procedure, the Standing Orders, the authors and the precedents, it is obvious that unless we wanted to we would not have to answer any question on the order paper or any question put during oral question period. Such a decision would not have to be justified on our part and indeed could not result in a debate.
So technically speaking the point I want to make, Madam Speaker, by referring you to page 133 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, is that the question of privilege should obviously be rejected if we do not have to answer, and that refusal on our part to provide answers, which is not the case here anyway but even if it were the case, cannot become the subject of a debate.
Once again-and I want to be quite clear, I do not want to be ambiguous-the member for Leeds makes a request for a document to be annexed to Hansard. On grounds of principle, at this time, I am opposed to such a move whatever the nature of the document. If he wants to show it to newsmen or to his friends, that is his problem. But as far as the House of Commons is concerned, we want the Standing Orders to be complied with. I have just referred to the relevant rules. You see how open we are on this side of the House, because we are not doing what the Standing Orders allow us to do, which is to refrain from answering. On the contrary, as indicated by the hon. parliamentary secretary, we do all we can to answer fully as many questions on the order paper as possible.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to consider that there is absolutely no prima facie case of privilege, and that the remarks made by the hon. member for Leeds and by his House leader are absolutely not in compliance with the Standing Orders, which do not provide for a debate when there is no answer.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: On a
question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Mr. McKenzie:: On the same question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I cannot hear that many members on the question of privilege. It is already difficult for me to see where the question of privilege lies since most of the actions occurred outside the House. I will listen to one further intervention on the opposition side, and then I will make a statement.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, the one request that is immediately before you this afternoon is that the document in question be appended to today's proceedings. To be perfectly frank, I am not sure whether that requires unanimous consent. I believe it may be within the discretion of the Chair whether

December 10, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
to permit it or not. If that is the case, I hope the Chair will exercise its discretion in favour of the request.
I do not believe the Chair is capable of determining the real question here this afternoon. Frankly, I do not think any single member, or group of members, in this chamber this afternoon can answer the critical, climactic question. That question is whether the document alleged to be authentic by the hon. member for Leeds Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) is an authentic government document or not. That is the prime question which eventually has to be answered. That is the bottom line. With no disrespect to the Chair, I do not think the Chair is capable of making that determination. In fact I do not think the House is capable of that determination.
I suggest that the only body which can properly call witnesses and determine the authenticity or non-authenticity of that document has to be the body set up under the rules of this House of Commons, and that, obviously, is the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That is the body to which this whole matter should be referred. The committee has the capability of calling witnesses. It can properly investigate whether such a document existed to the knowledge of any member of the government. We cannot determine that, nor can the Chair.
I suggest most sincerely that this not only affects the privileges of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, but the privileges of every member of this House. For three Parliaments now some of us have been disgusted with the procedure for answering questions on the order paper. Although I used to place questions on the order paper, I seldom do now. In the last session, of course, it was not possible for me to do that. However, when I did submit questions touching some of those subjects which the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville indicated are within the contents of the memorandum he has at hand, they were not answered. Either they were not answered at all or they were answered in an untruthful, evasive manner.
My experience as a member of this House since 1972 with this and previous Liberal administrations follows exactly along the lines of that memorandum. I suggest that the bottom line, the crunch in this whole question, is whether that document is authentic. The only body which can determine that has to be the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections because we cannot call witnesses before the House. That committee can and, therefore, it should go to that committee.
On top of that argument has to be layered the argument that the only way we will know what we are talking about is to have more information about that document, and certainly to have it appended to today's proceedings of this House. If it is an authentic document, or even if it is not, the members of the House deserve to have it included in today's Hansard. Obviously the matter has to go to the committee because, with all due respect, if it is an authentic document, its contents very seriously and gravely affect the privileges of every member of this House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members were granted the floor to intervene on the question of privilege. Are they now rising on the same question of privilege or on a point of order?


A. Daniel McKenzie: My point of order is that the precedent for appending letters to Hansard was established last Thursday when the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) had a letter regarding transportation appended to Hansard. When talking about railroads, he referred to a letter received from an official of one of the railroad companies in Canada and asked to have the letter appended to Hansard. If we can have that kind of letter appended, surely an important document like this can be appended, particularly when the precedent was established last Thursday.


Madam Speaker:: 1 would point out to the hon. member that the letter was appended with the unanimous consent of the House. That does make a difference. If we get unanimous consent, a lot of things can happen. Until now I do not have any indication that we do have unanimous consent of the House, but on the question to which the hon. member refers, if my memory serves me well, it did happen with the unanimous consent of the House.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises out of something my friend, the government House leader, said with respect to this point of privilege. As I understood him, he pointed out quite properly that with respect to the answering of questions by the government, whether written or oral, there were certain rules applied and if the government did not wish to answer certain questions, it had that option. What disturbs me about this is that in his remarks I do not think he dealt with something that is of the utmost importance, because it appears at this stage that the member from Leeds has been singled out so that his questions are dealt with differently.
That goes really to the foundation of what we are all to expect as humble members of this House. If we are to be treated in one way, then we should all be treated the same, excluding, of course, members of the cabinet or officers of the House who have special privileges. Perhaps my friend neglected to deal with that important question. Assuming he is correct in what he said, and 1 have no quarrel with the particular procedural point he put forward, it still does not deal with the very important point raised as a grievance by the member from Leeds that he alone, according to his evidence, apparently has been singled out for special treatment.


Madam Speaker:: I will make a few remarks before making a definite statement on this question of privilege. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville that I have no authority to seal archives or documents or files pending whatever decision might be taken on this particular question. I cannot comply with that request made to me.
December 10, 1980

As for the document itself, I would hope the hon. member would send me a copy of it. I cannot rule on this question without having seen the document.
As for other members of this House needing to see the document, that may be so in an absolute way once I have ruled whether a prima facie case of privilege is found in the question raised by the hon. member. If the hon. member wants his document to be seen by a number of members, he has many ways at his disposal in order to do so. He may use the distribution services of the House of Commons or he may hand it out to members around him who may have an interest.
Concerning his request to have it appended to Hansard, I am in the hands of the House and that requires unanimous consent. From what I heard from the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), I do not suppose the House would give unanimous consent. Therefore, I am unable to act on that request.
In regard to the total question as it was presented by the various hon. members, I hope to see the document. Members raising a question of privilege can refer to documents and they usually make these known to the Chair. I should like to take this question of privilege under advisement.


MR. SARGEANT-CANADA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN MANITOBA-MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Madam Speaker:: I have a question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant). Before the hon. member rises, from the statement he made to me it seems he wants to discuss a ruling I made yesterday. He refers to the answer given by the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), and that is what the question of privilege he raised yesterday was all about. However, if the hon. member is rising on something else, I will hear it.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege today arises out of a charge made by the minister in his comments yesterday when he said my allegations were "dead wrong." I contend that by saying this he has violated my privileges as a member of this House. He further went on to say as reported on page 5536 of yesterday's Hansard:
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.
Upon further examination yesterday I find that as of three o'clock yesterday afternoon Eastern Standard Time the Winnipeg regional office had only received the 12 project approvals-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is discussing the ruling made yesterday. Having taken a look at Hansard, this is precisely the point discussed yesterday during the course of that question of privilege. I am afraid I cannot hear him if he continues in that vein.
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I request you listen to my friend for a moment or two. Your Honour will find he wants to report something which happened after the ruling was made yesterday. It concerns something he learned from Winnipeg after the matter was raised in the House.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: That is correct, Madam Speaker. I wish to bring forth further information which might indicate the hon. minister did not give us a correct answer in the House yesterday. He said the projects for the Manitoba constituencies were approved well over a week ago and sent to the regional offices. However, as of three o'clock Eastern Standard Time yesterday, the Winnipeg office had only received the 12 projects to which I referred in my question. Subsequently, at approximately 3.30 Eastern Standard Time, a matter of a few minutes after I brought the subject up in this House, the Winnipeg regional office received a phone call from the minister's office indicating that project approvals would be sent later that day, not a week ago. At about four o'clock Winnipeg time, five o'clock our time, these approvals were being transmitted by telecopier or telex to the Winnipeg office. The staff at the Winnipeg regional office was required to work late yesterday to transfer this information. I really think at this point my case can rest.
I contend that my privilege was violated when the minister charged that I was dead wrong. I think this is especially so since we now learn a different set of facts than those put to this House by the hon. minister. A great disservice is done when a minister of the Crown makes such inaccurate charges against an opposition member. With all due respect, I would request that the minister be asked to withdraw his charge against me, that he apologize, and that he set the record straight for this House.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: On the same question of privilege, Madam Speaker, 1 remind the hon. member that the minister admitted yesterday that not all projects had been completed in this $137 million program. He clearly stated that as far as Manitoba was concerned the projects had been approved. He made sure that if there were delays in the correspondence, which leads to a question of privilege in the House-he made sure that this had left the minister's office. When you are dealing with a $137 million program, with 1 do not know how many projects, with 282 MPs to satisfy and 282 advisory committees, it is difficult to ensure that all ridings are at the same stage. The minister therefore asked me in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to make sure that the decision for all projects was sent as quickly as possible to the officers in charge. But he stated unequivocally that he had approved the Manitoba projects. That, Madam Speaker, is the main issue, 1 believe: the projects were approved even though the hon. member claimed they were not.
5592

December 10, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Hawkes


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) wish to speak to this question of privilege?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: 1 do not think I want to hear another hon. member on this question. Would the hon. member please resume his seat?
The question as raised by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake and as stated in his letter to me giving me notice, was in fact a bit misleading. I am not saying this was deliberate, but 1 will quote from the hon. member's letter. He said that he would raise a question of privilege "arising out of the answer given me yesterday in the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration". When I heard the hon. member's first remarks it was therefore quite clear to me that he was speaking about what was said in his letter. Subsequently he began to discuss the fact that he had a grievance about the way in which certain actions of the government become known in his constituency, or in constituencies around his.
I repeat that this is not a question of privilege. It is a grievance. It is a matter of debate. It is a difference of opinion. It is all those things, but it is certainly not a question of privilege, and that is the reason 1 will not hear the hon. member for Churchill.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Elawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have notified the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) of my intention to raise this point of order, and his parliamentary secretary has remained in the chamber.
An examination of page 5459 of Hansard for December 8 at approximately four o'clock in the afternoon would indicate an omission of a significant exchange between the minister and myself. There are at least two questions and two responses involved. They are totally absent from the record for that date.
The content of at least one of those questions involved my asking the minister if he could explain the discrepancy in the debates as recorded in Hansard for Friday, December 5 in which, during the question period, the minister provided me with certain information in response to my question. The blues record that accurately, but the final copy of Hansard for Friday was not consistent with what happened in this House on Friday. 1 asked the minister if he could explain how that came about. In his response to me he indicated he would look into the situation and respond. However, that exchange between us on Monday is totally absent, other parts of the debates of this House on the eighth are also absent, and I
wonder if I could call on Your Honour's good offices to explore that situation and perhaps to provide us with an explanation of it.


Dennis Dawson: I have checked Hansard both in French and in English to see if there was an omission. The hon. member started his questioning at four o'clock and went on till 4.20 so it is possible that a question asked by the hon. member at that time was missed. I think that House staff will easily be able to check the electronic Hansard to see if one of the hon. member's question was omitted. But I think I could refer the hon. member to page 5456, when he started his questioning, right after question period. There 1 think he will find the answer to his question.


Madam Speaker:: It is indeed the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that Hansard faithfully reflects the discussions in the House, and if there has been an omission, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) claims, then I shall look into the matter and try to listen to the recordings. I think that these two sources should enable us to set the facts straight. I thank the hon. member for bringing this to our attention.


MR. TAYLOR-PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to request that Your Honour make a special search of Beauchesne and the rules regarding the necessity for unanimous consent to table anything in the House. If there was that necessity, a minister could be stopped from tabling by one dissenting voice. I know of nothing in Beauchesne which requires unanimity for the tabling of any matter.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am sure you could deal with this, but since this point reflects upon what we were discussing earlier 1 point out that there was no dispute about the ability of a parliamentary secretary or a minister to table a document. We are talking about the long-established practice whereby private members do not have the ability to table documents but can request unanimity on the part of the House to have documents appended to Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: I stand to be corrected if I am not interpreting the rules properly. A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of his minister, can table documents in the House. In other circumstances unanimous consent is required. I think that is what I stated, but I will look into the rules in light of the remarks of the hon. member. However, I think I am correct in interpreting the rules in that manner.
December 10, 1980


MR. MCKINNON-POSTPONEMENT OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a new point of order. We have some procedural difficulties, about which Your Honour is no doubt aware, when a member asks a minister a question and receives the answer that the minister is not able to answer the question at that time but will inquire and inform the hon. member later. All too often we do not hear of it again unless we raise it once more ourselves, thus using up one of our rare opportunities in question period.
Yesterday there was a different kind of incident. I asked the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) a question he was unable to answer, and he said, "I will have to inquire and inform the hon. member". My question was about the fifth milepost report on the new fighter aircraft contract. I asked if a review was made, whether it was satisfactory and whether the milepost payment was made. I would like to put on the record the fact that the minister came to me after the question period and said that a review had been made, the report was satisfactory, and the payment had been made. I hope this example might prove catching and that some other ministers who have allowed similar questions to be outstanding for months might get the idea.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Manitoba who want public hearings held on the proposed closing of the Miniota subdivision of the CPR. A decision to abandon this rail line was made, I might add, a decision made without adequate consultation with those who will be most affected. I submit that new evidence has shown that this line is still an integral part of the grain transportation system in Manitoba.
On behalf of the petitioners I ask that serious consideration be given to their request that the Canadian Transport Commission hold a full and public inquiry before Canadian Pacific is allowed to close the Miniota subdivision.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 318, 1,010, 1,414, 1,453, 1,555, 1,686 and 1,687.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: Does the government require regular testing to determine the comparable (a) purity (b) stability (c) pH (d) inert ingredients (e) mould or bacterial contamination (0 coating (g) absorption rate (h) deterioration of chemically equivalent drugs and, if so, are the findings made public?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Before each lot of a drug may be sold in Canada, the pharmaceutical manufacturer is required to test that drug according to the requirements of the food and drug regulations. The types of testing required are dependent on the specifications of the product in question. Product specifications include requirements for potency, purity and identity of the product as well as other product related requirements such as testing to ensure stability. The adequacy of these specifications and the actual testing are both subject to evaluation by the health protection branch and action may be taken if either are found to be inadequate. The companies are not required to make the results of this testing public. However, when a drug is tested within the Quality of Drug Assessment program, results are provided to provincial and territorial departments of health, hospitals and, upon request, to health professionals.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 593 which states in part: "Air Canada regards remuneration and other conditions of officers' and managers' employment as proprietary" (a) is Air Canada a Crown corporation (b) is Air Canada responsible to Parliament through a minister of the Crown (c) can Air Canada refuse a parliamentary request for information on remuneration of its officials and, if so, for what reasons?
2.	Is it government policy to make more information available to the Canadian people and, if so, will this include information about Air Canada?
3.	Is the government prepared to request Air Canada to reconsider making available, details on the pension, allowances or emoluments of any kind extended to the honourable member for Lincoln when he retired as chairman of Air Canada's board of directors and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member may wish to refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 357(1), which refers to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 171. In specificity he may wish to examine sections (a), (d), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (q), (r), (t), (w), and (ff), among others, of citation 171. The honourable member may also wish to put questions directly to the management of Air Canada when the company's annual report is before the Standing Committee on Transport.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare state in part before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on Wednesday, July 2, 1980, "so can we conclude that we will all meet your New Horizons group and give the cheques yourselves . . .*', and, if so, is it government policy to forward New Horizons cheques to recipients through all members of Parliament regard-

December 10, 1980
Order Paper Questions
less of their political affiliation and, if so, on what date will this system come into force?
2. Is it the policy of the minister to handle New Horizons grants on a strictly non-political basis?


Monique Bégin: 1. See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for July 2, 1980.
2. Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer by the Minister of Supply and Services to a question by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville concerning receipt of a request from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that New Horizons grants cheques be forwarded to recipients by members of parliament and the minister's statement that he would look into the situation, has the Minister arranged for this to be done and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are all the details?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Yes.
(a)	N/A.
(b)	According to Treasury Board guidelines, Supply and Services can dispatch cheques only to payees or the originating client department.


Mr. Wenman: What was the cost of the Language Preference Survey that was included in the various cheques sent out by the income securities program branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Monique Bégin: The cost of the Language Preference Survey included with the cheques to Old Age Security and Family Allowance recipients (approximately six million) in August, 1980, will be approximately $140,000 for material and $150,000 for return postage.


Mr. Wenman: Will the government consider exempting flying schools from paying sales tax on aircraft, parts and equipment purchased for use exclusively in flying training?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Training aids for use by educational institutions, for example, typewriters for teaching typing, and equipment for training welders, auto mechanics, electricians and machinists, are all subject to the federal sales tax. It would be inappropriate to provide relief for aircraft used in flight instruction when comparable equipment used in teaching other skills is taxable. Nevertheless, student pilots do receive a significant benefit from the government as their tuition fees for ground school training and the cost of flying training under instruction both qualify for deduction from income for income tax calculation purposes.


Mr. Wenman: Will the government consider amending the Excise Tax Act, schedule 111, part XVI, section 1(a) to include hydraulic tools in the list of construction equipment eligible for tax exemption?


Pierre Bussières: The
Excise Tax Act now provides relief from the federal sales tax for a range of equipment which is designed for construction or demolition purposes, or for use directly in placing concrete mortar or asphalt. Equipment, for example, hydraulic tools, which have a wide variety of applications have never been extended exemption because of administrative concerns and the revenue cost. The government does not propose any changes in this policy at the present time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 30 is acceptable to the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 30 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

CEIC-LABOUR MARKET DEVELOPMENT Motion No. 30-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all papers and studies done for the CEIC Labour Market Development Task Force with respect to employment and training problems in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 10, 1980

[English)



VACANCY


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, if now is the time to do so, I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Cardigan in the province of Prince Edward Island by reason of the untimely death of the Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald, the member for that district.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, 1 do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 9, 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.

[Stage Direction]
Vote No. 1
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: I understand that the hon. member for Waterloo had the floor when debate in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-47 was concluded yesterday. I believe I am correct in indicating that the hon. member did not utilize the whole time he was allowed and that he has about ten minutes remaining. I will verify this in a moment.
I understand that the hon. member for Waterloo has now determined that he will not utilize the remainder of his time. Therefore, 1 will recognize an hon. member on my right. In this instance I understand the hon. member for Guelph will rise to speak.


Mr. Schroder:: Mr. Chairman, 1 am grateful for the opportunity to address the House in Committee of the Whole while it is examining the estimates for Agriculture Canada. Of all the ministries of the Government of Canada, my constituency of Guelph is most intimately related to this one. At this point in time the people of Guelph are most concerned about the fate of the Canfarm Co-op. I will return to that subject in a moment, but first I would like to address myself to the broader relationship of agriculture to the nation at large and my own constituency.
Supply
In the House of Commons, we frequently talk about the importance of small business, private enterprise, and the importance of enhancing the business climate for the over-all betterment of the Canadian economy. Agriculture, too, is a business in Canada subject to most of the same risks as an ordinary business, consuming large amounts of capital investment, large cash flows, and facing many difficult conditions that many Canadians fail to appreciate. Early in our history the taming of the wilderness and cultivation of the soil laid the foundation for the economic development of Canada. No civilization in history has ever attained any measure of social and industrial development without first having an advanced agricultural sector.
I represent the riding of Guelph which has a strong and vibrant industrial base, and a great university of which we are extremely proud. The international recognition and prestige that this institution enjoys is based primarily on its contribution to agricultural science. The Ontario Agricultural College, established in 1873, and the Ontario Veterinary College, established in 1862, along with the MacDonald Institute, were founding colleges of what is now the University of Guelph. The contributions of these colleges to the science of agriculture is beyond calculation. The husbandry of soil, crops and animals has been advanced to levels unsurpassed anywhere in the world by the applied research of the University of Guelph.
However, we should never forget that the successful application of this specialized knowledge falls on the shoulders of the farmers themselves. It is a national blessing that most provinces in Canada are able to provide strong support for the agricultural sector which provides Canada and the world with its food supply.
I have a strong personal interest in the role of agriculture in Canada in that I have made my living for more than three decades as a professional veterinarian. Most Canadians fail to make the connection between such areas as animal pathology, which was my field, grain transportation, hog prices, an assortment of other agriculture-related areas, and the food on their dinner tables, and the cost of providing it.
Canadians still enjoy the lowest food prices in the world as a proportion of their income. Yet, this is possible because of two factors and two factors only. They are, first, an accident of birth and geography which finds us living within one of the biggest and most fertile agricultural zones in the world, and second, the amazing strides that the farming and agricultural community has made in exploiting these advantages. Canada has never had fewer farmers as a percentage of its population than it has today, yet they produce more in absolute and per capita terms than ever before.
At one point in time it would not have been necessary for a member of Parliament to stand up in public and argue the case for the Canadian farmer to ensure that he receives his due. Before World War II, about one-third of the population was classified as rural. Now the urban population has climbed to a staggering 95 per cent of all Canadians. The farmer is now a smaller minority but he continues to maintain this land as the

December 10, 1980
Supply
best fed in the world, and one of the fewer than half-dozen in the world which is still a net exporter of food materials.
I spoke a moment ago of the challenges and successes that the agricultural community has witnessed over the years. In my own area there have been many breakthroughs in animal health. Canadian farmers have developed many varieties of plants that are specially suited to our own environmental conditions.
Output per individual worker in urban industry has doubled since the 1950s. That is not a bad record, but we should all be grateful that the agricultural worker has done considerably better. He has quadrupled his output per capita in the same period.
All of these advances in agriculture did not just happen by accident. Aside from the time and the determination of the people required to reach these plateaus, there remains the question of money and finance.
In 1961, capital investment in Canadian farming amounted to $13.2 billion, rose to $57 billion in 1976, and it is estimated to be at more than $70 billion at this time, more than $120,000 per farmer. It goes without saying that to maintain high levels of output resulting from massive investment, sound and effective financial management is an absolute necessity. This is where Canfarm fits into the scheme of things.
The costs of operating a farm in 1980 are astronomical. Interest rates have proven to be extremely unpredictable and the low interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation can only provide a partial escape. The federal government has a lot at stake in the farms of Canada in a very literal sense. Seventy per cent of all long-term farm debts in Canada is handled through the Farm Credit Corporation, with an additional load being carried through the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Also I have referred to the record of Canadian agriculture in holding down food costs through new and innovative technology. The over-all health of the farm sector is important in holding the line in the importation of food from abroad.
Canfarm is inseparable from the subject of a vibrant agricultural sector, given the scale of finance involved in modern farming. The Minister of Agriculture made the observation that the Government of Canada has put ten years of research effort and money into Canfarm. Without question, his ministry is now strapped for cash, as are all other ministries. But I do not for a moment disagree with the argument that much of the blame for the current situation of Canfarm rests on the shoulders of provincial ministers of agriculture and the farm organizations which have failed to promote Canfarm sufficiently and to recruit the members it will ultimately need to sustain itself.
Even so, I think the federal government has spent too much time, effort and money in the development of Canfarm to permit it to fold now, regardless of whether or not the present difficulties are the fault of other parties.
A significant portion of new farm loans is made to young farmers under the age of 35. The managerial assistance offered to them through Canfarm is especially valuable. One of the side effects of the high finance of modern farming is the tidal wave of record-keeping which must be maintained. Can-farm reduces this burden immeasurably for thousands of young farmers, giving them a clear idea of their financial positions. Many Canadian farm organizations have answered the call in supporting Canfarm. I urge all farm organizations to take a very close look at what is happening with Canfarm right now.
I offer the same advice to all ministers of agriculture, both federal and provincial. The collapse of Canfarm is an option which is totally unacceptable and should not be entertained by anyone for a moment. The Canfarm co-op is under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Peter Hannam currently and holds the promise of many years of productive service, if it can be preserved. Its loss would not merely be a loss to the agricultural sector, it would be a loss for all Canada, given the intimacy between agriculture and the rest of the economy. There is pressure to have Canfarm continue. Numerous blueprints for its continuation have been proposed, and we must agree on one which is feasible to all parties concerned. Is it really necessary for me to point out that it is far simpler for us to strengthen Canfarm now than it would be to try to recreate it at some time in the future? With all the enthusiasm and influence at my disposal, I strongly urge all parties concerned to go to the furthest extremes to come to an agreement on the preservation of Canfarm. We want it and we need it. The common ground is there. It is up to us to find it.
Would the minister explain where we stand with Canfarm now? What steps has he taken as minister to try to preserve this very necessary organization?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member stated, it took a long time to develop the Canfarm organization. A lot of research was put into this program, mainly by Agriculture Canada before it was started. It has a lot of experience, but it has not enjoyed the support it should have from anybody other than Agriculture Canada over the period of time from when it started back in the late sixties.
Canfarm has not received the support it should have from the provincial ministers of agriculture, farm organizations or their leaders. Actually the support from some farm organizations has pretty nearly been nil, and from some provincial governments it has been less than that, if that is possible. Since the smaller provincial governments depend on Canfarm for services provided to them because they cannot afford to obtain them from anywhere else, it is important to the smaller provincial governments. They have received some lip service from some farm organizations and their leaders in the fact that they condemn the federal Minister of Agriculture and the federal government for letting down Canfarm. If I were a farm leader, I would do more than that: I would encourage the farm members of my organization to join.
We know the leaders of the UPA in Quebec. If it was not for this session in the House, I would be addressing them later
December 10, 1980

this afternoon in Quebec City; it would be a pleasure to do so.
I congratulate them on their efforts and what they are doing at the present time. They are seriously considering buying Can-farm. They say that they can provide 10,000 members for Canfarm in short order.
When we look at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which claims to have 24,000 members, they would not even require half of that membership to make Canfarm, along with UPA, the tremendous success it must be. As far as I am concerned we have lived within the agreement made to them. We hoped that enrolment in two years would be close to 10,000. If it was at that break-even point now, there would be no difficulty with its financing etc., but Canfarm has only 5,000 members.
There has been some argument-and perhaps it has been legitimate argument-that the number of members we turned over were not real members. We said that about 8,000 members would be turned over to them, and they have pointed out that less than 5,000 members really belong to Canfarm. We know those figures are argumentative.
The break-even point for Canfarm is 10,000 to 12,000 members, preferably 12,000. The Canfarm co-operative service is under the direction of Peter Hannam, as the hon. member stated. He has tried very hard to come up with the proper program. We have lived up to the intent of the agreement. The money received was $1.2 million in 1979-80 and $1.2 million in 1980-81 and depended on the need and the progress of the organization. This is what we said we would do. Presently the financial resources of the co-operative are virtually exhausted. It may be necessary to consider closing down Canfarm and to finish the 1980 farm accounts by March, 1981. The options would be to sell the business, restructure it, or close it down with the decision taken in March or April of 1981.
Those people who feel strongly about Canfarm can make representations to my colleagues in cabinet, to other members of my party and to the leaders of farm organizations to have them come forward. I must say that some of the farm organizations have been very quiet, even under the desperate conditions facing Canfarm at the present time. All options require the loan guarantees to be paid, and we know it could cost us a substantial amount of money to close down Canfarm. We know it will cost quite a bit of money, if we try to continue on operating it under the present conditions following any of these options. All options require Canfarm to operate from now until December 31, 1980, at an estimated extra cost, above the $300,000 we just put into it, if I understand it correctly, of $570,000.
In addition, the costs estimates are as follows: at December 31, 1980, the close down decision is $1.7 million, for January-March, 1981. The sale of business up to January-March, 1981, is $1.7 million. Restructuring or close-down costs decided for March-April are $1.2 million in January-March, 1981, to $1.3 million in April-December, 1981. Total cost estimates of the
Supply
December, 1980, close-down decision could be $5.8 million. The sale of the business could be $5.8 million. The restructuring or close down decision for March-April 1, 1980-81, could be $5.3 million. For 1980-82 the figure is $1.3 million. The total cost is $6.6 million.
If we had that kind of support for this organization then I agree with the hon. member for Guelph that it does warrant it.
I am sure that I, as Minister of Agriculture, can sell a better bill of goods to the economic people in the Government of Canada on where we could go and what we should do with Canfarm.
I personally support Canfarm. I think it is a unique organization. 1 do not know of any other group of agricultural producers who have this kind of organization available to them. But it is at the stage where we must make a decision in the next few days with respect to what we will do. Unless I get more support than I have at present I will be in no other position but to recommend a close down of Canfarm, either at the end of December, or possibly the end of January, in order that they can finish up the year-end business somehow with a skeleton staff.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Chairman, I was quite alarmed with what the minister just said vis-a-vis Canfarm. While I hear him blaming the farmers, the co-ops and the provincial governments, I think he will agree, in all fairness, that the government has entered into a three-year agreement with respect to Canfarm and it is really pulling out the plug after two years. That affects the degree of confidence which farmers have with respect to getting into the program. It seems a shame that the government would pull the plug now when Canfarm has just gone through a very extensive advertising program and when they have had accountants and agents in place across the country.
If I understand the minister correctly, I think he is saying that he does not have support from his cabinet colleagues. That ties in with my comments which deal with the role of the department vis-a-vis the Canadian budget-the cheap food policy of Canada and its effect on agriculture and capital gains tax and how that is dramatically affecting our farm community. I believe the reality is that the Department of Agriculture is not receiving the respect and support which it deserves from cabinet. I believe the minister has to bear the responsibility for that. I know how proud he is of his eight-year tenure at the helm of that department, but I think the facts speak for themselves. The department is being systematically downgraded by the cabinet, and we would like to help the minister get that reversed because it is not right.
I notice in the 1980 main estimates that the department had 1.75 per cent of the budget. After the supplementary estimates were received, that dropped to 1.35 per cent in this year alone. I think the minister would agree that is a genuinely alarming situation. I know from estimates in previous years that the departmental percentage was as high as 2.7 per cent and, indeed, I think it was 3.2 per cent in 1969-70.

December 10, 1980
Supply
I also notice in his budget that only $140 million goes to research. That figure is taken from his Lethbridge speech. It is only .2 per cent of a $60 billion budget. When you contrast that with over $10 billion spent on the deficit on debt charges, without reducing the national debt, that is truly alarming. So I ask the minister to give us his specific personal plans to get the department back up to its traditional levels of over 2 per cent of the federal budget.
The second area which he might want to refer to is this cheap food policy. I was quite alarmed to read in a number of Liberal members' brochures which were sent out to householders that they were bragging about Canadians spending the smallest amount of money compared with a number of other countries for a 21-item food basket. They quoted these figures: Canada spent $55.58 for that food basket compared to $80.58 for Italy, $105.40 for Switzerland, and $135.10 for Japan. Those same brochures pointed out how proud the government was that Canadians work a shorter period of time to enable them to buy that basket as compared with the time people in other countries work. Surely the Minister of Agriculture should not be seen travelling around the country bragging about that. This means his department and the people who look to him for leadership are bearing the costs. That cheap food policy does have a cost-the cost is borne directly by our farmers.
Mr. Chairman, the farmers pay in a number of ways. The first major way is that this cheap food policy can only be maintained by smaller farmers dropping away. When we look at the statistics we see that there are over 100,000 fewer agricultural holdings today than there were only a few years ago. So the cheap food policy is only maintained by farmers dropping away and larger farmers taking up land and buying up larger equipment, theoretically achieving greater economies of scale. Presumably that could carry on until we had only one farm left. That would be disastrous.
There are examples of where effectively there is only one farmer-these are in centrally-controlled socialist countries. When you go through the list of them you see that they have all lost, even though at one point they had the ability to feed themselves. They have virtually all lost that ability now, whether it be in Poland, Russia, or even Mexico. At one time Mexico used to export sugar in hundreds of thousands of tons. The moment Mexico went into a highly centralized and controlled bureaucracy it lost that ability. Now it must import sugar.
The solution, of course, is to keep our farmers on the land. Otherwise the cost is too great in terms of the farm community and in terms of the way of life in those places. I submit it is the job of the minister to see that this is encouraged. I would like the minister to comment on why he is not out selling this policy to the consumers. I have read all the minister's speeches, and some of them are very good, but almost invariably they are given to farm communities. Our Minister of Agriculture should go to the cities, not to the farms, to convince people that they need to pay more.
The third area which is quite important deals with capital gains tax and the impact it is having. I believe it is a time bomb which will affect food production in this country far more seriously than anything else we have done. Mr. Chairman, up to 1972 there had never been a capital gains tax imposed on land. It was before that time that we developed the infrastructure in our agricultural community which made this country a vast exporter of grain. Canada is only one of four nations in the world which is exporting grain. But after 1972 a capital gains tax was imposed on farmland and there was a valuation date set at December 31, 1971.
Serious problems have arisen to the extent that in the December, 1979, Conservative party's budget some substantial relief was provided. It did not go as far as many of us would like, but it was a step in the right direction. Then throughout the subsequent election, the Liberal party gave the promise that it would extend the valuation date from 1971 to 1974, but in the October 28 budget nothing happened. That election promise was simply and purely broken. I am wondering what the minister has to say on that matter.
The November, 1980, white paper indicates that there would be no change. Indeed, if one reads the capital gains white paper carefully, it clearly indicates that the Minister of Finance and his officials are thinking of taking away the capital gains benefits which exist now. I know the minister will refer to other nations, but I submit to him that other nations are not the test because other nations which have gone to those types of policies are losing their capacity to produce food, and why would we do that?
As I say, the problem is a time bomb. The December 31 valuation day is simply too low. We know from the statistical records that the value of our land, at least in my constituency, was substantially higher in 1968-1969. But because of economic policy and other influences, land had taken a drop in 1971 and it was at a low point when the valuation day was set. So really the minister's election promise of 1974 values would be much more realistic, if one were to accept the principle of capital gains at all.
The second point on capital gains which is so dangerous is the inflation factor because it has increased the value of land without there having been any real gains. In short, what happened during that 1972 to 1974 period when the minister's government, albeit perhaps not with his permission, turned on the printing press, and created so much money that it had to settle on certain things. Unfortunately, that excess money supply settled on land. So the value of land went up but the real gain was not there.
In the past, retiring farmers had always been able to sell their land, buy a house in the city and have a small nest egg. We have all heard that farmers live poor and die rich, but they do not really die rich because the average size of a farm in Canada today is still only about 400 acres, really a small unit. When a farmer sells land to buy a home and have a little nest
December 10, 1980

egg on which to retire today this triggers the capital gains tax and he is unable to buy and retire to that home.
As a solicitor in southern Alberta, I can list dozens of examples of farmers who have sold farms and simply have been unable to purchase the homes which others had always been able to purchase before and retire. They are virtually forced to remain on the land or to take advantage of one of the rollovers. 1 know the minister has said that he is happy with the roll-over provisions and believes that they are generous. They are also a trap which is beginning to get the farming community into a very serious situation.
We all know that the spousal rollover is a deferral and that is a good idea to which nobody objects. The tax would be levied when the spouse dies. We also know that if there is only one child and the farmer wants to roll over his farm to that one child who is farming, it will defer the capital gains tax for another generation, and it goes on ad infinitum. If there is more than one child the same feature applies.
The problem arises if the farmer wants to transfer his farm to one child. At the 1971 value he can obtain a roll over of that sum but, as 1 pointed out earlier, the 1971 value is not enough money to buy a retirement home. But if the farmer wants to sell for more than the 1971 value, he must pay the tax. So, there is not a rollover. If the farmer sells to his son at greater than the 1971 value, the tax has to be paid. Or if the farmer takes from his son a sum greater than the 1971 value but they choose for tax purposes to roll it into the son's name at the 1971 value, ultimately when the son has to sell he must pay the capital gains, and he has already had to pay the cash to the father. So that is a very serious trap.
Because the value of land has increased so substantially, with no inflation factor, farmers are now finding that they are virtually forced to pay the tax so as to get cash in order to retire. It is a serious matter and I would appreciate the minister's comments on how he thinks that problem can be handled.
The most serious problem to which the minister must address his attention is the one where the farmer really wants the farm to go to a farming child, but there are other nonfarming children whom he wants to treat fairly when the estate is settled. Most farmers today have daughters and sons who have left the farm. It is almost impossible to leave an equal value to the children who have left the farm. None of the roll-over provisions work under that condition, because if the farmer leaves it to the one farming child, he must somehow create equity for the other children. Invariably, they do not have enough cash to do that. The farmer does not want to leave the farm to these children because he wants it to stay intact as an efficient farming unit. What does the minister propose to do about that problem? It may seem to be a small problem at the moment, but one must consider what it will become in 50 years.
There is a solution. It is based upon an important principle which I hope the minister will embrace, and upon which I will appreciate his comments. We know that only 13 per cent of Canada's land has agricultural potential. We know that only 4
Supply
per cent of the land is class one or class two land. On a world scale, Canada has only 3 per cent of the arable land. Therefore, I submit, as a matter of principle, that it is immoral for us to be putting a capital gains tax on bona fide agricultural land. The basis of that principle is that we want to keep the land efficient to produce food. We want to retain the way of life of the agricultural community, and the world needs the food.
I submit to the minister that it is genuinely immoral for Canadians to be taxing agricultural land, just as it is immoral for us to be out in the world economy borrowing money which should be given to Third World countries. It is immoral for Canada to be buying oil on the world market when we could have our own policies for self-sufficiency. I submit that on a global scale it is immoral for us to tax the 3 per cent of the world's land which makes us an exporting country. And there could be a heavy tax.
The minister might want to consider that if the land goes out of agricultural production, then it is an appropriate time for the government to step in. This would lead to developers developing on class four, class five and class six land. It would tend to keep cities on these classes of land. But as long as the land is bona fide agricultural land, there should be no capital gains tax between the generations.
In order to give the minister some time to respond I now ask, why has the departmental budget dropped under the minister, why has the consumer paid less for food under this minister at the cost of the farmers who have had to leave the land, why has the minister permitted capital gains in the first place, and why has he permitted the Minister of Finance to break the election promise of the Liberal party concerning the valuation day date?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has made many statements and some of them warrant comment. He has asked specific questions and he has commented on the laws which allow for the transfer of farm land from one spouse to another and from parent to child without taxation. No other country in the world has a law of this kind. It cannot be found in the United States, Great Britain, France, or in any countries on which we have checked.
1 remember that Mr. Butz, when he was secretary of agriculture in the United States, said this kind of thing could cause a revolution in other parts of our society. I explained to him that the young man or woman who helped build the farm did not then have to buy it by paying taxes. That is a tremendous thing, Mr. Chairman. I know many people with families who farm who are not in a position to do that sort of thing-transfer the farm to a child.
In my own family, for instance, there were six sons on one small farm so there was no opportunity for the land to be turned over to anybody. We each purchased land on our own by doing jobs such as working in factories, share cropping and renting land.

December 10, 1980
Supply
I think our laws are wonderful. 1 would be surprised if people in the parts of southern Alberta that I know who have any size of holding at all, do not retire with some form of dignity, more dignity than would have been possible even ten years ago, from the return received for their farms. In that time farm values have increased by three of four hundred per cent. That means they have so much more money now although, of course, there will be capital gains tax to pay. As far as I am concerned, we have not finished with that yet. We have said that the valuation date should be 1974, but we can still have discussions on that. The matter is not finished as far as I and many other members of caucus are concerned.
Why is farm land selling at such high prices, Mr. Chairman? The real answer is because agricultural economics are good in Canada. Farmers are buying land because they want to farm it and because it is a good investment. We have one of the best systems in the world. We hear talk about large holdings, but it is still farm families who are buying the land. Two or three members of a family often combine to buy a quarter, half, or a whole section of land in their neighbourhood. We hear a lot about foreign ownership, but over 95 per cent of farms in Canada are owned and operated by families. Not many countries in the world can make that claim. That is one reason why our farms are so productive.
There has been much talk about a Canadian cheap food policy. Mr. Chairman, there are many farmers who never apply to me for any assistance whatsoever. They do not get a penny of our tax dollars; they get all their money from the marketplace. I am referring to some of the people on marketing boards, my prize projects. Those people are paying their bills and taxes, they are making investments and are not receiving a penny of subsidy.
That is one of the reasons why I do not need so much money in my budget. I do not have to give out tremendous subsidies such as those given to the pork producers this year which will amount to $46 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order which I have discussed with you and the appropriate persons in the government and the official opposition.
In accordance with the practice that has been employed three or four times in the last few days, each time the New Democratic Party is accorded 20 minutes we would like to split it into two ten-minute periods on the understanding that, if the first member goes over time, the second one is called at the end of a total of 20 minutes. I believe this is acceptable and, of course, we would agree to it if the other parties would like to do the same thing. In the next 20-minute period we would like to present the hon. member for Prince Albert, followed by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I understand from my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, that this would apply to all parties. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


David Michael Collenette: The 20-minutes period accorded to each party in a normal rotation can be split into two ten-minute speeches by each party if they wish. Is that the agreement?


Mr. Wise:: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct. There has been consultation with us and we certainly agreed. We may not choose to divide our 20 minutes into two ten-minute speeches until, perhaps, eight o'clock. If it is the wish of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and New Democratic members to divide their 20 minutes beginning now, that certainly meets with our approval.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Hon. members opposite make all kinds of accusations and put questions and I have no opportunity to answer. How am I supposed to answer that kind of discussion unless you leave me about an hour at the end of the session to answer a hundred questions? There must be about 40 already that have not been answered.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ostiguy:: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order.


Denis Éthier: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Chairman, when the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me whether it was possible, I said yes as far as the NDP members were concerned, but government members still want 20 minutes to make their statement and an opportunity for the minister to reply.


Denis Éthier: The matter now falls into two areas, the first being that proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who proposed that each party internally regulate itself to distribute the 20 minutes amongst its members as it sees fit. That is rather different from what we earlier had in mind in the last couple of days, where the time period was distributed evenly in two periods of ten minutes each. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made it clear that it is a 20-minute time-frame and it is not going to be the responsibility of the Chair to see to it that it is divided within that time.
In that case, as the hon. member suggested, when the first member of a given party sits down and his time period has not been entirely used, if the House now agrees-and I shall come to that in a moment-the Chair will then recognize the next member of that party until the 20 minutes have been used up.
I can see some difficult problems arising. We may get to the point where some hon. members suggest that two minutes remain, or one minute remains, and we will be going around at a fair clip. But if that is the proposal that the hon. member wants to put and if hon. members are satisfied with it, that is fine.
Before I put it to the House, however, there is the matter raised by the Minister of Agriculture. It requires unanimous
December 10, 1980

consent in order to move in the fashion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not have an answer for the Minister of Agriculture. It has been noted in previous proceedings that some hon. members apparently put questions to the minister or, as he says, accusations, and then there is not enough time for him to answer. As I said on Monday, that is the way the rules now read. I cannot do anything about that unless some hon. member wants to propose a new system.
I certainly do not want to frustrate the will of the House. I think it is fair to point out that if the hon. minister is not satisfied with the proposal made by the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre, he.only has to withhold unanimous consent and the matter will not go forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we try it until nine o'clock tonight and if by that time the minister has not been able to get in, we can review the situation.


John Carnell Crosbie: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion for a new procedure. Instead of Liberal members, when they have their turn, occupying it with selfcongratulatory statements and nonsensical support of the government, they could give the minister some time to do the exact same thing. He would feel better and everything would go along more smoothly. One out of every three members is a Liberal, unfortunately. That is something that the next election will solve.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, as usual, the hon. member for St. John's West has injected a purely irrelevant note into the debate. All members are equal in this House, and Liberal members have every right to question the Minister of Agriculture, as do members on the other side. I think the conduct in this debate by members on this side of the House has been exemplary. The record will show that members on our side have not made 20-minute speeches.
They have been asking questions and probing the minister in the same way as members on the opposite side.
The reason I rise again is to say that we are very flexible on this side, as we are in all matters. If it is the desire of one particular party to have more members ask questions, we would be flexible on that proposition. Perhaps we could reserve the decision for a moment and consult with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Elgin so we can work out a system instead of using the valuable time of the committee. Perhaps we could come back in a few minutes with an acceptable formula which will not restrict the right of any one party to participate in the debate. The formula has been well established to allow members to use the time allotted to their parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, could there be agreement to let the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain have the next 20 minutes, and in the meantime we can review the situation about the rest of the day?
Supply


Denis Éthier: It is my impression that matters have proceeded far enough along the lines proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member is reducing the time as originally proposed to the House. It is my understanding that hon. members are ready to proceed on a trial effort of no particular duration.
I just want to remind hon. members that there is the possibility that with one, two or three minutes left in any given time slot, there will be various members who will rise wanting recognition. We can see that might cause some distress. However, it has been proposed by the hon. member that we try this procedure. As I understand it, all members who have stood for recognition have agreed to try the procedure without any particular time limit. This is subject to discussion, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, to see whether he is satisfied and others are satisfied that it will work well.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, we have not agreed to any particular formula. I have asked that we wait for a few minutes so we can discuss the matter outside the chamber and come back when there is an agreement on the way in which we should proceed.


Denis Éthier: As far I am concerned, that is exactly what I just said. We will proceed in that fashion and the Chair will be advised by hon. members in due course if a specific ruling is wanted. In the meantime, the Chair will recognize members in the normal way.
I shall now recognize the hon. member for Prince Albert. My apologies to him. The discussion was centred on the subject matter of his party so much so that I omitted recognizing the hon. member for Algoma, whose turn it is to speak.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this will give hon. members a chance to work out the arrangement just discussed.
I believe the agricultural economy and the production of food is very important. In the next 20 years we will see acute shortages in many areas. Three commodities, minerals, energy and food, will be very important to the world. Food and the capability of a country to produce food will become ever more important. During the past decade we have seen great uncertainties for agricultural producers. These have waxed and waned in importance, but in my own district of Algoma-Manitoulin our agricultural producers have experienced periods of severe uncertainty. For example, the drought period of a couple of years ago and the very depressed prices for beef meant that producers and cow-calf operators suffered from 1975 to 1978. There have been tremendous increases in input costs which dairy producers are experiencing, including such things as the rapid increase in the price of land, fertilizers, fuel, machinery and help. These all add up to uncertainty about the future.
It is important that the Government of Canada and the associated provincial governments do their part in evening out these mountains and valleys for the agricultural producers. The Minister of Agriculture has visited my agricultural producing areas on a couple of occasions. He is always welcome

December 10, 1980
Supply
and well received. We are glad to see him because it puts a personal face to the agriculture department of the Government of Canada as far as the agricultural producers are concerned. I know this role he plays is not only applicable to my district but it is also applicable across the country.
Last July 1 had an opportunity to visit a community in Saskatchewan where I practised for a number of years as a rural veterinarian. I attended the seventy-fifth anniversary of the town of Carnduff. The Minister of Agriculture was there as a special guest as well. During that period much of Manitoba and Saskatchewan was in the midst of a very severe drought. It was certainly the worst drought I had ever seen in the years that I visited or lived in that part of the country. I must say that the minister's visit was a warm and friendly one and it provided an opportunity for him to see severe drought conditions which existed at that time. In Canada we have regionalization in the political parties at this time with Liberals in northern Ontario, northern New Brunswick, Quebec and much of Ontario, but no government members west of Winnipeg. The New Democratic Party was essentially wiped out east of Oshawa, and the Progressive Conservative Party have only one member in the Province of Quebec. It is, therefore, important for ministers of the Crown to visit these areas where we don't have MPs because information provided by provincial governments and local members is often adverse. The minister does an excellent job of meeting with agricultural groups and this enables him to outline his department's programs.
In Saskatchewan in early July the minister had a chance to outline the drought assistance program for the beef producers which will help them to maintain their herds during the next few years.
When the minister responds, perhaps he could let us know the amount of aid which was provided to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and to northwestern Ontario in drought aid this past year, or what the amount is that is anticipated.
I have mentioned the uncertainties which many agricultural producers face with the rapid increase in inflation and input costs. One of those, of course, is the increase in the costs for fuel.
People who are concerned about the rapid increase in the price of food are cognizant of the steps which were taken in the National Energy Program to moderate the price of input costs for fuel for farm operators. This was a major issue in the February 18 election. If we look at a typical agricultural producer in western or eastern Canada using some 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year, during the course of the next four years, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984, we can see the added costs of the former budget brought in last December 11.
The added cost of the Crosbie budget, if we compare the budgets for those four years, would be approximately $780 in 1981, $780 in 1982, $2,820 in 1983, and $3,840 in 1984. We therefore see that the average agricultural producer who uses 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel would have an added cost with the December 11 budget, compared to the National Energy Program, of $8,220. If it were just a simple case of that cost being passed on to the producer, it would have a drastic effect on the cost of food. However, it probably would not happen that way. In actual fact much of that cost would not be passed on to the consumer but would have to be borne by the agricultural producer. With all the uncertainties he already faces and an added cost of some $8,000 over a four-year period, or some $2,000 a year, my guess is a large percentage of that would come out of the producer's income.
At the same time, if we look at the National Energy Program we see that the cost of natural gas over that same period would rise dramatically, 13 per cent in 1981, 17 per cent in 1982, 65 per cent in 1983, and 71 per cent in 1984. Natural gas, of course, is a prime component for nitrogen fertilizer. Again we would see agriculture producers facing a much higher input cost for fertilizer as well as fuel costs under the former budget of December 11 than with the price and tax regime outlined in "The National Energy Program." It is important that the input costs of agricultural producers be reduced by that amount, so that the consumers ultimately benefit. I would be interested in knowing if the Minister of Agriculture has assessed the impact on the food costs and the pricing regime for diesel fuel and fertilizer, comparing the National Energy Program price and the pricing regime outlined in the Crosbie budget of December 11.
With regard to the renewable energy portion of the National Energy Program, how much and what kinds of research will be carried out by the minister's department? There should be a massive increase in research on renewable energy. What amount of research will be carried out and on what specific projects with regard to biomass, gasohol, ethanol and other manufactured fuels under the renewable energy portion of that program?
There is another question I want to raise with the minister. A letter was sent out by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board indicating that severe and drastic changes are going to be made in the Canadian Dairy Commission policy at the end of this year. Will the minister clarify this situation? Representatives on the Ontario Milk Marketing Board from some areas of the province at least are expressing concern to their elected representatives. I would appreciate it if the minister could clarify that situation. The Canadian Dairy Commission policy has been beneficial to our agricultural producers, both in stabilizing and improving their net back position. I want to leave time for the minister to respond to the three or four questions 1 have raised during this period.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I first want to comment on the supposedly drastic cuts for dairy farmers in the industrial sector. In an answer during question period I said that was not true. I say again it is nonsense, especially when we consider the requests coming to us from other parts of the world to supply more dairy products. Prices are increasing for these commodities. The over-all position of the dairy industry in Canada is probably one of the healthiest in the world. Not only is the industry healthy, but also the total national herd. We are
i<\i
December 10, 1980

world leaders in exporting those great food machines, dairy cattle produced in Canada.
The hon. member asked what effect the extra energy costs will have on food prices for consumers. We have carried out some research which indicates that if we went to world prices for energy immediately, by 1985 food price increases to consumers will be as high as 35 to 40 per cent for that one reason alone.
Farmers face the same energy crises as other businesses. The 1980 prices for petroleum products paid by farmers increased by 17 per cent. Earlier the member for Elgin asked about energy costs. I was glad to hear the member for Algoma point out the savings in the period ending 1984 amounting to $8,220. I might point out it is not uncommon for farms to use 6,000 gallons per year. The hon. member for Elgin asked what kind of cushion we were providing. I say that is a pretty good cushion compared to what the Crosbie budget would have offered. We said we would attempt to cushion the rise in energy costs, and that is not a bad cushion.
There are other programs as well. Research is being carried out on renewable energy, biomass materials, the production of gasohol and alcohol from grain products. At the present time that appears to be uneconomic if other sources of energy are used to produce it, such as oil, stove oil, bunker oil, furnace oil or natural gas. If solar energy is used, there is some potential. The same applies to burning off gas, which is not presently being done.
Minimum research, or possibly more than that, has been carried out on farm tillage-for example, how much should be used on western grain farms. Fuel requirements can be reduced under proper conditions by over 30 per cent compared with conventional tillage practices. We know there are many areas where this can be done. Under the program announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, we will be working very closely with his department on a national energy saving program for food and food processing. By working in many small ways, it can add up to a significant saving.
I would also point out that in the food sector there has been a saving of 15 per cent in a little less than two years. That is an amazing feat of energy conservation. We see savings in farming come about through improved farm machinery, motor vehicle maintenance, and the use of low temperature crop drying systems. A farmer in my area, the former chairman of the Soybean Marketing Board, has invented a unique grain drying system, probably the most unique in southern Ontario, which does not use gas or oil for drying. It has been viewed by people from as far away as China. He gets a premium on this grain because it is naturally dried grain. Usually the only system he uses is air but on some occasions he uses electric heat bulbs. It is one of the most unique systems of all. There can be a tremendous saving on grain drying using this type of system.
In livestock production fuel consumption is being cut by improved insulation, ventilation, by the recovery of heat from
Supply
exhaust air, by controlling livestock housing temperatures in heated buildings, and in other ways. Much feel has been wasted in the past. We are very proud of some of the things people are accomplishing with all the conservation demonstration projects on many farms in different parts of Canada. Funds for these projects have been provided by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. We do not know how successful some of these will be, but the ingenuity and the initiative taken by some of the producers in coming up with new ways and new ideas to save energy are utterly fantastic.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister if he had an actual indication of the amount of funding provided to Saskatchewan, Manitoba and to northwestern Ontario for drought relief assistance in the past year. Does the minister have an actual figure on the cost of that assistance?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, we do have the figures. In the first instance we said we would pay $7 million for transportation of forage into northern Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Those funds were not all used. We then announced we would use moneys for herd maintenance programs. We said we would use over $60 million. I do not have the actual amounts of money paid out because it is not finalized. It appears we would be paying out a total of possibly $67 million or maybe a little less.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The parties have advised me that an agreement has been reached to permit any party, and in this particular case the NDP, to subdivide the 20-minute period into two ten-minute periods each. In order to do that it would require unanimous consent of the House. The parties have advised me there is unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes to make some remarks and go over some questions that the minister has been asked. I realize the importance of agriculture in our economy. I listened carefully to some speeches that were made yesterday by members of my province. In fact, from time to time we probably share the same interests and the same problems when we speak of Quebec and agricultural measures.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the minister at the outset that I will probably be less aggressive than I was five years ago when several of my colleagues shared my preoccupations and those of farmers, particularly in the dairy industry in Quebec. Yesterday, the parliamentary secretary explained the background of the agricultural development in Quebec and his comments about the direction of agriculture in Quebec and the rest of Canada were interesting and useful.
Still I would like to refer to the document that all members have received and question the minister, given the interest also shown by farmers in my riding, not to mention milk producers, potato producers, tobacco producers and horticulturists. So

December 10, 1980
Supply
agriculture plays an important part in the economy of my riding.
Many farmers are concerned about their future and they have made it known in the brief presented recently by the dairy farmers of Canada to the minister and the department. Yesterday the member for Champlain, 1 think, talked about a rumour to the effect that the government was intent on putting an end to these subsidies of $2.66 and the minister said that he was not aware of any such recommendation. I would have preferred him to say that no such measure was being considered and that milk producers would continue receiving these subsidies.
The minister said a few times since the beginning of this debate that he regretted not having time to give answers. I am going to try to give him time to answer for the official record. He may rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that I will convey his answers to the farmers of my riding and that Quebec farmers will also be interested to learn about them.
Could the minister tell us right now if these subsidies to dairy producers are not going to be maintained?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I have told two hon. members today, one during the question period and just recently the member for Algoma, there is no truth to that whatsoever. The Treasury Board has approved the program as of Monday this week for this coming year.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for his reply.
The dairy farmers of Canada are also concerned. In 1975, the federal government announced the implementation of a policy to increase prices comprising a formula for adjusting the income of producers to production costs.
Can the minister tell us today whether or not this policy will be maintained over the long term, since the dairy farmers of Canada stress the importance for the government to commit itself to helping producers over the long haul? Can the minister assure dairy producers that formula pricing will be maintained? For how many years will it apply? I am not sure I can put the question to him in those words, but it does seem that the dairy farmers stress the need for a long-term commitment in that regard.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, if only all agricultural producers in the world had been served as well as the dairy producers have been served under the Canadian dairy policy. 1 know of no other group of dairy producers in the world who have the kind of long-term dairy policy Canadian producers enjoy. It is one which has been there for many years. It is reviewed every year and unless there is going to be some drastic change they would be notified in due time. There is no suggestion by the dairy producers or by the government at this
time that there be any kind of change. It is under review. It is an agreement we made when we established the long-term dairy policy that it would be reviewed from time to time and that is being done at the present time. They would have to go over all the workings and ramifications of this dairy policy. Almost everyone who examines the dairy program run by the dairy commission is complimentary.
We have had people from Japan, from France, from Switzerland, from West Germany come to see this program which is managed so well. I think we are the envy of the world. In practically every other part of the world where dairy production is of any significance there are problems which supersede ours. They are mismanaged in every way imaginable. Even Japan has dairy surpluses and does not know what to do with them. Ours is the best managed of any dairy program in the entire world.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said time and time again that Canada has the best system in the world. I am not in the mood to discuss that at this time; I am merely concerned with the interests of the dairy farmers of Canada. His colleagues, I am sure, agree with me and would like to know whether or not the government intends to maintain the formula pricing. I do not want the minister to tell me again that he has the best system in the world. We know things are working out reasonably well at this time. I merely want to know, for the benefit of the dairy farmers of Canada, which comprises all dairy producers in the country, whether the government intends to keep the formula. The minister did say "unless there is going to be some drastic change" so right away dairy farmers worry. So, I would like him to tell us whether or not formula pricing will be in effect for one, two or three years. That is the question of the dairy farmers of Canada; it is not mine, Mr. Minister.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, formula pricing has been here since 1975. I do not know if the hon. member is trying to create discontent, trying to start a rumour or what have you, but no one has suggested that formula pricing should be changed, not this minister nor any other minister in this government, as far as I know. There has been no suggestion that formula pricing be changed.
People in other parts of our society have a much more fixed situation than do the dairy farmers of Canada. When we give them formula pricing, it is not any greater than in many other parts of our productive society, nor even some parts of our society which are not so productive with respect to indexing the cost of living for senior citizens, people on disability pensions and others. The formula pricing we have for our dairy farmers is better than that in any other part of the world. The hon. member asked me not to repeat that, but I do so because other parts of the world do not have such a good system for their dairy farmers.
December 10, 1980


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that the minister would give me the same reply as earlier. I do not want to alarm the producers or the Canadian population. My question is very simple. The dairy farmers of Canada hope and wish the minister will maintain this formula pricing. They said so, as the minister is well aware. 1 simply wanted to ask the minister if he could tell me what he will be able to do for them. Will he maintain this formula pricing this year, at least for some time? 1 do not know. However, I believe the minister could tell me.
1 know that this formula has had good results since 1975. I know all that, but dairy farmers would like to know whether the minister can guarantee that this formula will be maintained and for how long, or at least, I imagine that they would like to be reassured that this formula will still be applied in 1981. If the minister can provide further reassurance, so much the better for dairy farmers. In other words, I am asking the same question once again. Can the minister tell us whether this formula will be maintained in 1981?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, yes.


Roch La Salle: This reply is very satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. I really like a minister who can provide such answers. I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that after the contribution made by certain members yesterday, I also had the opportunity to ask certain questions of the minister about the subsidy for pork producers, who include pig fatteners and weaner pig producers. One of the members, I do not remember which one, either the member for Champlain or the member for Chicoutimi, mentioned the delays in receiving these subsidies. I do not want to ask any question of the minister about this, but 1 simply want to say that I have also received complaints in this regard and I imagine that, after hearing the comments made by my colleagues opposite, the minister will take some action to try to reduce the waiting period for pork producers as concerns the subsidies. Of course, 1 am happy that the minister has reacted to the representations made concerning the situation of pork producers.
There is another question I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, Mr. Chairman. I have read today in the newspaper that there is a surplus of maple syrup. Perhaps maple syrup producers would be interested in learning whether the minister is aware of this surplus, which is of particular concern to Quebec, as it seems that it could mean losses for producers who would have to store surplus syrup. Moreover, according to the international institute, there seems to be a budget problem for promoting maple syrup. Could the minister throw some light on the subject today?
Is the department prepared to increase allocations for promoting maple syrup? Could the minister tell us whether he
Supply
would be willing to recommend a moderate budget for promotional purposes so that the producers and the association can dispose of this surplus and also of the maple syrup production they will have in a few months? Perhaps the minister could throw some light on the situation for the information of maple syrup producers.
For the moment, the one who is wasting the time of the House is the minister. He is robbing me of my allotted time.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, we are aware that producers in la belle province had a very good crop of maple syrup last year. We are trying to find figures for the hon. member, but we give producers interest-free advance payments for their maple syrup so that they can properly supply the market. I am not aware whether there is a problem at the present time in marketing the product. I understand it was of high quality. It was on the market at a fairly good price. We advance the moneys so that the producers do not have to sell their product in a distressed market, so that the product does not have to seek a home on the market and so that speculators are not able to take advantage of the maple syrup producers.
We do not have the figure in front of us at this time, but 1 have received no representations from maple syrup producers in the last few months to my knowledge, so I am taking for granted that things are going as they had projected and hoped. If the hon. member has any information which is contrary to that, I would be pleased to have it, but I have not received any representations along those lines from the official organization representing maple syrup producers.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, according to a press release I have here from the International Institute of Maple Syrup Producers-which the parliamentary secretary will no doubt provide him with-there is four times more maple syrup than usual for this time. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that that surplus creates a problem. Perhaps we should consider an advertising campaign and perhaps the minister could ask his officials to look into the possibility of selling a part of this maple syrup outside the country.
But my time is going fast, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to voice to the minister my main concern regarding this sector and that is the question of younger producers who are expected to carry on. We must recognize that this industry is healthier today than before and we have reason to be optimistic, but we must also recognize, as others have indicated, that considering the cost of farms, it is difficult nowadays, even though the lending facilities are there, for a young would-be farmer to buy a farm because of the interest rate, which is also true for other areas. Interest rates represent a prohibitive cost and jeopardize the future of farming for the younger generations. They can also discourage the young from going into debt because there are years when production is not so good. I do not have any solutions to propose to the minister but I would ask him to

December 10, 1980
Supply
consider seriously this concern by young producers, this reluctance on their part to go into debt to buy a family farm.
Today, because of their cost, farms are often sold to foreign interests. There has been a change in outlook and values such that the children have a harder time maintaining the family farm, because of cost and interest rates. The minister could therefore consider implementing a specific policy to help young producers become owners and keep the family farm, a policy dealing with these interest costs which are a terrible handicap for the young who are interested in farming.
The minister is perfectly aware of the long-term situation, in any case, and 1 think that here and now we must concern ourselves with the interest cost problems those young people will have. I could raise the same concerns about the present situation of small home owners. The industry itself is concerned. The subject being agriculture, let us not stray from it. I try to be very objective in my approach, Mr. Chairman, because those are comments we often hear from young farmers who are wondering where the obligation to borrow sums of $150,000 or $200,000 is leading us. At the same time, we cannot help but think that that will indirectly affect production costs, and consequently, the consumer will be directly affected. In the circumstances, I take this opportunity to invite the minister to consider seriously this problem and the future of our young people in agriculture. It is important that young people get increasingly more interested. Some are interested, but the opportunities are limited and right now, in view of the present economic difficulties we all know about, I think interest rates weigh heavily on the future of agriculture. I ask the minister to give the matter serious consideration and try in any case to bring forward a policy that will encourage young Canadians and help them choose agriculture.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether I have a few more minutes-


An hon. Member:: One minute.


Roch La Salle: I have one minute left. I shall give that last minute to the dear minister who has too often complained he did not have enough time to answer. I hope he will seriously consider that last point 1 made, assistance to young farmers, the commitment to them, and funding is the way. I understand the minister's difficulties, but would he also understand the problems those young people face?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that in different parts of Canada there are different kinds of agricultural production, but in la belle province, from which the hon. member comes, the production entity is there. There is only one which I can think of, perhaps two, which does not have some kind of cost-pricing formula. For every dairy farmer who wants to sell out in Quebec, there are three young farmers who
want to enter the business, and they are protected with the cost-price formula for interest rates, etc. There is a subsidized form of interest rates for young farmers in Quebec.
To put the record straight, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have more young farmers percentagewise in the business. The average age of young farmers entering agriculture is the highest since 1951, if I remember the figures correctly. I do not have the exact percentages but there are more young farmers in agriculture now than many people realize. Those are people who have graduated from agricultural schools and university agricultural courses. We have a higher percentage of those young people entering agriculture now because of the good programs we have established for them.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Chairman, first I want to make a couple of comments, and then I will put my questions on a particular area.
Several times in the last three days I have heard it said that 20 years ago one farmer could feed 30 people. Now one farmer feeds 55 people and 20 years from now one farmer will feed 200 people. I am concerned about that approach because the implication is that farmers are becoming more efficient and productive. Possibly they are on an individual basis, but not a great deal more food is being produced per acre of land. I just wanted to make that comment to start with. I think we should watch what is happening so that we do not push too many of our farmers off the land, saying we have very efficient farmers because one farmer can feed 200 people.
Last year has not been a particularly good year for farmers. In the west we started out with a drought which lasted, in certain parts of the west, until the fall and which affected hay crops in particular. The result was that farmers did not have the kind of feed available to them that they had expected. Also, it pushed up the price of hay for feed in the west considerably, in some cases to twice the price it had been the previous year. Also, prices increased for other products and equipment, as was well documented at the Outlook conference last week. The price of fertilizer increased by 15 per cent. I am using ballpark figures because I did not take note of the exact figures which were given. Fuel and fuel-related costs increased by as much as 20 per cent to 24 per cent, depending on what was included in that category. Wages increased by 10 per cent, machinery increased by approximately 15 per cent, interest costs increased by about 20 per cent, and farm land, depending on the location, increased from 20 per cent to 50 per cent.
The effect of those increases was that the real income of farmers in the last year was reduced by 3 per cent. Actually, the reduction is greater than that because that included a certain reduction of inventory as well. We should put these increases in costs against the income of the farmer. The price of grain has gone up in the last little while but, owing to lack of attention on the part of the present government and the former Conservative government, the actual income to farmers from grain was considerably reduced. Also, the price of beef has not increased sufficiently to cover the cost of production, and the price of hogs dropped considerably.
December 10, 1980

On the whole, farmers have not been doing particularly well in the last year, although the Minister of Agriculture often says that he is in favour of orderly marketing, we cannot be quite sure of that. We seem to go to the free market and every time we do it does the farmer harm. For example, let us consider the embargo. If we had gone to world markets during the time of the embargo, the income of farmers from grain would have increased by a considerable amount in the last year. However, the embargo was imposed.
The principle of compensation for losses suffered by farmers as a result of the embargo has been established by the Conservative government and the Liberal government, and the Prime Minister even made a statement in that regard. Since the spring the government has been working on compensation studies. The minister said that the compensation document would be ready by the end of November, and November has long gone. I am just wondering what is the status of that document. Does the minister have any sense of urgency in this matter? I have referred the fact that costs have increased and incomes have gone down, partly because of the embargo maintained by the government.
On August 23 the minister reponsible for fitness and amateur sport announced that Canadian athletes who were barred from competing in the Moscow Olympics would receive:
-a program of assistance that will facilitate their further education, as well as the development of alternative career possibilities ... The assistance intended will take the form of actual tuition fees pursuant to normal Canadian standards and related educational support of up to $200 per month during the academic year.
That commitment was specific. It indicated the level of support and delivered on the promise which the federal government made to the athletes of Canada. If the government can do this for the athletes, can it not do it for farmers by naming the crops to be covered and the range of compensation in dollars, so that farmers can make their plans, knowing the specific period of time they can expect that compensation? Can the minister give those specific undertakings now? I will give him an opportunity to answer before my ten minutes are up.
A lot of studies are being conducted, but I should like to ask the minister some questions dealing with the embargo. When will we hear about the embargo? How much will the compensation be? How did they arrive at the figures? If those figures are not adequate, may farm organizations make submissions to the minister in order to give their understanding of what compensation should be paid?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member talked about the incomes of farmers being down. We recognize that, and 1 have stated that. Their net incomes are down 3 per cent, but they are still in a very substantial net position. Also he talked about the price of beef not being high enough. Of course, the over-all production of pork had a depressing effect upon the price of beef, poultry products and every other meat product. Pork was sold on the market below the cost of production. It
Supply
was distress selling and the sale prices had the effect to which I refer.
Also the member referred to the embargo and to compensation to farmers who may have lost income because of the embargo. The embargo was put in place by the previous government. The document which I hoped would be finished by the end of November is now ready for signing. It will be signed and submitted to cabinet for consideration in the next two or three days. I cannot tell the hon. member what the document indicates until it has been seen and considered by cabinet. As far as I am concerned, we intend to live up to what we have said. As I said the other day in the House, we do not intend to welsh on any agreement made by the previous government; this is one we said we would fulfil.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Chairman, I will hurriedly dash through my comments in order that the minister might respond. I am really looking for some support from the minister for the farm machinery industry. Those of us who are concerned about the health of the farm machinery industry well appreciate the difficulties of farmers at the moment in even replacing their machinery as this becomes necessary.
I had occasion to look at some of the statistics which have come out in recent months. The most recent were released last Monday and showed quite clearly that farm income is not keeping pace with inflation. In 1979 the cash receipts of farmers were $14.1 billion. In 1980 they had risen to $15.3 billion. Unfortunately they do not afford farmers the opportunity to maintain equality with their 1979 position. In 1979 the net real income of farmers was $3.61 billion, but in 1980 it was only $3.49 billion. In 1979 the interest on the debt load, which includes the debt load on land, was $1.33 billion, but by 1980 it had risen to $1.5 billion.
I have put those figures on the record because I think it is important to understand that in 1979 the amount paid by farmers on their debts for land and equipment equalled 36.1 per cent of their net real income, but by 1980 this had risen to 42.9 per cent, that is, the interest on the debts. Therefore, I well appreciate that Canadian farmers are facing serious problems in trying to plan their future purchases, as reflected in the downturn in the sale of agricultural machinery and implements.
The Canadian market is a substantial one. The 1981 market for farm machinery in current dollars is anticipated to be $2,068 million, which is a substantial sum of money. The Canadian demand in terms of North American production of farm machinery is 15 per cent, but Canadian production of North American farm machinery is only 9 per cent of the total North American production.
I suggest to the minister that we desperately need his voice in the efforts being made to resolve this dilemma. I do not deny for a moment that the farm machinery and implement industry-Massey-Ferguson in particular-is its own worst enemy. One of the primary reasons for the current position of Massey-Ferguson is poor management. It was not well-managed in the seventies. I think even its management today

December 10, 1980
Supply
will admit that that is true. However, certainly it would be to the detriment of Canadian farmers if we allowed that industry to disappear and fall by the wayside, because there is no doubt that the cost of imported farm machinery in Canada would be substantially increased if we were not manufacturing at all. While one might want to turn to Massey-Ferguson and say, "It is your own damn fault", the truth is that not only would the people employed in that industry suffer, but farmers across the country would suffer in the long run with no industry producing farm machinery in Canada for Canadian farmers.
Recognizing that poor management played a substantial role, we must also recognize that exorbitant interest rates faced by farmers, as well as by other people, are inhibiting when they attempt to plan purchases in coming years. It is also a severe inhibition to Massey-Ferguson to redevelop the company in a satisfactory and reasonable way.
Of course, what I said earlier about the decline in farm income is also an inhibition to planning for the orderly growth of the industry as it attempts to meet the needs of farmers. 1 think a farm machinery and implements industry is essential for Canada. There is no question in my mind that the contribution made by that industry to this country is substantial. 1 think the farmers of Canada need an industry here which can meet their needs. I believe farmers in Canada are concerned about what will happen, in terms not only of replacement of machines, but of replacement parts for the machines which they presently own. I am looking to this minister to accept that it is in our best interests as a country, and in the best interests of the farming community as a whole, to attempt to find a way to rationalize that industry, together with other similar industries, to try to come up with one rationalized, intelligent, competitive and supportable industry in Canada. 1 think it is also in the best interests of the economy of the country to attempt to do this.
1 would therefore ask the minister if he has given some thought to what, if anything, the government might be prepared to do to be of assistance. I ask the minister if he would be prepared to support at this time a task force made up of parliamentarians and also of people from the farming community and the industry itself to take a look at the farm machinery industry in Canada. They should take a look at how it operates, whether or not there is the need, which 1 suspect there is, to see whether there is a rationalizing process which can take place and whether or not there is a way in which we can fund a newly developed farm machinery and implements company in Canada which will be able to meet the need of the farmers, while at the same time meeting the needs of the workers who are presently faced with difficult times ahead.
I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he would be prepared, as Minister of Agriculture, together with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and anybody else who is interested, to establish this task force now. I ask the minister if he is prepared to make this task force representative of this House of Commons, representative of the farm community, of
the industry itself and of the financial community, and to set it a task. The task is to find a way to rationalize the industry in order that it will work in the interests of the farmer and of the Canadian economy, and to try to put together a package which will guarantee that we will not be paying exorbitant prices for imports in years to come for machinery which we could well have been, and ought to have been, manufacturing In Canada. Because of inadequate management over a number of years we have lost that manufacturing to foreign holdings.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a couple of things, and I notice you are pointing at me indicating that I have only two minutes.
With respect to the farm machinery industry, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre corrected me the other day he was right; all duty on farm machinery was removed and there was free trade on farm machinery in 1944. That then started the dislocation of the farm machinery industry in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was here for it.


Eugene Whelan: The multinationals moved in and decided they were going to centralize production here and centralize production there. As a result, we do not have a really good farm machinery industry in Canada. My colleagues and I have had discussions, such as the one the hon. member has talked about, and we have had discussions with our counterparts in the United States to the effect that this industry must be divided properly and proportionately, at least in North America. I believe it should be better than the auto pact is. But it must be that kind of thing.
We can point to some parts of the Canadian farm machinery industry which are pretty healthy, such as Versatile Manufacturing in Winnipeg. The hon. member asks how we have helped the farm machinery industry. It may not have been in a magnanimous way but we helped Co-op Implements who were not out of the bushes economically. We loaned them nearly $9 million and arranged other co-op credit societies to become involved to keep them going. They are on an upward trend but they are not out of the bushes as far as economic problems are concerned.
I agree with the hon. member about the problems which Massey-Ferguson has. The other day I was talking to some people and I said I could have done as good a job as the president of Massey-Ferguson. I believe his salary is $272,000 a year. I said I could have done as good a job for $252,000 a year, and I do not think that would be an exaggeration.


Ian Deans: I could have done it for nothing.


Eugene Whelan: I am told that they did not even have a vice-president in charge of sales for Massey-Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, we do not sell farm machinery, farmers buy it. It is the same in the auto industry. The last Chrysler car I bought, I had to make an appointment to buy it.


Ian Deans: Would you consider a task force?
December 10, 1980


Mr. Bossy:: Mr. Chairman, as this is the first time I have risen to speak in this chamber, I would like to take this opportunity to make hon. members aware of the area I represent. I am pleased to participate in these discussions concerning the budgetary estimates for the Department of Agriculture. I represent a constituency which is the county of Kent in the most southern part of Ontario, in fact, the most southern part of Canada.
Kent is the most productive county agriculturally in all of Canada. In fact, some of the highest quality farm produce grown in the world is harvested in Kent. In the year 1979 Kent county alone produced agricultural goods worth $227 million. Farmers in Kent have achieved the highest average yield per acre of all farmers in Canada in the growing of many crops, including corn.
At this time I will state a few statistics which I have here. We average 100 bushels of corn, soybeans 38 bushels, winter wheat 62 bushels-hon. members from the west will be interested in that figure-barley 63 bushels, and oats 84 bushels. We also grow tobacco and many vegetable crops, such as tomatoes, sweet corn and cucumbers, which are among the highest quality grown in Canada. Much of this achievement must be credited to the research and development which has been conducted by the federal Department of Agriculture.
Since the world's population is ever-increasing, foodstuffs will become more scarce and more valuable in the future, I have great difficulty understanding why the budget for the Department of Agriculture is only 1.3 per cent of the total federal budget. We must be willing to commit larger amounts of money, especially in the area of research, to fulfil our obligation to feed Canadians and the needy peoples of the world.
The agriculture industry employs the largest number of persons directly and indirectly compared with any other industrial sector in Canada. Agriculture should be receiving a much larger percentage of the federal budget.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make a few comments on the importance of transportation to the agricultural community. Agriculture is an industry which deals almost entirely with perishable products, which includes livestock in transit. Having travelled across Canada this autumn with the committee on transport, it was made apparent to me just how inadequate our transportation system is with regard to the movement of these perishable goods. Certain functions of the Department of Transport should come under the guidance of the Department of Agriculture. This should occur particularly in such areas as the shipping of potatoes, wheat, cattle, corn, soybeans and so on. No one knows better than the Department of Agriculture what types of cars are needed, whether they should be grain cars or refrigerator cars, the number of cars, what effect freight rates have on the price of the product and the amount of the subsidies. This would mean a great deal to the farmer when competing with producers from outside Canada, such as those of the United States.
Supply
I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that the formulation and implementation of a Canadian agriculture export corporation has been long awaited by farmers throughout Canada. Many countries of the world would be interested in buying our farm products and taking advantage of our technical expertise in the agricultural industry if there were only salesmen out there promoting us. I am positive that we are missing many sales because of the absence of this type of corporation. We promised this assistance in the election campaign and the farmers are asking for it now. Since it would be in the best interests of the country, I believe we as a government should deliver on that promise.
The Minister of Agriculture is owed a debt of thanks for impressing upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the necessity and importance of classifying primary food production under the category A rating of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. This is the highest priority rating for the supply of petroleum products in the event of an emergency.
While farmers generally accept the fact that fuel prices will increase, they are hoping that much time and effort is being put forward in the development of alternative energy sources. I can think of such fuels as gasohol, which can be used extensively throughout the farming community. Canadians are expecting much to be done in the research and development of alternative energy.
I would emphasize to the minister that a great hardship has been put upon farmers by the current high interest rates. Farmers in my area are faced with extremely high input costs and they have large mortgages due to the unrealistic price of farm land which has been caused by foreign investment. The price for land in my riding of Kent at the present time is in the area of $4,000 to $5,000 per acre. Anyone connected with the farm scene knows that present prices and revenues derived from agricultural products would barely pay the interest and there would be very little left to pay for fertilizer, seed, sprays, fuel, equipment repairs and equipment replacement. 1 feel that the federal government should initiate a short-term relief program to enable the farmer of Canada to survive this interest rate crunch. The story has been told of the farmer who, when asked after winning a $1 million lottery what he would do with this winnings, replied that he would continue farming until it was all gone. We must not let that happen.
1 think a few words of explanation are owed to the consumers of Canada. As was announced this week, food prices will be rising. I want to point out that the farmer should receive very little of the blame for those rising prices. Farmers receive a very small percentage of the market price for most of their products. It has been suggested that even if farmers gave away their wheat, the price of bread on our markets would not drop. As mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, Canadians continue to pay the lowest prices for food in the industrial world. These low prices would not be possible were it not for the efficient and effective agricultural practices employed by the Canadian farmer. I am sure that if the industry which handled our agricultural goods was equally

December 10, 1980
Supply
as efficient and effective, food prices in Canada would be even lower.
I would like to ask a question of the minister concerning the Farm Credit Corporation. He indicated yesterday, I believe, that changes were in the works in regard to the amount of money which may be allocated to the corporation. At present there are very few loans being approved. Speaking on behalf of the farmers in my area, many of whom have indicated to me that they have had to refinance, the amount of money available through the Farm Credit Corporation is inadequate. Would the minister comment, please?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kent and the hon. member for Hamilton West have mentioned the amount of interest which farmers must pay to borrow money. The Farm Credit Corporation's current rate of interest is 12.75 per cent. That is an enviable lending rate compared to what other people in society are paying. The highest rate of interest charged by the corporation was in the early part of the year when it was at 13 per cent. In 1979 the rate was 12 per cent and before that it was 10.75 per cent. It has been 10 per cent, and in 1959 it was 5 per cent. When one considers the earning ability and economics of agriculture, a 12.75 per cent interest rate in 1980, as compared to the interest rates that producers in other countries are paying, is not that bad.
1 cannot deny what the hon. member for Kent has said about the need for more money within the Farm Credit Corporation. There seems to be a need for unlimited funds in that corporation, and I wish we were in the position where we had unlimited funds. But when one looks at the amount of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation to farmers in 1980, one will see that they total $358 million. In 1979 we made loans of $349,262,000. The amazing thing about this is that the loss in 1979 was so small that it could hardly be measured. The record of payment was excellent; .002 per cent. It will be about the same for 1980. Such an insignificant loss on the operation of the Farm Credit Corporation indicates a profit on the lending aspect of its operations.
I was amazed, Mr. Chairman, as were some others, to learn that as a Crown corporation the Farm Credit Corporation pays income tax on its profits. It is one of the few Crown corporations to do so when it finds itself in that position from time to time. Originally the Farm Credit Corporation was set up as a lender of last resort-the lender who would advance money to people when all other lending institutions had refused.
An hon. member referred to the difficulty young people have in borrowing money. If we think back to when the interest rate was 5 per cent and remember that the average wage at that time was about one-quarter what it is today, we can see that the present interest rate has not been a factor in inhibiting the efficiency of farm operations.
I repeat what I said earlier, that the number of young people entering agriculture today is not as insignificant as some would
have us believe. I hope that I will have more accurate figures available later this evening to show how many young people have entered agriculture in the last ten years. It is more than most people realize and I am happy to see it.
I know it is not as difficult to enter agriculture as it was when as a young man I tried to buy a farm. I did not have the advantage of the different types of programs that are available today, such as interest-free advance payments. The county of Kent and the county of Essex, where I live-it could be argued which county produces the highest quality food-together produce more food than some of the poorer provinces do, in dollar value. They have the heaviest concentration of agriculture of all kinds of nearly any spot in North America, except one place in California. When earning power was low it was difficult to pay even 5 per cent interest. Now that earning power is higher and interest is at 12.25 per cent, things are not as difficult with the help of the Farm Credit Corporation and interest-free advance payments, which mean that a commodity does not have to be sold when the market is low. It can be stored and sold when the market is right. The young farmer today is not faced with the disadvantage of distress selling.
The hon. member for Elgin, who is a former minister of agriculture, spoke about research. This is one of the reasons that Kent county is so productive. The hon. member mentioned that he had increased the budget for research but, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to go over the figures and find when the biggest increase in the budget took place. There is not much difference but in 1976-77 $109 million was spent. I believe it was the hon. member for Lethbridge who said that $140 million was spent on research this year. Mr. Chairman, in 1979-80 $142.6 million was spent. The figure for 1980-81 is $155 million, an increase of $13 million. It was $117 million in 1977-78 and $133 million in 1978-79, which is the biggest increase for research in the past Five years. So I can claim fame as well as the former minister. 1 increased it more at one time and then he increased it at another time.
We believe that research is important, Mr. Chairman. It is important that we have more money available for it and it is also important that we have more money available for farm credit. We hope to introduce new legislation early in the new year which will give the Farm Credit Corporation the authority to go outside government as they see fit to raise funds when the need arises.


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say initially that I think this is the first time in the eight years I have been in the House that the Department of Agriculture has appeared before this rather unique Committee of the Whole House. I am sure we appreciate the attendance of the minister for these two long days with his support staff, both on the floor of the House and in the gallery. I think it is most appropriate that they are here and we do appreciate it.
I am sure I will not surprise anyone in this House when I say I would like to put some comments on the record that deal with my favourite area of agriculture, the Canadian beef cattle industry. I want to confine my remarks to the current year
December 10, 1980

which is just winding down, 1980. These are personal remarks, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by saying that 1980 should have been a good market price year-I emphasize should-if only because of the position of our beef cattle cycle. Our breeding herd numbers- cows and replacement heifers-are only now barely beginning to increase. This phase of the cycle was expected to begin two or three years ago. That extension of the low part of the cycle must have caused all kinds of problems for the statisticians and people who make projections for any industry, especially the cattle industry.
Beef supplies in 1980 were not burdensome. In fact, they were down, at approximately 91 pounds per capita, at least 22 pounds per capita below the peak years of 1977-78. But 1980 was not a very good year for most cattlemen, both producing cattlemen and feeders. In fact, it was disappointing for five contributing reasons or factors.
First, and perhaps most important, we had an all-time record of supplies of competing pork and poultry. For the first time in our history, Canadian pork production exceeded, or will exceed, Canadian beef production. When that statistic came to my attention for the first time, I found it rather hard to believe. It is an indication of what supplies can do. For a while, live hog prices were as low on a per pound basis as one-half, and sometimes even less, of live fed steer prices. It is no wonder that pork consumption jumped and beef prices failed to respond to lower beef supplies as they traditionally do.
The second factor was the western agricultural drought. The minister has heard me comment on this many times both in this House and in committee, so I shall only say that it was very severe for the first six months of this year throughout most of western Canada. This followed the previous winter drought that produced none of the snow moisture that is so needed in western parts of this country in order to start spring growth and, in my own case, to start grass and begin the growth of hay crops. During April, May and June significant numbers of short yearlings, steers and heifers, had to move into feedlots. Normally they would not move until the fall of the year. Six months earlier than is the normal practice a lot of them had to be moved because of the drought situation. Even cows and calves were beginning to move to the market. That is most unusual in the early part of the growing season. There was no incentive whatever to hold back additional replacements.
When the rains finally came they were too late to make a hay crop. I am referring now to the traditional source of hay on cattle ranges that comes from flood schemes, small irrigation projects and so on. They had no moisture from snow to start the hay crop. There simply wasn't any; the rains came too late. In my own case, we put up about 5,000 bales, not the new big ones but the traditional small bales, when a year ago we put up about 45,000. That is an indication of what the half drought year did to us.
Supply
The third factor is interest rates, which have erupted twice this year. The first time they went from about 11 per cent to 18 per cent; that was last spring. Now they are back up to 15'/2 per cent. The realization is apparent, that they are still rising. It was these record high interest rates which caused cattle feeders to sustain their heaviest losses ever. No wonder they are gun-shy now.
Fourth, the beef cattle industry reflects the North American recession. I hate to say it, but I suggest we are still in it. We have high and rising unemployment, double-digit inflation and a very real slowdown in consumer incomes resulting in weakened consumer demand.
Fifth, we have steadily rising feed grain-especially barley-prices in Alberta and corn prices in central Canada. That, along with those interest rates, made the first half of 1980 a disaster cattle feeding period. Not only is that true in central Canada, but certainly in the west. They had a terrible half year in the feed lot operation. I doubt if they will completely recover by the end of this year.
Those five contributing factors have combined to shake our confidence as producers and feeders in our total cattle industry in 1980, and this is happening soon after that four-year price disaster of the mid-1970s in our cattle industry. In my opinion, the most visible and serious implication of the lack of cattle industry confidence is the two to three-year delay in the beginning of the breeding herd build-up across Canada. I refer now only to the beef cattle breeding herd.
Only last Friday in Calgary, at a one-day agricultural task force conference sponsored by the Canada West Foundation, when dealing with the ten-year outlook for Canadian agriculture in the 1980s, Jake Brown, the University of Saskatchewan dean of agriculture, a very highly regarded man, made the statement that it is highly unlikely that Canada will be able to move away from a net import base for beef by 1990 because of the lack of confidence in the future of our Canadian beef cattle industry.
The Minister of Agriculture was at that meeting. He must surely be aware of this lack of confidence. The minister was luncheon speaker at that meeting, but he probably did not hear Dean Brown's comments. I commend them to him. I hope he carefully examines the complete task force report or at least requires his staff to do so, as it is a fairly big report. It is very current and deals with the outlook for the decade we are now entering.
There are a number of other moves the minister might consider to restore that needed cattle industry confidence. For example, there is some unfinished policy direction respecting the federal drought policy. The minister will recall that the $67 million drought program covering herd maintenance and livestock fodder procurement was to benefit the western drought regions and, to quote an earlier statement about the drought, "parts of Alberta" would be eligible for these benefits.

December 10, 1980
Supply
It now seems that in Alberta only the Peace River district and an area around Camrose qualify for the herd maintenance program. Under the federal fodder procurement program, by definition most of Alberta will not be eligible. I regret that very much. I say to the minister, don't tell me that we in Alberta should not qualify because the rains finally came a little earlier than they did in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which indeed they did, or because we have our wonderful irrigation system. As already indicated, in southern Alberta those welcome rains brought life and growth back to our grass, but I repeat, they never made a bale of hay.
Partly because of the subsidized hay costs, mostly for transportation, our choice irrigated alfalfa from Brooks and Taber and many other irrigation areas sold at $100 to $150 per ton before trucking charges were added. I am making the case for federal transportation assistance in Alberta, at least on a cost sharing basis with the Alberta government. 1 remind the minister there is between $5 million and $10 million of unspent and unallocated moneys in these two programs. I also remind the minister that his cabinet colleague, the minister of state responsible for the Wheat Board, said in Regina on August 8 that all moneys allocated for drought assistance would be spent on drought assistance. He said and I quote:
We're fully committed to pay the full amount. . . We will see what portion of the $60 million we have left and we will consult with livestock producers as to how we will pay out the balance.
The minister's new meat import bill should help stimulate some new confidence. I compliment the minister for bringing it in at this time. It is a program which we on this side have proposed for a number of years. We in the Conservative party have always supported the need for a beef import law in Canada. We chose to use that term. We fully support the countercyclical feature and the omission of live cattle, pork and canned meats.
I have some personal concerns about such things as some of the ministerial discretionary powers that are proposed, and with respect to the usefulness and make-up of the proposed advisory committee. However, I urge the minister to bring in the bill for second reading debate as quickly as possible. It is important that we have a good short second reading debate and get the bill into committee so that we can have the benefit of solid input from Canada's beef cattle industry.
There is one other most important and related item. I question the need for the GATT related requirement for the human population growth factor in the determination of meat import quotas. As I understand its operation, it is applied every year. The removal of this requirement would be a clear signal to our cattle producers that the minister does indeed care, and at least some long range incentive would be returned to us to get out and produce enough cattle and beef to be self-sufficient in Canada. We are not in that position now.
Further, this is the time of year for the annual calculations of our beef import quota levels for 1981. It is my understanding that the current year levels which were determined a year ago assumed a breeding cattle herd for 1980 that was too high since, as we know now, our breeding herd build-up has not
really begun, at least in significant numbers, as I indicated earlier in these remarks.
Will the minister make a correction for the 1980 formula level in calculating the 1981 quota levels? On this basis, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association indicated the new quota level would be in the neighbourhood of 146.6 million pounds. This level also agrees very closely with the traditional one-tenth relationship to the United States beef import level. One-tenth of their figure of 1.45 billion pounds comes to 145 million pounds.
However, the basic criteria that we should be following in Canada, and one which would be acceptable here, would make our protection equivalent to the offshore import protection of the United States. That is the important guideline. One-tenth of the American level would indeed do that and would be acceptable to our industry.
I have reviewed the Canadian beef cattle situation for the current year only and have cited evidence of and reasons for lack of confidence in both the short and the long-term outlook. I can assure the minister these are very serious concerns.
In closing, 1 submit most emphatically that our free market system for cattle in Canada is not a factor or part of the problem I have outlined, even though there may very well be some newer producers in the cattle industry who may feel that way. I want to remind the minister about my specific question concerning western drought and the portion of it dealing with the eligibility of parts of Alberta. His comments on that would be appreciated at this time.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, on the drought situation mentioned by the hon. member, we have made provision for the funds we said we were going to provide. The total funds we are going to provide for drought relief, I believe, are $67 million and this money will go to the people in need. At the present time, for the herd maintenance program there are 35,000 applications. What the hon. member is asking is if we would consider transportation costs in the province of Alberta. One of the predicaments we ran into on that is that when we first talked of drought assistance, the minister of agriculture for the province of Alberta said they had no drought and needed no assistance.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Eugene Whelan: 1 am sure the hon. member remembers that later he said we did not provide any assistance for Alberta. I told the hon. member they have the right to appeal on any of these programs we have. The appeal board is being set up at the present time but how quickly it will get into operation, I do not know. We are setting up an appeal board with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northern Ontario. The herd maintenance program is administered by another ministry, not by mine.
The transportation cost of fodder in Manitoba was not nearly as high. At one point we had allocated $1.6 million for
December 10, 1980

Manitoba. The accumulated amount of money spent to date is only $368,766. For transportation of fodder into Saskatchewan we had allocated over $1 million, and it has now cost $435,163. In northern Ontario the allocation was $400,000 and they did not use anywhere near the amount of money for the transportation of fodder.
The hon. member referred to the beef import law. I do not pretend that that law is the answer to all the beef producers' problems. He mentioned earlier the price of beef and the price of hay. That was a free market system probably working at its worst and not its best. It made some operations uneconomical and they were in a position where they had to purchase barley and hay at exorbitant rates.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: It's the weather.


Eugene Whelan: There was not a great dispersal of cattle according to our figures. I do not have the total figures past the end of September, 1979. There has not been the dispersal of cattle that people said there was going to be on account of the drought. Because of the programs we initiated we did instil some confidence in them. The hon. member answered his own question when he talked about the low price of beef because of overproduction of pork. Pork was sold at distressed prices and depressed the price of beef. Again, that is a free market system which is ill-managed, ill-supplied to the market and sold on the market at distressed prices. Beef did not resume a position where it would get a price which would afford a proper economic return to the beef producers. So we had high stocks of poultry, high stocks of pork and reasonable stocks of beef in Canada.


Mr. Gingras:: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Roberval. Since coming here I realize that my Abitibi constituents are interested in a number of areas. We have seen that energy resources like electricity, wood residues, mines and the tourist trade are part of everyday life in Abitibi. Obviously, farming has been from the outset its raison d'etre, and still is a very active industry. We have farmers in the beef industry, in the chicken industry, and in the dairy industry, producing either whole or industrial milk. Quotas for natural milk are regulated by the Regie des marches agricoles, which means they are under Quebec jurisdiction. The milk goes to the pasteurizing plant and is thereafter consumed without further processing. The price is set by the Regie. Production is regulated to avoid possible overproduction that would drive prices below production cost.
I will not say anything further about whole milk, it being as I said under the Regie des marches agricoles, to supply the province's domestic market. I would like, however, to deal with a matter of interest to this House, which is the production of industrial milk under the Canadian Dairy Commission. Mr. Chairman, in Abitibi, in Quebec, our cows produce two types of milk. I understand they are now changing not the cows, but the system under which some cows produce whole milk, a
Supply
provincial type of milk, and others produce industrial milk that is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Some farmers, Mr. Chairman, have versatile cows. One day they give provincial milk and the next they give federal milk, when they have enough. I cheer up, Mr. Chairman, because I think they will soon be integrated. Mr. Chairman, I insist and say once again that the Canadian Dairy Commission system has proved to be essential for the stabilization of producers in Abitibi. Before 1963, the dairy industry was in pitiful condition. Following the suggestion of the dairy industry, the government set up the Canadian Dairy Commission which has been operating since then and is a vital instrument for the co-ordination of the dairy industry in Canada.
In July, 1980, Mr. Chairman, you stated the concern of the government about the allocation of quotas in some areas of the country. I know that several producers feel that their milk quota is an integral part of their heritage. It is normal that the milk producer should see in the allocation of quotas the only way to sell his product and he gives it a commercial value. We should not forget that to have obtained the assurance of selling his product is solely the result of a good and healthy national dairy policy. This is the first question which 1 would like to put to the minister: Following his press release of July 1980, could the minister specify his concerns about the fluctuations of those quotas?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Dairy Commission sets a national quota with the market supply management committee. They set a national quota, and that is distributed to the provinces. How it is distributed in the provinces is up to each separate and individual province.
The hon. member says the quota is a valuable thing and that some farmers feel it is their heritage. That is right, but very few provinces have the same system for pricing valuations on quotas. Industrial products are distributed freely across Canada and marketed freely across Canada, and then they are marketed on the world markets by the Canadian Dairy Commission. Some provinces have one class of milk. The hon. member said there are two kinds of milk. I was glad he clarified that. He said there is federal milk and provincial milk. In the province of Quebec there is probably more of a distinction between producers in one class and the other, although it is intended that they be put into one class. We say they should all be first-class Canadian high quality dairy producers because we now have better quality milk produced in Canada than we have ever had.
All I can say about the quota value is that I am concerned- whether it be for dairy or whatever-that there must be better control. However, we at the federal level do not have the authority to say what the quota should be for a producer within a province. We can recommend and suggest, as we have done, to the dairy farmers of Canada from time to time.

December 10, 1980
Supply
I do not know what more I can say at this time. As I said, the provinces do not have this, but when we look at quotas within the commercial industrial society, we see the same thing with respect to a taxi licence. If one tries to establish himself in the taxi business in the city of Ottawa, he will have to pay a very high price just to get a licence. There would be a quota to have one taxi. We have to be fair to producers who have bought quotas also. However, I have told the Canadian Dairy Commission to ensure that quota values are examined very closely. The chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission himself has made two or three representations about which I know, to the dairy farmers of Canada to try to make sure that these quotas are kept at a realistic level or, if they are above a realistic level, that they return to a realistic level. Somehow they must be managed so that too few people do not get control of them. When young farmers want to get into the dairy industry when other farmers sell out, quotas should revert to the provincial milk marketing boards, as is the case in some provinces. It is then reallocated at reasonable rates to young people entering the dairy industry, or to anyone entering the dairy industry.


René Gingras: Mr. Chairman, at the convention of the dairy industry held on October 20, 1980, the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission estimated that the value of quotas would push the price of dairy products up by 10 to 15 per cent thus making them no longer competitive on export markets. The producers of the province agree with the present marketing policy. The chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission suggested in his speech that unless the provinces implemented a new policy he would make it a point to recommend a different policy under which the value of quotas, as applied now, could no longer exist.
The minister assured the House this afternoon that the Government of Canada is willing to renew the stabilization program including a subsidy. Is the minister willing to increase that subsidy of $6.04 in 1975, seeing it is now really worth only $3.46, in 1980?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of increasing the subsidy because the subsidy for dairy farmers has stayed constant. Under the pricing formula we use, money comes from the marketplace, and that is the place from which it is intended to come. I would like to be out of the subsidy business. There is no doubt about that. We were removing subsidies from the dairy industry several years ago until the world price of industrial products collapsed. We then had to move in and save the dairy industry by renewing subsidies. At one time the subsidy was down to $111 million for industrial milk producers in Canada. We took the stand at that time that we must receive the return for dairy products from the marketplace. Many people do not understand that there is no subsidy for the whole milk we drink, but there are subsidies for industrial milk producers who have to compete in world markets. Our subsidies are not high when compared with subsidies in other dairy-producing countries, and I refer especially to European countries.
1 am well statisfied with the Canadian dairy policy. Our producers are about the best off in the world. I am sure our producers would like to keep the program the way it is since the formula price makes adjustments for changes in costs and for changes in the cost of living. Industrial milk producers know they are being fairly treated. I do not think it is necessary to index the subsidy, as some have suggested, as long as we have formula pricing. As 1 said earlier to another hon. member, I approve of formula pricing. This is the kind of system we have in many other parts of our society. If it is good for other parts of society, I do not see why it cannot work for dairy farmers.


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: Mr. Chairman, as member of Parliament for the riding of Roberval, I accepted the responsibility of representing and serving the whole population of that riding which is located north of Lac-Saint-Jean, an area that also bears that name. The main industries in the riding of Roberval are primarily those which depend on our wonderful natural resources, our forests. Indeed, three pulp and paper mills and several sawmills belonging to companies of international repute are located there of which, Domtar at Dolbeau and Mistassini, and Donahue at Saint-Felicien. Also, in Desbi-ens, there is a Saint-Raymond Paper plant which is currently experiencing production and profitability problems. The second industry in Roberval is agriculture. I will therefore take the opportunity today to deal with a matter which is close to my heart.
All Canadian farmers are faced with the same problems and difficulties. My constituents are no exception. I suggest that most farmers would be even less successful were it not for the help, the encouragement and the knowledge of their wives. I am neither a farmer nor a farmer's wife, but I have had the opportunity, within many organizations, to meet people from rural communities, and 1 want here to pay a special tribute to the farmers' wives who are perfectly able to operate their own farm or that of an ailing or deceased husband.
According to a study conducted two years ago by the Canadian Council of Rural Development, a woman spends an average of 29 hours working in the fields and in the farm buildings, keeping books and doing odd jobs, in addition to the 53 hours she spends on housekeeping duties. She is working, therefore, the number of hours required for holding two fulltime jobs, and for that, most of the time, she never gets paid. Because of the increasing number of men who are working full time or part time away from home, many women must replace them on the farm. Moreover, some of them, albeit a few, operate their own farms. Yet, the contribution of women to agriculture in Canada is not properly recognized.
December 10, 1980

As the Minister of Agriculture so eloquently stated before a large group of farmers' wives gathered for a convention here in Ottawa last week, and I quote:
I must recognize that men have not always been willing to give women a more visible place in agriculture. Also, we have not exactly encouraged women to seek management positions in national organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Agricultural Union. It is high time the situation changed. Your participation in this convention is indicative of the fact that women want to be recognized as equal partners and have an input in the decision-making process, as they have the right to.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister's statement and I should also like to remind the House that the AFEAS movement in Quebec has had a great part to play in the case which was brought before the provincial and the federal governments, namely, that of the right of women to a fair salary as partners with their spouses in the family business or farm.
I should now like to give a few statistics on milk producers in the western part of Lac-Saint-Jean. In my riding, there are 113 dairy farmers. Between August 1, 1979 and July 31, 1980, there were 21,937,476 litres of milk produced, 37.59 per cent of which was category 1 milk and the rest going to cheese factories. Mr. Chairman, when we speak of cheese in my area, we automatically think of Perron, from Saint-Prime, because this has been a family tradition for a hundred years now. As a matter of fact, the dairy industry started around 1880 in Saint-Prime, in the constituency of Roberval. At the beginning, they only made butter but in the last few years they added cheese making. That cheese factory received milk only four or five months a year. Then, cheddar cheese began to be exported to Quebec.
In those small plants there was no power supply and no electric lighting. Everything was made by hand. That industry developed slowly until 1955. Then because of centralization,
110 small plants had to close down in the area. Everything was centralized in Chambord for butter, cheese and milk powder. However, in 1963, Mr. Albert Perron, the present owner of the Saint-Prime cheese factory bought his father's plant dating back to 1895. In 1968, the plant was completely rebuilt, and in 1980 production reached the astonishing level of 15 million pounds of processed milk a year, which makes, 1.5 million pounds of cheese. I want to emphasize the fact that the Albert Perron Company Inc, won in 1970 the first world prize for cheddar cheese at the Royal International Dairy Show in London, England. In 1976 and in 1979, it won the Lys d'Or in Montreal and in Quebec City.
Mr. Chairman, I have given the historical background of that industry in my constituency because 1 sincerely believe that its administrators are serious and that they deserve support. Each year the plant faces a serious problem, namely, a short supply of milk, and consequently it cannot meet the demand of its customers.
Mr. Chairman, I would like some information on this subject. Is it because of poor milk quota distribution, and has the government considered developing an incentive program to
Supply
encourage winter as well as summer production which would solve the problem, or has it considered subsidizing the cost of transporting milk from oversupplied to undersupplied areas? Of course, in addition to dairy and cheese producers, there are also pork, beef and cattle producers in Roberval constituency. As I know that my time is limited, I shall talk about these producers some other time. I am aware that the Canadian government provides assistance programs for these producers, and I shall come back to this matter on another occasion. 1 would like to congratulate the minister on the recent appointment of three women to senior positions on the Farm Credit Corporation advisory committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet: 1 would like to add very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that these women will prove worthy of their appointment because of their ability and their qualifications and will contribute to the improvement of the quality of life in Canadian rural communities. I had two questions I wanted to ask the minister, but he has already answered them. First of all, as far as the subsidy is concerned-


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions for the minister, the first one of which has to do with the capital gains tax, a subject which was touched upon by my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills. He spoke about the capital gains tax in some detail and he explained some of the problems which farmers were encountering when faced with this tax.
I might say to the minister that the capital gains tax has done a great deal to inflate the value of farm lands in the prairies. It is not uncommon for an elderly farmer to come into my office and ask me what it will cost him in capital gains tax if he disposes of his farm. He is usually very frank about it and tells me that what he will do is to add the amount of the capital gains tax to the selling price of the land. So not only do we have a situation where the ordinary inflation appreciates the value of farmland but we have, in addition, the capital gains tax which adds still further to the cost. In many cases this is quite a substantial amount per acre.
I recall that in the election campaign earlier this year a news conference was held in the city of Regina by the Liberal party, with a great deal of fanfare. It was indicated at the news conference that, if the Liberals were elected, they would be prepared to change the valuation day from 1972 to December 31, 1974. Every Liberal party candidate in western Canada went from meeting to meeting advertising the fact that this promise would be carried out if they were elected. Of course the promise was never carried out.
5616

December 10, 1980
Supply


Eugene Whelan: Nobody in western Canada believed them because they did not vote for them.


Douglas Charles Neil: They will have fewer people believing them because of broken promises. Recently the provincial Liberal party indicated that as long as farmland remains farmland, no capital gains tax should be levied on the sale of that land.
Bearing in mind the promise made in the last campaign, could the minister tell me what is his party's position at the present time with respect to capital gains? What is the minister's personal opinion? What steps is he taking to see to it that farmers will gain relief from this oppressive tax?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, my opinion has not changed since the campaign that we should have valuation day from 1974. It is still under discussion. It is not too late to do it.


Douglas Charles Neil: If such a change is made, could the minister indicate whether it will be retroactive?


Eugene Whelan: I cannot say that at this time.


Douglas Charles Neil: Will the minister do everything in his power to see that it is made retroactive?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member can be assured that I will make those kinds of representations.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 hope the minister will take steps at the next meeting of cabinet to impress upon his colleagues the importance of dealing with this subject.
Turning to the subject of the western grain stabilization plan, I believe the minister is jointly responsible for it. In the debates when the plan was proposed, when it went through committee stage and passed Parliament, I recall that the then minister who was putting the bill through indicated that it was the intention of the government to set up the plan in such a manner so that payments under the plan would be made in the spring of the year in order that farmers would have money available to start their seeding and spring work. As each year goes by, the decision on when a payment should be made under this plan becomes later and later in the year. For example, this year no decision was made until some time in November.
I realize the plan makes use of Statistics Canada to determine whether or not there will be a pay-out, and that the cost to the plan of Statistics Canada gathering this information runs at some $1 million. In committee a proposal was put to the government whereby the computer of the income tax department could be used to gather the information and to determine very quicky-perhaps within a month or so after the returns were filed-whether a payment should be made.
In view of the fact that each year the decision as to whether or not a payment is made becomes later and later, is there any intention on the part of the government to review the procedure by which information is gathered in order to determine what are the facts for the pay-out?


Eugene Whelan: All I can say is that we want to be as efficient as we possibly can. It is an embarrassment to the ministers concerned with the program that we are not in a position to say, within one month of the year end of the grain marketing season, that we are able to make a decision. We had hoped that it would be swifter, but it does not appear to be. I cannot answer the hon. member other than by saying that we will continue to try to ensure that it is swifter, because a continual delay is not to our advantage; it is a political embarrassment.


Douglas Charles Neil: Certainly it is not to the advantage of producers not to know or not to get paid until some time in the fall. If the minister is concerned, certainly he must be taking some steps to determine the reason for the delay in gathering the statistics used to determine whether or not there is a pay-out. Would the minister ask some members of his staff to read the minutes of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when the bill was before it and to consider our proposal which was placed before the then minister, Mr. Otto Lang, to see whether or not it could be used to speed up the procedure with respect to the western grain stabilization plan? Will the minister undertake to do that?


Eugene Whelan: I will be meeting the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board tomorrow, and I will discuss it with him at that time.


Douglas Charles Neil: Turning to another subject, yesterday the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster questioned the minister with respect to the sale of 30,000 tonnes of barley in the east earlier this year. I have read the comments of the minister as reported in Hansard of yesterday's date. A short time ago one of the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Forrest Hetland, was reported in a publication entitled "Land" as saying:
"Look, we're shipping western barley into Ontario and Quebec to keep that market supplied, and we don't want their growers shipping barley out to the stronger markets." The board saw that starting to happen early in the summer but doesn't have direct control over marketing outside the prairies. It does, however, have authority to grant export and import permits for all Canadian barley, and it simply refused to grant any until domestic supplies were assured.
Then of course cabinet overruled the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister said yesterday that he was not in Canada at the time. He was out of the country, so he was not party to the discussions which took place. As reported in yesterday's edition of Hansard, the minister said:
-because I do not know, and I cannot find out what the traders were able to accumulate as a profit. I am told if a profit was made it was not passed on to any of the producers.
Then he went on further to say:
If the traders made an unwarranted mark-up on it, this is the kind of thing that makes one angry.
Could the minister tell the House to whom the special permits were granted for the export of this barley? If they were given to traders or grain companies, it would seem to me that the reason for doing that was because they had an oversupply of barley in stock; they did not want to lose money; and they prevailed upon cabinet to allow them to recoup some
December 10, 1980

of their loss. If this is what happened, in effect it was a subsidy by the producers of western Canada. To whom were these permits given, and for how much?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, normal sales take place and even under the embargo normal sales took place. If you will check there has always been, for at least the last five years, normal sales of Ontario barley outside of Canada. They asked for a permit for 30,000 tonnes. They accumulated approximately 15,000 tonnes, which was just shipped out in the last week to ten days. We have no way of knowing at what price.
I know one of the companies was Cargill and I am waiting for the name of the other companies. You quoted Mr. Hetland of the Canadian Wheat Board as saying that they shipped and they must supply grain to that market. I want to make it clear that the Canadian Wheat Board has supplied no barley to eastern Canada since April. The barley which was shipped to eastern Canada came from off-board barley. There was no onboard barley shipped down east at that time. This is a matter which is of concern to us and to the barley producers in Ontario. It is of concern to the barley producers all across Canada. But we must look at the insignificant amount that it was compared with total barley production and barley sales. Mr. Hetland was right when he said that we must look after them because the biggest consumers of feed barley are Canadians-80 per cent of all feed grains are consumed in Canada. They are the biggest customers and the ones which must be looked after.
We know that long-term barley sales have been made. I am sure the hon. member knows that the long-term barley sales which have been made were not that high priced, but the Wheat Board and the people who made these long-term sales would have been condemned if they were not doing that type of thing. They could not foresee that there was to be a drought and poor crops in China and Russia. These conditions were putting unwarranted kinds of pressure on top of the marketing ability, for the supply of that product. This put a tremendous burden on the over-all program for barley. Mr. Hetland was right when he said that you must supply that market because it is your best and biggest customer. The other people in the world may move in and out of the market as it warrants.
Mr. Chairman, I am coming back to long-term sales because they will show that they have been sold at lower than current prices. The pooling will show there will not be a big final payment on barley because those sales were made over a long-term period, something in the order of three years, when barley and corn prices were not as high as they are now.
I want to say that hon. members made no comments about what I said yesterday about making those same kind of long-term deals with the Canadian Livestock Feed Board makes. They will not only serve what you call eastern Canada, but one of the biggest users of that grain is British Columbia, which depends on that kind of grain. We are not just talking about people in the eastern part of Canada, we are talking
Supply
about people in the western part of Canada who depend upon that grain also under that same pricing.
Let us be fair. If it is to be good for somebody in the Middle East or in Europe to buy barley under those conditions then it should be good for the biggest consumer of all feed grain produced in Canada, the Canadian livestock and poultry producer. Let him or her have that same kind of agreement and that same kind of contract.


Douglas Charles Neil: I would just like to say that the minister has indicated that one of the shippers was Cargill, and I assume that there may have been one or two other companies which obtained permits to ship. It would seem to me that, therefore, it was not the producers in Ontario who were making the money but it was the grain companies. In other words, Cargill and the other grain companies had a surplus of grain in Ontario. The price, undoubtedly, would drop because of the surplus they did not want to sell at a lower price, so cabinet went over and above the Wheat Board and allowed Cargill and others to sell it on the world market at the expense of the western grain producer. I ask the minister if that is not a fact.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I would say it is at the expense of the Ontario barley producer, who always receives less for his barley than the western barley producer; it is always $20 to $30 a tonne less than western barley, in Ontario. So if there was a mark-up, and we do not know that for sure, it is estimated it could have been anywhere from $40 to $45 a tonne. It was a conglomerate of grain companies. There were four I am sure: Cargill, Richardson, Continental, and Northern Sales.
I can say that the representation was made to me, not by any of those grain companies, but by the provincial ministry of agriculture in Ontario on behalf of their barley producers. Not one grain company made representation to me and I know of no grain company making any representation to anybody else. They may have been the ones which made that kind of profit. As I said yesterday, that is a very bad thing because producers would not make that kind of profit in two, three or four years of production. They would not make that kind of profit per tonne.
The marketing system we operate under seems to be the one which the hon. member's party condones, that is, a free market system working at its very best. If you do not want that system, tell us then that you abhor it and that you want us to put everything under the Canadian Wheat Board. That is what the Canada West Foundation said the other day. They said, "Have it all under the Canadian Wheat Board, or all on the free market system." Maybe that is what we should be doing. It seems to me no matter how fair you try to make this system work it just seems to add more confusion to it. They are complaining about what the Russians may have made under a long-term contract-maybe it was 100 per cent they were making profits on-but nobody seems to say that about the foreign buyer. They are talking about what has happened right within our own country and I come back, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that those people of ours who are feeding their stock

December 10, 1980
Supply
with that grain are our best customers. They have been there forever and they will be there forever. We can even improve things and make it better for them when we get Canagrex into operation.


Douglas Charles Neil: That was quite interesting, Mr. Minister, but the fact remains that there was a profit made and it appears that it did not go into the hands of the producer.
One short question. The minister is aware of the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund which has some $9,066,000 on hand, which is producers' money. Fie is aware of the need for research. He has been given the means of using this money for research and I am wondering what his position is, because every day that goes by the producer is losing $3,500 in interest.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows I agree in principle with what he wants to do. I said so before I went on my sabbatical, when I was minister before the short sabbatical I took. Well, I have not changed my mind on that. I think that money should be for the benefit of western farmers, for western research. Lord only knows, the hon. member knows as well as I, that we could use that $9 million so well. We have a bit of a dispute as to whether we should just turn it over into a fund with a committee to administer it, etc. But we are ready to move on that very quickly. Whether we can make a proper agreement with the hon. member or whether he can accept my bill when it comes to the House is something we will have to see, but we will work for the good of the farmers on this, I know.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the words of the minister of late are very interesting. I suspect that a number of us on this side of the House have become strong advocates of the sabbatical system and would certainly encourage him to continue with it.
The particular topic before us tonight has provided one of the most interesting debates I have read in Hansard and sat in on for a long time. It is a topic which touches all of us very closely. Indeed, it touches citizens right around the world whether they be young or old, rich or poor, living in eastern or western Canada or in any other part of the world. I suspect that people are very concerned as never before as to what the future holds with regard to the current trends in agriculture, food production, and the direction of the entire food industry.
Many people are wondering about Canada's role in this industry. One hears a great deal about petropower and nuclear power and the whole concept of agripower. The whole area will be of greater interest to us as Canada plays a greater role in feeding the world population.
Over the years Canada has been proud of its accomplishments in the area of research and development. Indeed, scientific inquiry originating in Canada has led the way in many
areas. Many Canadian inventors and scientists are known around the world for their accomplishments in the world agricultural community. Yet the budgeted funds for research and development in agriculture are less today than in the past. It is important that Canada keep up in this ever-changing field where many people around the world are experimenting in such areas as new strains of grains, new types of beef production and new ways of growing vegetables. It is important that the government make a commitment to research and development, not for two years or five years, but for 25 years. Only then can we tell the scientific community that the commitment is there and young people can train in our institutions to participate in this research in the future.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is this. Is the Department of Agriculture prepared to make a commitment to more scientific research in the field than exists today? Is the government prepared to stand up and say, "Yes, this is in the best interests of Canada and its agricultural future so we will commit ourselves to increasing the budget for scientific research in agriculture?


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question of the hon. member opposite about the research programs, I would like to tell him that whatever the programs put forward by the Canadian government, the Department of Agriculture will definitely have its share, as we have seen this year, since the $140 million budget was increased to $150 million. In the future, research programs, and I am referring to all government departments, Agriculture Canada will definitely have its share.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, when one considers the cost of scientific equipment and of inflation, the government has added very little if anything to the budgets of past years, and even what it has added is recognized by all people in the agricultural sector as inadequate. I mean that as a positive criticism and I hope that the parliamentary secretary and the minister will give real consideration to increasing the funds to this most crucial area. The same case could probably be made for a number of other areas.
Strong leadership from the minister is required. As in the many sectors of the government, there is a lack of leadership. In agriculture we have seen the disappearance of first class land and growing monopolistic control over food production and distribution. In a sense it will mean the growing dependence of Canadians on foreign producers as we become more and more dependent on foreign suppliers in the food sector. We lack a buy-Canada policy and a grow-Canada policy. Is the parliamentary secretary able to stand up and say, "Yes, my department is prepared to take a strong position and make a commitment to encourage a buy-Canada policy and a grow-Canada policy in a rigorous way."?
December 10, 1980

[Translation}


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Chairman, first, as far as the funds for research are concerned, I would say to the hon. member that 20 per cent of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are earmarked for research. As the minister explained it on several occasions this afternoon, it is the highest percentage of all funds spent throughout the world on agricultural research and I think that Agriculture Canada and all Canadians should be proud of such achievement.
With respect to land conservation, I would say to the hon. member that under the Canadian Constitution, the conservation of farm or arable land is entirely under provincial jurisdiction.
As for his third question, the department is very conscious of the problem raised by the hon. member and, as Agriculture Canada has always done in the past, we are trying by all possible means to provide better conditions to Canadian farmers while protecting the consumer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, we heard earlier about the fact that the number of farms in Canada is diminishing as a result of more sophisticated machinery. There is also the fact that more energy is being consumed. One can make the case that Canada is the most inefficient food-producing country in the world when it comes to energy. To gather one calorie of energy from food requires four calories of energy using our system, whereas in other systems one calorie of energy results in four calories of foodstuffs coming back. Are we sensitive enough to the role which energy plays in our "efficient food production system"?
I was intrigued by a recent study conducted in the city of Vancouver which says that with the amount of arable land available in that city two million persons could be provided for under an efficient system. Has the parliamentary secretary given much thought to the utilization of the techniques of urban farming as a way of minimizing the amount of energy required to produce foodstuffs for Canadians, and as a way of minimizing the amount of energy required for the transportation of foodstuffs from California, Florida, Mexico or wherever?


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member that Agriculture Canada, of course, is well aware of the calorie-costs problems involved in producing foodstuffs, and we try to save energy in all areas of research, whether in the use of greenhouses, nitrates, plants and crops of all kinds. Agriculture Canada is using all possible means to limit energy and oil costs in the production of foodstuffs. Quite recently, a committee was established for the sole purpose of studying the energy problems Agriculture Canada will have to face within the next decade.
Supply


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have a few moments tonight to speak to the Minister of Agriculture on this subject, to lay down a few principles on the whole question of food and international hunger, and the responsibility of food producing countries like our own in relation to the starving people of the world.
I had hoped that the minister would remain in the House during my remarks, but I appreciate that he might be hungry himself at this time. He has gone to supper. I thought that in the context of his own hunger we could have spoken more directly about this human problem that faces something like 800 million people on the face of the globe today.
During the last six months I have had what I consider the privilege of being a member of the North-South Committee on International Development. That committee will be issuing its report next week, probably on Tuesday, when it will make some specific recommendations regarding food, to the minister and his department.
The reason we approach the whole question of food was because of a common knowledge that this is a major international problem. The Brandt commission report that was produced about a year ago stated:
This commission sees no more important task before the world community than the elimination of hunger and malnutrition in all countries.
On this whole question of hunger, I think it is important to realize that it is more than a lack of food. I have seen many cases where hunger not only produced the phenomenon of being hungry but also produced chronic diseases and illnesses, physical and mental retardation, as well as a lethargy which compounds the whole area of development and brings about non-productivity and early death.
Without a well-nourished population capable of working, a developing country will remain dependent on external forces for development, and a self-sustained and self-generated type of development will not be attained.
When we address the problem of hunger and the production of food, we are striking at one of the most profound problems underlying the whole area of underdevelopment. To put it simply-people starve to death because they cannot buy food. They do not have the economic base themselves to buy food. We rarely see a rich person dying from hunger. Although that sounds a too simple explanation, nevertheless when situations arise in which populations cannot receive enough for their labour, or whatever, to buy food, there is the problem of starvation.
I think it is extremely important that as we consider the whole question of international hunger and the production of international food, we be aware that the women of the planet produce the most food; that the women of the planet care for and look after food.
Many times when we get into discussions with the Department of Agriculture relating to quotas, wheat sales and so on,

December 10, 1980
Supply
we forget that, in most of the world, food production, care and preparation are in the hands of women. The solutions which lead to the elimination of starvation, it should be remembered, will probably come from women. This is a simple fact that is often forgotten when we talk about agribusiness and big farming. We forget that women using hoes are growing most of the world's food.
Many of the myths related to food have to be considered at this time as well. Some presentations made to the North-South Committee whose report will be ready for public scrutiny soon, contain matters of importance. People have traditionally been led to believe that hunger was the result of overpopulation, insufficient food production, or adverse soil and climatic conditions. The FAO and other international organizations such as the World Bank, the Commonwealth group of nations and so on, seriously question this simple explanation of that world problem.
We know that even in Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated countries in the world, enough grain is produced to provide a minimal diet for all its people. That follows a time of mass hunger. The FAO has also indicated that the earth as a whole produced enough grain to provide each of us with adequate protein and more than 3,000 calories per day, exclusive of all the fruits, vegetables and grass fed meats that are produced.
When we think about the fact that we have this technology and the resources and the possibility to feed all the world's people, we realize that it is a sin that 800 million people are starving.
Something is lacking, Mr. Chairman. Many things are lacking. One is the political will in many of the developing countries to see food as one of the primary necessities and to consider that the production of food must become one of the first political principles.
The report I have mentioned will discuss food aid, distinguishing very carefully between emergency food aid in situations where there is no other solution except aid or long-term aid, not in the form of food as such, but in a form which will enable people to produce their own food.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary about the philosophy or policy of the Department of Agriculture at this time, regarding the whole question of food aid.
[ Translation]


Marcel Ostiguy: In reply to our colleague opposite, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in co-operation with the international organization FAO, has a very important role to play in developing agriculture. Canadians are indeed privileged in that they have land, technology and human resources to continue developing agriculture. We are already doing quite a lot to feed the hungry of the world, but we hope to do a lot more to feed them by the year 2000. Of course, also for the benefit of the Canadian economy, as I mentioned in my remarks yesterday, Canadian farmers should increase their productive capacity.
As I said a moment ago, Canadians are really privileged. We are aware that because of the high quality of our soil and farmers, we can do more for developing countries. The eighties will certainly be the decade of agriculture and food throughout the world. As I often say, the seventies have been the decade of energy. The eighties will be the decade of agriculture and food. To conclude, I should like to advise the hon. member that steps have already been taken to celebrate October 16 of next year as International Food Day, and that the Minister of Agriculture will actively participate in the ceremonies to help developing countries.


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Before doing so, however, 1 should like to start with a preamble on the evolution of agriculture in Quebec and in Canada generally. Speaking of agriculture, not to go too far back, around the years 1789-1840, the evolution at that time- that was the subject of my thesis for a Master's degree-was much the same as that we are witnessing today in that, in order to increase agricultural production and have surpluses, man was forced into revolutionizing agricultural methods and techniques, naturally. The same phenomenon occurred in French Canada and English Canada, under the aegis of a Liberal government which, I might say, proceeded with an agricultural revolution while we went about our industrial revolution.
I remember when I was young back home, 200 farmers produced about as much as five farmers today in our area. That, of course, we owe to more sophisticated techniques and to the improvement in our agricultural schools. One can say that agriculture in Canada is at this point in time the most evolved and advanced in the world. Today, I heard one of the speakers say that the average farmer in Quebec or Canada today can feed about 50 persons. Those statistics are about 20 years old. Today a farmer in French Canada can feed at least 100 to 125 persons; we may even be ahead of the Americans on that score. Therefore, I am not ashamed, I am proud to congratulate our agriculture ministers and our governments for the great work they have done in feeding the Canadian people and others. We are now selling wheat to the Chinese and the Polish. I must therefore-it is my duty as a Canadian- congratulate the people who devoted themselves, who perceived and saw the future of agriculture in Canada. Now, I should like to put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
In my area, along the shores of Lake Saint-Pierre, this year the corn crop was bad and life is pretty rough. I am therefore wondering whether the Department of Agriculture will be able to make up for the losses and help the farmers.
December 10, 1980

In the future will the Farm Credit Corporation allow young farmers to borrow money, at reasonable rates of interest, which was pointed out earlier today, and spread out over many years? Otherwise, debts strangle them, and they cannot take over the farms; we know how much they cost. So, is the Minister of Agriculture now willing to help the young buy a farm and go into business for themselves?
My third question has to do with Canada geese. For the past 50 or even 75 years this problem of Canada geese has been lingering, yet these birds are still there and will continue to be there while causing damage to our agriculture especially in my riding because that is where they stop over every year in the fall and on their way back in the spring. Are the Government of Canada and the Department of Agriculture prepared to compensate, under agreement with the provincial government of course, the losses incurred by farmers because of damage caused by Canada geese? My fourth question deals with pesticides. Every year when the corn fields are blooming, insecticides and pesticides are sprayed over them, so as a result bees that feed on cornflowers die.
I kept bees myself at one time, and 1 know what I am talking about. Beekeepers now lose about half of their hives because of pesticides sprayed on corn. There are about 60,000 bees in a hive during the season they gather honey from flowers. So, about 30,000 bees in each hive die each and every year and consequently do not produce honey because of those pesticides sprayed on corn. What is the government or the department going to do to make up for the beekeepers' losses?


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer our colleague from Richelieu. If my memory serves me right, he asked four very good questions. First of all, in the case of the corn program, we are aware, of course, that in some areas, crops were more or less good this year. However, there is a crop insurance program and there can be no support payments by the Agricultural Stabilization Board based on the current price of corn. When the board steps in, it does so on the basis on the last five years. Since the price of corn grain has been rather high over the last five years, it is not anticipated that support payments will be extended for the year 1980, which is almost over. The producers will have to-and I would like to tell the hon. member that this situation is not general throughout Quebec or throughout Canada, because in certain areas farmers were able to harvest well ahead of time and fairly easily; that may be saying much, but they were able to harvest.
As far as farm credit is concerned, in his second question the hon. member talked about finding ways and means to help young people enter agriculture. First of all, the farm credit interest rate has now been set back to 12.75 per cent, which is lower than the bank rate. I would also like to point out to the hon. member that 75 per cent of Farm Credit Corporation loans are made to persons under the age of 35. So I think it is not all that bad. Of course, it remains to be seen what
Supply
mechanism could be found to help young people aged 20 who do not have the necessary assets.
But on the whole I think that with all the services and facilities provided by the Farm Credit Corporation and other such agriculturally-oriented lending organizations the sons of farmers do manage to buy farms. As far as the goose program is concerned, the hon. member will recall that the minister, the deputy minister and myself met a few months ago with the people in his riding and we said at the time that they should go to the Quebec departments of agriculture and the environment. Afterwards, the department studied the matter, as usual, and published a press release indicating that it would help some western farmers whose crops had been damaged by migrating birds. 1 think the people we met at the time with the hon. member for Richelieu had built up a very solid case for themselves. I do not know if they presented their case to the Quebec departments of agriculture and the environment but if they did a study will be done by both levels of government, that is by the Quebec agriculture department and Agriculture Canada and the Quebec environment department and Environment Canada.
As for compensation for problems with bees this year, I will say this: farmers must use pesticides and herbicides. One is called Furoden. If it is sprayed from the air, it may cause damages. The label on the product warns against spraying it from the air. It must be applied at ground level. We will therefore have to establish how this herbicide or pesticide was applied and under what conditions. I think that pretty well answers the four questions put by the hon. member for Richelieu.


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to describe the geographical situation of my riding that rejoices in the name of Temiscamingue, the former stronghold of my famous predecessor, Mr. Real Caouette. It encompasses the Temiscamingue area proper and part of the Abitibi area. La Sarre, for example, is a town in my riding located in northwest Quebec, quite close to the 49th parallel.
Farming in northwest Quebec started in the twenties and some 30 years sooner than in the Temiscamingue area. The whole area was an outlet for social unrest and unemployment during the depression years. In those years, we succeeded in clearing some 550,000 acres by hand, by the strength of our arms and with determination, and I would add, Mr. Chairman, with oaths, and those 550,000 acres, for farming purposes only, cost the government and the farmers themselves huge amounts of money.
What has happened in the last few years, I would say since the early sixties? I understand that agriculture, as any other sector of the economy, has been transformed and undergone an inevitable and necessary metamorphosis. This compounded the

December 10, 1980
Supply
difficulties that plagued the farmers of my area in the sixties. Difficulties that are undoubtedly linked to artificial rains.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, many will be surprised to hear me today talk in the House about artificial rains. But it is the honest truth. I have the evidence, the names of the companies that made the tests and the amounts of the contracts that were awarded. Those tests have purely and simply ruined farming in my area. I well remember a ten-year period of continually foul weather and steady rain. And it lasted throughout the summer season. How many times 1 have seen farmers who had to wait for the first fall frost to retrieve their machinery from the fields and it pull out "by the neck", as we used to say, with a chain and a tractor and, of course, the crop was completely lost. It is the plain truth, Mr. Chairman. Once again, without us knowing it, of course they had chosen the Abitibi-Temis-camingue area to carry out experiments in artificial rain. As 1 said, this was the death sentence of agriculture in my area. From 550,000 acres of farmland, there was a dramatic drop to some 200,000 acres. Of 11,000 farmers in the Abitibi-Temis-camingue area, there are only 1,400 left today.
The effects of this sharp decline in the farm population are inevitably being felt by the population as a whole, that is, the total population is growing older as the young people leave the area. There is an alarming decrease in population. What are we to do in such a situation? There is not much hope of attracting big companies such as General Motors or Ford or any other. Of course, those people are not very interested in building a plant in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
Now, if we want to go on living in our area, what can we do exactly? Naturally, several responsible organizations and individuals have looked into the problem. For my part, 1 met with regional officers of the Quebec department of agriculture, with FPU officers and its president, Mr. Boulet. All those organizations, all those people agree that we must develop a beef cattle industry. First, we are far from self-sufficient in Quebec in beef production. Secondly, at the Kapuskasing experimental farm, in Ontario, which is close to our area, they have developed crops that are most suitable to our area. As ensilage is increasingly used, it is now quite easy to harvest crops, or should I say, to save crops. The artificial rain experiments stopped a few years ago, and 1 can assure you that as long as 1 sit in this Parliament, they will not be resumed unless, of course, the people make a formal request, which I doubt very much.
Fourth, in the past producers have suffered from price and market fluctuations. One year prices were good, but they were down the next year and producers went bankrupt. That does not happen any more thanks to the stabilization program.
Fifth, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we have an enormous reserve of agricultural lands which sell at ridiculously low prices. One never hears about lands selling at $2,000 an acre as it happens in the southern part of the province around Saint-Hyacinthe, for instance, or in southern Ontario or in the
prairies. Back home land sells for a few hundred dollars an acre.
Since my time has expired, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could urge the minister to have a study made in my region on this subject. If that study shows that it would be profitable to produce cattle, would the minister be prepared to help us through special programs?
[English)


Mr. Vankoughnet:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to discuss agriculture with the minister and his officials. The topic of agriculture is a very important one in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac, in Lennox and Addington and, indeed, across Canada. It has been recognized that one out of every four Canadians works in a field related to the food and agricultural industry. In 1979, farm cash receipts totalled some $14 billion. This figure is multiplied as the money taken in by farmers goes through the Canadian economy. There is no question that a healthy growing agricultural economy contributes greatly to a healthy, growing Canadian economy. With record unemployment and inflation in Canada today, the economy needs all the leadership it can get.
There is no question in my mind that the Canadian farmer has been the real strength of this country. It has been the farmers ability to lead by example, to thrive on challenge and to increase efficiency which has built Canada.
I would like to look at some of the areas in which the federal government has shirked its responsibilities to the agricultural industry. The recent budget put forward by the government virtually ignored agriculture. There was no mention of allowing farmers to roll over tax-free the proceeds of the sale of their farm lands into registered retirement savings plans. The budget introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West last December would have provided this worth-while measure. In the latest budget there was no mention of updating the V-Day values used to determine capital gains tax, as promised in the election campaign. These measures concerning capital gains are very important to farmers across this country. As a farmer's retirement income lies in his land, the selling price of a farm has to reflect these high potential capital gains, and as a result the high start-up costs are prohibitive to many who would otherwise be entering farming.
1 am happy to see that the present government has followed the lead of the Conservative budget of last December by allowing the deduction of income paid to a spouse in a non-incorporated business. This is good news for farmers who may now take advantage of this measure which, I understand, is to go into effect for the 1980 tax year. It also recognizes the hard work done by farm wives on farms.
The Canadian food system accounts for about 17 per cent of total energy use. Thus the agricultural sector will be hard hit by the government's misguided energy policy, which already appears to be creating more problems than it will solve. Energy self-sufficiency is already suffering.
December 10, 1980

There is no mention in the budget of exempting fuels used in food production from the federal excise tax, as the Crosbie budget proposed. There is no energy tax credit, as was proposed in the Crosbie budget, to help low and middle-income Canadians adjust to rising energy costs. How is the Canadian farmer expected to show leadership when the federal government shows little itself?
The Progressive Conservative government last year showed leadership in various provisions put forward in its budget and energy program. Several of the proposals in the Crosbie budget have been adopted by the present government, and I hope the minister and his government will also extend some relief to farmers to help them play their important role in the Canadian economy even better.
This past summer many farmers in Frontenac and Lennox and Addington counties supplied hay for the Manitoba emergency hay assistance transportation program. Under this program, Ontario hay was shipped interprovincially by rail to Manitoba farmers to help overcome difficulties associated with the drought conditions there last summer. 1 understand these rail shipments were subsidized by the railways and the federal and Manitoba governments. Many Ontario farmers were eager to help their Manitoba counterparts by supplying hay to dealers, who in turn shipped the hay west. As it turns out, many farmers in my riding have not yet been satisfactorily paid for the hay supplied. There appear to be conflicting stories about hay quality and weights and financial responsibility for these discrepancies. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the problems brought about by this emergency hay program and what action he and his officials might consider taking to correct shortcomings which are a serious matter of concern to farmers of both Manitoba and Ontario.
The federal government has managed to break another promise through its recent cancellation of funding for Can-farm. As hon. members may know, Canfarm had been run by Agriculture Canada in co-operation with the provinces and universities prior to a transfer to a consortium of farm organizations and co-operatives in March of 1979.
Canfarm is a computerized farm record keeping and financial planning service with offices across Canada. The programs administered by Canfarm are very useful and help Canadian farmers become more efficient and competitive through computer analyses of their business operations.
The government tried to eliminate Canfarm in 1978 in a series of cost-cutting measures. Later, after realizing the full importance of Canfarm, it did agree to consortium bridge financing and loan guarantees. Canfarm was promised a $4 million loan guarantee and grants of $1.2 million by the federal government during its first three years of operation to help in a smooth transition to the private sector.
The Progressive Conservative government was honouring those commitments, but the present government has recently reneged on its funding by cancelling further bridge financing to Canfarm . This is just one more way in which the present government has failed in its commitments to agriculture. 1
Supply
have received letters and telegrams from constituents and organizations reflecting their concern about the government's stopping its funding to Canfarm. I share the concern of these people, who have found Canfarm a vital service and who feel they would face great difficulties without it.
Since becoming privatized, Canfarm has been working hard to organize and design its services to meet the needs of farmers. Officials are working to build up the number of farmers using its various services. In Canfarm's annual report for 1979 President Peter Hannam in his "President's Message" stated, and I quote:
The stage has now been set to expand beyond the growing pains of 1979 and to take advantage of the opportunities in the 1980s.
He also noted that the founding members of Canfarm's co-operative services-some 14 farm organizations and cooperatives-have broken new ground in establishing Canada's first national farm management co-operative.
In light of the minister's decision to cut off further bridge financing to Canfarm it appears that the minister is closing the door to any opportunities in the eighties, and instead of soothing the growing pains of Canfarm, he is attempting to administer the death blow.
Any transition of a business or agency such as Canfarm requires time, support, hard work and money to make the transition work. The Canfarm program is designed to help the Canadian farmer. Farming, as 1 have mentioned, is a vital component of our economy.
We hear constantly of government programs to supply money, goods and services to other countries to help them develop various services. This is commendable, but it does not mean that services at home in Canada need to suffer as a result. By withholding the financing it requires the minister and his government are refusing to support Canfarm. The amount is trivial compared with the large sums the government spends. It is to help Canadian farmers in their effort to improve their industry, an industry on which Canada was built.
Amid announcements of Canadian aid in the millions of dollars for projects in other countries and the recent announcement of an additional spending of $17 million for self-serving propaganda advertising within Canada to further the government's misguided constitutional package, could the minister please explain why his government has announced its cancellation of financial aid to help Canfarm, a Canadian program which was helping Canadian farmers?
Why is the government so mixed up in its spending priorities, and why does it continue to forget and insult the farmers? Realizing the tremendous contribution agriculture has made to the development of this country, I find it hard to reconcile the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture with the positions taken by the federal government. The minister said:
We really should have a national farmer appreciation day. People become too complacent when it comes to the successes of agriculture. As long as you are efficient, productive and doing a good job, everyone seems to take everything for granted. Well, I for one won't, and I'm doing my best so that others won't either.
5624

December 10, 1980
Supply
The cancellation of financing to aid Canfarm, the lack of relief for farmers from the rapidly rising energy costs, and the hidden costs of capital gains, are just some of the sorry indications of the lack of leadership shown by the federal government with respect to the farming industry. Mr. Chairman, Canadian farmers do not have to look too far to see who really takes them for granted.
The minister has referred to the heritage of the Canadian farmers as being the acceptance of responsibility, meeting challenge and defying hard work. The government should reward such a sector of our society by helping them provide an example to all Canadians, not by forgetting about them or taking them for granted just because they have overcome the government's indifference in the past.
We must look to the future, Mr. Chairman, and face the problems head on. The government could use its majority in a constructive way to unify Canada and provide a realistic energy package. We have already seen the results of the government's efforts to unify the country and create energy self-sufficiency.
Agriculture helped build this country with roots deep and strong, and these same roots will help preserve Canada. Determination, sharing and hard work have helped to overcome adversities in all shapes and forms. Tradition was strong. People were slow to change from the known to the unknown for the sake of change alone.
Canada is a large country with diverse geographic and climatic regions. Canadians in one region regularly receive adverse weather from another region, compliments of mother nature. Farmers in particular are hit the hardest by these natural phenomena. Life goes on as people learn to live with something over which they have little control. But when the force that slams the farmer and other Canadians is the federal government, that is a very unnatural phenomenon. People do have control since the government is accountable to the people for what it does. The lightning has gone out from Ottawa, and now the thunder is rolling back in.
So, in concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and his government not to forget the farmers of this country and not to take them for granted. It is for the government to follow many of the attributes accorded to the farmer; those of leadership, self-sufficiency, unity, efficiency and hard work, which will bring about solutions to the very real problems facing Canadians.
Instead of planting the seeds of discontent, the government must sow the seeds of unity. The government must try to understand all of the variables that make a country grow strong, just as a farmer nurtures a crop. The government must know when the crop is healthy before it tries to transplant it to uncultivated fields. Just as a farmer cannot set arbitrary dates for when it would be most convenient to harvest the crop, the federal government cannot set unrealistic deadlines affecting the future of our great country.
I can only hope that the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues in the months ahead do not lose further sight of the strong heritage and leadership shown by the agricultural industry in Canada and its importance in feeding Canadians as well as hungry people throughout the world.
Agriculture has provided the strong roots for the future. Farmers know that after a threshing there is a lot of chaff. Canadians will not be threshed by a government gone out of control. Our future will not be chaff thrown to the wind. Our roots are too deep.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made a great representation about Canfarm, and rightly so, if he feels so strongly about it. Again I come back to the conference which took place here in Ottawa for two days, the Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference. Not one mention was made at that conference by any farm leader-and practically all of them from all over Canada were there-about Canfarm. I say Canfarm is good and so does the hon. member, but I say we did not break our agreement. The Co-op Credit Society has agreed to fund so much money and we have agreed to fund so much money. I suggest to the hon. member that he should read the agreement on the basis of which we set up Canfarm and study it. If he is still of the same opinion I would be surprised, because the credit societies, the co-operatives and the credit unions which were involved in lending them money have said, "Look, you are not in a position to show a proper return, so we will cut off financing to you." We did not say that we would cut off financing. We asked them to bring in different projections. A different projection has been brought in by Peter Hannam and some of his colleagues in Canfarm. I say this-I said it earlier today and I will say it again: out of 350,000 farmers of Canada, only 5,000 belong to Canfarm. The farm leaders, the co-ops, the huge organizations like the United Co-operatives of Ontario, the Maritime Co-operative Services, the Sask Pool, the Manitoba Pool, the Alberta Pool, the CFA and the OFA, where have they been? The only ones who really show they want to help Canfarm, the UPA in Quebec, say "Please keep it together because we might buy it ourselves and we can put 10,000 members into the organization immediately." The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has 24,000 members and they do not even have to have 50 per cent of what UPA would put into it they would have one of the most successful organizations going.
I do not have the same responsibility as farm leaders have to their people. They have a responsibility to their people to say, "This is good, this has been provided for." It is going to cost the federal government over $5 million to give this organization the kind of backing it needs to start, and it will cost us, as I said today, total involvement. Even to phase it out will have cost us nearly $6 million which we have invested in Canfarm. Where has the response come from? It is a unique service, a service that is second to none, but there has not been much sponsorship from farm organizations or from the province of Ontario or the Ontario ministry of agriculture. If their agricultural representative wanted to sponsor it, I am sure that they
December 10, 1980

also could raise up to 5,000 new members within the province of Ontario.
The hon. member mentioned the problem of farmers not having been paid for the hay they delivered to Manitoba. That was an agreement that Manitoba had made. We made an agreement to pay one-third of the cost of transportation, Manitoba would pay one-third, and the railroads would pay one-third. We did not use up the funds which we have allocated for that program because it started to rain and they did not need as much hay from Ontario as they thought they would need.
I agree with the hon. member that the Ontario farmers have really co-operated and have come forward to say, "We have so many bales of hay which we do not need, we have a big crop." And they let them have it at a very reasonable price. Some people could not believe it was being sold for as low a price as it was. They were not trying to take advantage of the bad situation which existed because people were suffering from the drought. If someone has not paid, I will contact my colleague, the provincial minister of agriculture in Manitoba, but this is the first time such a representation has been made to me. The hon. member spoke about unity in the country. One of the members last night mentioned that some people at the Outlook conference made representations to him about some of their concerns. But let me say to the hon. member that this was one of the most positive meetings we have ever had and one of the best attended. As I said, farm leaders, national, provincial and regional, were all there. There were people from the private sector, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and from other agro-business organizations. They all said it was a very positive meeting. I cannot say they were gleeful, but they seemed to be happy about the economic position of agriculture in Canada and the programs we have established. I would challenge the hon. member to find better programs for farmers to run their own business anywhere else in the world. No other country in the world allows its farmers to run their business as we allow them to do in Canada. Sure, we have to work with the provinces, and we do have a close working relationship with them. I say to the hon. member that it is not us who are causing disunity, not us in agriculture and not us in this government. I asked him to check some things that people on the other side of the House are saying when they suggest separatism, and all that kind of thing. The hon. member will find that people in agriculture from coast to coast are willing to share those things which grow in our ground. In these working relationships and in our national marketing boards we have the real ideal of confederation and unity.


Mrs. Cote:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate the Committee of the Whole House of Commons is holding tonight on the important question of agriculture. If I may, I would also like to thank the minister and his officials for being here to help us deal with this question. Mr. Chairman, I believe that when we talk about
Supply
agriculture, we are talking about life. If we were not so fortunate as to have such efficient farmers and agricultural producers in Canada, I believe that the well-being of every one of us would be affected.
The Department of Agriculture has always, but more particularly over the last few years, tried to provide Canadian farmers with programs geared to their needs and conducive to outstanding performance. It is because of the effectiveness of government programs that producers have been able to achieve record productions. During the seventies, agricultural cash incomes have increased tremendously as net farming income went from slightly over $1 billion in 1970 up to $4.1 billion in 1979.
Moreover, Canadian agricultural industries have become among the most effective and productive in the world. It has already been pointed out that Canada only has 3 per cent of the world's farm lands but this point should be emphasized over again. In spite of this, Canada is one of the major food growers in the world, producing 6 per cent of the wheat and barley, 12 per cent of the oats, 17 per cent of the milk, and 2 per cent of all meat and dairy products. In addition Canada exports over 70 per cent of its grain, which is the highest proportion in the world. Between 1975 and 1978, the productivity of farmers was nearly twice that of the other industries. In short, our farming community should be the envy of everyone both in Canada and abroad.
Mr. Chairman, the constituency that I represent, Rimouski-Temiscouata, is essentially rural. In my riding, farmers make every effort to improve their crops to meet the most stringent standards of Agriculture Canada. Some producers carry out their own experiments through Agriculture Canada special programs. For instance, a farming co-operative has been created in Saint-Benoit de Packington, in the Temiscouata area, for growing cauliflower and Chinese lettuce, and this program is very successful. I believe that it is through programs of this type that regional agriculture, if I may use this expression, will be able to develop in harmony with its environment.
I would not want to leave the House with the impression that I am an expert in this field; I am not, even though 1 was raised on a farm. My father was a farmer for 50 years and lived through all the plights the milk industry had to suffer from 1940 up to the present days when pasteurization and sophisticated milking methods have become common practices. In view of the significant progress accomplished in farming, especially on dairy farms, I wish to congratulate the department and the Minister of Agriculture for the personalized assistance they have extended to dairy producers.
We live in a part of the country with wide temperature ranges and I heard from the committee on agriculture that the research service was doing extremely important experiments to develop crops that might thrive in colder climates like the one prevailing in my area, for instance. So, I am anxious to see

December 10, 1980
Supply
the results of those studies so that they can be implemented in the part of the country where I live.
For almost two days I have heard many members on both sides of the Elouse. In spite of the remarks by the former minister of finance who said we are too eager to praise our minister, I think that if I had a bouquet or awards to give I would give them to our farmers. In fact, over the last few years, farmers have made use of programs which had been especially developed to meet their needs and which have proved very beneficial to them and to all of us. I think we should now go one step further as producers have demonstrated that they had the ability and the imagination to adapt to technological changes, and with very limited means to deal with the serious problem of energy cost. For example, in our area we are considering a quite revolutionary system to heat greenhouses and I will be pleased to tell hon. members more about it as soon as it is further developed. This means our farmers are not lacking energy or good will, they really are hard-working people.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of the Speech from the Throne the government had announced its intention to lay the emphasis on assistance to farmers for the development of sectors that are thriving and new ones that could be added.
As far as the creation of a Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation is concerned, I will quote a passage from the Speech from the Throne dealing with the development of our economic potential. It reads:
Food and agriculture are going to be increasingly important to the Canadian economy in the 1980s. To further strengthen the industry, my government plans to create a Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation to expand markets for Canadian producers.
As I said a while ago, I think our producers have shown that they can develop products to meet the needs of both the domestic and the world market. Considering what goes on elsewhere in the world, I think a country like Canada is comparatively very wealthy, that it has great potential despite the poverty which is quite insignificant compared to the poverty of other people in the world when one considers that some countries have to put up with drought, with many evils, not to mention those countries that are at war, countries where the climate makes it impossible to produce foodstuff. I think it is all the more important that Canada develop internationally, that it produces new commodities for the world community. I feel that this task should belong to Agriculture Canada. The policies and programs developed by Agriculture Canada must be implemented in order to meet the needs of Canadian consumers. Producers should be urged to be selective and to be more efficient in food production.
I think Agriculture Canada should launch a worldwide campaign to promote food products made in Canada. It seems to me that the Department of Agriculture holds the pole position to travel to world areas experiencing the worse difficulties in food production so that the Canadian farmer could adjust to the world demand.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am expecting too much but I think I would like to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) about that to know how his department explored this possibility, if it ever was considered. The establishment of such an agency was proposed in the Speech from the Throne. I think he should have some ideas about that. And I particularly would like to know which products could be offered throughout the world as Canadian products to provide as much as possible for their needs, if the production of certain products in certain regions of Canada was ever contemplated by his department and in that connection if a thought was given to products which could be made in eastern Quebec, in the lower St. Lawrence region where I live, to help Canada sell its food products to the world. I am waiting for the minister's answer.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member asks questions about the proposed Canadian agriculture export corporation. There are many things in which we are proficient in Canada. I feel we can compete efficiently with nearly any country in the world. We do not intend to compete with the Canadian Dairy Commission or the Canadian Wheat Board. But any of the products in the areas of poultry and pork production, and horticulture, areas in which we have efficiency or proficiency, whatever you want to call it, will be the areas where we shall be gearing up our concentrated efforts toward improving our exports. We intend to work very closely with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission. Whenever the Minister of Agriculture goes abroad, or any member of the cabinet as far as that goes, we do not feel there should ever be a chance that someone should ask him or her, what products we have for sale in Canada, what products we can supply to the customer in some other part of the world. We believe that those products that were at possibly 75 per cent of efficiency at the present time could be put on long-term contracts and create 100 per cent to 110 per cent of production efficiency. We certainly do not intend to put Canagrex into a position where they would be signing up short-term contracts, contracts only when we have surpluses to sell. We must realize that many people in the world eat all the time, not just when we have a surplus. But if we could gear up our production from 75 per cent to 110 per cent efficiency, higher than it has ever been in some areas, that would mean benefits for labour, industry, the building trades, processors, the transportation system, our balance of trade and also for consumers. It would be of benefit because we would reach the peak of efficiency in those production entities, in particular in the poultry area where we are using the cost-price formula. It would be of benefit to them because it is build into their cost-price formula, and when they reach efficiency they do not get more, they agree to take less. When production per unit costs less, they agree to pass on the savings to the consumer of that product. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Broiler Marketing Agency,
December 10, 1980

the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency and all those organizations have built an enviable and proficient production entity which can compare with any in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many more minutes 1 have before I use up the time of the hon. member.


Denis Éthier: The hon. minister has six more minutes remaining to answer the questions, or for the questioner to pose more questions.


Eugene Whelan: I would like to say that government policy with regard to the Canadian Agriculture Export Corporation, has not yet been finalized. It is the subject of concentrated and detailed discussion at this time. Some drafting has been done on the legislation.
Earlier today the hon. member for Roberval asked about women in agriculture. I think it would be interesting if I put on record the names of some of those women who are involved in Canadian agriculture. For the first time in history we now have a woman director of the Farm Credit Corporation. She is Mrs. Carol Teichrob, from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and she is at the present time a director of the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency. She is also the director of a small poultry processing plant and reeve of a huge township in Saskatchewan. With respect to the Canadian Dairy Commission Advisory Committee we have Mrs. Victoria Billingsley. She is a consumer representative from the Consumers' Association of Canada but we put her on the Canadian Dairy Commission Advisory Committee. She is a consultant from Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Denise Van Breda, from southern Ontario, who is a tobacco farmer, a very successful farmer in her own right, is on the Agriculture Stabilization Board Advisory Committee. On the National Farm Products Marketing Council we have June Menzies as chairperson and Maryon Brechin as counsellor. June Friessen, a director from Winnipeg, is on the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency. Lynn Hoffman is also a director of that agency. I come back to Carol Teichrob from Saskatoon who is on the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency. John Wise, the former minister of agriculture, appointed Brenda McIntosh to the FCC Advisory Board. In my own office I have Linda Clifford from Wilkie, Saskatchewan, who is the manager of my regional office in Regina, and is a special assistant. Norma Lamont from Bruce County is a private secretary in my own office and Mary Ann Allan from Saskatoon is a research assistant. I could name others who are doing these types of things, and if anyone else knows of women in agriculture who are willing to serve on these boards let us know. We have one of the best records among the ministries of appointing qualified women to boards in the area of agriculture administration. I am saying that we are willing, if we can find the people, to appoint them to these boards.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue asked questions about research in the area of beef raising in his own constituency. We cannot turn research on and off like a tap. Some people think we can do it this way. We will look at his proposal very
Supply
closely to see if we have any people we can send there to do a study for him on the kind of program he was suggesting.
We know that certain parts of northern Quebec and northern Ontario show tremendous possibilities as far as forage production with new modern methods of farming and new species of grasses are concerned. The new short season corns show great potential for that area.
One of the members asked me about milk quotas and he said that they were not being properly administered. I say to him, as I said to another member who spoke earlier, that this comes under the administration of the provinces. We are very concerned about it.
The price of hogs was also mentioned. That is another product which has no supply-management system. Hog production operates on the open free market. The producers take the knocks which come with that industry. There are many other programs under the National Farm Products Marketing legislation which farmers themselves agree to. It allows farmers to look after themselves in a proper fashion and the economic return for most of them as long as the farmers are efficient, is very good.
[ Translation]


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for answering my question, and also for mentioning the very interesting participation of women in farming. I hope that the administration of the department and of agricultural matters will be improved by it and that the need of citizens will be better met.
I thank the minister for answering some questions which had been asked for some time and about which we were expecting an answer. So, I thank the minister for all the information he has given us.


Denis Éthier: I would entertain an answer from the Minister of Agriculture, but the time has expired for both questions and answers.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I think 1 can help the minister by adding some information to what was said by the hon. member for Rimouski. My intervention does not require the minister to take any notes as he already knows what I am about to say. It is merely a question of reminding him that there are still problems in front of the Department of Agriculture.
We heard during the debate yesterday and today of the tremendous growth in farm income in Canada over the past two decades. No industry in Canada on a percentage basis has increased productivity so dramatically as agriculture. Until a few years ago the rate was 7 per cent a year compared to about a 2 per cent or 3 per cent for other industries in Canada. If the gross income for agriculture in 1980 is over $15 billion, I predict that without using any more land for production than is in use now and without too many drastic changes in technology, this same land area will be producing double the value

December 10, 1980
Supply
of its present production by the end of the century through more intensive use.
My subject tonight will be the land which exists around this good land, the so-called marginal land on which farmers have had a hard time making a living. If one takes the older provinces-the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario-one will find that more farmland has been abandoned in those provinces than is now being cultivated. My remarks will attempt to answer the type of questions posed by the hon. member for Rimouski. Her county is representative of two or three times more acreage of that type of marginal land in Canada than there is in the so-called currently cultivated acreage.
The demand for energy in the world today has given the farmer in every province of Canada an opportunity which he would never have dreamed of 15 years ago. This knowledge is not new. It is known by our research people in every department in Ottawa interested in research. It is known by our provincial research departments and by industry. But the fact is we have not used this technology and this research information on the ground that as long as there is oil we do not need to take energy from another source.
As long as we continue to use oil in Canada and the United States we delay a little longer the move toward this new technology. Fortunately, in the farm areas of Canada there is available at present prices of oil and competing energy sources a whole series of low grade technologies which lend themselves to farm use and utilization at a price competitive with other forms of energy at the present time. This competitive ability will increase each time oil prices rise. As I said before, these technologies which are coming on and which, in some cases, are here now, are not new.
One of the oldest technologies on the farm is the utilization of wind. No one will pretend that the utilization of wind energy in Canada will provide a large percentage of our total energy requirements, but it can, with the present techniques and with the present prices of competing fuels, provide about 3 per cent or 4 per cent of our energy requirements. Our scientists have produced new types of windmills, but when put to the test of economics, power derived from them is still more expensive than power bought from the ordinary electrical system. Therefore, there is no great urgency in pushing farmers into doing something which does not have an immediate economic advantage.
However, following the wind conference in Regina three years ago, farmers had figured out answers which scientists had not been able to figure out. At that conference under the auspices of Canadian Plains, University of Regina section, they had figured out how to harness the power of high speed wind. All models to date could only operate under winds as high as 25 miles an hour because under higher winds they would fall apart or the generators would burn out. The farmers applied their haywire philosophy and know-how and came up with an answer so simple that one wonders why it was not thought of 30 years ago.
To give an idea of what I mean, if the wind is blowing at ten miles an hour and it produces one kilowatt of electricity per
hour, then at 20 mph one might expect that the power produced would be two kilowatts. But because of the peculiar momentum principles of wind power, which increases at the cube of the differences of speed, and since 20 miles an hour is twice ten we therefore get two times two times two, or eight times as much power out of a 20-mile-an-hour wind as out of a ten mile-an-hour wind. In other words, eight kilowatts. If the wind velocity is 30 miles an hour, we get 27 times the power and if it is 40 miles an hour we get 64 times as much power.
That technology is presently on the way to being patented. I know that in the research section of the Department of Agriculture, which is as good as any research section in the world, they have never accepted the principle that it is their responsibility to get information out to the farmers. It believes that this is the function of the provinces, as part of the agreement of 1887. I say it is their duty, because of the failure of the provinces to properly educate farmers as to new technologies to find ways and means in co-operation with the provinces to get their information out.
Another example is heat pumps which have been used in North America for 60 years. Women know the heat pump as a refrigerator which takes the heat out of the food and dumps it on the floor. A heat pump which is used for heating a home or a barn simply takes the heat out of the air outside, even at 30 below, and heats the house or the barn. Or better, still, one should take the heat out of a well or a dugout, the local stream or even the ground. With the free heat of the sun taken from the ground, for example, one can reduce the present cost of energy by 75 per cent. All this knowledge is known but it has been resisted to the last ditch by power corporations and researchers who do not want to face reality. Fortunately this is all changing. The final decision will be made on the economics of the matter. In the last two or three years research on heat pumps to take heat from out of the ground and out of the water has demonstrated that we can save 75 per cent in spite of our climate.
The one thing that is missing of course is the capital to shift into this new technology. Without going into it in detail, it costs $3,000 or $4,000 to shift over to heat pumps which would allow a farmer to keep his dairy barn or beef barn at a constant temperature over summer and winter if it is properly ventilated. The saving in the case of larger buildings can rise as high as ten to one.
I am making my point loud and clear to the minister. We have just finished putting a budget through this Parliament which granted substantial sums of money to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to investigate new forms of low grade technology and transference of heat. The department was asked to set up demonstration programs. The only fault with that proposal is that the department does not have the personnel to deliver the programs. Several other departments do, however. Canada Mortgage and Housing has the capacity to deliver that program as has the Department of Agriculture.
December 10, 1980

Anything that reduces the cost of farming should be of interest to the Department of Agriculture.
The minister knows that in his department there is a small group of men very knowledgeable in the field of renewable energy. Other departments also have such small groups of experts but only the Department of Agriculture has the manpower at this time to deliver the service in rural areas.
Yesterday, mention was made of an organization that is one of the proudest arms of the Department of Agriculture, the PFRA or Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which covered parts of four or five provinces in the west. That organization was taken away from the Department of Agriculture about 15 years ago and transferred to the Department of the Environment, as 1 think it then was.
Those PFRA engineers are competent to design and build the biggest dam in the world, and they have done it, Mr. Chairman, but today they sit idle in Regina waiting for their pensions because they are not in the right department. The Department of Agriculture could find lots of work for them, particularly on this heat pump problem. Engineers who design dynamos and everything else for power plants could certainly design a simple heat pump made of a compressor, two coils and an electrical gadget to turn it on and off. Every woman understands her 'fridge'. Engineers understand the heat pump.
The men 1 mention would be glad to do what they did before-go out and teach farmers how to engineer a dugout system, how to put in tree plantations, how to build dams and irrigation projects. They should have a chance in their retiring years to get back to work for agriculture. I know the minister wants them back. Now is the time to bring them back to work on this program with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for demonstration projects on energy savings. The technology is available and there is the know-how and the personnel in the Department of Agriculture to deliver the service.
This would not make Treasury Board or the Department of Finance mad, Mr. Chairman. PFRA should be returned to the Department of Agriculture and its people should go down to Rimouski and every other part of Canada that has been decimated for 50 years because of lack of knowledge as to the use of that type of soil and that type of forest capacity.
1 know the minister expects me to speak about another subject which I used to call biomass. Everybody laughed when I first brought it up. The minister picked up the term and found it to be a good way of swearing without anyone knowing what it meant. Mr. Chairman, biomass is simply rotten material. When we die, our bodies go into the ground or into the atmosphere. Every tree dies and every plant dies-every piece of grass dies. We all end the same way, as molecules of this or molecules of that. The hydrocarbon components get trapped some place and that is the basic gas, the basic oil, the basic coal, the basic diamond. Why wait for several billions of years for that to happen? A lot of us would like to be used some time reasonably close to our death. Let us get this rotten material to work, Mr. Chairman. Just the ordinary amount of waste on a
Supply
farm could supply 3 per cent or 4 per cent of Canada's total energy needs.
Yesterday someone mentioned gasohol. I know the experts say the costs are marginal-$2 per gallon when the cost of power and so on is added. But, Mr. Chairman, the farmer has the waste material anyway and is soon going to have a superabundance of power produced from all the other techniques that he knows about. One of the ways he can utilize this surplus power capacity is by using up all the waste on his farm.
Gasohol is not the main value; the main value to the farmer is this utilization of waste to produce alcohol. Of course, he cannot drink it but he can put it into his tractor, into all his engines and make them last three or four times as long. That is where the economic advantages are, Mr. Chairman. Technically, if he paid himself an hourly wage he would not make money on this product. But with the economy the farmer uses, he could make money because he does not usually consider his own wages, time or the energy which he can make himself, as costs.
In the Crosbie budget, for the first time in Canada's history there was a provision to make it legal to own a still. Rejoicing went through every farm home. Some people actually thought they might be able to sneak off a quart or two. Basically, though, the farmer knew what was meant. The required bond for a miserable little still was reduced from $200,000 to $10,000. Mounted policemen were delirious with happiness because they would now know the location of all stills, as they would have to be licensed, instead of spending cold nights searching for them.
1 think the idea of gasohol should not be dropped, Mr. Chairman. In the United States, 36 states are going ahead with production. Our civil servants now know at first hand the warm reception given to the program by thousands of farmers in many states. My constituency is just across the line from North Dakota where they make their own gasohol and we sneak across the line to get it.
For heaven's sake, Mr. Chairman, let us get this back into the budget. It would not cost the government anything. The farmer would bear the cost of the still. He would accept the police coming once a year to inspect it and would gladly put up the $10,000 bond. I am sure he would also be happy to pay his wife a few dollars for sitting to watch the still because that would be deductible.
The main point of my remarks is, of course, poplar trees, Mr. Chairman. When I first came to this House nearly 23 years ago, I made the statement that more money could be made on the farms in Canada, by producing trees than grass. For this I quickly collected the nickname of "Johnny Appleseed." I did not have the relevant figures then but I have them now, thanks to scientists in the forestry section and the research section of the Ontario and B.C. governments. We have bred a poplar tree that will not only provide feed for cattle but will provide lumber, plywood, pulp, and above all, oil. Fifty per cent of dead weight in the dry form of a poplar tree is hydrocarbon. Even at present prices that would yield a farmer, if grown on so-called useless marginal land with

December 10, 1980
Supply
drainage, about $300 per acre each year. The cost figures are available, thanks to the Ontario government.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Bloomfield:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have this opportunity to participate in this discussion on the Department of Agriculture's supplementary estimates. As one who was a farmer prior to having been elected to this chamber, I would like to take this opportunity to convey to the Minister of Agriculture my heartiest commendations for the outstanding job he has done on behalf of all of those involved in agriculture in this country.
I am especially pleased with last week's announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board has given agriculture a priority A rating in the event of an energy shortage. As a member of the agricultural industry, I welcome this initiative since it clearly illustrates the importance of food production for us in Canada, as well as for people in other countries.
I would like to base the first part of my questions to the minister on the subject of energy as it relates to agriculture. In particular, 1 would like to know if the minister is looking ahead to the future when higher energy prices will be hitting the farmer right square in the pocketbook. In a recent report prepared by the Department of Agriculture, some estimates were set forth illustrating the impact a $1 per barrel increase in crude oil would have on farm input costs. For example, for every $1 per barrel increase in crude, the price of natural gas will rise approximately 15 cents per thousand cubic feet. This means fertilizer prices will skyrocket. Annhydrous ammonia, for example, will rise by $10.54 per tonne. For any farmer growing wheat, barley or corn-crops of great significance in my area of the province-energy costs will be of crucial importance in deciding whether or not a farmer will make any profit in the coming years.
The key here, and I would appreciate the minister's comments on this, is what alternative will the farmer have to offset this drastic increase in input costs? Will it be by substitutes or plant adaptations?
I have read many briefs, articles and proposals for substituting renewable sources of energy for non-renewables. We all seem to realize that some sort of alcohol-based fuel would be most economical if it could be produced in large quantities. The problem is neither the technology nor the materials for producing this type of fuel are available to Canadians on a large scale.
How far down the road is this technology? I do not see energy prices getting much cheaper in the future; we need to be able to move off gasoline and diesel fuel if Canadian farmers want to stay competitive in the food production industry. My question is this: can the minister give us an idea of what priority he has allocated to a renewable energy substitution program? Also, how many years will it be before this program is implemented on a significant scale?
I would like to move to another area of concern. It deals with the fruit and vegetable storage construction financial assistance program. This program, which provides government assistance to fruit and vegetable producers in constructing storage facilities, was discontinued under the previous government. After much consultation with the producers, we reintroduced it, providing $3.3 million worth of assistance to the fruit and vegetable industry in Canada.
In Lambeth, Ontario, five producers have pooled their resources to construct a storage facility for their crops. The building was officially opened on August 25 and the owners have submitted the bulk of their cancelled cheques and invoices and have provided all the proper papers and documentation. They are anxiously awaiting their cheques from the Department of Agriculture, but at present they have not received anything of the kind. Could the minister tell me what is the current status of this project in the department, and whether these people can look forward to receiving their cheques in the near future?
Another area of interest to me is the new Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation, Canagrex. We in Canada enjoyed a very good year last year in so far as agricultural exports are concerned. Canada sold a record $6.1 billion worth of food and agricultural products abroad last year, leaving us with a healthy trade surplus of $1.4 billion. This is very commendable and indicative of the fact that when provided with the proper environment in which to produce their commodities, Canadian farmers are more than equal to the task.
Nonetheless, I feel we can improve this record. I, for one, am of the opinion that Canada can become the world leader in the international marketing of many commodities. I would like to have the minister's comments on how this could be achieved under Canagrex. I would recommend that Canagrex's board of directors be comprised mainly, if not entirely, of farmers. As far as I am concerned, no one knows the farming business as well as farmers themselves.
I would also like to know what the status of Canfarm is at present. I know my hon. colleague from Guelph discussed this matter in some detail. Canfarm offers a unique opportunity for Canadian farmers to receive expert advice and assistance. It would certainly be a substantial loss if it had to be disbanded. Would the minister tell us what he intends to do with respect to this matter?
I would like to be brief on my last topic so as to give the minister a chance to respond to my questions. However, before I finish, I would like to comment on an aspect which will, if not soon corrected, cause a severe problem for Canada in the coming decades. As I see it from here, the Department of Agriculture is not receiving the amount of moneys needed for it to achieve its maximum potential. I am not trying to say that the department is squandering its present allocations or that it is not running a tight ship. When one considers what we have done with what we have at our disposal, I cannot be anything but impressed. However, I am truly alarmed when I look at
December 10, 1980

the estimates and find that we are allocating only 1.3 per cent of our total federal expenditures to the Department of Agriculture. Compared to last year, this represents a 20 per cent cut.
Compare the Department of Agriculture's budget with that of Knowlton Nash and the boys down at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It gives one an idea of how badly off agriculture really is. In terms of employees, the CBC has 11,861 compared to 10,110 as projected for March 31, 1981. This year the agriculture departmental budget was increased by less than one per cent while CBC received a 10 per cent increase. Presently, the CBC's budget is approximately $577 million compared to $748 million for Agriculture Canada. The CBC budget is over 75 per cent of that of Agriculture Canada. Where are our priorities?
These figures are proof that the Ministry of Agriculture is not getting its fair share. I can think of no other federal department that took a 20 per cent reduction in expenditures from last year. I want everyone to wake up and remember that it was agriculture that put Canada on the map. I refuse to stand by and see the Department of Agriculture, which has in the past demonstrated its vital importance to Canada's wellbeing, receive second-class status at a time when so many people are predicting a worldwide food shortage by the end of the century. We must lay the groundwork now to prepare for the crisis ahead. I cannot see how it can be accomplished while agriculture sustains a 20 per cent cutback in revenues. 1 ask the minister, therefore, to convince his cabinet colleagues that agriculture needs more revenues to enable Canada to maintain its prestigious international position in this most important sector.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member mentioned how good the cold storage program is. He expressed concern about a group in his constituency who are waiting for a cheque. I am not aware why they have not received it. Nobody has said anything to me for some time about that organization. The hon. member made lots of representations when they were first applying for assistance under the government assistance program where we paid up to one-third of the cost of the structure with a maximum contribution of $500,000. I will have to do some checking to see if I can find out where it is for the hon. member.
He asked about Canagrex and how it can increase agricultural exports. Canagrex can do a tremendous job if it is given the opportunity. There are many small businesses and many small operations in Canada able to take advantage of export markets which can be made available to them if someone is there to back them. In many other countries of the world governments are offering all kinds of opportunities to that kind of production. It makes it very difficult for Canadian farmers to compete because there are no avenues for them to take in order to trade in other parts of the world.
The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex used figures the other day suggesting we could increase our agricultural exports by $2 billion or $3 billion in the first year of operation.
Supply
I do not think he is being too liberal when he suggests that. I think he is being very realistic. As far as that goes, he may be a little conservative when using those figures.
People come to our office about the products they wish to buy, as happened last week, and speak not in terms of $100 million, not $200 million; there is a potential of $500 million worth of new agricultural business for the year 1981. If we move quickly we can take part in that. They want to deal with the Minister of Agriculture and the government. They want to get rid of the multinationals and the people who are only in the trading business to make money. I say there is room for those people in the trading business who are willing to accept a decent profit for what they do. That is the kind of trading we want. We want to become involved with those countries producing products we cannot produce in Canada, and products we are producing in Canada which they cannot produce with as much efficiency or proficiency. Those are the areas we will be moving into.
Canfarm is a good thing. It has cost us millions of dollars since its inception but has not taken off with farmers the way it should have. When one thinks about it, only 5,000 farm members in Canada belong to Canfarm. I spoke earlier of the lack of support it has received from farm organizations and the provincial governments; it has received by far the largest amount of support from the federal government and the federal ministry. If they can find some way to come up with solutions in the next few days and if they want to work together, we will work with them to save Canfarm.
The hon. member talks about the amount of money allotted to the Department of Agriculture. We do not have that huge a budget and I brag about the little bit of money that Agriculture Canada has. There is no doubt that I can use more money for some important programs. I agree with the hon. member that food for the system is important; it is important for the mind, it is even important for the people at the CBC because they could not operate if they did not have food. When we look at the over-all structure, the CBC does provide, from time to time, some food for the mind. Sometimes it would be better if it was not provided at all. We could do without the CBC but certainly not without the farmers of Canada. Percentagewise, the CBC is probably the highest subsidized production entity there is in Canada, but I am sure we would not want to do away with the CBC either.
Some of the most progressive farmers in Canada are those who belong to the supply-managed type of marketing boards on which 1 do not spend one penny. Their production and efficiency is probably the greatest of any production entity in Canada. There are provincial marketing boards running the same kind of system and very few federal marketing boards. In total there are 103 marketing boards in Canada. Some of the toughest marketing boards of all are in Alberta where the farmers are independent and free. They just formed another one the other day to market their potatoes. The oldest marketing boards are in the province of British Columbia. All those who market milk in Canada belong to a milk marketing board. There are many farmers marketing their products. I brag

December 10, 1980
Supply
about the efficiency of our producers and the little subsidization they do receive from the federal government or from any government. When you add up the total expenditures of the provinces and the federal government and all other expenditures by other departments which involve themselves in rural Canada, we find that out of the total provincial and federal expenditures less than 4 per cent of total expenditures goes to agriculture.
I do not believe there is another nation in the whole world that can claim to have such a healthy agricultural industry with so little money spent on it. Yes, we can use more money, for research, we could use more money for cold storage, we could use money for the veterinary college in the maritimes, we could use money for the Farm Credit Corporation, we could use money to assist communities in building community centres, we could use money for the fair boards. The Canadian Exhibition associations are always asking for more money. The main reason we are here this evening is to discuss our estimates. I understand the opposition is concerned about the spending of our money. If you notice, Mr. Chairman, almost every speaker wants us to spend more money on agriculture in Canada and not to spend less. For instance, when we consider the $46 million spent on the hog stabilization industry this year, if I had a supply-managed system I would not be spending $46 million. That $46 million would be for extra research or some other kind of agricultural programs. Spending $15 million on potato stabilization is wrong. For eight years I have not spent a penny of tax dollars on the poultry industry. It is one of the healthiest production entities of all.
Groups in Canada using provincial marketing legislation are also efficient and are not costing either the federal government or their provincial governments very much money, if any at all. If they are using a supply-managed type of system with a pricing cost formula then they are all way below the cost of inflation. They are some of the most efficient production units in Canada. I just want to say to the hon. member who talked about cold storage and that type of thing that we have some programs now put forward by the province of British Columbia involving controlled atmospheric cold storage, jacketed storage, but mostly controlled atmospheric temperature. They have a plan for a two-year program to spend $9 million on cold storage because of the benefits they have received from this program. A member of the New Democratic Party said in the House yesterday that none of these programs were new and that none of them were working. They have taken advantage of that program. At one time, British Columbia used half of our funds. Now they are in a position where they export apples to 34 countries in the world because of that program. We cannot go to British Columbia and tell the farmers that there is no federal participation in their agricultural program because of what we have done to help the food and horticultural industry there. Over half of the moneys received in British Columbia for their agricultural industry are from federal government, and if you added what DREE has put into that area it would practically match what the provincial government has spent on agriculture in British Columbia.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the hon. member's time has expired.
I think it was agreed earlier today that two hon. members would share any 20 minutes given. The two hon. members who will share the next 20 minutes will be the hon. member for Portage-Marquette and the hon. member for Central Nova. Each will have ten minutes.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister that farmers in this country do an excellent job of producing food. One of the ways to define a so-called developed country is to measure the amount of disposable income which is spent on food. The lower the amount of money it takes to feed a country, the more developed that country is. A low percentage of disposable income spent on food is obviously a comment on the efficiency of the farmers of a particular country. I think Canadian farmers are testimony to the fact that we in this country do an excellent job of feeding ourselves.
The minister mentioned that over the past couple of days many people have asked the government to spend more. I am not asking the government to spend more, but I would like to talk about the initial price for wheat. I think the minister knows well that the initial price is $4.25 a bushel, and since about November 15 or thereabouts, or for the past month, wheat has been selling at over $7 at both Thunder Bay and Vancouver. There is a big spread between that and the initial payment of $4.25. It seems to me that an initial price increase would be more than welcomed by many farmers in this country.
1 have heard the minister and the minister in the other place who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in the past little while say that many producers are asking that this increase be delayed until after the new year. Provincial governments and the federal government have programs in place to assist young farmers to establish themselves and to keep family farms in existence, but many people need increases in the initial price now to pay bills before the end of the year. These are the same people for whom there are government programs in place. These programs are to help young people maintain family farms.
I have also heard it said that it would save the Canadian Wheat Board interest not to have to borrow money to make initial payments. That, to me, is a completely wrong and fallacious argument. In point of fact, the Canadian Wheat Board does not have any money. It holds money in trust for producers. The interest rate at which the Canadian Wheat Board is able to borrow is substantially less than that faced by any farmer in western Canada. Indeed, the information I have is that the Canadian Wheat Board pays interest on money it borrows at prime. Most producers who borrow money to meet commitments such as operating loans and accounts payable pay in excess of prime. It would therefore make good economic sense in my mind if the government were to increase the initial price for wheat immediately and certainly before the end of the year.
December 10, 1980

I point out further that it is not the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board but that of the government to set the initial price for wheat. I urge this upon the minister. I would like to hear his comments on it. I urge him to increase the initial price immediately. I see no reason why he cannot do it before Christmas or before the end of the year about which I have heard him and the minister in the Senate who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board talk.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was the hon. member for Lisgar who asked me a question yesterday in this House with respect to increasing the initial price for wheat. I gave the hon. member a response at that time. In this respect we go by our correspondence with farmers. Our regional offices tell us that the vast majority of farmers are saying that they have sold a lot of grain this year and that they do not want any increase in initial prices until January 2. That is the response I am getting. If the hon. member for Portage-Mar-quette is receiving any other type of representation, I would like to know about it. I take it for granted that he is expressing a view from his constituency, but I have been in several constituencies in each of the grain producing provinces of western Canada which come under this jurisdiction. I have been to annual meetings and seen many hundreds of farmers, but I have yet to hear one say to me that 1 should increase the initial price. 1 am going by the response I get. I do not think there is any intention at the present time, but I will be meeting the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board tomorrow, and I will take this up with him again.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has been at different meetings in western Canada yesterday and today, and he may have heard a different opinion. Grain producers may now have a different feeling from that which has been expressed to me.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Chairman, 1 have certainly been in contact with some producers who favour an increase in the initial price, before the new year. However, I wonder if the minister has spoken to very many young farmers, who certainly are experiencing cash flow problems at this particular time of the year. The end of the year is approaching, and many creditors are asking that their accounts be paid. As I have said, the Canadian Wheat Board is certainly in a position to borrow money at an interest rate which is more favourable than the rate faced by the average producer. During the first 13 weeks of the crop year the Canadian Wheat Board actually sold about three-quarters of a million tonnes of wheat more than it took in in deliveries, so as far as the cash flow position of the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, it has sold more than it has bought, so it should not be in any trouble with respect to meeting commitments in terms of increasing the initial price. I see no reason why there could not be an immediate increase of at least $1.50 a bushel.
I think that would be reasonable. I know some people have called for a $2 increase. Interest rates have gone up in the past two successive weeks and I think they will increase tomorrow. The Bank of Canada will probably see an increase of some
Supply
three-quarters of a percentage point. This makes it all the more imperative that we try to get money into the hands of producers so that they do not have to pay this high interest rate on borrowed money. I urge the minister to consider it.
I would like to raise another issue with respect to something with which I am sure the minister is familiar. It has to do with the meat import legislation which has been tabled. Is there any possibility of getting rid of the growth factor which is in the formula for setting quotas? I know this was negotiated with respect to the GATT over a year ago. I think agreements were signed back in June of 1979. This is something which concerns us. It concerns the Americans, too, because we will be letting in more meat from offshore countries on a per capita basis- Australia and New Zealand are the two major ones-than will the Americans. This can cause problems at the American border. Back in 1976 our border was actually closed because of the amount of meat which came into the country and which displaced live cattle which went south across the line. I would like to know what plans the minister has for setting quotas under the import-export permits legislation and at what levels they will be. I think they should be announced fairly soon, certainly before the end of the year.
I have one final question. I think there is some concern that our quotas for beef were set excessively high this year. The quota was some 170 million pounds of beef. There is some concern that that is excessively high and that it will be reflected in the moving average which will be with us for a long time to come. Is there any possibility of lowering the figure we had before 1980 so that that figure will not be used to inflate the quota we allow for offshore meat for the coming years? That is what I would like to have the minister address, if he would, please.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member mentioned the meat import legislation. I feel I understand what he means when he talks about the import-export legislation. It would mean setting the quota before the end of December. There have been suggestions with respect to what that quota should be. Some have said 141 million pounds. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the oceanic countries have not filled their quota this year.
It does not appear that they will fill their quota because other countries have moved in and offered better prices. Russia has moved in and bought meat from them, so their meat prices have increased to such an extent that it is not enticing to people in Canada who have been using that meat for processing. If they can find meat in North America, they will use it, but production has gone down in Canada.
I will be discussing as soon as possible with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the setting of a quota. There has been some suggestion from the United States-I admit that it is only a rumour and I do not find it altogether authentic-that they are talking about there not being a quota. This is what we are told by our advisers at our embassy in Washington. I am in favour of setting a figure. I

December 10, 1980
Supply
believe that the Meat Import Act is something the producers have wanted for a long time. It sets a figure so that the producers know where they are going. The hon. member wants it to be more rigid than it is, as I understand from what he said about the Meat Import Act. He wanted it not to use the population consumption factor. I do not know if we could do that. In essence, the hon. member is asking for a supply-management type of system without a supply-management system. He is asking that it be done by legislation. I would think we would get into great difficulties with our trading partners in GATT if we tried that. That is why we have gone as far with that bill as we possibly can. If the hon. member will notice, in one section of that bill in which quotas for meats are-


Denis Éthier: I must interrupt the minister with regret but there was an agreement earlier this day that we should allow only ten minutes to both the questioner and the minister, and that time has expired. We now move on to the hon. member for Central Nova.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister three or four brief questions, and I hope the hon. gentleman will keep his answers short, as 1 will keep my questions.
I want to bring to his attention primarily two topics. One is the question of tax and the other is the PFRA. I believe the minister indicated in his remarks a short time ago, or left the impression, that research in his department was increasing. According to my information, in 1974 there were 3,890 man-years for research, and in 1981 there were 3,659. So it would appear that in this important area his research capability is reduced. Also, in terms of inflation I believe that the expenditures have hardly kept pace. He might refer briefly to that matter in his answer.
My first question to the minister is whether he has been making representations to his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and possibly to the Minister of Finance, as to some way in which tax concessions could be obtained, First of all, for part-time farmers who, in my constituency at least, are having a difficult time making the transition from industrial jobs to being full-time farmers, though many of them have a very real desire and incentive to do so. Has he been exploring any possibilities which would allow more generous tax concessions so that people will be able to build up some capital for farm equipment and livestock and not necessarily be denied tax deductions because they do not show a profit for the first few years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member spoke about a reduction in man-years. My officials are looking for the figures on man-years as quickly as they can. I was given figures some time ago and I am going by memory, but it seems to me that we did not increase our man-years by very much. However, we did increase them by 14 man-years this year. The biggest increase in expenditures took place between 1977 and 1978 when the increase was $16 million.
The next largest increase took place in 1980-81 when the increase was $13 million. Both those figures show that we were ahead of the inflation rate. They also should show that we were able to maintain our status quo in man-years. Perhaps there were no large increases, but the figures I am given here right now for the end of 1979 show that we had 3,360 planned, continuing employees on March 31, 1980; 3,360 planned and continuing employees on March 31, 1981, and 3,345 total person-years authorized. This will confuse the hon. member as it confuses me, but it shows here the figure of 3,659 for the total involvement for 1980-81. That is the figure as compared to 3,392 in 1978-79, going up to 3,359. I am taking it for granted that this is for executive, scientific, administrative, technical, administrative support, operational and research groups. Those are the figures 1 have just been handed.
Concerning the national revenue people and the representations for part-time farmers, let me say to the hon. member that 50 per cent of the farmers from the area where I live work some place else. I was one of those myself at one time. I worked in factories, and so on, when I was establishing myself in farming. I find these people do not really look at marketing as much as they should if they have seniority at a good plant or if they are teaching in a school where they have tenure. They market their product without the concern that another person whose sole livelihood was derived from farming would show. The hon. member can imagine the number of representations I receive from my own area, and I think that some way should be found. When I talk to many of the people, they sound very much involved in just writing off expenditures and establishing holdings which will be worth a lot of money in a while. They write it off as farming expenditures. That is the difficulty we have.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1 understand those problems, but I am encouraged to think that the minister is looking for ways to make things easier for those who are genuinely interested in becoming farmers, because if they can be allowed to go back to the land, they will open up jobs for others who have no desire to live that kind of life.
I want to refer now to the background documentation which the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Elgin, and I have put together in our economic development committee. There was interdepartmental consultation with the Department of the Environment, the department of federal-provincial relations, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, with respect to the future of PFRA. I was most interested in the speech given by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain in this regard. As the minister knows, it was only in 1969, I believe, that PFRA was taken away from Agriculture. If my information is correct, the minister made a remark or two at an agricultural task force meeting of the Canwest Foundation in Calgary not long ago, under the chairmanship of Harold Horner, indicating at least some sympathy for getting PFRA back into the Department of Agriculture. My question, in the form of a representation, is the following. I have been following the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who rightly pointed
December 10, 1980

out the number of acres of land which have been abandoned in certain parts of this country, particularly in the maritimes, and who drew attention to the expertise that is available to PFRA-even if you are growing poplar trees, you will have to do some draining. We must remember also that the special agreement which our government brought in for eastern Ontario was largely as a result of the cessation of the ARDA program which covered part of that region. Keeping all this in mind, is the minister seriously considering-I note that there will be a major departmental review and a major initiative- making PFRA a truly national agency in the maritimes-I understand this is also a provincial responsibility-along the lines of the old maritime marshland rehabilitation act? I would be very interested in this. I do not want to go on too long but I would be interested to hear what the minister has to say about this. Would he consider such action, because his predecessor and I were looking at it seriously and we were in the process of setting up an all-party task force under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Medicine Hat?


Denis Éthier: Perhaps the minister will be able to answer the question at a later time, but right now we must go over to the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct some comments to the Minister of Agriculture through you. Agriculture has always been the number one industry in Saskatchewan where my constituency lies. Although it is somewhat overshadowed right now by other developments in the potash, uranium and heavy oil industries, in the long term agriculture will always be the number one industry in Saskatchewan. However, constituents have written to me about several concerns, and agricultural groups have made representations to the New Democratic Party about their concerns in the area of agriculture. One concern which keeps coming up is the Crowsnest rate or the statutory rate for the movement of grain. I very much fear that the federal government will deal rather harshly with farmers and predict that it will make a move to take away that statutory rate. Although some compensatory payments will be made, farmers will have to watch out in the future or they will find themselves absorbing the inflationary costs of the movement of their products.
Another area of concern is the area of energy. I was happy to hear the minister announce that the producers of food would be placed on a high priority list. I thank the minister for that consideration.
1 suppose the next area would fall under the Department of Transport rather than the Department of Agriculture. I am referring to the movement of grain. Many Saskatchewan farmers say that they must stand by the siding when the train goes by, otherwise they will not get their grain in on time. They also tell me that quite often the elevators are plugged because of the poor movement of grain in western Canada.
Another area is that of a national beef marketing board which I understand is supported by the minister. Often I
Supply
questioned why the minister would not implement such a marketing board to assist beef producers, so that they could rely upon a substantial return on their product. After raising their cattle, they should be able to expect to receive something out of it, especially when one considers the money they have invested for their herds and the time and labour they have put into the operations. If their time were counted, many farmers and ranchers would not be receiving much of a return from the beef they sell during the low points of the year.
I should like to be critical for a moment of the agricultural research stations which, through attrition over the last few years, have paved the way for plant breeders' rights to come into existence, a topic with which the New Democratic Party disagrees.
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is a strong agricultural area within Canada. As the member of Parliament for that area I disagree with plant breeders' rights. I feel we are moving into a very dangerous area when that is taken out of the research stations and put into the hands of a large corporation. It will be gobbled up quite rapidly leaving farmers at the mercy of large corporations such as Dutch Shell, for example.
I am concerned about the number of young farmers who have written me or who contact me while I am in my constituency regarding the amount of work they are required to do off the farm, particularly in the wintertime, to subsidize their incomes. Again I am stressing that they are not receiving a fair return for their work and investment; they cannot maintain a decent standard of living. Some of the people working in lumber mills or in the mining industry are able to provide much more for their families than farmers or ranchers who are working their own land. The farmers might be working much harder, but they do not receive an adequate dollar return. Many young farmers find it necessary to work in sawmills and mines in order to subsidize their incomes. As a result, to a large extent the farms are being hurt because they are not paying the attention they should to their farming or ranching operations.
I think the agricultural industry is dying in some parts of Canada, but I am happy to say that it is not in Saskatchewan. Recently Dr. Boyd Anderson, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, addressed a group of people in Medstead which is in my constituency. He pointed out that less than 8 per cent of farmers engaged in the agricultural industry in Alberta and Manitoba are under 40 years of age, and that in Saskatchewan around 25 per cent of farmers are under that age. I think this is due to some of the programs which were brought in by the Saskatchewan government, namely, the farm start program and the land bank program. It would mainly be the land bank program which enables retiring farmers to pass on their lands to their children or other direct descendants. The minister should look closely at some of these agricultural programs designed to ensure that farmers remain on the land. Food production is vital for the world. It reduces our federal and international deficit. We should try to keep some younger farmers on the farms. It

December 10,1980
Supply
should be made a viable enough operation that they can work full-time at it.
Before my time runs out, I should like to ask the minister a few questions concerning the herd maintenance program. But first of all I should like to ask a question which directly concerns the estimates. How many person-years are included in the estimates under the area of research and development for this coming year as opposed to last year? If the minister will allow me a few more minutes after answering that question, I will have some questions concerning the herd maintenance program.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member indicated that he had a question for me, but I have written down about five while he was talking. The person-years in research for 1980-81 are indicated at 3,659, which is slightly down from 1979-80 when it was 3,673 or from 1978-79 when it was 3,725. The actual number of researchers has declined, but the number of people with Ph.Ds. have increased by 14; that is, that classification of researcher. It is not very much, but it is a slight increase. We find it difficult to obtain qualified people within the limitations we are guided by. We are limited as to the amount of money we are allowed to pay them.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I did not realize 1 had asked the minister so many questions, but I would be happy to hear his answers to some of my opening comments.
I should like to ask the minister some questions about the herd maintenance program. I will ask a series of questions, sit down, and allow the minister to answer at whatever length he would like. Under the herd maintenance program, many farmers throughout Saskatchewan were designated as being outside the drought areas, even though in some areas we have substantial proof from the municipalities and private rain gauges that the rainfall within those areas was actually less than fell inside the drought area. We have been told by the minister in the House-perhaps it was not in the House, but certainly it was through correspondence from the minister's office-that these people will be dealt with. Now that cheques are going out to the people who have qualified for drought assistance in drought areas, when can we expect these other farmers and ranchers to be dealt with under the herd maintenance program?
I have a second question concerning that program. I was wondering why PMU horse operations were not included under the herd maintenance program. Would the minister consider including them, so that the people involved in PMU operations could apply through the appeal process to receive assistance?


Eugene Whelan: A decision was taken on Monday of this week which recommended that people involved in PMU operations be included under this program, as well as people with herds of milking goats, and, I believe, one other group excluded from the herd maintenance program. I believe three groups have been included. Perhaps this is not tremendous, but they have
suffered hardships and we recognize that they should be included in it? What was the hon. member's other question?


Douglas Keith Anguish: When will the people outside the drought area be dealt with?


Eugene Whelan: I hope that the appeal committee will be set up by the end of this week. It will be publicly announced when they get into operation, which we hope will be as soon as possible. It has taken us longer than normal because it is a new program and a new experience for us. It has taken longer to get all the ramifications out of the way. I believe about 11,000 cheques have been mailed out and that about 35,000 applications have been submitted, some of which are actually being returned to the people. So people who are outside of the area will be able to appeal those decisions. I am not saying how they will be treated. I hope it will be in a very humanitarian way because we recognize that to set that criteria with rainfall-


Denis Éthier: 1 regret to interrupt the minister but his time is up.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue from where I left off a few hours ago. I would like to spend some time on the marketing structure of the country.
The free market system has been allowed to work in a way that the input into farming has affected the costs of the farmer so that his income has been reduced. In the couple of cases where we do have marketing systems-which we think are pretty good, for example, the Wheat Board-we found that the Wheat Board was not allowed to work well on the international market because of the embargo. It was not allowed to work well in the domestic market because of the feed grain policy which was established by the government. However, there are a number of other areas where the minister has mentioned marketing systems on a national basis which have and are doing a good job. For instance, he mentioned the dairy policy, broiler chickens, eggs and turkey marketing boards. However, I would like to ask the minister about the plans for hog marketing and stabilization. Is the federal government prepared to introduce a national hog marketing commission and an adequate stabilization plan. If so, when does he plan to do so?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am meeting the Canadian Pork Council tomorrow morning for breakfast at eight o'clock. I do not know what we will decide, or if we will decide anything. It appears the program which the provincial and federal officials have been working on has not received the kind of unanimous support which I would have liked to have seen. What I would have liked to have seen would have been participation from the producers and from the provincial governments. Some provinces are in favour of it and some are not. So it appears, unless I find out differently tomorrow, that if we were to go ahead we would have to involve the federal government and the producers. It does not appear there will be
December 10, 1980

that kind of provincial participation. It appears four provinces are ready to go ahead with programs of their own; it cannot work nationally with just four provinces. At the present time 1 just cannot see a national program working with the income assurance program we are suggesting, like the Western Grain Stabilization Program. We are not getting the kind of input from some of the provinces that we should be getting.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Canadian Wheat Board was established to cover only the prairie areas. It might be possible for the minister to extend this kind of organization to those areas which want the stabilization and marketing board.
1 would like to ask an almost identical question with respect to beef marketing. Is the federal government prepared to introduce a national beef marketing commission and adequate stabilization for slaughter cattle? And, again, if it is to be introduced, when will that be?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I should clarify one thing. I hope I did not leave the hon. member with the impression that we are establishing a hog marketing commission. That has not been the subject of discussion. What we are talking about is a hog stabilization type and income assurance system. This is something like the one we projected for the provinces about four years ago and at that time the only province which went ahead with it was the province of British Columbia, under the previous administration. I am tempted to recommend to the government the establishment of a beef marketing commission. Even the member who speaks so eloquently in the House on beef may be ready to accept something better than the horrible system we have for marketing beef at the present time. He has been telling us about the bad economics of that for the last five years.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: No way.


Eugene Whelan: We do know there is a stronger movement afoot, and I am not talking about the beef cattle. 1 am talking about the beef producers in Ontario. 1 am told they have an organization which has close to 2,000 members. Those members are very active in the promotion of a beef marketing system. They want a better system than we have at the present time.
We talked earlier about the meat import law, Mr. Chairman, and what can be done with it. Some members think we can do with the meat import law what we can do with the supply management type of marketing system. You cannot do that with the meat import law. No meat import law in the world does that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Those of us who live in Saskatchewan do a lot of mixed farming. Our herds are small and we are not able to finance the long-term losses. Some kind of stabilization and market control, which implies some supply control, would be welcome.
My last question to the minister deals with the considerable concern expressed in the last few months as to whether Canada can meet the targets which have been expressed with
Supply
regard to production in the grain area. In Saskatoon it was recently suggested that production could be increased by the required amount and that one-quarter of that amount could be attributed to research efforts. I have a couple of questions with respect to this area before my time is up. What kind of commitment has the government made to the kind of research which is necessary to bring production up to 30 million tonnes by 1985 or later? To what extent is the government prepared to demonstrate that the results of that research will work? To what extent is the government prepared to get that research out to the farmers? Right now our present growth is about 2 per cent. To reach that target we would have to increase production by 4 per cent per year, which is not typical and which is pretty unlikely to happen. How much effort is the government willing to make in order to get it out to the farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that if the research I am aware of in western Canada concerning grain were all applied next year you could increase production 25 per cent to 30 per cent in one year, with better fertilization, better seeds and better control of weeds. Of course, the hon. member from Regina East might not want us to do that, but by using herbicides and pesticides in a better fashion, a more conservation-minded method, we know we could do a better job.
There are many areas in which we are carrying out research. I have seen some of the projects. I visited some of the different stations this year. They show a yield which would be 20 bushels above what the average farmer would be producing just with new kinds of conservation, soil conservation and the use of the other commodities 1 have mentioned.


Mr. Corriveau:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate this evening because my constituency is half urban and half rural and especially because agriculture in my area is represented by the dairy industry. 1 thought my comments would relate mostly to the dairy industry, but the previous speakers have discussed it remarkably well and have emphasized every pertinent point.
I would like to refer to an incident which will remind some of us a time when the dairy industry was experiencing some problems. A great many people had marched on Ottawa. The minister, 1 and others had been generously showered with free dairy products. We all know now that times have changed since those people had come to criticize the dairy policy, especially your marketing. 1 would like to add that the policies of the Department of Agriculture, especially as regards marketing, are well considered and devised. However, considering the approach to marketing, there will always be some people to criticize any policy, especially marketing, and when every means is taken to destroy it I think that eventually something comes out of it. Still I can assure you that things have

December 10, 1980
Supply
changed. I received a letter from some farmers on November 19 and it reads as follows:
The federal government has recently undertaken an interdepartmental survey of the dairy policy in Canada. That initiative is taken before the government has renewed its long-term commitment to a dairy policy; usually the commitments of the government should now be known. The Dairy Farmers of Canada wish to remind the government that the milk industry is of crucial importance to the Canadian economy and that it must be considered as an important link in the Canadian food chain.
A decision on the part of the government to reduce considerably the size of the dairy industry would have negative consequences not only for milk producers but also for the secondary industry as well as Canadian consumers.
We are presenting you with this short document setting forth the views of the Dairy Farmers of Canada regarding the dairy policy. Our administrators want to stress among other things the importance within the framework of the federal government's commitment, of the revision of the production cost indexation formula and the continuation of the direct subsidy designed to prevent an excessive rise in the prices of the dairy products thereby helping Canadian consumers.
We hope that this short statement will enable you to recognize the importance of the dairy industry's role in the Canadian economy because it enables many rural and urban communities to survive. This issue is of primary importance to Quebec since milk production is the cornerstone of its agriculture and that of the food product industry of that province.
Moreover, some 50 per cent of the volume required on the domestic market is produced in Quebec.
We trust, sir, that you will read with special interest the document which we are sending to you and that you will make sure that the decisions made by the various levels of government reflect the positions expressed in this document by the representatives of the Canada and Quebec dairy industries.
The Canadian Dairy Commission administers the federal subsidy and milk prices stabilization program while the establishment of quotas-and 1 stress his-and the collecting of levies are the responsibility of dairy producers associations and provincial organizations. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to read this letter into the record because I wanted to prove that it is not the marketing of the Department of Agriculture, together with the Canadian Dairy Commission which is not good. The same people who not so long ago criticized this policy and the marketing system would not accept any change made by the Minister of Agriculture under any circumstances. As I said, my remarks concerning the dairy industry will be limited to these, because my colleagues who have dealt with the government's dairy policy have built a very strong case.
I should like to mention that some of the programs which the Minister of Agriculture has implemented on behalf of the Canadian government have demonstrated that we can provide Canadian farmers with well planned long-term assistance. I should like to explain what the federal Minister of Agriculture means when he talks about long-term planning in agriculture.
1 have here a news release, dated November 14, 1980, from the Minister of Agriculture, and I quote:
The Minister of Agriculture today announced a program to assist in transporting about 10,500 tonnes of Ontario juice apples to processors in Quebec and Nova Scotia.
This year's Ontario processing apple crop, estimated at 75,000 tonnes, is about 10,500 tonnes more than the Ontario apple juice industry needs, Mr. Whelan said.
However, apple processors in Quebec and Nova Scotia are experiencing a shortage of juice apples in their areas.
The federal government will pay two-thirds, about $375,000, of the cost of transporting the apples. Eastern processors will pay the remainder of the transportation cost.
I believe this program will help Ontario apple producers dispose of their surplus crop, and it will help processors in Quebec and Nova Scotia meet their need for juice apples.
Mr. Chairman, all those programs the Minister of Agriculture offers us will certainly help Canadian agriculture to develop.
Allow me to quote another announcement the Minister of Agriculture kindly made to the farmers of Canada, and especially those of Quebec:
-May 30, 1980-Today, the Minister of Agriculture announced that a cheque for $5 million was sent the Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food, Mr. Jean Garon, under the Feed Freight Equalization Program.
As a result of the very high demand for assistance from the farmers, the $6.7 million earmarked annually by the federal government for that program have been used up. We are therefore releasing funds previously intended for the coming fiscal year (1980-81) to meet the requests of the farmers during the fiscal year 1979-80. The Feed Freight Equalization Program was set up in 1978 to help increase the production and storage of feed in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
Those funds will also help make up for the cancellation of the Feed Freight program that applied to feed coming from the prairies. Under the agreement reached with Quebec, the federal government will pay $33.5 million over a period ending in 1983. That program is administered wholly by the provincial government; it extends four types of financial assistance: for the storage of feed and cereal on the farm; for the purchase of crop equipment; for the improvement of feed conservation; and for the production of seed grains. The program has already been of considerable assistance to Quebec farmers in helping them meet their feed requirements. The program also fits in well with the over-all strategy of the province for agricultural development.
Mr. Chairman, that, to my mind, is another proof that the Minister of Agriculture wants to set up a planning program to help Canadian farmers stay in agriculture while helping to ensure a viable agricultural sector. Farmers are relatively large consumers of energy, and it was felt that they should be helped.
The Minister of Agriculture said that he was very pleased with the announcement of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, saying that the primary sectors of production and processing of essential perishable goods will be in category A and that in a national crisis, they would have priority in the allocation of oil products.
According to the oil products allocation program of the board, the various uses for oil are broken down into different categories. Category A is composed of all uses concerning the health, welfare and security of Canadians.
The minister observed that these priorities were in line with the position he took with his provincial colleagues during the meeting on energy matters they held in Brandon, last October.
He also indicated that producers and processors of essential perishable goods will be allocated the maximum amount of
December 10, 1980

fuel in an emergency. Therefore the supply of Canadians in essential goods will not be interrupted.
In consultation with Agriculture Canada, the board will determine what sectors of the agricultural and food industry will be classified in the A and B categories. The minister can rest assured that Canadian farmers did not expect any less from him than this statement giving them the guarantee that in the event of an energy crisis, they will be able to maintain their supplies of oil, which is an essential product for the Canadian agriculture.
I would like to demonstrate once again that the present Minister of Agriculture makes every effort humanly possible to help Canadian farmers. Recently he went to China to discuss market possibilities with Chinese officials. Canada-China co-operation has had a significant boost today with the signature of an agreement between the two countries. The agreement signed by Agriculture Canada and the Chinese ministries of agriculture, state farms and land rehabilitation calls for closer co-operation between our countries in several areas, such as joint projects, information and material exchanges, scientific visits and commercial contacts.
The first activity organized under this agreement is a visit by a Chinese delegation which will come to study our agricultural legislation. This is the first time such an agreement is signed between a Canadian department and its Chinese counterpart. The implementation of this agreement will be subject to yearly consultations between the Canadian and Chinese agriculture departments. The minister announced the signing of this agreement during a press conference in Peking after a meeting with the deputy prime minister and the chairman of the Chinese Agriculture Commission.
Mr. Chairman, we should be happy that the Deparment of Agriculture has taken this approach and these initiatives to help our producers gain access to domestic markets and entertain the possibility of reaching world markets. Under this agreement, there are some projects that could be implemented as early as 1980-81, for example, a joint research program on route management, the setting up of a model ranch in northeastern China, various seminar-conferences with assorted activities and possibly study and work exchanges. The Minister of Agriculture was the first in that capacity to visit China.
1 want to emphasize how important it is for us that our farms are family operations in 95 per cent of cases and that the minister has opted for an agricultural policy that favours such types of operation. Take, for example, the loan policy of the Farm Credit Corporation. Last year 98 per cent of loans were granted to unincorporated family operations, and most of the incorporated operations were controlled by farmers. The stabilization program under the Agricultural Stabilization Act as well as the Western Grain Stabilization Act set the minimum and maximum amounts to ensure that the bulk of the money goes to family type farms rather than farm corporations. Also, agricultural research attempts to find ways to
Supply
make the family farm more profitable. In the short term, that will boost farm income and in the longer term it will make it possible for Canadian farmers to compete with foreign farmers and to ensure the viability of their operation.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister's position that we must do our utmost to ensure that farms continue to be operated by families. Mr. Minister, I share your concern over the fact that the number of such operations has decreased continually in the last 20 years as it went from 480,000 in 1961 to 340,000 in 1976, yet I do think that the worst is behind us. In other words there are fewer farmers in Canada. I dare hope that the number of commercial farms in Canada is levelling off and I say we have everything we need to increase our production.
With more intensive farming methods there could even be more farms. World population is growing at the rate of about 2 per cent a year. We have the land, the farmers and the required knowledge to produce more food. Economic development did contribute to raise the standard of living in several Third World countries. New markets are now available for Canadian dairy products and meat. There are hundreds of marketing opportunities for a whole range of Canadian products.
Canadian agricultural production, besides benefitting from tremendous export possibilities, can also develop its domestic markets. Do hon. members know that more than half of the $4.7 billion of food imported in Canada last year were competing directly with food we produce or could produce right here in Canada? Therefore we must try harder to make consumers replace at least some imports with food produced in Canada. But that will require the co-operation of farmers, processors, federal and provincial governments. The Minister of Agriculture is already initiating a certain number of projects.
Mr. Chairman, once again I am extremely happy to have taken part in this debate and in conclusion I should like to urge the Minister of Agriculture and his team to keep on giving farmers such good programs. Keep up the good work, Mr. Minister. We like you just the way you are.


Mr. Greenaway:: I am sure the minister is aware that the Canadian livestock industry provides about 50 per cent of the farm cash receipts in this country. He may not be aware that only 20 per cent of the research dollar is spent in this area and only 6 per cent of this 20 per cent is related directly to research in diseases of livestock.
Tonight I would like to talk for a moment about a research laboratory in Saskatoon with which I think the minister is familiar, the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, VIDO. Some years back the farm community and veterinarians in the country recognized this gap in research. They were

December 10, 1980
Supply
able to mobilize funds and build a $4 million laboratory in Saskatoon on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan. It is not part of the university. It is simply located there because it is close to the college of veterinary medicine, and the university donated the five acres of land on which the laboratory is located. The board of directors is made up of 12 members, five of them producers representing all the main producer groups. Two are members of the University of Saskatchewan and the three are from government, one each from the government of Alberta, the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government. There are also two businessmen on the board.
The producers select the diseases to be researched. They are looking for diseases which cause great economic loss to the producers of Canada. The first one they picked was neo-natal diarrhoea in calves, or calf scours. The minister is probably aware that this laboratory has done some outstanding work. It made a major breakthrough two years ago and has now licensed to Connaught Laboratories a vaccine which is very efficient in preventing scours caused by E-coli in calves.
This vaccine is now licensed in the United States. It is hoped to have it licensed in South America and Europe soon. There will be a good dollar return to Canada from sales of this vaccine.
It is interesting to look where the funding came from for this laboratory. Over 60 producer groups from across Canada have put in money. For example, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency put in $50,000, the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, $200,000 and the Alberta Cattle Commission $90,000. I could read on and on. The government of Alberta put in almost $2 million and the government of Saskatchewan over $1 million. The British Columbia government contributed, as did the government of Manitoba. The drug companies put in about $200,000 and the Devonian Group of Charitable Foundations, located in Calgary, put in approximately $3.5 million.
To date about $8,800,000 has been donated by these various groups along with dozens and dozens of individual producers. It is interesting to note that over the seven-year period this lab has been in existence the federal government has donated $43,000 to this institution, which is less than one-half of one per cent of total capital expenditures and operating costs to date.
The director, Dr. Chris Bigland, a world famous figure, was recently selected by the Ontario Veterinary Association for his outstanding contribution to the science and given an award. I think the last person to get this award was James Herriot. It is an extremely efficient, well run and good research laboratory.
The director has been to Ottawa about 25 times to solicit funds for this laboratory. These trips have cost from $30,000 to $50,000. He has met with Agriculture Canada, the Science Council, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, the Ministry of Trade and Commerce, the NRC, NSERC, IDRC, EDP, the food and drug directorate of health and welfare, MRC, Canada Manpower and DREE. He has presented three
briefs to the minister, one in 1975, one in 1978 and one in 1979.
My question to the minister is this: what is wrong with the federal government? Why can we not afford to put some meaningful funds into this laboratory? It is doing an outstanding job. They are also working on poultry and swine diseases and have launched a major drive on shipping fever in cattle.
I should also add they are getting royalties from Connaught Laboratories, but this vaccine they came up with is not patentable. They will probably lose the lead on that in two or three years, and the money coming in from the royalties will be diffused by other companies getting into the business. I ask the minister to comment on the fact that only 6 per cent of the 20 per cent figure for research is designated in Canada for disease research in livestock and on the fact that the federal government has seen fit so far to only put a piddling amount into this laboratory.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am very much aware of the laboratory and the research the hon. member is talking about. It is tremendous that somebody else is getting into research. I have the largest budget for research of any ministry in Canada. This year we are spending $155 million on research. There is nothing wrong with what is spent by governments on agricultural research. The federal government pays for 98 per cent of the research and the provinces 2 per cent.
The hon. member mentioned that the money is put in by Alberta. I think that is a tremendous thing to do with their Heritage Fund. If they would give me a couple of million bucks or a little pile of it, I would spend it on research. The hon. member for Vegreville is sitting with a very charitable look on his face as though he thinks that is a good idea. I can see this disease which causes a high mortality rate in calves being controlled by research.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat talked earlier about cattle and increasing the population. I am very much aware of what this disease causes in some areas. Going from memory, I believe we lost as much as 55 per cent of the calf crop in some areas. That was a tremendous loss.
All research done with regard to livestock is done to benefit all parts of Canada. The hon. member acknowledged that. The fact that donations have come from across Canada, including the marketing agencies, shows that they have faith in what is being done. 1 think more money should come from the private sector rather than the government sector. I would love to be able to say that I have money for them and will give it to them. We have tried to find ways to help them. We are ready to move 12 of our scientists from the laboratory in Guelph to work at the university laboratories in Saskatoon and to work in conjunction with VIDO. That is not exactly what the member for Medicine Hat said he wanted. However, I did mention VIDO when he made representations to me about agriculture research in western Canada. He was making a comparison. He said we spent more in eastern Canada than in western Canada.
I saw the hon. member at the B.C. cattlemen's annual meeting in Cranbrook. He made a representation to me there about it.
December 10, 1980

1 think this is one of the most worth-while programs there is. If they can find a cure for this disease, it will be a tremendous breakthrough. I just don't have the funds.


Mr. Mazankowski:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Agriculture referred to me in his comment. I want to point out to him that one of the reasons the province of Alberta has a heritage trust fund is because it exercises prudent financial management. If the government of which the Minister of Agriculture is a member would exercise such tight fiscal managerial controls over the funds entrusted to them, they would probably have some money to spend on some of the programs to which my colleague is referring.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member has hardly made a point of order.


Gary Michael Gurbin: 1 should like to follow the questions put forward by my colleague and try to spend more time on research and development. I will make my questions short so as to get short answers as well and perhaps cover some of the relationships between agriculture and energy. It is an increasingly important area. If the minister and his department understand this area they certainly do not seem to have been very successful in bringing forward solutions for some of the problems which are developing. From some of the answers given here, the minister seemed to indicate he felt that Agriculture Canada was indeed putting what it should into research and development. However, his own research and development branch, particularly on the basis of the comments they made in front of the alternative energy committee, is well aware their efforts are very much less than they should be. They are now getting $1.5 million to do all the research and development for energy related to agriculture for the whole country in an area where the federal government clearly should be taking leadership. Even to do the basic minimum they would need about $9 million in about 30 man-years. Would the minister comment as to whether he feels that is an appropriate level of funding and of man-years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member mentions a figure. As early as 1974, Agriculture Canada began funding research on alternative energy for agriculture. The funds invested in contract research are now $4 million. We know that research is very important. Some of our own people point out that for every dollar invested in research a $9-return is received. We have funded over 50 per cent of all research done in Canada. Let us not forget about the amount of money we give to universities. When I first came to Ottawa we gave $26 million to the higher schools of learnings. Last year we gave well over $2 billion to the higher schools of learning and they are doing a lot of research in agriculture. We are paying 50 per cent of all administration costs in universities out of federal taxation moneys. Even the school where the hon. member received his medical education benefits; it cost us $250,000 to put him through school. That is not done for very many young farmers in any fashion or form. The veterinarians
Supply
who go through school are funded by this tremendous amount of money and we are accused of being the bad financers of the country and the mismanagers of the economy. Alberta takes 45 per cent of the revenue from the resources from under the ground and we did not contribute anything to them, we just happened to be living on top of them. If that is good management then I would like to be part of that good management. Perhaps then I could look after some of those things they want me to spend more money on such as research. I do not have the resources to draw from. It has very little to do with good management as the hon. member for Vegreville said. They do not know what to do with it. They do not know how to spread it around and make it grow.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been very ably side-stepping my question. The point of the issue is that agriculture uses about 3 per cent of all of the total energy demand of the whole country. I am not asking him about Alberta or some other province managing its own resources or whether Quebec is looking after its hydroelectric power any better than Alberta is looking after its oil. I do not think that is relevant.
Will the minister provide some leadership at the national level to farmers who have problems with energy costs relating to the operation of their tractors and energy costs related to fertilizer costs. The National Energy Board tells us there is going to be an increase of $4.5 per barrel of oil per year for the next three years. That equates a cost of production going from $3.5 per acre up to about $14 per acre depending on what farmers are growing.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture came before us and presented a brief asking the federal government to provide some leadership. I am asking the minister to do three specific things and comment on whether he thinks they are appropriate for the government to do at the national level. One is to audit on-farm energy uses so that Agriculture Canada may tell farmers where they can save, where they can conserve and where they can implement proper oil substitution measures. The second is to make an on-farm assessment of what opportunities are available for different farmers to take advantage of alternate energy forms. There are many energy forms but I do not have an opportunity here today to talk about all of them. The minister is well aware of some of them. Even though he has not done anything as yet and even though Agriculture Canada has not replaced one drop of oil on farms for farmers who have to work their fields, there are many, many opportunities. They could be assessed, they could be described, and assistance could be given.
The final thing the minister could do would be to assist at government level to provide the co-operative framework for farmers to put in pilot projects on farms for things such as ethanol plants. Those are three of the things the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked for. Will the minister tell us if he will help through Agriculture Canada to provide that kind of assistance?

December 10, 1980
Supply


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the hon. member is talking about energy conservation demonstration projects.


Gary Michael Gurbin: These are three simple things the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has asked the federal government to assist with. I do not think the minister is "with it" as far as energy is concerned. I do not think he has a concept of what energy audit is all about. There is energy in and there is energy out. That is tremendously important in understanding how to manage energy resources. Farmers have energy inputs and energy outputs and Agriculture Canada could help to determine what those are through an energy audit. Then there is an assessment function which could be undertaken; Agriculture Canada, through some of its facilities would provide an assessment of the opportunities on a particular farm scene for taking advantage of different energy forms or for substitution away from oil. This is something his government has put forward as a priority. The final thing is pilot projects. This is clearly the way we have to go-through co-operative efforts and pilot projects to make sure we get some of these alternative energy sources developed.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member has his view about my understanding of energy input and output on farms and that is his right. We have studied the energy input on farms. For instance, we have produced grain which is going to provide energy, we have assessed the amount of energy collected from the sun to produce crops and so on. We have done a lot of work on that. There is $8 million unused by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for pilot projects and submissions have been made to them and considered by the agricultural engineering department. I think there are some 40 demonstration projects of energy conservation and new ways of creating energy in Ontario at the present time, not paid for by my department but by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under that special fund. It is not $1.5 million; 1 believe there is $140 million in that fund for such programs. A lot of farmers are using them. The hon. member talks about the Federation of Agriculture and their farm audits. I do not know where the Canadian Federation of Agriculture got that idea. I have talked to some farmers about it and they are saying, "Are they telling me that 1 don't run an efficient operation, that I don't know how to run an efficient tractor, that I don't know how to cultivate my soil in the proper fashion?"
The whole program put forth by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, takes in a wide sphere of things for conservation of energy and energy use.
I am just a plain ordinary farmer. I am not a highly educated person, but I know that all of the things about which the hon. member is talking are very important.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Tessier:: Mr. Chairman, as you well know, I cannot let the opportunity pass by without mentioning the good battle I am waging with and on behalf of the farm producers of my riding. They all agree our Canadian dairy policy, has been quite sucessful and I am particularly proud to acknowledge the wonderful co-operation we have received from the Liberal government especially the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard the hon. member for Joliette praise and recommend the retention of our policy in all its aspects for which he tried to obtain a commitment from the minister.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the hon. member for Joliette who used to boast he was the only real Quebec representative, that the Canadian dairy policy has been based on serious thoughts and hard facts, particularly with the co-operation of members from Quebec. I believe the hon. member for Joliette should be corrected when he claims members on this side do not assume their responsibilities. That policy has not been designed in a haphazard way. It is the result of the combined actions of the present liberal government and the former liberal government whose policies proved very satisfactory to producers over the years.
I do not want to take the time of the House as 1 think the various aspects of the dairy policy have already been dealt with in many ways. I only would like to address one aspect which has not been discussed so far, and which should shed some light on the whole matter in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission-and I take this opportunity to congratulate him for his outstanding job- gave us the reassurance that the Canadian dairy policy should be open and clean, but I have a reservation to make on that point as I happen to believe sour manipulations have taken place, which must be brought out into the open. Unfortunately I must, in their respect, blame the attitude of the Quebec Farm Marketing Board which, with the apparent and probable complicity of the present Quebec minister of agriculture, refused to let the board launch an investigation which had proved necessary.
I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture to provide fair treatment, especially for small producers, so that they may have a marketing board whose operations will be clear and straightforward and of which they can be proud, even though every aspect of its activities must be protected if we want to keep the confidence of producers in all sectors of agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, being certain that the government will be willing to proceed with this investigation, I would like to speak of a matter which has not been neglected until now but which deserves further attention. In the past, the federal government has provided many tools to the agricultural producers of Canada, and it is of one of them that I would like to speak, namely, the Livestock Feed Assistance Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is a Canadian Livestock Feed Board in
December 10, 1980

Montreal. This board is responsible for all Canadian provinces except the prairies. This year, the act was amended to include the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. As a matter of fact, this government initiative was aimed at meeting several needs. Through their farming associations, the producers were complaining of supply problems in obtaining all the feed that they needed for their cattle and poultry. We had been informed at the time that grain inventory transfers at Fort William-Port Arthur, now Thunder Bay, were often insufficient to meet the needs for winter through the seaway before the shipping season came to an end.
Grain suppliers tried to ship all the grain needed for the winter months before shipping closed. Because of insufficient stocks, eastern Canada suppliers had to obtain significant quantities by railway at a surcharge of $13.20 per tonne. This resulted in undue price increases. There were often problems in storing enough grain at the port of Montreal before the shipping season ended because of competition for space between grain for export and grain for the domestic market.
For all these reasons, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture recommended that the government create a special board. This board now has approximately the powers recommended at the time by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and also by the Standing Committee of the House on Agriculture and Colonization which had examined the issues concerning feed grain prices since March 22, 1965. There were therefore two major problems at the time, a supply problem and a price problem. We cannot say that all problems have been solved, but there is at least an agency which can respond in a case of emergency, find solutions and help livestock producers.
I talked earlier about the territory covered by the board since the promulgation of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act on November 16, 1966. I would like to point out that this territory includes the provinces which report deficits in the production of feed grains. For instance, Ontario still has a deficit even though it has greatly increased its production of feed grains. Naturally, it must be pointed out that part of the Ontario production is used for human consumption and alcohol production. The objectives of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act are very clear. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the board must ensure, first, the availability of feed to meet the needs of livestock producers. Second, the availability in eastern Canada of sufficient feed storage space to meet the needs of livestock producers. Third, reasonable stability of feed prices in eastern Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. And finally, a fair equalization of feed prices in eastern Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. These objectives are of major importance for eastern Canada and British Columbia, and indirectly, for the country as a whole.
Canada is a very large country with a population greatly concentrated in the southern part. Moreover, we have to face an extremely rigorous climate during winter, and the most
Supply
economic route, the St. Lawrence Seaway, is paralysed for four months of the year, which makes the distribution of grains even more difficult. In addition, Canada has one of the most sophisticated food diets in the world, based largely on protein products. Such a diet means that we have to produce large quantities of the products required by consumers, and as we all know, for many animal products, feed grains represent over 60 per cent of production costs. If we examine more closely the objectives of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act, we realize that the government has acted promptly whenever the normal flow in the transport and handling of feed grains has been interrupted.
I especially recall the enormous difficulties that farmers had in the spring of 1975. The possibilities of interruption are always present because of the size of our country, the complexity of the industry, and the many factors which can interfere with this industry. The act provides the board with certain well-defined powers. For instance, the board can make payments for feed storage costs in eastern Canada and payment for the cost of transport of feed grains to livestock producers or for their benefit in accordance with the regulations.
In addition, the board can negotiate with those who store feed grains to reduce and stabilize storage and handling costs and provide sufficient space for feed storage in eastern Canada. The board can also distribute the storage space allotted for its use among those who need it in eastern Canada. It can direct negotiations to obtain import permits. It can also purchase, sell and store grains with the authorization of the governor in council.
The board also has very specific duties, Mr. Chairman, namely, to provide an ongoing review of the feed needs of eastern Canada, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, of feed availability and the need for additional storage space for this feed in these areas. It must also make recommendations to the minister concerning the need for additional feed storage space in eastern Canada. As a rule, the board also advises the government on all matters relating to stabilization and fair equalization of feed prices for livestock feeders; as well, inasmuch as it meets these purposes, it consults and co-operate with all departments, ministries, branches or any other government agencies of the federal government or of a province whose attributions, purposes and objectives are similar to those of the board.
The governor in council may occasionally authorize the Board to inquire and do some research on all matters directly relating to transportation, storage and handling of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia, to feed supplies and prices in these regions, to payments made for feed storing and moving expenses under the Livestock Feed Assistance Act. The minister and the board benefit from advice given to them

December 10, 1980
Supply
by an advisory committee made up of livestock feeders from eastern Canada and British Columbia as well as the Northwest Territories and appointed by the governor in council.
1 am perfectly aware of the fact that Canadians do not always know the important powers and duties of the board, and that is why 1 wanted to mention them. I should say as well, Mr. Chairman, that we have the responsibility to take advantage of this debate on supply to remind the duties and powers of the board to our colleagues of the opposition who are not only questioning the raison d'etre of the Livestock Feed Board, but who also want to see it disappear, as we have been able to hear.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore want to establish beyond any doubt not only the rationale of the board but also its ability to meet the needs of producers in these regions 1 have mentioned on many occasions. The board is still carrying on several activities. You are already aware of its participation in the area of transportation assistance. You know also that many changes were made to this program in 1976 and that two-thirds of the program have been cancelled in Quebec, and most of it in Ontario. However, funds have been paid to these provinces over five years in order to set up feed grains conservation facilities at the farm level.
When you travel across the country in those provinces, you will note that numerous facilities have been erected, to the point that these farm buildings have changed the scenery. The transport assistance program remains very useful to the maritime cattle producers, and certainly in Newfoundland where there would be no cattle production without that program. It is also very useful in British Columbia, where production costs are very high. The program allows for greater domestic use of western feed grain, and also Ontario corn in some areas of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
I would also like to point out that in Quebec, the transport assistance program has been maintained in remote areas such as Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the Gaspe Peninsula. Over these last few years, Mr. Chairman, the government introduced a program to ensure greater storage space in eastern Canada and B.C. This is in three parts.
One program provides for the expansion of flour mill storage facilities. There has been extensive use of that program in the province of Quebec and also, to a lesser degree, in the other provinces. It will improve feed grain storage facilities at the processor level. The other two programs cater to inland elevators. I am told that these programs, especially the new elevator construction program, has met with extraordinary success in eastern Ontario. That program could not have come at a better time, when Ontario was increasing significantly its grain production. I am assured that this increase in the number of inland elevators will be followed by considerably increased corn sowing in eastern Ontario during the next few years. Besides, this program certainly enabled the grain producers to reduce considerably their transportation costs and
consequently add to their revenues. Such a program was called for because livestock producers living on their farms were extremely dependent on a few elevators which had traditionally been used mostly for the export trade.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that these few minutes I have taken to deal with the different aspects of the duties of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will have proved without question not only reasonably but with certainty that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board has a raison d'etre and that our government is justified in helping and maintaining it.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Chairman, some members might wonder why a representative of an urban municipality should intervene in this agricultural discussion, but all here should be interested in the preservation of first-class soil for future agricultural purposes. The Niagara region is agriculturally a well diversified area; its orchards and vineyards are renowned. It is an exceedingly small part of the country, but it is favoured in many ways. It is favoured by ample precipitation, rich soil and a temperate climate which, together with the determination and the individual initiative of its farmers and growers, has yielded produce far beyond expectations.
However, the concerns of farmers and growers in the Niagara region are echoed all across the country. Issues such as urban expansion into productive agricultural land need to be resolved so that some balance between the two can be preserved. The entire question of what the farmer can expect as an equitable return for his labour must be addressed, for farming is an expensive proposition to undertake. For example, while the consumer price index rose by 95 per cent from 1971 to 1979, the farm price index increased by 130 per cent. For 1979 alone farmers experienced increases of 14 per cent in machinery costs and an additional 7 per cent with respect to labour. These are only a fraction of the total costs which the farmer must bear if he is to remain productive, and many simply cannot meet these costs with the result that every year the number of farms declines by 4 per cent. Canada is losing valuable agricultural land yearly, not through the adversities of nature, but through government neglect and indifference toward the problems of the farmer. Nowhere is this more graphically evident than in the Niagara Peninsula.
The minister knows of this conflict with respect to land use and the competition which exists. So, I want to leave my first question with him: is the minister or the Government of Canada content to leave the preservation and protection of farmlands to provincial and municipal governments and their zoning bylaws, or does the government have a land use strategy which will preserve class one lands, for example, for future agricultural purposes?
Today there are some 900 grape growers working 27,000 acres of vineyards. Capital investment for both vineyards and wine production is now in excess of $132 million, and the goods and services purchased annually by the industry amount
December 10, 1980

to more than $38 million. Also, the grape and wine industry is one of the most heavily taxed enterprises of its size in Canada. While the growers realized $19 million in gross revenues last year, the federal and Ontario governments earn through excise and sale taxes approximately $100 million. In per acre yield this would represent an earning for both governments of $8,500 per acre. But this only touches the surface of the problems confronting the Canadian wine producers and the grape-growing industry.
Beginning last April the government imposed an exercise to increase on table wines, fortified wines and brandies. Wine sales plummeted downward, and in the October budget some relief was given to fortified wines. The tax continues on table wines, which is the most marketable product, and on brandies produced in Canada. Canada is the only wine-producing country which is literally taxing its own industry so heavily that imported products are awarded the advantage. Countries such as Austria, Italy, South Africa, Australia and West Germany impose no tax on their domestic wine products.
In terms of tariff protection, the Canadian government has not only effectively removed the $2 per gallon preferential treatment for Canadian brandy, but it instituted a policy under the Tariff Board decision of March, 1979, whereby the 20-cent per gallon tax grape juice used for wine-making purposes entering Canada was removed.
This allows for the importation of cheaper Brazilian grape juice into provinces other than Ontario for processing into wine which then competes with our totally Canadian-produced wines. Even if the imports are processed into non-alcoholic products, they are successfully closing the door to a market for Canadian surplus grapes.
My second question to the minister is: Why is there the necessity for the continued importation of offshore grape juices when the vineyards of Ontario can supply all the grape juice concentrate required for wine production in the country?
The specific case of the Canadian brandy industry most dramatically illustrates how government taxation has affected grape growers, distillers and consumers. Since 1972 the Rieder Distillery, which is located in my area, has played an important role in the agricultural life of Niagara grape growers. It began operations by purchasing 580 tonnes of low quality and surplus Labrusca grapes. By 1979 it was purchasing 4,000 tonnes of those same grapes. These were surplus and low quality grapes for which the distillery provided the only market.
Growers need this outlet and the Department of Agriculture recognized this need. In 1980 alone the projected purchases are estimated by the Agricultural Products Board at between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes of grapes. The total cost to the Canadian taxpayer will be in the area of $2 million. The declared objective of this policy is as follows: because of the surplus which became apparent this year as a result of the April tax increase, the federal government will buy the grapes and have them processed by the wine industry into brandy which will be stored until the market is more favourable. It is both a contradiction and a flagrant waste of money to impose
Supply
an excise tax which has cut the sales of brandy by 50 per cent since April of this year, and to turn around and buy the surpluses to be made into more brandy which will not be sold as long as the tax remains.
Brandy sales from 1978 to 1979 increased by 364 per cent, placing it first in Canada's brandy market. All those gains have been eliminated by the April excise tax increase. Mr. Rieder, the founder of the market for waste and surplus grapes, simply stated that he will stop buying grapes, sell off his existing stock at whatever price the market will bear, and close up shop.
In light of the minister's earlier commitment to the wine industry and to the grape grower of Niagara, I ask him to take such action as is necessary to restore this Canadian product to a competitive position so as to assist the Canadian distiller and provide some market to the Canadian grape grower for his surplus crop. I would be pleased to hear his answers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member is well aware of what we have to do with land resources. I remember when the hon. member was mayor of a certain city and he annexed a large agricultural section of the Niagara area. He knows that it is under provincial jurisdiction, and that the federal government has nothing to do with land resources. I know what I would have told the mayor at that time, if I was a farm representative on a municipal board. I would have said, "You only have so much of that class land, you should not take it for urban development and roads".
With regard to the federal land policy, we have done all the mapping for the provinces, showing the various classes of land. Under the constitution we cannot move in and say that land shall not be used in the way someone is suggesting it should be used; I wish we could.
When the hon. member talked about the tax on grapes, let us be fair about who takes the biggest share on grapes which go into the making of wine. It is the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario takes double that of the federal government. We lowered the tax on wine. We said we would not implement the Crosbie tax.
I know the hon. member did not want the Crosbie tax on wine, and we fulfilled that part of our promise. Somehow brandy was forgotten, but let us be fair about brandy. Who created the brandy industry? It was the Minister of Agriculture for Canada who created the brandy industry and a former manager of the Grape Marketing Board who was later my executive assistant. We developed that program. He made representation to me when he was minister. He did the kind of things, Mr. Chairman, which made it possible for us to start a brandy industry. We are not finished with that yet, as far as I am concerned, and some of the members on this side of the House-


Denis Éthier: The hon. minister may have a chance to conclude his answer after the next speaker is finished. The hon. member for Malpeque.

December 10, 1980
Supply


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Chairman, I see the time is slipping away and there are so many things I would like to question the Minister of Agriculture about. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte raised some questions with regard to the seed potato industry as it affects eastern Canada, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is a concern of mine as well because of the importance of the seed potato industry to P.E.I. 1 would like to ask some questions on the feed freight equalization program and the feed freight assistance program as it affects dairy producers, beef producers and egg producers in P.E.I. but I am afraid that time does not permit that.
1 will move directly to some questions regarding dairy policy. I will be brief. The five-year federal commitment to the dairy program and the forward pricing policy implemented in April of 1975 has not yet been renewed. I understand an extensive interdepartmental review of Canada's dairy policies is under way in the government. The five-year policy has been very successful according to the dairymen. Dairy producers across the country support the retention of this basic industrial and consumer policy. I listened intently earlier this evening when the member for Joliette dealt with the same topic. He was able to extract from the minister the fact that the program, the forward pricing policy, would be in effect in 1981. I am concerned about four years down the road, after 1981. I would like to know whether the minister can assure dairy producers that another five-year federal commitment for forward pricing can be guaranteed. As part of the federal stabilization program a direct subsidy is paid to producers of milk used in the manufacture of dairy products in order to moderate the price of dairy products to consumers. This subsidy, by encouraging consumption, enables Canada to have a larger milk industry than would otherwise be the case. The direct subsidy paid on a per hectalitre basis has remained at the level of $6.03 since April 1, 1975. In the five years since then, the real value of the subsidy has declined to $3.46. This has meant a progressive reduction in the real cost of the direct subsidy program to the federal treasury.
Another question I would like to pose to the minister is: can the minister assure dairy producers that there will be no reduction in the dollar amount of the direct subsidy paid to the producers? And, are there any plans to increase the amount of the subsidy? Dairy producers in Canada have just completed a very successful conference on milk recording. Milk recording involves the measuring of production of each cow in a dairy herd. This aids the farmer and makes for efficient dairy farm management. More money has to be put toward this aspect of dairy farming. Producers realize they will have to pay more, but they are anxious the government should also contribute. Can the minister assure dairy producers that the government will continue to back producers efforts in milk recording and that it will continue its commitment to this important aspect of dairy farm management?
Mr. Chairman, I have four questions for the minister. Can the minister assure dairy producers that another five-year federal commitment to forward pricing will be guaranteed? Can the minister also assure dairy producers that there will be
no reduction in the dollar amount of the direct subsidy paid to producers? Are there any plans to increase the amount of this subsidy? My last question to the minister is: Can the minister assure dairy producers that the government will continue to back producers efforts in milk recording, or record of performance, and continue its commitment to this important aspect of dairy farm management? I will allow the minister time to respond because I want his answers.


Eugene Whelan: Can the minister assure the dairy farmers of Canada that they are going to still have the dairy policy which has been the best in the world? I think that was the question the hon. member asked. The answer is yes.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: For how long?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, it has been pretty good for eight years. Even when the other government was in power they did not do anything to change the wonderful program which we had developed over a period of time.
With respect to the ROP program, yes, it will continue. It is one of the best in the world. It has developed the best genetic breed lines of cattle in any place in the world. It is the envy of the world. So the ROP test program which we developed over a period of time we will continue.
Will we increase the subsidy to farmers? No, because the pricing formula takes care of the increase which the farmers need to have a healthy dairy industry. It is one of the best in the world.
I think I have covered all the hon. member's questions.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: One question, Mr. Chairman, which the minister did not answer, and I am sure it was an oversight on his part, was: can the minister assure dairy producers that there will be no reduction in the dollar amount of the direct subsidy paid to the producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, there has been no suggestion by me or anyone that there should be a reduction. We have not lowered it, nor have we increased it for five years. It has remained the same. The pricing formula allows them to get their return from the marketplace, which was the intention, as I said earlier today. Before the disastrous world situation arose, when the European communities threw hundreds of thousands of tons of skim milk powder and other dairy products on to the world market and depressed prices, we had the best managed supply system we have ever had in the history of the dairy business. I do not believe we have any unsold product at the present time. There are very low stocks in our warehouses and whatever is in them is sold.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for answering my questions. I have a few others which I would like to pose but I think time limits me. I am interested in what proposals the minister has to assist dairy producers, beef producers and egg producers in the maritimes regarding freight feed, grain freight equalization. I have noticed that from 1973 to the present time the cost has gone up from
December 10, 1980

$16.31 per tonne to $36.70 per tonne of feed grain transported from Thunder Bay to Charlottetown. I have correspondence from the egg producers in P.E.I. which say they are having problems competing with Ontario and that they desperately need more assistance and more consideration in the area of feed grain freight equalization.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to hear the member say he has correspondence with egg producers because egg producers are operating on a cost-pricing formula which takes into consideration the cost of feed, their interest charges, taxes, etc, the energy they use and so on. So if their feed is costing them more they are one of the groups which can recoup that cost from the product they sell. He says they cannot compete with Ontario producers but the vast majority of Ontario producers get no feed freight assistance whatsoever. Only in parts of northern Ontario is there any feed freight assistance at all at the present time. In all of southern Ontario, from North Bay southward, I do not believe there is any feed freight assistance whatsoever. There are a lot of people who have this misconception, but all I can say is that poultry producers of any description are properly looked after by a cost-pricing formula.
Those who choose the free market system to market their hogs and beef have no formula. If the market price is high enough to give them a proper return for their product, then they can pay for their feed. But if the market slumps and feed prices go up, there is no pricing formula and if they lose then they must seek support from the federal government under the agricultural stabilization plan if they are beef producers. And if they are hog producers they must ask for support from the provincial insurance program, which I understand went bankrupt last year because it ran out of funds.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on agriculture. I represent an agricultural constituency, Assiniboia, which produces more wheat than any other constituency in Canada. I have listened with interest to the remarks of the minister over the past two days, particularly as they have related to his sabbatical leave. During his short sabbatical, the hon. members who sit in front of me, the hon. member for Elgin and the hon. member for Vegreville, did more for agriculture and transportation respectively in eight months than has been done in this country in 12 years.
The farmers of our area want a chance to produce, and I hope the minister will listen to their demands. The Toronto Star of today has a headline, "Put Canada to Work". The Economic Council of Canada says that we need to produce. What programs is the minister putting into action which will allow the farmers the opportunity to produce, to see their production marketed and to have their produce transported to market should the situation arise?
The minister was fortunate in a sense that production in the west was down because of the drought. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport will not rest on
Supply
their laurels but continue the work which was begun by the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Elgin.


Eugene Whelan: What a bunch of nonsense!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Our farmers have some very special concerns, the first of which is the initial price of wheat. For the past two days the question has been asked again and again, "When is the minister going to announce the initial price increase in grain." We all know it has been selling for as high as $8 a bushel on the Vancouver market. But the minister says the farmers do not want the money. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is saying that one way or another farmers do not know how to handle their money.
Many young farmers who find themselves in a cost-squeeze situation where it is very hard to pay the high interest rates charged for machinery and repairs to equipment; it is affecting production in general in agriculture today. The farmers are asking the government and the minister's department to jolt the minister for the Wheat Board into action in this regard.
A number of other questions come to mind. I received a letter today from a very concerned farmer in Scout Lake, Saskatchewan, who wanted to know what the government was doing about metric conversion. There is real confusion when the Prime Minister says in the throne speech that he will give special consideration to western Canada because his party has no members in that part of the country. What kind of consideration have we received? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wants to take over our resources. The minister responsible for metric conversion has caused confusion in the area. What does the Minister of Agriculture intend to do about metric conversion? The farmers and rural municipalities want to know whether the government will be calling acres hectares in the near future. The CBC has indicated that the chemical companies will be going to metric conversion. I would like the minister to answer on this matter, possibly by letter if there is no time this evening.
Another important area of concern to farmers is land ownership. They are concerned about the capital gains tax and the broken election promise on the evaluation day which is to be updated from 1971 to 1974. With regard to land ownership, does the Minister of Agriculture know that the Saskatchewan government has purchased about one million acres of land in Saskatchewan? Does the minister believe in state ownership? Will this socialist government in Ottawa join the socialist government in Saskatchewan and some day develop an aggressive policy on the ownership of land? This is a very important question to Canadians and the Saskatchewan farmer is particularly concerned. The Saskatchewan government bought up 65,000 quarter sections of prime land through a tax system which will eventually enable the government to take over ownership.
As farmers, we ask for the right to be productive. If the farms are owned by the state, Canada will quickly forget what the word production means. This is an important question which any minister of agriculture in a country such as Canada
5648

December 10, 1980
Supply
must take into consideration-the direction which the country will take with regard to land ownership.
In closing, I suggest that farmers be encouraged to produce. Production must not be restricted through taxation or in any other way. The government must fall in line with an economic development program so that Canada can become the productive country that it should be.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. There are only 30 seconds left for the minister to answer.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss agriculture tonight because it is the principal interest and primary concern of many people in my riding. I will be brief because I want to hear some comments from the minister.
Tonight I shall focus very quickly and briefly on two subjects. The first is research and development. We must bear in mind the need for research as well as the need to translate it into farming techniques. The proof of success will be higher quality and production of farm products.
The second concern is transportation, particularly the transportation of farm products to market. It is useless to increase production if the crops cannot be brought to market. They just end up sitting on the farm, costing money.
One of the primary concerns in regard to research and development is rapeseed. The present strains are not adequate to cope with soil conditions and climate. The federal government ought to provide leadership in producing a seed better suited to our area. Another concern is beekeeping. I am sure the minister is aware that the honey capital of Canada, the town of Falher, is located in the heart of my riding and that a lot of residents derive their livelihood from keeping bees. Bees are brought in every spring from California at considerable expense to farmers and with the risk of less. Again, the federal government ought to demonstrate leadership by providing research to develop a strain of bees that could winter in the area.
The third area of concern, not only to people in my riding but to people all over Canada, is the on-farm production of farm fuels. I know that other members have indicated their interest in the subject. 1 understand that the possibility of using "canola" as a substitute for diesel fuel has been tested and found to be practical, although it is extremely expensive at the moment. We are all aware that energy prices are rising and that at some point farm substitutes should be available as they will be a viable option. I call on the federal government to show leadership in research in regard to this.
On this matter of research, Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to ask the minister if he will consider the possibility of forming an independent joint federal-provincial industry commission which would be responsible for carrying out the policy of the government for the co-ordination of research and development and see that discoveries are translated into action on the farm.
I want to come now to the matter of transportation. The ultimate potential of my area cannot be realized under the present transportation system, which is inadequate. 1 know the minister will find this somewhat out of his area but I should like to draw his attention to the annual report of Agriculture Canada which states that the mandate of the minister is as follows:
-to develop the nation's agriculture and food system to meet the needs of Canadians for reasonably priced food and at the same time to provide farmers with a fair return for their labour and investment-
I should like to draw attention to three areas in my riding, Mr. Chairman, Valleyview, Worsley, and Lacrete. In these areas farmers are forced to transport their grain an average of 120 kilometres as opposed to the prairie average of 20 kilometres. They face six times the usual cost, and as energy costs rise we know they are going to have a more difficult time maintaining their level of profit. Other farmers enjoy subsidized freight rates but these farmers receive no subsidy.
The minister will realize that there are two possible solutions to the problem. The first is to build a railway to the area but the farmers have ruled this out, as I have. We are aware that it would cost in the neighbourhood of $4 million per year over a life expectancy of 25 years. We know that this is impracticable. There is a second possibility and that is the off-line elevator concept.
There are three conditions that must first be met. The first is to get an elevator built on the site. The second is an adequate supply of hopper cars for on-line elevators to take away the extra grain. The third is simply a commercial trucking subsidy to cover the cost of transportation between the off-site and the on site elevators.
The grain companies have indicated their interest in getting elevators established at these off line points. Therefore, the first concern is taken care of. The second regarding an adequate supply of hopper cars has basically been taken care of. My Liberal supporter has just left the chamber, so 1 am a bit concerned. On November 19, 1980, the Senator responsible for the Wheat Board said in the Senate, and I quote:
-if and when there is a provision for off-line elevators, it absolutely follows ... that there would be a fair allocation of hopper cars within that area so as to accommodate the extra grain that is going into those off-line elevators.
We can see therefore that the second concern is taken care of. The third is simply the matter of the trucking subsidy from the off-line to the on-line elevator. To date the minister responsible for the program has clearly abandoned this idea. He has offered no support and indicated no co-operation with people in my constituency.
The former minister responsible for transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, indicated that his government was prepared to use my area as a test area for a pilot project for the off-line concept. We are prepared to move in that direction. In light of that, 1 would ask the minister the following questions. First, does he agree that farmers in my area are justified in expecting a fair return for their efforts and that, the off-line concept must therefore be implemented? Second, with the implementation of that off-line concept, will he ensure
December 10, 1980

that we will have a federal hauling subsidy. Third, will the minister on our behalf put in a word to the Minister of Transport on the need of an off-line concept-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. 1 am unable to hear the hon. member for Peace River. There may be other members who would like to hear him. Could we have a little co-operation in that regard?


Albert Glen Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My last question is whether the minister will give us some indication as to his attitude concerning research and development and the possibility of setting up this independent commission which will be based on federal, provincial and industrial input.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I would say to the hon. member for Peace River, and it may come as a surprise, that I have visited his area several times and am very much aware of it. One of the staff in my department owns land in that constituency. I just want to assure him that we have knowledge of his constituency. I will work very closely with the Minister of Transport on the problems presented by the hon. member. If he will put them in writing, we will look into them and he and I can discuss them in a much better fashion than we are doing here in the committee this evening. I am very familiar with the research on bees at Beaver Lodge. We also have a new little busy bee called the Megachile Rotundata. It is a pollinating bee we have developed and we are exporting it all over the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I just want to say to the hon. member for Assiniboia who made the remarks about the agriculture program that those magic people with the former minister of agriculture and those transport programs they developed-


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster on a point of order.


Mr. McKnight:: I believe the time has expired for both the hon. member for Athabasca and the Minister of Agriculture.


Denis Éthier: I gave the hon. minister additional time because I had interrupted the hon. member for Peace River. I noted at that time it was the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster himself who suggested my own interruption ought not to count against the member's time. I will allow the minister half a minute to finish.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member talked about Saskatchewan. He talked about the amazing transport policies the former minister of transport put forth and we know that is a lot of malarkey. The hon. member talks about land ownership, the purchase of land in Saskatchewan and the number of acres
Supply
purchased. It may be they are watching that great free enterprise to the west of them which owns over 50 per cent of all the land in the province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Don't mislead the House.


Eugene Whelan: They may be getting some ideas from them at the present time.


Mr. Mackasey:: I will be extremely brief because I want to hear the Minister of Agriculture wind up his estimates. I hope the minister will respond to my question at length. As a preamble to my question I want to thank the minister on behalf of the fruit growers of the Niagara Peninsula. To my pleasant surprise when I arrived in the county of Lincoln I found that the farm groups and the farmers unanimously felt the present Minister of Agriculture was the best friend they have had in many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I also learned from those same Lincoln farmers that without the initiative of the Minister of Agriculture several years ago in buying up fruit there would not have been a Canadian brandy industry in this country. I hope the minister would explain to the House, to myself, to the people of Lincoln and to the Canadian brandy industry some of the initiatives and some of the ideas he has for the development of that brandy industry in the next few years?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: There has been a lot of pessimism put forward about what is going to happen to the brandy industry and the grape growing industry in Canada. I find this very hard to accept, especially when I see the expansion of the wine industry and the grape growing industry in Ontario and also in British Columbia. We are doing research on new varieties of grapes never done before. Under the new crop development fund we have provided the grape growers with funds to do research on their own concerning new varieties of grapes. In the area where I live two new wineries are being established. In the most southerly part of Canada one group has bought 1,200 acres of land to grow grapes which will produce wine on Pelee Island out in the middle of Lake Erie.
Another new winery is being established in the community of Harrow in Colchester South, which is in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Kent-Essex. Hon. members opposite predict gloom and doom for the wine industry, but that is not what the people in the industry are saying. They are saying that this government and this minister care about what they are doing. We are not finished making representations with respect to the brandy industry. That is an industry we want to see stay alive, and we are determined that it will. We fulfilled some of the promises we made about that industry, and we intend to fulfil them all, as far as I am concerned. Canada is a community made up of many different peoples

December 10, 1980
Supply
from all over the world, and whether we like it or not-and some of us like it-we are becoming a wine drinking community. Last year we consumed nearly 45 million gallons of wine. Over half of that was Canadian wine.
People talk about what we have done and what we have not done. The hon. member for Elgin wondered what we are going to do about interest rates. I challenge him to take a real look at what we are doing about interest rates.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why hasn't Herb Gray resigned?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation interest rate is 12% per cent. The hon. member for Vegreville is making a lot of noise over there. Alberta has created inequity in the agriculture industry by providing low interest rates for farmers in Alberta who compete with farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the rest of Canada with respect to production. They pay an interest rate of 6 per cent because they have that tremendous Heritage Fund. However, what Alberta is providing is inequity in agriculture in Canada as a whole. Under that system farmers outside Alberta will not be able to compete in a proper fashion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What about the hog subsidy in Quebec?


Eugene Whelan: When we talk about Canada, unity and equity, we should bear in mind that the agriculture industry could provide equity if it were administered in a proper Canadian fashion.
The hon. member for Elgin also talked about the promise to negotiate import quotas for chickens coming into Canada. When the former government made a decision through the former minister of agriculture on quotas for imports of chickens, it created a much bigger problem than I had ever foreseen. The hon. member made a decision when he was minister of agriculture which was very hard to undo. It was harder to undo than I thought it would be. We had a lot of difficulty trying to arrange meetings with the former administration in Washington. We will be dealing with a new administration, and hopefully we can renegotiate the horrible quota the former government and the former minister dealt with so ineptly.
The hon. member criticized me today for not going to Washington. He did not go to Washington either to deal with a proper quota for Canada. The hon. member wants to know what I have done about chicken quotas and about other things. He wants to know when I will make known the timetable for the meat import legislation. It has been tabled in the House and given first reading. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has said he would allow its very quick second reading in the House and a very quick hearing in committee. He says he has the approval of his caucus for this. Hopefully the former minister of agriculture has been consulted by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. If they want to do that, I am sure I can get the same kind of agreement from the congenial House leader on this side of the House and we can speed ahead with that kind of legislation as quickly as you can say it.
The hon. member wanted to know about the national dairy policy. I believe the Conservative party is spreading the rumour that something is going to happen to the national dairy policy because they cannot find very much wrong with agriculture in Canada. As I said earlier, the Outlook conference-the former minister of agriculture was there and he heard the discussions on the floor-was a positive meeting. Never was there a time when I have heard such positive input from all the farm leaders, the national farm leaders, the regional farm leaders, the provincial marketing boards, and the agro-business sector, about what is happening in agriculture today.
I only wish the rest of our society were as healthy as is the agricultural industry. We were here yesterday and we are here today spending long hours discussing the spending estimates of the government, but most hon. members have suggested that we spend more money. Some of them have suggested that we need more money for research, but only two members made suggestions as to what kind of research we needed. One hon. member from this side of the House and one member on the other side of the House suggested two special projects that we should have, one to control animal diseases, to control the mortality rate in newborn calves; the other member, on this side of the House, suggested that we carry out research in his riding of Timiskaming on beef production in that part of Canada.
So when we talk about all the things we are doing and what we want, I am amazed to find that the same people who criticized this government for its massive spending programs have come in here in the last two days and have said to me, "My God, find money and spend more." One of the things I said was that what I am most proud of is the responsibility I have for the most productive part of our society. Economically speaking, it is probably a part of our society which is one of the best off and probably is the most Canadian-owned part of our society. I say, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have to have huge funds to make a healthy agricultural organization and a productive industry. We know how other countries in the world envy us and our agricultural production in this land of ice and snow, a land which has such a short growing season. Our people have more than doubled their productivity in the last decade over and above anyone else in our society. That is why we are in that enviable position and why our farmers' income this year will be over $15.5 billion, and next year it is estimated to be over $19 billion. Sure, the inflation rate will continue, but they will be ahead of the inflation rate and they will still be able to supply a tremendous amount of food at a reasonable cost to consumers here in Canada, probably better than nearly any other nation in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I want to say something to the opposition members in the House of Commons. In this terribly important discussion on agriculture, the opposition members-are there 12 of them now in the House?


An hon. Member:: Yes, 12.
December 10, 1980


Eugene Whelan: Shame! We took two days and I have been here nearly all the time for two days while they have run in and out of the House-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: You didn't say anything during the time you were here.


An hon. Member:: How many Liberals are there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Most of them, although not all of them, made good suggestions, in my opinion, good contributions to the debate on agriculture, but I must say-we made many notes as we went along-that there was not really any severe criticism of the minister or of the department or of the officials here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: There were some suggestions that perhaps we could do some things better, but that is what we are striving to do at all times. The hon. member for St. Catharines-I will go back to the wine industry, and I do not know why I am thinking about it this late at night, but perhaps a little spirited liquid would not hurt at this stage of the game-spoke about who was taking taxes from the wine industry and who was hurting the grape production industry. He forgot to mention the province of Ontario in which the wine is produced. The province takes more than double the take of the federal government from the wine industry, yet it seems to be fair ball to zero in on the "feds" for what they are taking and let the Ontario Conservative government get away with taking double what we take federally for taxation. It is even more than double what we take.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: You are dividing the country, Eugene.


Eugene Whelan: What has the province done to assist the grape industry ? It has been insignificant compared to what we have done.
I see the hon. member is back in the House now. He talked about doom and gloom in the wine industry. That is not what I hear from them, and "by their actions, ye shall know them." The expansion of the wine grape-growing industry in Canada has been tremendous. A new variety of grapes will be coming out as a result of the research which has been conducted. Millions of pounds of table wine grapes will be provided for the industry.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain indicated that we were not allowing people to make energy on their own farms. That is not true. There is provision in the ways and means motion that the Minister of National Revenue be authorized to grant a special temporary licence to any person who has complied with the provisions of the act to engage in the manufacture of denatured spirits for use solely in experimentation and development of fuel, for the denatured spirits in fuel are for the person's own use and not for sale or distribution.
Supply


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What about the next page?


Eugene Whelan: It is there, whether they are aware of it or not. Earlier this evening another member made a speech about energy allocation. I do not know where they are at. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has already made an announcement that fuel for food production, primary production, food processing and transportation, is in the top "A" category. That is what we said we would do, and that is what we have done. That is where it is at.
The hon. member for Elgin talked fuel prices and whether we would cushion them. What about the rock in the Crosbie budget which was given to farmers for fuel? What we have done is a pretty soft cushion alongside what he would have done for farmers in the use of alcohol and various kinds of fuel in agriculture. The benefits for farmers in the budget of the Minister of Finance and in the energy policy will save farmers, using 6,000 gallons of fuel a year over a period of four years, $8,220, compared with the Crosbie budget.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: That is untrue.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows it is true. I would say the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. minister mentioned, if I understood correctly, that I said the Crosbie budget was more expensive. I think the minister would recognize that the Crosbie budget-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Denis Éthier: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Denis Éthier: Order, please. It being twelve o'clock midnight it is my duty, pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, April 29, 1980, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
[Translation}


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Bill carried.
Denis Éthier: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 10, 1980
Supply


Some hon. Members:: On division!
Bill reported.
[ Translation]


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that 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, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Donald James Johnston: that the bill be now read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)
Donald James Johnston: That Supplementary Estimates (B), laid upon the Table, Wednesday, November 5, 1980, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-49, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of
Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-49, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill carried.
Bill reported.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald James Johnston: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It being 12.08 a.m., the House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 12.08 a.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 11, 1980