1981-06-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order No. 43. Since the disavowal of the East Coast Fisheries and Boundary Treaties by the American administration, excessive overfishing on Georges Bank has glutted the American markets for cod and haddock, resulting in a 33 per cent drop in prices to Canadian fishermen in 1981 as compared with 1980. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House deplores the complete lack of principle and concern shown by the government in increasing the price of gasoline by 60 cents per gallon within the past year, including today's 9 cents per gallon, at a time of depressed fish prices, a move which has so seriously affected the Canadian fishermen that they have tied up their inshore fleet in Nova Scotia, since high fuel and operating costs make it uneconomical to continue operations.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REVERSAL OF GOVERNMENT POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, the deceitful Lalonde levy of 9 cents per gallon brings the increase in gasoline prices at the pump to 60 cents per gallon, while the price at the wellhead in western Canada remains at $17.75 per barrel. With the taxpayers of Canada paying $8.8 million per day to compensate for imported oil from Mexico and Saudi Arabia at $43 per barrel, giving a clear indication there is no relationship between the wellhead price of $17.75 per barrel and the price increase at the pump of 60 cents per gallon, which now becomes another broken election promise, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the House deplores the government's policy and asks the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to reverse immediately the energy policy of this country or resign.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETROLEUM TAX INCREASE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On May 15, 1981, as reported at page 9637 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) promised the House that he was not proposing to introduce any energy tax increases by the end of the year except as a result of production cutbacks in Alberta. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources immediately rescind that part of the petroleum tax increase related to higher imports and the lower Canadian dollar and not related to production cutbacks.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Department of Employment and Immigration cutting back the funding of the Immigration Services and Adaptation Program by 30 per cent this year, and considering that this will severely curtail the services provided by projects such as Operation Lifeline in Toronto which are involved in employment counselling and education for immigrants, and in view of the minister's task force which overwhelmingly pointed out that immigrants need these services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the minister change his decision to cut back the funding of the Immigration Services and Adaptation Program in order that vital refugee and immigrant services can continue to be provided.

June 3, 1981


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASE IN OIL PRICES-CALL FOR REMOVAL OF MINISTERS- MOTION UNDER S O. 43
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND FOR MINISTERS' RESIGNATIONS-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under Standing Order 43. Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) won the last election by defaming the 18 cent per gallon increase on gas and promising a smaller increase; and whereas the Prime Minister has already, since his re-election, increased gas prices more than double the 18 cents and applied the increase also to heating oils and farmers, and has levied a $2.50 per barrel petroleum compensation charge to pay the subsidy on foreign oil at $40 per barrel while Canadian farms and businesses are going bankrupt and cash and jobs are being exported out of Canada to the point where the country is on the verge of breaking up, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House demands the resignation of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources immediately. Canada does not need nor want persons at the head of our government who deceive the people and who are strangers to the truth.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASES IN PRICE OF GASOLINE IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas on February 8, 1980, in Toronto, ten days before the last federal election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated:
Mr. Clark has been asking us Liberals to make a clear statement on (gasoline) pricing... Well, let me make it. Our (increases) will be less than 14 cents a gallon.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House censures the Trudeau government for pushing up gasoline prices in the Atlantic provinces since the election by 60 cents a gallon, mostly through new federal taxes which the Liberal party deceitfully campaigned against in the last election.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the absolutely disgraceful sneaky announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) again raising oil prices, by an additional 9 cents a gallon, a price hike necessary only because of his inability and incompetence at the bargaining table, and in view of the blatant lies expounded by the Liberals during the last election campaign, especially by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That the Prime Minister immediately relieve these two ministers from their present roles in order that the country will have a chance to survive.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. There is confusion and uncertainty about the sports fishing regulations in British Columbia as a result of the government's indecision in recent months. Tackle shop owners, marine operators, fishermen, conservation officers, and tourist industry people have yet to receive brochures or pamphlets stating what the 1981 salmon sports fishing regulations are going to be. They are also confused and have their own interpretation of those regulations, based on news media reports and rumours. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans resign his cabinet position and immediately create a fourth position in his west coast information service for himself so that he can take on the primary task of distributing definitive regulations for the 1981 salmon season to all segments of the sports fishing and tourist industries.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
F;


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 3, 1981


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-PAYMENT BY CROWN CORPORATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I draw to the attention of this House and the public the about-turn the Liberal government has taken in reneging and defaulting on its 1980 campaign promise to keep gasoline price hikes below the 18-cent level. Already Canadians have experienced seven price increases, driving the cost up by about 60 cents per gallon. Part of this alarming increase has been caused by the SI.6 billion purchase of Petrofina paid for out of general revenue, and costing approximately $67 for every man, woman and child in this country. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the total cost of the Petrofina purchase not be paid for by taxing Canadians 2.5 cents a gallon on every gallon of gas purchased but that it be paid for entirely by Petro-Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INCREASED GASOLINE PRICES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and recognizing that the Liberals and NDP saw fit to bring down a government on an 18-cent excise tax on a gallon of gasoline only, while in just over a year the Liberal government has smuggled in seven price increases by the litre, thereby trying to camouflage a 60-cent to 62-cent increase per gallon on everything, including home heating oil, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the government recognize that these price increases are illegitimate, certainly unethical, and that it stop profiting from these increases by being the vampire of the consumer.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy. Yesterday the minister, without having the courage to come to the House of Commons with a tax increase, increased for the twelfth time in 15 months the price of gasoline by bringing in a 9-cent a gallon increase. That means an increase of more than 60 cents a gallon since December, 1979, by a government which campaigned for office on the basis of the following, and I quote an advertisement of the Minister of Finance which reads:
Vote Liberal and the prices will stay down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is interesting to hear some noise from a Liberal party that was silent through the constitutional debate, and silent as its leaders break their one promise to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: How can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources justify breaking the one major promise his party made in winning the election of February, 1980? Will he tell the House of Commons how, having opposed an 18-cent a gallon increase, he can justify increasing the price of gas by 60 cents a gallon, and going up?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As is his usual practice, the Leader of the Opposition again managed to bootleg in a number of preliminary statements, to which I would like to refer. First, I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition was yesterday. I was in this House. I tabled a ways and means motion according to the rules of this House. You, Madam Speaker, ruled on this subject yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition was absent, recognizing that everything that was done was done according to the rules of this House.
Second, as far as the noise is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition seems to have his signals crossed. Most of the noise was coming from his side of the House, not this side, when he was asking his question.
The third point, and the main point of the question, has to do with the commitments of this party during the election.

June 3, 1981
Oral Questions
There were two commitments made. Those two commitments have been and will be respected by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: 1 am glad the members of the opposition have finally got to read something. We made two commitments. One is that the price in 1980 would be lower than $4 a barrel and would not include an 18-cent excise tax to which we objected. And that we have respected. The second commitment was that over the four years of our mandate, the four years covered by the Conservative budget of 1979, our prices would be lower to the consumer than they would have been under the Tory budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: We thought you were Pinocchio; you are Dr. Goebbels.


Madam Speaker:: 1 wonder if there is any use in my calling the House to order. I can see this is "wonderful Wednesday".


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister is telling the truth inside out.


Madam Speaker:: I would point out to hon. members that we have spent five minutes on one question.


MINISTER'S REASONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister can twist as much as he wishes. The people of Canada know that he promised to oppose 18 cents a gallon. He is socking a 60-cent a gallon increase to the people of Canada right now, and the Liberal party applauds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: An arrogant and callous government which once again breaks its promise to the Canadian people.

The minister knows very well that in February and March there was a $265 million profit in energy taxes over what is being paid out by the federal government in energy compensation. The minister did not have the courage to make a statement in the House yesterday. Will the minister of energy now tell this House of Commons and the people of Canada why he believes it necessary and how he can justify hammering the consumers of Canada with a new 9-cent a gallon tax on gasoline when the government is already making a profit on energy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we are a long way from excessively raising prices and I must remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that, thanks to the action taken by this government, Canadian consumers have benefited from $1.9 billion since December 1979, when the Progressive Conservative budget was defeated. It means that during that period each Canadian family of four was richer by $335 than would have been the case otherwise as a result of the Progressive Conservative budget tabled under the administration-

I would like also to state to the hon. member that, far from being in a surplus position, the government is still subsidizing the price of oil out of general revenues to the tune of $350 million a year. That is out of general consolidated revenues. The general taxpayers of Canada are subsidizing the cost of oil. We do not want the general taxpayers to subsidize the oil at more than that level, and that is why some increase has taken place. As far as a good part of that increase, at least half, is concerned, I suggest the hon. Leader of the Opposition should phone his friend, the Premier of Alberta, and if Alberta wants to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order! Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that we have a minister of energy who would prefer to phone Mexicans, Venezuelans and OPEC offering them the world price when he will not conclude an agreement with producing provinces in Canada which would save Canadians millions of dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: And I might add that Canadians can appreciate what 60 cents a gallon means.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question concerning the truth for the Minister of Finance, because not only has this government broken its word of February, 1980, and broken it dramatically, but in this House of Commons on May 15 this year, less than a month ago, the Minister of Finance said quite clearly, and I quote:
-I am not proposing to introduce any new tax increases in energy.
He went on to qualify that by saying the one exception would have to do with compensation for cutbacks by producing provinces-the only exception. That was the promise he made on May 15; that was the promise his government broke yesterday. Will the Minister of Finance tell us why the word
June 3, 1981

he gave this House on May 15 is worth nothing at all on June
3?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the clarification which I made to that answer on May 25. The hon. member for Simcoe North asked me a question on a particular Friday afternoon which I answered, and I realized before the end of the day it could be misunderstood. The first time I was in the House following that Friday 1 rose in my place and clarified the answer, because it was ambiguous. I said:
1 believe that my answer with respect to no new energy taxes should be interpreted to mean that no new types of taxes are contemplated at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When did you correct your ad?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I went on to say, and I quote:
! do not want to mislead the House or the hon. member so I am taking the first available opportunity to say that no new types of taxes are contemplated at the present time, but obviously the petroleum compensation charge might be increased or indeed decreased, depending upon developments with Alberta, exchange rate developments or international petroleum prices.
I believe instead of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's rebuking me for the answer, he should at least acknowledge that at the first opportunity I returned to the House and clarified that answer. That was on May 25, eight days ago. That is the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is a shame that the Prime Minister is not in the House today to hear from the true source about what real garbage is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because he did not give an answer to the Leader of the Opposition in response to his question as to why it is necessary at this time to have this blockbuster tax increase imposed on the consumer. Consumption in Canada was down in the months of February and March, the latest two months we have on record, by 10 per cent, which will lead to about a 40 per cent drop in imports. The world price of oil has been level over the last four months, and it looks as if it will be going down because of the world glut. Surely this means that there is less need for a tax increase of this magnitude, or for a tax increase at all.


An hon. Member:: Question.
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources table in this House the recommendations from his officials as to the reasons why it was necessary to hammer the consumer, as he did yesterday, without the courtesy of an explanation to the House regarding the need for this increase?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to repeat why there is a need for this increase. If the hon. member could get his friend, the Premier of Alberta, to abandon-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: We know who does not want to hear the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Hypocrite.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member wants to prevail upon the Premier of Alberta to abandon his cutbacks, the price of gasoline in this country will immediately be reduced by at least 1.5 cents a litre. That part of the increase is the result of the cutbacks which have been imposed and the punishment which is being imposed upon Canadians and Canadian industry by the government of Alberta. That is part of the explanation.
The other explanation is that the cost of imports has increased because of the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of the rate of exchange. Because of this, increases are required. Of the two cents, the cutback of Alberta represents 1.5 cents a litre, if we take into account the last two cutbacks.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I thought I heard the minister say that one of the reasons for this is the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar. Surely the minister understands that the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar is the result of the policies he and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, have followed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What the minister is asking Canadians to do is to pay the doctor's bill while he shoots himself in the foot. The minister is misleading the House-


An hon. Member:: Too bad it is just the foot.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -on the reasons for this 9-cent increase or the need for it.


REQUEST THAT INCREASE BE ROLLED BACK
Michael Holcombe Wilson: I ask the minister today if he is prepared to roll back this price increase, have a debate in this House as to the reasons for the increase and, if they can be justified, then to proceed? But do not hammer the consumer today without presenting that case to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 3, 1981
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what I can tell the hon. member is that if the government of Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -eliminates the cutbacks-


An hon. Member:: That is blackmail.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: If you do not have any respect for the House I think you would at least-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has lost control of his troops.


Charles Joseph Clark: Go to court, Andre.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what I can tell the hon. member is that if the government of Alberta eliminates the cutbacks, this government is going to reduce the price of oil by 7.25 cents a gallon tomorrow morning, out of that 9 cents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED CHARGES BY OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I was in the Alberta legislature two weeks ago and I heard the Alberta ministers get up and blame the federal government, and today we have the federal minister get up and blame the Alberta government. The problem is that the consumers are the ones who are caught.
The last time the minister brought in an increased price on gasoline the oil companies piggybacked an extra 6 cents a gallon on to that increase. These are the same companies that, according to the Bertrand report, ripped us off for $12 billion. Now, the government fired Bertrand, or at least moved him aside. Will the minister assure this House-and let us forget about promises in the past-he has put up the price of gasoline-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friends to my right were going to put it up as well, so they can just listen to this for a moment. Will the minister assure this House that he is going to stop the oil companies from adding any additional cost increases to last night's increase?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would also invite my colleagues from the NDP to get their act together in terms of policy in this field. I remind them that their colleagues in Saskatchewan have been arguing and pressing for substantial price increases in the price of oil, and they cannot have it both ways.
As far as the companies are concerned, I also remind my friend that this government has imposed the tax that the provincial governments and the industry claim-


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


Marc Lalonde: -is going to reduce their cash flow by 25 to 30 per cent because of the large profits taken in the last year. These are steps that have been taken by this government to prevent excess profits being made by the oil and gas companies in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the specific point raised by the hon. member is concerned, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is going to monitor the action taken by the companies, and I certainly hope that in the current context they will not add anything to the announced increases. I can assure my hon. friend that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is very much aware of this situation.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT RESPECTING AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, like a lawyer with a weak defence, the minister goes on the offence. It is not so much that Canadians are against higher oil prices, although they do not like them; what they do not like is the minister nickelling and diming us to death every couple of months.
I ask the minister will he confirm that in less than a month consumers will be facing another $1 a barrel increase, and will he tell this House when will there be an end in sight-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Ask Lougheed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -to these continuous increases? When are we going to have a full agreement with Alberta and the producing provinces, and some firm assurances that we are going to know what the future increases are?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that the $1 increase announced in the budget will come into effect in September, not in July of this year. In addition, we are involved in negotiations with the government of Alberta.
I have indicated my regret over the steps taken by the government of Alberta in cutting production another 60,000 barrels a day-


An hon. Member:: You have given nothing.


Marc Lalonde: -in the current circumstances where we are negotiating in a rather positive atmosphere.
I have been asked by the government of Alberta to delay the introduction of an energy security act because of those negotiations. I have agreed and said that I will not proceed with the debate on this proposed legislation at least until the
June 3, 1981

fall, because of the negotiations. In spite of this, the government of Alberta has decided to add this cutback to the previous one, which means an increase to the consumer. 1 hope that we will reach an agreement whereby we will have predictable and moderate price increases to face over the next few years. What we are doing, what we are fighting for is an energy agreement that will mean the consumer will know what to expect, and by all accounts what the consumer can count upon is that what comes in the end will be lower than that foreseen by the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, without engaging in an argument about who is going to have lower prices, let me ask about what I consider to be a very positive step that could be taken by the government.
This latest increase comes at a bad time because, as he knows, the consumer price index is at its highest level in 38 years. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said last May that for every dollar increase per barrel in the price of oil, the consumer price index goes up half a percentage point, which means that last night's increase will raise the CPI almost to 14 per cent. I ask the Minister of Finance if he is prepared to cushion this increase for the low and middle income consumer by bringing in an energy tax credit-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The NDP voted against that when they defeated the Conservatives' budget. That is a Conservative proposal.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -by bringing in a tax credit that will help-


An hon. Member:: You have been reading Crosbie's budget.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: I want to hear this answer.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hees:: Your little brother voted against it, and now listen to him! Lord Almighty!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the event the hon. member did not hear my answer, it was that it is not my intention to introduce an energy tax credit. The purpose of part of this charge is to avoid increasing the deficit in the petroleum compensation account, which at budget time was stipulated to be $350 million. If this particular charge were not
Oral Questions
imposed to meet the contingencies mentioned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the over-all deficit in the account would be increased as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Prove it, Allan. Table the figures.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the reason that, it seems to me, in order to maintain the fiscal framework and the stipulated deficit in the petroleum compensation account, it would be unwise at that very moment-


Charles Joseph Clark: To help anybody.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to frustrate the purpose by taking on a new expenditure.


ALBERTA GOVERNMENT CUTBACKS IN PRODUCTION
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, the energy critic of the NDP on December 13, 1979, voted against the energy tax credit that he asks for today.
My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the patron saint of Maurice Strong and the Belgians, and not of the Canadian consumers. In the last year there have been 12 increases in oil and gas prices in Canada, nine of which are solely and purely increases in federal taxes, with nothing for the oil producing provinces themselves. The minister has offered to reduce by 7.25 cents, I think he said, the 60-cent increase in the last year if Premier Lougheed would agree not to reduce oil production. Will he reduce it a further 52 cents and take off these federal taxes if Premier Lougheed agrees to do that, or is he asking only Alberta to make the sacrifice while the federal government gets all the tax revenues?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I only wish to remind the hon. member for St. John's West that after having brought down the outrageous budget which he tried to impose on the Canadian public-


Miss MacDonald:: For 18 cents.


Marc Lalonde: -he walked around the country in January and February of 1980, during the election campaign, saying that his budget had already been overtaken by events and that he felt there should be further increases over and above those contained in his budget. He should be the last one to complain about tax increases.
As far as the government is concerned, I repeat that we have made commitments about the prices in 1980 and over the period up to 1984. I assure the hon. member that Canadian consumers-
10212

June 3, 1981
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Are paying for it.


Marc Lalonde: -will have paid less under this government than they would have paid under the Conservative budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REVOCATION OF PRICE INCREASES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I cannot ask him to stop beating his wife, but I can ask him to stop beating the Canadian consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: When the 18-cent excise tax was proposed in December, 1979, it did not apply to heating fuel. In St. John's, Newfoundland, heating fuels are up 50 cents per gallon in the last year because of federal tax increases. They would not have been up a dime under our 18-cent excise tax.


Marc Lalonde: What about the other increases?


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister's colleague has tabled, since the budget, four increases by non-budgetary notices in the House. There were two yesterday-the Canadian ownership charge and the first Lalonde levy; $2.6 billion in additional taxation since the budget came down; over 15 cents per gallon. Is the minister prepared to revoke these increases and to eliminate these notices given yesterday in an effort, no matter how feeble, to meet his commitment to Canadians when he asked them to vote for him and the price would stay down? Will the minister make some pretence at trying to observe that, for the people of Cape Breton are now paying over a 60 per cent increase in their heating fuel oil and over 60 cents more per gallon for gasoline since he came to office and stabbed them in the back?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, of course I will not accept the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. In every speech he makes, he urges me to contain the fiscal deficit. The step which was taken yesterday will contain the fiscal deficit.


John Carnell Crosbie: Meet your promises.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me also add that I will be pleased at any time to present my program, in comparison with that of the hon. gentleman, to my electors in Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso. I have no doubt which they will choose.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will you show them your ad, Allan?


PRICE PAID BY FARMERS FOR DIESEL FUEL
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources. The price of diesel fuel to Canadian farmers has increased by some 62 cents per gallon or, to put it another way, the price of diesel fuel to Canadian farmers has doubled since the Liberals and the NDP combined forces to defeat our government in December, 1979, on the issue of oil pricing. During that period of time domestic oil prices have increased by some 30 per cent, from $13.75 per barrel to $17.75 per barrel. This currently represents 41 per cent of the world price.
In view of the fact that this price increase amounts to nothing more than a massive federal government rip-off, in view of the serious impact of this price increase on the agricultural producing sector and the need for relief in that particular sector, as was recognized in the Conservative budget of 1979 which provided for a rebate and an energy tax credit, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources recommend to his cabinet colleagues some relief for the producers of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government has the fate of the producers of the country very much in mind, particularly the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: This is why, under our budget of last year and our energy program, we have proposed a scheme whereby-


An hon. Member:: Scheme is the correct word.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Try manipulation.


Marc Lalonde: -Canadian consumers and farmers in particular will not have to pay the type of prices planned under the Conservative budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: They will have to pay twice as much.


Marc Lalonde: I want to stress quite clearly that Canadian consumers at large, as I have indicated, have saved $1.9 billion, thanks to the measures we have adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Also the farmers of Canada have benefited from this. A family of four has saved $335-


John Carnell Crosbie: They have not saved a dime.


Marc Lalonde: -since December, 1979. This includes the farmers of the country, as well as every other family.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that why they are going bankrupt?


Marc Lalonde: That is what has happened under the Liberal government and the budget presented by my colleague.
June 3, 1981


REQUEST FOR RELIEF FOR FARMERS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, since all we are able to elicit from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric, I should like to direct my question to the non-Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he is aware that while domestic oil prices in the country have increased by less than 30 per cent at the wellhead, the price of diesel fuel to Canadian producers has more than doubled.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is simply standing idly by, watching his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, rape the producers of Canada, will he undertake to recommend to his cabinet colleagues some relief for the producers of Canada so that they can keep their input costs down?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the producers of agricultural products in Canada have many benefits from programs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Such as interest rates.


Eugene Whelan: First and foremost, any Canadian agricultural producer can compete with any farmer any place in the world. They get their fuel at 40 to 50 cents per gallon cheaper in Canada than anywhere else in the world.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, in light of the conference on emergency planning scheduled for June 5, 1 should like to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. In the past few years the transportation of hazardous commodities has created an active awareness in all municipalities of the need for emergency planning. Many problems arise when a community is faced with large-scale emergencies, one being the large-scale evacuation of the populace. As is the case in most cities, the city of London does not have adequate alerting devices for a large-scale evacuation. I am aware that a federal warning system, controlled from Petawawa base camp, when activated, alerts ten counties in southwestern Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Because hazardous commodities are transported through London daily, would it not be feasible to design a system to segregate communities, one from another, so that the mayor of a given community could request, under extreme
Oral Questions
emergency conditions, that the particular community be alerted from Petawawa base camp?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is a fact that Friday I will have an opportunity to meet my provincial colleagues to discuss the principles which will pave the way for improved co-operation between the various levels of government so that emergency measures in Canada will be better planned. This ought to enable all regions, including of course the region of London, to cope much more efficiently with various emergency situations. [English]
With respect to the specific matter raised by my hon. colleague, I will give instructions to officials in Emergency Planning Canada and ensure that they report to me in time so that in the very near future I can report to the hon. member.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, we need emergency planning for thousands of home owners who are being poisoned by urea formaldehyde foam.
My question is directed to the minister for CMHC. Thousands of angry home owners and renters are organizing across the country because they are suffering from health problems and their homes are worthless because of this poisonous form of insulation. They hold the federal government directly responsible, and particularly CMHC which endorsed this program through its own CHIP program. They want action, not just a survey by telephone of 400 homes.
I would like to ask the minister, through Your Honour, since CMHC is responsible through CHIP, will the minister right this wrong? Will he take initiatives to set up information, testing and advice centres through local CMHC offices? Will he help to provide different accommodations for people who have health problems? Will he extend the RRAP program, a home repair program already in place, to help people get rid of this contaminated foam in their homes?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would confirm that I am aware of the problems addressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: I would like to say that in my own constituency there has been a meeting of affected home owners. I am quite aware of their concerns.


Charles Joseph Clark: Got more hair than brains!

June 3, 1981
Oral Questions


Paul James Cosgrove: However, I would hasten to advise the hon. member that I am sure she must have overlooked the fact that the CHIP program was transferred into the auspices of energy, mines and resources earlier this year.


Charles Joseph Clark: Like the Department of Finance!


Paul James Cosgrove: I would like to remind the hon. member of the reply given by the minister just a few days ago in this House that, indeed, a special committee of cabinet is presently looking at the many problems raised in the question put by the hon. member. First of all, we are concerned to know the extent of the problem. We are concerned to know that a response in a scientific way is one which has a certain certitude and is not haphazard. As the minister indicated, the government has this actively under consideration. I would expect that within a few weeks we will be able to give a definitive answer.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: As usual, this minister is passing the buck and refusing to take any initiatives.


COMPENSATION TO MEET COST OF REMOVAL
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My second supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Home owners who are afflicted by urea formaldehyde gas cannot live in their homes; they cannot sell them because they are useless; they are worried about their children who have bad health problems, in many cases; and most of them have their life savings in their homes. Will the minister, in view of this tragedy, approve a compensation program for home owners so that they can remove this hazardous insulation and be paid for it by the government which contributed to the problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 would remind the hon. member that the matter is now under review by an interdepartmental committee and that within a few days, we shall announce a series of measures that will specifically meet the expectations of the people, and that will indeed allow us to assess the exact extent of the problem.
I would submit to the hon. member that it is absolutely useless to make the kind of statement she has been making about Canadians that are now supposed to be ill. We will check the facts and the government will face its responsibilities only as far as it is bound to, nothing more and nothing less.


FUTURE INCREASE IN PRICE OF CRUDE OIL
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I would like to seek some clarification, if I may, from
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Some of us were under the impression that, in the absence of any agreement with Alberta or the other producing provinces, there was to be a further increase of $1 a barrel on crude oil as of July 1 of this year. Did I understand the minister correctly to say that that will not take place at that time but will instead take place on the 1st of September? If Alberta again cuts back production we can, of course, expect a further increase of another $1 a barrel on the 1st of September. Would there then be an increase of $2 a barrel as of the 1st of September, 1981, in the absence of any agreement?


Marc Lalonde: Obviously, if the government of Alberta
introduces another cutback on the 1st of September, we will have to provide compensation for that unfortunate decision. As far as the first question is concerned, the budget announced an increase of $1 a barrel effective the 1st of July, but it will be delayed for 60 days before it reaches the consumer through the refinery process. Therefore that increase will not come into effect until the 1st of September, as far as the consumer is concerned. No other increase is planned, at least until the 1st of September.


FEDERAL SHARE OF INCREASE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Perhaps the minister could correct my rather poor arithmetic. The way I then compute it, there will have been a total increase in September, of the total price of crude oil per barrel in 1981, which will be close to $10 a barrel by next fall. The federal government will be collecting approximately $8 out of that $10. Could the minister confirm those figures for me, please?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think the calculations of the hon. member are excessive.


An hon. Member:: Give us yours!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I would like to remind the hon. member that, out of whatever total figure he has in mind, about $3, or somewhat over $3, would be the result of the Alberta cutbacks, a decision by that provincial government. In addition, there are $2 which go to the wellhead, to the producing provinces. Therefore I suggest that my hon. friend bear those facts in mind in making his calculations.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are your estimates?
June 3, 1981


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, I will try to put a somewhat shorter question than my honourable colleagues opposite did. It is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He is no doubt aware of the current situation concerning the economic mutual help unions in Quebec. In view of the importance of those unions, and of the fact that they have been, along with DREE, one of the major instruments of economic development in our Quebec regions for the last ten years, could the minister state the Canadian government's position on the current situation within the economic mutual help unions movement in Quebec?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, in the first place I agree with the hon. member that the mutual help unions are important to consolidate the economies of the various regions in Quebec. I would further suggest to the hon. member that under the present conditions, it is no wonder that a financial institution may face difficulties. However, the best possible protection for depositors or members of a mutual help union in my view is for them to retain their trust in that financial institution. Finally, under an agreement between the Quebec Deposit Insurance Board and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, in case the Quebec Deposit Insurance Board were in need of cash, a line of credit of some $100 million has been granted by the Canada Insurance Deposit Corporation, a federal institution.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, there has been a full scale riot at Matsqui Institution in British Columbia, starting last night, in which all cell blocks and a number of other buildings were burned and, in fact, completely gutted. At least seven prisoners were injured, one critically. The army has been called in, among other things, to evacuate staff from the roof of the institution.
Will the minister inform the House what sparked this very serious riot and what the present status of the riot is? Will he assure the House that he intends to visit the site of Matsqui Institution immediately to take control of the situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, when I came into the House at two o'clock today, the riot was still ongoing. In view of that I think that it would be better not to speak about the causes of it or about the steps which are
Oral Questions
being taken to quell the riot. However, I want to indicate to the House that the perimeter security is standing and that the community surrounding that institution is not in any risk. Members of the Armed Forces have come on to the site, along with members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to reinforce the perimeter security.
A special inquiry will be held. In fact it was launched this morning in the normal course in relation to a serious incident such as this. When the disturbance is over I would be very glad to answer questions of the sort the hon. member has asked.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is again addressed to the Solicitor General. As he knows, in 1977 a special subcommittee of Parliament passed a unanimous report making recommendations for changes in the penitentiary system, saying that there was a state of crisis in the system. In view of the fact that many of those recommendations have not been implemented by the government and by the commissioner, and in view of the fact that there clearly exists a state of crisis in the system today when we look at Laval, Dorchester, and now Matsqui, what steps does the minister intend to take to implement the unanimous recommendations of the special subcommittee report, to prevent the possibility of a very long, hot, and possibly explosive summer in the Canadian prison system?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not anticipate a long, hot, explosive summer in the penitentiary system. In fact I do not think this incident can be characterized as being a crisis. Almost all of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee have been implemented. There have been four progress reports made to the committee, of which the hon. member is a member. He has had a full opportunity, as have all members, to see the extent to which there has been full implementation of that report. A fifth progress report is in the course of preparation. I think it would be very far from accurate to say that there is a state of crisis in Canada's penitentiaries.


CURRENT POLICY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if he can come back to his seat.
During the last election campaign in February 1980, the Liberals promised Canadians that the price of gasoline would remain low. In fact, the Minister of Finance published the following announcement about this issue in a paper in his riding on January 23: "Vote Liberal and Keep the price down!" Fourteen months later, Canadians have to pay 60 cents

June 3, 1981
Oral Questions
more a gallon, 9 of 12 increases of which only go to pay Liberal taxes. This is another example of a Liberal flip-flop. This 9-cent increase per gallon will add to the tax burden of Canadians. I shall now ask my question, Madam Speaker! Will the Minister state once again that his energy policy is the best solution and that he must, accordingly, increase the price of gasoline even though he has no valid reason other than masking his own and his government's inability to solve the energy problem?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I timed the question and I hope that you will give me as much time to reply.
First, 1 wish to repeat to the hon. member, to the House and to the Canadian people that our action as far as oil is concerned has saved each Canadian family of four members $335 since December 1979 compared with what the Progressive Conservative budget proposed. These are facts. These are figures which are easy to prove. Second, I also remind the hon. member that Canadians today will still pay 40 cents a gallon less for their oil than people in the United States.
Third, I remind the hon. member that our commitment, which we have kept, not to increase prices in 1980 as much as the Progressive Conservatives planned to do, that is not to impose the 18 cents tax, called for a price increase of under $4, and 1 repeat to Canadian consumers that our energy policies will mean that they will have to pay less than they would have had to under the terrible Progressive Conservative budget which was voted down in December 1979.


EFFECT OF NEW GASOLINE TAX ON CONSUMERS
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the Minister and his colleagues are against consumer rip-offs except when they are the main cause of them, as is the case for energy and uranium. Does the minister, who is a member from Quebec, a province where there are quite a few low-income people intend to tell Quebecers that this new tax will not affect them and that they can always rely on him and Liberal miracles to help them face the shameful increase in the price of oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Quebec members as well as Quebec consumers and voters have a better judgment than himself. Of this I can assure him. I went to Quebec City two days ago to talk to people there. I am going tonight to speak to people in Montreal, and I shall tell them the facts as they are. We are not ashamed to defend our record in view of what the Progressive Conservatives intended to impose on the consumers. I also remind the House that if the Alberta premier were to decide to cancel the production cutbacks which he has imposed on Canadian consumers, we would reduce oil prices by 7.25 cents a gallon tomorrow morning.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns the reply given by the Solicitor General regarding the riot at Matsqui Institution. I believe that this is an incident of such magnitude that it would call for a statement on motions by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), because the military forces were called in and because of the fire that destroyed over 50 per cent of the facilities. I think this all adds up to the point where there should be a statement on motions by the minister. I wonder if he would give that assurance.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That might be a request from the hon. member but I certainly have no jurisdiction to ask the minister to make a statement on motions. That is his choice and he can do so if he sees fit.


An hon. Member:: He said he wants to.


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


Walter David Baker: A point of order, Kaplan!


Charles Joseph Clark: Send Ouellet to court and stand up!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table two memos from Dr. A. B. Morrison, assistant deputy minister, health protection branch, Department of National Health and Welfare, to Dr. J. E. McGowan, assistant deputy minister, food production and inspection branch, Agriculture Canada, concerning Captan. I regret that I can only table these documents in English at this time as the French documents have not been completely translated. They should be here in five or ten minutes.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1981-82
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1982 and, pursuant to the provisions of the
June 3, 1981
[Stage Direction]
British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 58(15) and 59, 1 move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) 1981-1982, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
[Stage Direction]
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think it appropriate to move to adjourn the House to permit us to debate a tax increase which was sneaked into this House yesterday, as we would debate a tax increase as introduced in a direct and regular
way.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have received the proper notice from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as is required under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for an emergency debate. I have, of course, examined his statement.
I have to admit that the problem raised by the right hon. member is obviously a very important one. It refers to a situation which undoubtedly has a certain character of urgency. However, I am also sure that it is a matter of continuing interest to all members of the House. As all hon. members are aware, there have been periodic increases in the price and tax of oil products.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TAX INCREASE ON OIL PRODUCTS
Walter David Baker: The public is aware, too.


Madam Speaker:: The inevitable conclusion is that the problem is one of continuing concern.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, earlier today I gave you notice, and I now ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to allow an emergency debate on the unprecedented price increase and tax increase introduced yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
I might just elaborate very briefly on the reasons for my proposal. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced the government's decision yesterday to impose a major tax increase on oil products. It was a tax increase. A part of this tax increase represents an increase of 50 per cent of a tax established in the October 28 budget, which is part of a ten-year price plan. No justification of this tax was given to the House by the minister. It represents a major increase in energy taxes for the consumers of Canada with no opportunity for a debate on it here in the House of Commons.
In my opinion, its impact on the economy is similar to that which could be expected from a regular budget, and a regular budget would be subject to a full six-day debate. But the minister has chosen a manoeuvre which allows no debate at all.
Because it is the role of Parliament to debate substantial tax increases imposed by the government, I believe it is essential to allow full debate on this emergency situation in the House. Further, because this tax is effective immediately, time is of the essence.
The provisions of Standing Order 26(5) are very clear. Referring to the Chair, it reads:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration-
And it concludes with these words:
-shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
Standing Order 60(11) reads as follows:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
The tabling of notices of ways and means is the first step in the legislative process, as the minister stated yesterday, which allow for ample debate when a motion is called.
Hon. members are aware that we are presently in a supply period which provides an opportunity for members to discuss a subject of their choice. The government House leader has indicated in his weekly statement on the business of the House that two days per week will be designated as opposition days under our supply proceedings.
For all of those reasons, I regret that it is not possible at this time to put to the House the motion proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

June 3, 1981
Order Paper Questions




[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,284, 1,665, 1,787, 2,327,2,328, 2,501 and 2,503.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was contributed to the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP) fund and, by how much per cent, did the annual contribution change in constant dollars?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, for each of the past five years DIP contributions were:
Actual	1973/74 Dollars*	Percent Change In Constant Dollars (73/74 Dollars)1979/80	$57.9 million	$33.1 million	+ 1.22 per cent1978/79	$52.2 million	$32.7 million	+ 13.54 per cent1977/78	$43.2 million	$28.8 million	- 10.00 per cent1976/77	$44.9 million	$32.0 million	+ 4.92 per cent1975/76	$39.0 million	$30.5 million	
* Using the implicit price index for the gross national expenditure published by Statistics Canada, the above values have been computed in terms of the FY 1973/74 dollar.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the division between foreign and Canadian controlled oil and gas producing companies in the chart on page 20 of the publication entitled The National Energy Program 1980 based on 51 per cent ownership of voting stock or were effective controls the criteria used?
2.	Does any change in control, in order to be effective, arising from a change in status of preferred stock attributable to non-payment of dividend, require approval of the foreign investment review agency?
3.	What percentage of the voting shares of the Canadian controlled companies listed, other than Petro-Canada, are owned by Canadians?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	The division of companies between foreign and Canadian controlled is based upon the ownership of voting stock (50 per cent plus 1) expect where the Foreign Investment Review Agency has determined control on an effective control basis to be different from the statistical basis.
2.	Ordinarily the transfer of control of a Canadian business enterprise to a non-eligible person arising from a change in status of preferred stock attributable to non-payment of dividends would not be subject to review under the Foreign Investment Review Act.
3.	The ultimate Canadian ownership of the Canadian controlled companies listed according to Statistics Canada at the end of 1979 was as follows:
Pan Canadian Petroleum Ltd.	73.2 per cent
Dome Petroleum Ltd.	27.2 per cent
Norcen Energy Resources	93.1 per cent
Home Oil Company Ltd.	98.7 per cent
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.	83.7 per cent
Alberta Energy Company Ltd.	99.9 per cent
Ocelot Industries Ltd.	99.3 per cent
When the newly-established Petroleum Monitoring Agency completes its assessment, there may be changes in these ownership percentages.


Mr. Stevens: For the current Fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of Consolidated Computer Incorporated for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, the company has provided the following information: for 1980, Consolidated Computer Incorporated estimates that its expenditures in the requested categories will be as follows:
(a)	Advertising: $69,300 (including $25,800 for pure advertising, $15,000 for promotional material, and $28,500 for trade shows).
(b)	Free or subsidized publications: Nil
(c)	Other information conveyed to the public: $18,099 (To produce quarterly statements and financial reports.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the value, by department, of all advertising contracts processed through the Department of Supply and Services for the fiscal years 1979-80 and 1980-81?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned:
June 3, 1981

April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980		
	No. of	Value of
Department	Contracts	ContractsSecretary of State	1	$ 25,000.Supply and Services	3	26,800.Canadian Unity Information Office	3	3,280,000.Regional Economic Expansion	1	10,000.Employment and Immigration	6	1,420,000.Industry, Trade and Commerce	5	8,625,456.Energy, Mines and Resources	4	1,744,800.Finance	1	90,000.Public Works	1	300,000.Transport Canada	1	325,000.Solicitor General	1	31,466.Health and Welfare	1	250,000.National Defence	7	1,940,000.35	$18,068,522.
In addition, there were five contracts that pertain to work performed during the fiscal year 1979-80 but which were not actually issued by DSS until the fiscal year 1980-81. The number and value of these contracts are as follows:
	No. of	Value of
Department	Contracts	ContractsIndustry, Trade and Commerce	4	$ 3,263,456.Employment and Immigration	1	435,000.5	$ 3,698,456.Total ($18,068,522 +	3,698,456) =	21,766,978.The figures above reflect only the	advertising	contractsprocessed through the Department of	Supply and Services.	Prior to September, 1979, departments	and agencies were not	required to request advertising services through DSS. With the promulgation of TB Circular 79-30 dated September 19, 1979, all departments and agencies were required to have DSS issue advertising contracts on their behalf. It should also be noted that no advertising contracts were awarded during the election	compaign, December, 1979, to February	', 1980.	April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981	No. of	Value ofDepartment	Contracts	ContractsSecretary of State	8	$ 885,738.Supply and Services	4	2,512,998.Justice (Canadian Unity Information Office)	13	13,570,000.Employment and Immigration	21	4,268,130.Industry, Trade and Commerce	18	8,885,974.Energy, Mines and Resources	10	8,924,413.Finance	9	3,489,411.Regional Economic Expansion	4	995,000.National Defence	20	4,232,015.Transport Canada	9	682,176.Indian and Northern Affairs	1	161,402.Agriculture	2	82,505.Royal Canadian Mounted Police	5	120,385.Environment	1	20,000.Canada Post	5	141,993.Canadian Wheat Board	1	339,000.Health and Welfare	9	1,868,330.Public Works	1	200,000.Statistics Canada	4	1,948,400.National Research Council Canada	1	1,683.Solicitor General	1	25,916.External Affairs	1	53,944.Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise	1	202,229.Fisheries and Oceans	1	41,337.150	$53,652,979.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: What is the value, by advertising agency, of all advertising contracts processed through the Department of Supply and Services for the fiscal year ended March 31,1981?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: See list below.
Value of Advertising Contracts awarded by Agencies
for period April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981		
Agency	No. of	Value ofRonalds-Reynolds & Company Limited-	Contracts	ContractsTor./Mtl.	9	$ 8,530,480.Vickers & Benson Ltd.-Toronto	8	5,552,184.Foster Advertising Ltd.-Regina	3	604,000.Atlantic Canada Advertising-Fredericton	1	10,000.Goodis, Goldberg, Soren-Toronto Reidcorp Advertising Consultants Ltd.-	1	2,023,500.Toronto	2	317,196.Baker, Lovick Limited-Calgary	2	270,570.Wilshar Advertising Ltd.-Halifax	2	159,167.DIR-AD Ltd.-Montreal	I	85,000.March Chait & Associates Limited-Toronto	!	690,000.Cockfield, Brown & Co. Ltd.-Montreal	3	878,902.Price, Rubin & Partners Inc.-Toronto Hill-Gordon Hill Adv. (Western) Ltd.-	4	509,663.Winnipeg	7	1,572,090.Crombie Advertising Ltd.-Toronto Richmond Advertising Associates Inc.-	4	235,211.Toronto St. Alexander Advertising Academy Ltd.-	1	300,000.Montreal	4	126,529.Lindley Kova & Associates-Toronto	1	50,000.Glowinsky & Gee, Advertising-Toronto	3	58,491.Maclaren Advertising Ltd.-Toronto	1	2,800,000.The Jerry Goodis Agency Inc.-Toronto	2	2,201,578.West-Can Communications Ltd.-Vancouver Smith Publishing Co. (Travel Times)-	1	500,000.Montreal	5	1,796,013.RVHA Advertising Ltd.-Toronto Canadian Media Corporation-Tor. (Agency of	1	20,000.Record)	25	10,063,839.Krohn Advertising Ltd.-Toronto	2	65,000.PIR Advertising Ltd.-Toronto Palmer Jarvis & Associates Advertising Ltd.-	1	50,000.Van.	1	172,530.Howard, Ian & Associates-Vancouver Development Publications Limited-	1	42,000.Willowdale, Tor.	1	1,250.Hunter Daniels Ltd.-Vancouver	1	1,683.Ford Advertising Ltd. J.-Edmonton	1	41,675.Quantum Communications-London, Ont.	1	907.Commercial Associates Limited-Toronto	1	35,409.Rowntree Adv. Ltd.-Vancouver	1	41,337.Atlantic Canada Plus Association-Halifax	1	125,000.Publi-Media Inc.-Montreal	3	1,937,429.BCP Group Ltd.-Montreal	5	1,174,025.Tremblay, Publicite Inc., Pierre-Quebec	4	487,409.Payeur Publicite, Inc.-Quebec Des Communicateurs Associes PLT Inc.-	3	466,159.Montreal	2	1,800.Communication PNMD Inc.-Montreal	4	2.355,964.Cabana, Seguin Inc.-Montreal	4	255,644.B & B Advertising Ltd.-Montreal	2	875,500.Planicom Publicite Ltee-Montreal Le Groupe des Communicateurs Unis du	6	3,100,975.Canada-Mtl Feedback Agence de Communications	2	1,156,955.Commerciales et Sociales Ltee-Montreal	1	500,000.Leveille & Associes Inc., Jean-Montreal	1	115,000.
June 3, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Value of Advertising Contracts awarded by Agencies for period April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981
Agency	No. of
Contracts
Hill-Maheux/Hill et Associes Inc.-Montreal	5
Gilles Ste. Marie-Montreal	1
Publitheque-Montreal	1
Publicite Media-Montreal	1
L'lmprimerie acadienne-Moncton	1
Total	150
Value of Contracts $433,050. 2,000. 635,900. 216,055. 7,910.


[Stage Direction]
In addition to the above, there were five contracts that pertain to work performed during the fiscal year 1979-80 but which were not actually issued by DSS until the fiscal year 1980-81. The details of these contracts are as follows:
(a)	The generator sets are destined for the Burma visual aid project to provide stand-by power at five airports in Burma.
(b)	Rangoon, Burma.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agency	No. of	Value of
contracts	contracts
Vickers & Benson Ltd.	2	S2,585,000Cockfield, Brown & Co. Ltd.	2	303,456McLauchlan, Mohr, Massey Ltd.	1	810,0005	$3,698,456


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of National Defence purchase pulse generator and training manuals from Sheppard Agencies at a cost of $127,428 and, if so, what was the (a) number purchased (b) cost per manual (c) reason for purchase?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence purchased a pulse generator and training manuals from Sheppard Agencies at a total cost of $127,428.
(a)	One (1) pulse generator.
Nine (9) training manuals.
(b)	Cost per manual: $62.50.
(c)	For use as a power source for a simulator already in place aboard the DDH 280 class destroyer.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) purchase diesel electric generator sets from Cummins Ontario Ltd. at a cost of $135,410 and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) what was their destination?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), awarded a contract to Cummins Canada Limited for the provision of diesel electric generator sets at a total cost of $135,410, under the grant aid program.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 51 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations about confidential documents.


Madam Speaker:: With the reservations and conditions mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 51 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. McKinnon:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, papers and studies concerning the move of RCMP Headquarters "E" Division from victoria to Vancouver, British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 3, 1981



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved:: That this House condemns the inadequate policies of the present government in agricultural areas and calls on the government to institute an agricultural policy which would:
(1)	implement a national stabilization plan available for all farm products and based on the cost of production and supported by producer and federal contributions;
(2)	encourage the establishment of national orderly marketing agencies for all farm commodities;
(3)	expand the role of a sufficiently-capitalized Farm Credit Corporation to include provision of short-term and long-term financing as well as operating costs for beginning farmers;
(4)	provide continuing emergency aid to farmers on the basis of cost-shared agreements negotiated in advance to avoid the problems associated with last year's drought and herd maintenance programs;
(5)	condemn the use of grain embargoes in Canadian foreign policy and pay immediate compensation to Canadian farmers who have waited for 17 months for payment on the Soviet grain embargo;
(6)	affirm the role of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate in developing western Canada by implementing Crow-related rates to move semi-processed and finished agricultural products; and
(7)	negotiate a land-use policy for Canada in conjunction with the provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second opposition day on agriculture this week and the week is only half over.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has stated that we are in a crisis situation in the agricultural industry. I say that what is happening in the agricultural industry these days is more than a crisis, it is a disaster. Therefore, it is very important that we have an opportunity to debate this subject in this House on the second day devoted to agriculture.
Farmers are going under at a fast rate. We have heard about many bankruptcies. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) spoke on Monday, he also referred to bankruptcies. Most farmers do not wait for bankruptcy; they sell out when they can still see some hope of getting out of the situation with a few dollars. Surprisingly, the inflated price of land has had something to do with farmers staying in business. With the price of a farmer's land rising almost on a daily basis, a farmer finds that he can always sell his land to pay off his debts.
To date the government has admitted to the existence of a crisis. The government has projected disaster in some areas but it has suggested only band-aid treatment, but now it seems to be running out of band-aids. The government is cutting back on some programs which have helped farmers. Agencies, such as the Farm Credit Corporation, have less money this year than last. In some cases, instead of applying a band-aid, the government is applying a tourniquet. We all know what happens if you leave a tourniquet on for too long-the limb eventually drops off. That is what is happening in certain parts of our agricultural industry today. I sometimes wonder wheth-
Agriculture
er the government is trying to slip that tourniquet around the neck of the industry. Instead of solving the problem, it would eliminate that industry entirely.
The motion before the House is an omnibus motion. It covers many areas. There is good reason for that.
The approach of this government offers no real solution to the problem. This motion is an attempt to impress on the government the need for a co-ordinated approach to the crisis, which is, in fact, a disaster in agriculture. We need a planned and co-ordinated approach rather than a patchwork or band-aid approach. We need a plan which deals with high interest rates, the cost-price squeeze, high land prices, marketing problems, the emergency drought situation, transportation, rail line abandonment, and so on. We need Canadian foreign policy which does not use food as a weapon against the poor in other countries.
My party will be presenting some solutions to the crisis in agriculture. Some of our difficulties today are related to the failure of the stabilization program which has become a tattered patchwork quilt rather than insulating the farmer from the vagaries of the market place.
Many producers are upset by the recent decision not to pay hog support to producers receiving provincial support. Farmers in Saskatchewan will not receive hog support on their first 1,500 pigs. We agree with the government that an equitable national hog stabilization program is needed. However, the government has failed to provide that.
Farmers would support a national plan based on the cost of production rather than the present average market price with contributions by the federal government and the producers. This should be available for all commodities. The government should put its principles into practice. The Minister of Agriculture expounds these principles on a daily basis. Rather than just talking about orderly marketing, he should do something about it.
Plebiscites could be held under draft legislation which could be produced and debated, or the producers could have votes under the Farm Products Marketing Act to set up an agency for marketing of pork. New legislation might be required for beef. This would be a method of achieving lasting stability and fair prices.
The NDP motion seeks a policy which would put into place long-term stabilization plans. If an effective national stabilization plan is implemented, it must be based on certain principles. First, the program should be national to avoid provincial balkanization because some provinces produce more than others. Since agriculture is a shared responsibility, this will require provincial negotiations. Second, payments should be based on cost of production not on the average market price which may bear no relation to the cost of production. Third, the program should be funded by federal contributions and producer premiums, and payments should be quarterly. Fourth, a ceiling on eligibility should be included to discourage large scale corporate farms and encourage the family farm.

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
Fifth, the program should be available for all farm commodities and include segments of the industry which are separate marketing entities, such as cow-calf operations and weaner pig operations.
If this program is to operate in conjunction with a tariff and quota system oriented toward maintaining Canadian farm production and food processing with orderly marketing where possible, such a program need not be either costly or in constant operation. However, it should be in place so that it is there when it is needed.
We are losing our food production capacity in many vulnerable commodities such as fruits and vegetables. These sectors must be preserved and encouraged to expand. Without this kind of income insurance, this will not happen. The NDP policy would be to establish a stabilization program which would keep all farmers in operation and ensure them of an adequate income.
Over the past few months there has been much talk about interest rates and crushing debt loads which are affecting farmers and will affect them as long as the present high interest rate policy is maintained. Less has been said about the fact that high interest rates also affect the price the farmer receives for his product.
I would like to give one example. On November 21 last, before this current round of increases in interest rates, No. 1 Canadian western red wheat sold for $7.42 a bushel. Yesterday it sold at $6.40 a bushel, a lower price by more than a $1 a bushel. Why do I say the price dropped because of high interest rates? At high interest rate levels, buyers are not willing to keep much grain on hand. They reduce their inventories and consequently less grain is sold. Sellers do not want to move their product as quickly; they want to get the highest possible price.
Rapeseed prices have also been affected by this phenomenon. This loss of $1 per bushel in income along with high interest rates will affect the farmer considerably. He will have $1 per bushel less to meet the $2 billion commitment in interest payments which the Minister of Agriculture so carefully explained to us on Monday. The amount of interest paid by farmers right now is fully one third higher than it was last year. Farmers are caught in a classic cost-price squeeze. The cost of farming is increasing. The amount of income available to meet costs is decreasing sharply because of lower prices. Both these conditions are being caused by a conscious policy of this government to keep interest rates high.
Under these circumstances I think the government should have more than just a friendly chat with the Canadian Bankers' Association to try to do something about high interest rates. I believe the time has long passed for governments to consider debt relief and a moratorium on debt payments by farmers who have reached the point, as mentioned by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on Monday, of requiring $8 per bushel to pay the interest on the money they borrowed to buy the land. The situation has developed to such
an extent that the particular farmer about whom the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville was speaking, who owns a farm valued, now with inflated prices, at $400,000, finds that on every bushel of grain he sells he needs about $2 to pay the interest. Why should he farm? He could sell out, invest the $400,000 and get a foreign investor to buy his land, and he would earn about $60,000 a year in interest. Then he could sit back and watch a young Saskatchewan boy rent the land from this foreign investor. That young man would never be able to hope to buy the land under the circumstances established by this high interest rate policy.
The demise of the family farm, which again was discussed on several occasions last Monday, is part of the result of this kind of a policy. We believe the Farm Credit Corporation should attempt to meet the needs of the farmer for credit at a level which would allow him to survive. It might even be necessary to provide funds at a very low interest rate, possibly with only a service charge, to make it possible for the farmer to survive. We also need more money in that particular fund so it is not underfunded, as seems to be the chronic situation.
I would now like to turn to an issue that has occupied a considerable amount of my time and the time of this House of Parliament, and that is Canadian participation in the grain embargo on the Soviet Union which began 17 months ago, on January 4. I wish my time could have been spent a little better in this last few months. It has been no great pleasure to continuously ask the government what it is doing about this particular situation. It has been no great pleasure to be talking to a government which has been following a U.S. policy which has meant that innocent populations were denied food, with Canada dangerously alienating our best grain customer, the Soviet Union.
In the 17 months the government has been attempting to give us some answer, it has continuously suggested it would pay the farmers compensation because of the fact that farmers were the people who took the brunt of a decision made by both governing parties over that period of time.
Back on April 15 of last year I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he intended to support the previous government's policy on the embargo, and his answer to that question was:
Indeed, Madam Speaker, that is our policy.
This commitment to assist the farmers has not been fulfilled. I am listed in Hansard index lists as having spoken on grain on 20 occasions in that period of time. Virtually every time I spoke in the House on grain I asked about the embargo, yet no one on the government side has been able to tell me how much, what grains or at what level farmers are to be compensated.
The grain embargo has affected the incomes of Canadian farmers. Are they not entitled to a public discussion about the compensation they have been promised? The embargo also affected the athletes of the country, and I think they also should be given an opportunity to discuss the government
June 3, 1981

policy which has forced them into the position of missing the Moscow Olympiad last year.
Do we as Canadians really understand and support the implications of this policy? Do we know that it has recently been applied in the United States to Mozambique, a very poor country? It was applied to Mazambique because that government dared to expel four U.S. diplomats whom it thought to be CIA agents. Do we as Canadians want to go along with this kind of policy which threatens physical starvation in return for actions which the U.S. does not like? Do we really value human life of innocent people so cheaply? I have yet to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) address himself to these questions, although there is no limit to the bureaucratic statements he has made in trying to keep the United States happy.
This motion condemns the decision taken by the government on the embargo, but it goes further, or it should go further. We should look at it and find out what the level of compensation should be.
Three or four studies respecting compensation have been undertaken. The Minister of Agriculture has refused to tell the House and the public at what level farmers will be compensated or what grains will be subject to compensation.
There has been no progress in the last 17 months in relation to the embargo. One of the studies was undertaken by a very august group which is probably the best analyst of grain marketing in this country. I will read the following statement from the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board:
However, having withstood much of the downward pressure from the expectation and harvest of large wheat and corn crops in the U.S., market prices in late December were showing signs of moving to higher levels in the winter. World demand remained strong with Chinese purchases continuing at a record level. The additional supplies of grain that could be provided by Canada during the winter months would be limited.
Then there was the embargo, prices went down and the Canadian Wheat Board will tell us that they went down, to the extent of a possible $100 million loss to farmers on wheat alone. A study, which I asked the Library of Parliament to conduct, showed a $ 150 million loss, or an average of approximately $ 1,000 per farmer. These two figures are approximately the same; one takes into account all grains and the other wheat only.
I would like to spend a few minutes on another matter. Over the years the New Democratic Party has devoted much time and effort to protecting the Crow rate. The Crow rate has been and still is a cornerstone in the development of agricultural policy in the west. What many people tend to overlook in Crow rate debates is that the question is far broader than simply the cost of handling grain. If I could convince a few hon. members opposite and to my right of anything this afternoon, it would be that the Crow rate does not involve a question of transportation economics alone. Rather, it is a question of the political economy of western Canada. The farmers of the west realize this. They know that the Crow rate is part of their birthright as farmers, and they know that the provinces of Alberta and
Agriculture
Saskatchewan joined confederation with this rate in force at the time of joining. Therefore, it is a de facto constitutional guarantee to them, just as much as language and religion are to all of us. If the wider political economy of the west is taken into account when we consider the Crow rate and if we remove the Crow rate, we threaten the established agricultural economy of the west. The statutory Crow rate guarantee should not be removed, and variable rates should not be put in its place. That is what the railways wish to do. The railways dress terms up considerably and suggest such variable rates be called incentive rates. If those rates were put into place, we would simply allow the railway companies to increase the volume at certain points and effectively to abandon lines which do not pay, which would make it more costly for the farmer to get his grain to market.
The Crow rate problem involves the amount of money farmers will get. They are already in a price-cost squeeze. If additional transportation costs are added to their other costs, the pressure on them to get out of farming will be increased.
I see that the time allotted to me is coming to an end. I had wished to cover a number of other matters. One such matter is the price of land. The price of land has become a major factor in the cost of production. On Monday many speakers spoke about the cost of land, but no one suggested a basic solution. I suggest that the government should be considering some basic solutions such as controlling what land stays agricultural and what land does not. We should be looking at such things as increased farm size, which is causing the price of land to go up. We should be looking at foreign investment in farm land. We should be looking at speculation in farm land. Many people are buying land as a haven from inflation and have no intention of farming it. However, they are willing to pay almost anything for that land.
In closing, I wish to reiterate that agriculture is in a crisis situation which is approaching disaster. The band-aid solutions the government has used to try to stop this disaster are just not working. Farmers are being forced out of the industry on a daily basis. There will be a much greater movement out of farming throughout this year as well as when the effects of high interest rates are felt after the end of this crop year. What we are doing with this motion is calling on the government to put before this House a planned policy for agriculture which would deal with the problems of agriculture on a co-ordinated and far-reaching basis so that farmers can remain farmers and farm families can stay together.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems, which has plagued Canadian agriculture for decades, as all hon. members ought to know, is that Canadian farms have been losing their youthful population to the cities, where shorter working hours and higher wages have made the hard and risky life of farming seem an unfair burden. We have always had such an abundance of cheap food in this country that we have as a country been able to put this problem on the back burner, paying only lip service to the crisis toward which this situation was building. Today, June 3, 1981, we may see recorded in the census a welcome reversal of the trend of past

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
censuses toward a depleted agricultural population growing older decade after decade.
In 1966 when the mid-term census was taken, only 13.5 per cent of Canadian farmers were under the age of 34, while nearly twice as many were over the age of 60. Ten years later, in 1976, there had been a change. The number of younger farmers had increased marginally, and the number of farmers at or near retirement age had declined slightly in percentage terms. It is obvious how important this trend is to Canadian agriculture.
Farming is hard work, and learning to farm well takes a long time, so long that it is almost true to say that one must be born to it. Obviously, if the majority of those born to farming continue to leave farming, there must come a point when there are too few farmers to produce food for the urban population. What saved us from ever reaching that point in Canada is that although our farm population was declining and getting older, both at once, it was also increasing its productivity tremendously through improved methods of agriculture. But these improved methods have depended on two forces: first, a great increase in the use of expensive machinery, expensive fuels and expensive fertilizers and pesticides; and second, a great deal of very important agricultural research to develop new seed varieties, new crops and newly introduced livestock breeds as well.
Two things have happened to agriculture in recent years which have created a brick wall for this kind of productivity increase. First, the cost of fuels and petroleum-based fertilizers which made these spectacular productivity gains possible has skyrocketed.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) just yesterday delivered another hefty blow to agriculture by adding nine cents to a gallon of gas. In the long run, consumers who will be paying for this increase by driving their cars will also be paying for it through increased food prices. But in the meantime, farmers are paying it, just as their crop year gets fully under way. They face the immediate pressure brought upon them by a budget that makes no allowance for cheaper prices for fuels used in food production, as the budget of our previous government did.
The other thing that has happened to agriculture is that the very valuable efforts of Canadian agricultural research are not being supported as they should be by this government. Research pays dividends many times the cost of research, but they come slowly and without much fanfare, and so a government that wants to cut costs in a showy manner yields, as this one has done, to the temptation to let agricultural research lie fallow, even though it is an investment that can profit us all whether we grow food or consume it.
Now that we have run up against this brick wall, making further productivity gains harder to achieve, we must hope that young farmers will still be attracted into farming, for it is as certain as snow in winter that older farmers cannot continue forever to put food on Canadian tables. We may all hope that
today's census shows that the average age of Canadian farmers has declined further, and that we have definitely reversed the trend that was creeping up on us. Civilizations have died because their land base was depleted. We are foolish if we think that we, as an industrial society, are somehow exempt from this law of nature.
Another trend we might hope to see from today's census is a continuation of the trend toward higher farm incomes. Certainly we cannot hope to hold younger farmers on the land if easier and higher incomes continue to draw them to the cities. During most of the 1970s, farm incomes were beginning to edge up toward the average for Canadians as a whole. But in 1970, farmers earned on average only 42 per cent of what male workers as a whole earned, and by 1978 they still earned less than four fifths of the average. There are some compensations in life on the land to make up for the lesser income, but something of frightening proportion has happened since 1978 to create a crisis in agriculture that is this year growing much worse. Land costs, of course, increased tremendously throughout the 1970s, but farmers can live with that. Their problem is that they must finance the purchase of their land over many years and at the same time cope with the enormously increased costs of necessary machinery, more efficient buildings, and much higher annual operating costs.
Now, how is a young farmer going to do this? Well, the answer is apparent. Many of them cannot. Because it blindly follows a policy of short-term advantage, this government negotiated a few years ago a beef import quota that allows considerable surpluses of U.S. beef into Canada and depresses prices. The result is that most Canadian beef farmers are now operating at a loss. Any businessman can carry a loss for a while if he is efficient. But this year farm bankruptcies are up by 70 per cent over the first quarter of last year. And we can certainly expect to see considerably more farm bankruptcies this year, particularly in my province of Ontario. Obviously, many farmers cannot carry the losses they are now facing. And among those who are not bankrupt, many farmers are watching their equity decline month after month. There are beef farmers in Ontario paying $80,000 a month in interest payments to finance their operations. If the costs of borrowing were normal, they would possibly be in a slight profit position.


Eugene Whelan: Eighty thousand dollars?


Murray Cardiff: That is right, $80,000. I can take you to a farmer who is paying $80,000.


Eugene Whelan: A month?


Murray Cardiff: At present, far from being able to make a profit that allows them to retire some of their long-term debt for land purchases so that their equity position improves, many are watching the equity they have already built disappearing, while those important younger farmers who should be feeding us tomorrow are finding in increasing numbers that they cannot even manage to hold on to their land. There are too many reports of farmers in Ontario selling their cattle, hogs and quite often their breeding stock because they are in
June 3, 1981

default on interest payments and, quite often, on their principal payments. There is a similar situation in Ontario as well where we are seeing very good productive farmland sold to quite often foreign investors and then leased back to the former owner for at least a five-year term. That seems to be the only way that some of the young farmers can stay on the farm and, hopefully, in the next five years will be in a position to buy at least a small piece of land in order to stay in agriculture.
This is a crisis, Mr. Speaker, not only for farmers but for all of us. Recent reports showing that consumer confidence is at its lowest ebb since early 1978 ought to be causing alarm bells to ring in the heads of this government opposite. We live in a country that can and should be growing, producing more and employing more people. Of course, inflation is a major problem, but it is being aggravated by this government. The high interest rates caused by government policy of depressing demand must either put more farmers out of business or put food costs up by more than is necessary. Only a very sinister government would even attempt to make it more difficult than necessary for Canadian families to buy food. But clearly, if farmers must pay interest rates that range up to 22 per cent or higher in order to buy seed, fuel and fertilizer, or to buy calves to raise, then they must pass on this cost in the price of their produce. The structure of the food industry is such that these higher prices at the farm gate are subject to markups that are figured in percentage terms, not in mere dollar terms. Thus the increase in the farmer's cost of production is magnified as the percentage markups all along the line are built into the price the consumer must pay. Even trucking the marked up food to market has taken a cost leap since midnight last night. Clearly, then, the present high interest rate policy is fuelling inflation in this most vital of all areas of consumer spending.
All these pressures are faced by farmers, Mr. Speaker. Higher land financing costs, higher cost of seed, fertilizer and fuel, as well as livestock, and tremendously increased rates to finance the cost of all these higher prices, are hitting farmers, while imported meat keeps the prices paid to Canadian farmers temporarily low. I say temporarily because once Canadian farmers go out of business in great numbers, there will be no more cheap imports. We will be in the position in agriculture that we are in energy where an incompetent government has just added 9 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas because it has followed a policy that depresses Canadian production and increases the need for imports. Today the consumer can see quite clearly how dearly this government intends to make him pay for its clumsy energy policy, and some day soon the consumer is going to face similar unnecessary burdens because of its clumsy agricultural policy.
We on this side of the House have recognized that the way to combat inflation is not by forcing food prices to rise because of a high interest rate policy added to the higher input costs, but to shelter the crucial food sector from any unnecessary exaggeration of the general rise in the costs of production. We who first introduced the small business development bond because we know that small business creates most of the jobs
Agriculture
in this country have recommended again and again that this interest-cutting program should be extended to unincorporated farms as well. It is the consumer who will benefit from lower interest costs to farmers, not farmers themselves. By keeping the cost of food when it leaves the farm gate as low as possible, we would be helping to contain the added cost of the percentage markups added after food leaves the farm gate and moves through the processing, distribution and merchandizing system. If this government is at all serious about controlling inflation, Mr. Speaker, it would realize that its wisest course is to stop trying to make tax dollars out of the business of farm credit, and allow the small business development bond to be used by Canada's family farms, to everyone's long-term advantage.
This of course is not a permanent solution to the problem of farm credit, Mr. Speaker. Some more stable method of farm financing is necessary if we are to preserve the extremely efficient farming system we have developed. We need only to look at the dismal state of a country like Poland to see how lucky we have been that an efficient, self-motivating agricultural economy has continued in Canada to provide us with food as cheap as any in the world, or nearly so.
If we are to preserve this kind of efficiency in the future, then we need to provide the necessary financing instruments to help young farmers and expanding farmers buy their land and facilities. What we on this side of the House have suggested time and time again is an increase in the funding available to the Farm Credit Corporation. It is a very useful instrument for farmers who, along with the high costs of what they must buy and of the money they must buy it with, must also pay high prices for their land and buildings. The trouble is that there is not and never has been enough money for the Farm Credit Corporation. If the government cannot provide the lending capital itself, it should be bringing in legislation now to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow in the commercial markets. What is needed from the government is the means of making that commercially borrowed money available to farmers at rates that do not force them to contribute to inflation. No doubt the finance minister believes that any mechanism to keep interest rates low when the Farm Credit Corporation is borrowing commercially must involve a drain on the treasury. But the finance minister might do well to weigh the costs of such a policy against the benefits. Revenues that are forgone in the interest of decreasing Canada's rate of inflation may replenish themselves in the savings realized in government expenditure later. Considering that the federal government will be paying indexed pensions to more retired civil servants than Canada has farmers, it is clear that the finance minister ought to be seeking ways of ensuring that he does not contribute to inflation through a misconceived policy.
It is important too for Canadian senior citizens that the costs of food be contained. Taking steps to ensure that food production costs are not pushed up by interest rates is clearly part of the duty of the government toward senior citizens for whom food costs are a very important item in the budget.

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
Canada's agricultural community is very strong. What it needs from government, above all, is a stable environment in which to operate. Increased lending power for Farm Credit is an important element in stabilizing farm financing, but it is apparent to all who deal with the Farm Credit Corporation that it also needs an improved operating budget. For too long now it has been starved of sufficient funding to maintain an adequate staff in its field and regional offices. This necessary area of the public service merits the kind of concern which has been shown for the propaganda arms of the government, such as the Canadian Unity Information Office and certain branches of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is clear from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not brought in legislation to deal with the enormous problems facing farmers that he has little clout in the present cabinet. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) will not listen to the Minister of Agriculture, then it is time he listened to reason and recognized that the agricultural sector is of the most basic importance to the economy and deserves to have its productivity enhanced, not destroyed by Canadian government policy.
Similarly, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), regardless of what he may think of the Minister of Agriculture, should recognize the need for an effective administration of existing agricultural programs and should ensure that his cabinet colleagues do not squander on propaganda money which should be spent on programs like the administration of farm credit.
There is one area in which the Minister of Agriculture has recently shown his disregard for the responsibilities he carries, that is, in the area of stabilization payments. Beef producers in my riding and elsewhere who pay as much as $80,000 a month in interest charges on their operating capital have been told, along with cattlemen everywhere else, that they do not qualify for stabilization payments this year, even though they are marketing cattle below their total costs of production. How the Minister of Agriculture can justify not making stabilization payments when this named commodity is being marketed below the cost of production is an interesting and unanswered question.
One of two things should be explained by the minister. Either he should explain how it is that the prices being received for cattle are too high to justify stabilization payments, or he should explain how it is that he can permit a situation where farmers are producing beef at a loss now and still getting more than 90 per cent of the average price over the past five years. Either way, the failure to pay stabilization on beef cattle is a clear indication that the minister's policy is a failure in the beef industry.
In the hog industry his failure is even clearer. It is also calculated bad policy designed to create discord among the provinces. Presumably discord among the provinces is seen as a source of national unity by the minister's cabinet colleagues. When the hog stabilization subsidy was announced a week or so ago, the minister announced that he would be spending about $100 million on the program this year. A while ago he
told us he expected the plan would cost about $146 million. But presumably the minister was told that his ministry was not important enough, when compared with spending money on promoting the Liberal view of Canadian unity, and was told to cut back on the program.
Well, he found an ingenious way of doing so. He has saved $46 million he expected to spend by cutting some provinces out of their share of the hog subsidy. In particular, Ontario suffers. The press release announcing the hog stabilization payments indicates that hog producers in Ontario will receive $3.63 per hog less than hog producers in provinces like Quebec on their first 1,600 hogs.
The reason given is that Ontario has a hog stabilization plan and that those producers who are covered by it will be receiving $3.63 per hog from the provincial government. The fact is that Ontario does not have a hog stabilization plan. It has a weaner pig stabilization plan, just as Quebec has. Market hogs are not covered under the Ontario plan, and weaner pigs are not covered under the federal plan. Clearly, under the legislation, Quebec hog producers are entitled to full federal coverage for their market hogs up to the limits of the plan, and so are farmers in Ontario.
Judging by his press release, the minister appears not to know the situation in his own province. The same lack of knowledge seems to govern his thinking when it comes to Alberta and British Columbia. One can sympathize with the minister's desire to save money, but to try to do so by making unreal and incorrect distinctions among the provinces is not only unfair and inequitable, but it makes a mockery out of the federal stabilization system. Many provinces have their own stabilization plan for hogs because the federal plan is so inadequate, paying only 90 per cent of the five-year average in the preceding five years. Ontario's own plan was brought in after close consultation with federal officials. The minister himself recognized that the federal plan is inadequate when he proposed two or so years ago to bring in a plan guaranteeing 100 per cent of the previous average market price, with producer involvement in the plan.
This plan was shelved, but provincial plans serve the need which the federal government will not serve. Now, through lack of knowledge or something worse, the Minister of Agriculture has made a mess out of the stabilization program in two of the commodities named for stabilization programs. He has undermined the value of provincial programs, since those producers who joined the provincial plan in Ontario- and perhaps those in other provinces-are penalized compared with those who did not join. The minister might object that those in the provincial plan receive the same money as those in the federal plan, but it is not true. The producers who enrolled in the Ontario sow weaner stabilization plan pay part of the costs of that plan directly and would still be behind those who did not enrol to the full extent of the premiums they have paid.
This seems like a clumsy attack on the provincial stabilization programs by a minister who has demonstrated that he cannot run the federal plan with anything like the degree of stability producers need, if they are to operate effectively in
June 3, 1981

producing Canada's food. Perhaps his cabinet colleagues, who no doubt have told him to go and save money, will know how to help him out of this ridiculous position.
All in all the farmers of this country who once had considerable respect for the Minister of Agriculture, whether or not they agreed with his policies, are wondering what has happened to agricultural policy at the federal level, and so are their provincial governments. The present high interest rates policy, operating in the food production sector where there is no excessive demand to be curtailed, is feeding inflation in this most vital of all spending areas-food. The stabilization program designed to bring order into the fluctuations of price, which can cripple production, is being used as a clumsy tool of unrelated government ambitions while the industry it was designed to serve is being denied the full legislated benefits of the stabilization program.
It is time for the government to get its house in order in fulfilling its responsibilities to the agricultural sector of the Canadian economy. It is time for legislation to bring the Farm Credit Corporation and the stabilization programs up to what is needed to meet present realities, and it is time to ensure that farm financing is protected from insane interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this week that opposition parties have given us an opportunity to debate agriculture policy. I welcome their interest and concern, but I would welcome it even more if I felt they had expressed the same interest and concern in assisting us to move legislation through the House, particularly some of the agricultural bills which have been ready for some time.
It is difficult to understand why the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) would use this day to debate agriculture, since we have already used one day this week. He knows full well that there is an agriculture bill before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. That committee of the House of Commons should be dealing at this very moment with that bill and possibly finishing with it. I realize the hon. member does not have a high opinion of what that piece of legislation is capable of doing, and I know it has some shortcomings, but it is a bill which the agricultural community has requested for a long, long time. It should be given speedy passage in the House.
As I said the other day, we are talking about agriculture probably instead of acting. Some of the things which have been said in the House are not accurate. Hon. members opposite have talked about me not being well-informed. When we talk about beef subsidization, we use the calendar year, for example, from January 1 to the end of December, 1980. The facts are available to anyone. The formula used by the stabilization board shows no payment for that year. We are using 90 per cent of the average of the last five years, which is statutory, and we must use current input costs. It shows no payment for that particular calendar year.
Agriculture
The big thrust that beef producers felt, as far as extra costs are concerned, especially in interest rates, was from the first of January, and maybe a short part of December, into the first four months of this year. That is where they really felt it and it really hurt, plus the fact that that is when the cattle from the U.S. came in here and depressed the market from 10 cents to 15 cents a pound, live weight. This would have destroyed, as I said the other day, anything that I may have been giving in subsidized interest rates, etc. However, that is what the Canadian Cattlemen's Association wants. They want a free movement of live cattle back and forth across the border. They have lambasted me for saying that we should have some kind of controls on that type of thing. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) who just spoke said that I did not know what was going on. I certainly do know what is going on when cattle can move in, say, to the province of Ontario and take over 24 per cent of the slaughter market week in and week out. That is the system which the Canadian Cattlemen's Association has advocated for a long, long time. When I interfered with that, and when I put quotas on live cattle coming into Canada, who objected and wrote to all my cabinet colleagues, and said, "Do not let the Minister of Agriculture do that"? The Canadian Cattlemen's Association wrote every one of them at that time. I do not pretend to be a messiah, or anything.


David Kilgour: Just a socialist!


Eugene Whelan: I do not pretend to be as smart as the hon. fellow who is making the noise over there. He would not know how to feed a sow or cow or how to take care of them in any fashion or form, either, as far as that goes.


David Kilgour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is a completely incorrect statement, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be in the cattle business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Eugene Whelan: Yes, I can imagine how the hon. member is in the cattle business. I can imagine for what reason.
However, I just want to say that the cattlemen have asked for the kind of a system they have, and they are the ones who are suffering the consequences. It is not of my doing, because the Americans did not even fill one third of the quota we gave them; but they retaliated on veal, they retaliated on pork and in other fashions. This is what I am saying, when we say that the trade system does not work the way it should.


David Kilgour: Gene, you don't know what you are talking about!


Eugene Whelan: The free market system does not work at all, and it had a depressing effect on cattle, which it should not have had.


David Kilgour: Socialize it, Gene!

June 3, 1981
Agriculture


Eugene Whelan: The fact that there was overproduction of pork in Canada also had a depressing effect on all other forms of meat consumed in Canada, whether it be poultry or beef. That was the free, productive system working to its full capacity or capability.


David Kilgour: So let's socialize the industry!


Eugene Whelan: Some of the most efficient producers in Canada are suffering unnecessarily. It is not because of being non-productive, but as a result of putting too much product on the market. In essence, what some of the hon. members are suggesting is that we subsidize the U.S. economy because, for instance, pork products-


David Kilgour: Balderdash!


Eugene Whelan: People are going bankrupt in the pork production industry. For instance, practically 30 per cent of their production goes to the United States. Therefore, they are putting it in the United States below the cost of production, and yet they are saying to the federal government that it must subsidize them. We are not controlling them on subsidization. They are making their own decisions. The finance establishments of this country were the ones which lent them the money.
Referring to the Farm Credit Corporation, it was set up to be the lender of last resort, not the lender of first application. It was to be the lender after all other lending institutions said no. Therefore, we encourage the private lending institutions to get into the lending business. However, it is obvious to me that a lot of them did not know what they were doing and did not understand agriculture. They made tremendous loans to these people.
When one talks about giving them the short-term money and paying $80,000 a year in interest, we know that that is reference to no ordinary farm. I am talking about some of the young farmers who are maybe paying $80,000 a year in interest, and then having the banks move in and foreclose this year because they get scared. I am saying that the banks should be giving them a stay of time, because I am sure some of these red meat industries will come around in time, but they need a stay so they can get back on their feet. However, they need some better marketing system than they have at the present time.
I have probably farmed as much in this country as anyone has, as much as many agricultural people, and more than most, as far as that goes. Sometimes we have talked with farm organizations, agribusiness groups with special concerns, service clubs, you name them, chambers of commerce or boards of trade. We have talked to them about agricultural policy to try to get their opinions.


David Kilgour: That's just terrific!


Eugene Whelan: -to try to get their opinions.


David Kilgour: Just speak to the subject, Gene; do not tell us what a great guy you are, okay?


Eugene Whelan: Well, Mr. Speaker, you have an assistant over there who seems to want to sit in your chair. I do not know. Maybe Your Honour should offer it to him, because the hon. member seems to be an expert on everything.


David Kilgour: Just speak to the motion, Gene.


Eugene Whelan: So the hon. member is giving Your Honour a little free advice, which is about as much as it is worth, too.


David Kilgour: Oh, that's fantastic!


Eugene Whelan: In most cases, my speeches are printed. I have to say they are made available to the media and to a wide range of interested people. I am sure that the hon. member from the New Democratic Party opposite must be on the mailing list. When I read the list of things which they say should be part of a national agricultural policy for this great country, I feel as though I am reading some of my own speeches. That must be where the hon. member got the idea.


David Kilgour: Sit down, Gene!


Eugene Whelan: I just want to say that it is easy and to see that the NDP members opposite have never had the responsibility of being in office and forming the government. Converting policies into laws, plans and programs is not something which is done at a snap of one's finger. We are a responsible and representative government, and the laws must be debated and approved both by the Commons and the Senate. What is even more important, as far as agriculture is concerned, is that we are a confederation of provinces. Each of those ten governments has considerable jurisdiction and authority in the field of farm policy.


David Kilgour: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We worked very closely together. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce referred to stabilization. It is longer than two years ago that I proposed to the provinces that we join in a national stabilization program. This would produce harmony. I know the hon. member knows, just as well as I do, and just as sure as he is sitting there, what the farm organization said about Whelan's plan at that time. It said it was too lucrative and would cause too much production. That would have been with producer and federal government participation. Only one province really endorsed that, that is the province we both come from, namely, Ontario. The province said it was a good program and should proceed, but we did not have enough participation from the rest of Canada, so it did not. Now, from the telegrams, letters, and responses from delegations I am receiving, it is evident that they want that kind of plan. However, that kind of plan was proposed to them again two years ago. We will be talking to them again, not this month, but in July, when we meet with the provincial ministers in Alberta. At that time, we will again be proposing harmonization and stabilization to see if they will pick it up.
I am sure that all hon. members of this House are well aware that we have a national stabilization program. It provides for mandatory stabilization of a certain number of what
June 3, 1981

are called named products, which include beef and pork. It also provides for any commodity to be covered in any year which is so designated. If producers make representations to me, and I feel that their representations are proper and that it should be a designated product, then we name it and go ahead and designate that product in faith. The record shows that we have used it time and time again for those producers who say they are affected by overproduction or an influx of crops in some other part of Canada or some other part of the world which depresses the prices which they are receiving for their crops here.
However, over the years, various provinces have chosen to implement their own stabilization program based on what commodities they think are most important to their areas, and also based on what their provincial treasuries can carry. I have been strongly opposed to this from the beginning. It balkanizes farming in Canada and works against the basic idea of confederation. Provinces have agreed, time and time again, not to piggyback and not to pile their programs on top of any of our federal programs. However, that is the very thing they are doing and the very thing they said they would not do. They said they would not piggyback on top of any of our programs.
Therefore, in essence, when we are working this out on hog stabilization, I can honestly say to Your Honour that my cabinet colleagues did not interfere at all, because that is a mandatory program. I make the decisions on how the payments will be made after I receive advice from the stabilization board. We have told them time and time again that to provide economic equity, we cannot have, say, a rich province putting in a program, while a province which does not have those economic resources has no program. We cannot say to them, "All you are going to get is a federal program, but you are paid as much as $12 a hog plus the $8.96 we are giving you, so you will receive over $20 a hog," while a person, say, in Manitoba will only receive the $8.96 and must depend solely on the federal program. There are provinces in Canada which have that kind of program. There are other provinces that have income assurance programs, such as British Columbia. Under that program they took our money, which is their right as that was the arrangement, but they objected to the way in which we ran it. All anyone has to do is to check the records and the precedents set under ASA 75 and see that the bill says very clearly that there must be fairness in the administration of the act. That is what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to provide equity for pork producers. No matter what part of the country they are in, they are competing for the domestic market or the international market and economic equity must be provided for them.
It is wrong for anyone to say that I do not know what is going on with the hog industry in Ontario. I am well aware of the agricultural programs in the province of Ontario. The federal government contributes many more millions of dollars to agriculture in Ontario than the provincial government does, although it has the economic resources to do more.
Agriculture
I object when my old friend, the minister of agriculture for Ontario, says that this is a federal responsibility. He should look around to see the programs that other provinces have put into effect for agriculture in their areas. The purpose of stabilization programs is to offer a stop-loss factor. It is poor planning for producers not to be concerned about how much the market can absorb, especially with perishable dairy and meat products and things that have a short storage life. It is just economic nonsense and economic suicide. The programs that the provinces started on their own have been wrong, Mr. Speaker. I know that.
For the first time this year we have built a provision into the hog stabilization program that deducts provincial payments from the federal payment. We do not deduct the payments made by producers. It has not been well received by those provinces that have supplementary programs, but has been praised by the others.
It is the one thing that I could do within my authority to bring about equal treatment of all Canadian producers. I will not belabour that point, Mr. Speaker.
On the subject of orderly marketing, I will also welcome any assistance members opposite would care to give. They can start with the beef and pork products. I do not think anyone has done more to encourage producers to adopt orderly marketing than I have, Mr. Speaker.
But the point is that to encourage is all that can be done. How farmers market their produce is up to them. The fact that dairy farmers and turkey, broiler and egg producers have established national marketing agencies, is a credit to them. They have brought order into the production and marketing of their commodities and at the same time they have undertaken to provide Canadian consumers with a steady supply of high-quality produce at reasonable and stable prices. The figures show, Mr. Speaker, that over the past 15 years, the consumer prices of commodities marketed national supply management programs have increased less than the over-all food sector of the consumer price index and far less than prices for beef and pork, where producers insist on operating under something they call "free enterprise." It is free for some but the people who handle the product make the same or a higher profit than they did before. The producer has no real trust in the market place. Under the pork and beef marketing systems which are operating in Canada today, the producers must take what they are given for the produce. There is a hodge-podge of pork producers' organizations trying to do a job of marketing the product. They have not done badly. To subsidize the United States and Japanese treasuries by selling their product below the cost of production is just economic nonsense, but in essence that is what they are doing.
As we saw on Monday, however, the demand for supply management in the hog industry is growing. Several hundred producers were here on the Hill to demonstrate their concern. A similar movement is growing in the beef industry as well, although the Canadian Cattlemen's Association likes to pretend it is just a small radical group.

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
1 base my view on the reports that come to me of meetings held in different parts of the country and on what the producers are saying. Some of them are even taking votes and the vast majority have voted for a better marketing system for their product.
Potato farmers in eastern Canada have just decided to form a marketing agency and I am confident that in a few years' time they will be operating a supply management system that gives them the same benefits enjoyed by dairy farmers and egg producers in other parts of Canada.
Not all commodities need national supply management to ensure an adequate return to the producer. There are more than 100 marketing boards across the country, operated by producers, helping them market their produce. For instance, Alberta has some of the strongest provincial marketing boards in the country and they are continuing to forge ahead. The Alberta pork producers have taken over a pork processing plant in Alberta and one in British Columbia. As directors, they have famous people who used to be members of this House-Dr. Hugh Horner and Dr. Bert Herridge, just to mention a couple of them.
Are these men incapable of making judgments and decisions? We all recognize them as capable men who have been very successful in other enterprises and they will be successful in this one. Why would Dr. Herridge offer his services as a member of a three-person beef commission which recommended a better system of marketing beef? It is because he recognized the failures of the beef marketing system which had been there since time immemorial. We had been marketing beef in a very old fashioned way. Not all producers need this type of system, but some of them do. The marketing boards provide a wide range of services for promotion, negotiating contracts, central selling and operating joint storage facilities.
Producers can accomplish many things by joining together to market their product. Five large supermarket chains distribute 65 per cent of the food that goes to the consumers of Canada. That means that over 300,000 farmers are trying to deal with five giants. The only way they can do that efficiently is by organizing themselves into a group that can negotiate a fair deal for them. Some of them are doing this. They are doing a good job and they are not ripping off the public.
I am not spending millions of dollars on those programs, Mr. Speaker. For instance, I am not spending one penny on the poultry industry. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce was formerly a member of a board in Ontario so he knows that there are contractual marketing boards in good old Tory Ontario. I grew crops for them at one time for vegetable processors and they did not give me anything for nothing, but if I were efficient and produced according to my contract, I could make a very good living. The hon. member knows that.
The farmers of Ontario who are operating under that system do not write letters to him or to me. They are not going bankrupt and they are making a decent living. There is the same kind of thing in some of the other provinces. Indeed, there are 110 such systems in Canada today. The jackasses who say that I created the marketing boards and who condemn
marketing boards should investigate to find out how fair they are. There are some people who think-even though our farmers are efficient-that they should not have any say in how their product is marketed. I am not saying there are not even some within government who think that way or some within the civil service who think that way, but there are certainly some in society who think that way also. This country is one of the few which has granted that right to producers. It was granted by legislative assemblies and this House. A Conservative Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, established the Canadian Wheat Board and that is the only time a marketing board was imposed in this country. He saw the necessity to put fairness into wheat marketing because of the unfair system that existed at that time.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall is not known for his liberalism. His report on the western grain transportation system was really a western Canadian agricultural report. What did he say? He said that if there was anything obvious to him, it was pretty near unanimous support for the Canadian Wheat Board, which was evident in nearly all of his reports on western Canada. When we have loud noise and things like that, we have wind which causes drought. There is a drought here in the intelligentsia on agriculture today, slightly to your left at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think there were two speakers before the minister. Courtesy was extended to both of them. I would invite hon. members to extend the same courtesy to the minister.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the national commodities that are marketed in a national forum, those with price setting capabilities which use a cost pricing formula, hon. members know that the products which are sold stay much below the inflation rate for food in Canada. If all products had stayed at about that rate, which is 9 per cent or 9.5 per cent, we would be the utopia of the world. But the products not grown under that system are the ones which are much higher.
Do hon. members remember there ever being a shortage of eggs, broilers, turkeys, etc., on the market? There never has. I have never given those producers one penny of taxpayers' dollars. I challenge anyone to find an industry, such as the egg industry producing one of the most perishable products in the world, which loses less than one half of 1 per cent of production. The loss is so small that you cannot measure it. In fact, there is no measure for it. The highest quality is put on the marketplace. Efficiency has never been greater in the egg industry than it is now. It used to take eight pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs. Now it takes less than four pounds of feed to produce a dozen eggs. Up to one third of the laying crop used to be lost to mortality; they died trying to lay eggs. Now veterinarians and scientists have come up with serums, with feeding and nutrition programs, less than one half of 1 per cent of the crop is lost. The efficiency that has crept into the egg production system of this nation is greater than nearly any other part of our society. You hear these know-nothings

say bad things about inefficiency, etc. But they have never been so efficient before.
I have just returned from a meeting of the World Food Council. All these things are being tried under socialist systems. In Yugoslavia it costs 25 cents to buy one egg. Think what a dozen eggs would cost. You do not buy a dozen eggs in Yugoslavia under that socialist system. We still have the independence of every farmer in a production unit. This is something which does not exist in their system. Ninety five per cent of our farm units are family owned and operated. They are very efficient and 95 per cent of our food is produced without any hired help. The family itself works. No other nation can claim that right. No other nation can claim the independence that our farmers have. No other nation can claim having vested in their farmers the right to run their own system, even as far as letting them sell their own products.
People say we have done nothing for agriculture. I know there are other things we can do, but we need the co-operation of the House and the co-operation of producers. I do not have to beg money from Treasury Board for these producers, as I am being asked to do for pork and beef producers, who stubbornly refuse to organize themselves a better marketing system so as to get from the marketplace what the products should return to them, which is a decent living for their managerial ability, for their capital invested and for their labour. That is all that is asked. No farmers have asked for exorbitant returns during my history with farm organizations or during my 19 years in this House of Commons. This is why I say we have such a healthy agricultural industry.
I visited the Winnipeg research station just the other day. A new variety of wheat is being placed on the market which will increase wheat production on the prairies in three years by 4 per cent. Scientists are working on several other varieties, including barley. Some varieties are almost ready to be released. But how long did it take our scientists to develop this new variety of wheat? It took 14 years to develop that one variety of wheat. Just imagine what a 4 per cent increase will do to production and to the economy of the prairie wheat-producing provinces. We have not lessened our drive on research. Research is the only area in my department which has had an increase. It was increased also by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). I have increased funds again this year. We are not downgrading research. We would like to have more money. In the federal system we do 98 per cent of all government agricultural research. The provinces do 2 per cent. With respect to public research, meaning universities and other such institutions, over 50 per cent is still done by us.
Agriculture Canada is the envy of the world with its agricultural production entity. Huge giants, for example, Russia and China and even the European countries, come to us wanting to sign agreements to work with our scientists so they can learn as much as we have.
The hon. member for Huron-Bruce knows that we are one of the most efficient pork producers in the world, but we are one of the worst marketers. I shall use an example I used the other
Agriculture
day. Denmark, no bigger in size than the distance between the city of Toronto and the city of Windsor, produces 12 million hogs. All of Canada, which comprises 4,000 miles from sea to sea, only produces 12 million hogs. There is one big difference: the Danish operation, from production, to genetic breeding, to processing, to selling on the world market, is run 99 per cent by the Danish farmers. Only 1 per cent is run by somebody else. Our pork is every bit as good as the Danish pork. I think in some instances it is better. Our pork is better than the pork produced in the United States or for that matter pork from any other part of the world. When you buy Canadian pork, there is at least 10 per cent less moisture in it compared to American pork. This is a result of our feeding programs.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) made some good suggestions with regard to the Farm Credit Corporation. Other members have made good suggestions as well. The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) made suggestions several weeks ago in a meeting of the agricultural committee. He suggested providing a trust corporation whereby farmers would be allowed to put some money into trust. They would accept a lower rate of interest, but the money in turn could be loaned to farmers. The Farm Credit Corporation will not be the sole answer to all problems, particularly when you see how some of our young farmers got into trouble, first by getting a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation, second a loan from their banking institution, and third getting a loan through some finance company for machinery.
There is no way that a minister could, even with pork prices being very good-


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


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that we have had two days of debate in one week on our agricultural industry. The agricultural industry is something we should be concerned about. After all, it is the oldest indusry we have in Canada. Why should we not be concerned about it? Why should we not have two debates in one week? Probably we should have three debates in one week. In my opinion, much guidance and help could be given to the agricultural industry by the present government. We must also realize that the agricultural industry is a changing one. It is not the agricultural industry it was many years ago.
I remember an experience I once had. I would say it relates in some respects to the agricultural industry today. In 1965 I met an elderly gentleman. By his name I could tell that he came from a very rich agricultural area in my riding. I asked this gentleman, by the name of McEachem, why his ancestors would have a very rich agricultural area like Eldon Township in Victoria County and move up to land where agriculture was non-existent, literally speaking. The area was comprised of lakes and trees. He told me that the same thing is going on today. He said that our young people are being forced to leave agricultural areas for the cities. He told me that 100 years ago

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
his ancestors came to the area because that was where the industry was, he said that history is repeating itself. The minister should keep this in mind when we talk about agriculture.
We must be aggressive in this field. We are forgetting that the entire lifestyle in agriculture has changed. People in the country want to enjoy the same things enjoyed by those in the city, and rightly so. They want leisure time and vacations. Our forefathers worked 12 to 18 hours a day on the family farm. The little red schoolhouse is gone. The farm children are bused to the larger schools where they mix with other people.
There is only one lifestyle today. There is not the city, town or country lifestyle which we had years ago. It used to be said "This boy comes from the country". Now we are all one. This is why we have to change our methods and our ideas concerning agriculture.
The minister and the government are forgetting about the increased cost of land. I will have something to say about the minister later. I know I am talking about something closer to his area than mine when I refer to an example in Dover township. I remember a chap who bought a farm 15 to 20 years ago for $60,000. The farm cannot be subdivided or developed in any way other than for agriculture. It is a low-lying area bordering the St. Clair River. When he sold the farm last year, he got $1.25 million for it. How could anyone in agriculture today on 200 acres even make the interest on that money? That is something the minister is forgetting about.
This industry needs proper supervision because of the many pitfalls. Let us look at machinery costs. When our forefathers settled this country, they used the services of the poor, humble horse which in return only required a flake of hay and a bucket of oats. It might have cost $125 or maybe less. The machinery that went with it cost very little more. To work the farm today, one of the cheaper tractors runs to $60,000. Most run to well over $100,000.


Mr. Bloomfield:: That's not right.


William C. Scott: I have some knowledge of tractors. I know that smaller tractors can be bought. I am talking about the farmer who goes out today to buy a tractor.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: That's not right.


William C. Scott: Well, I do not know the hon. member's background, but I do not think I am too far out on this. I know of many farmers who have paid $60,000 and they think they still have a small tractor. I do not think I am too far wrong.
What about financing and interest rates? How can we expect these people to have that kind of money? What does it cost to operate a farm? A while ago we heard from a chap who was paying $80,000 in interest on money for a feedlot. Are we
forgetting all this? Yet the farmer does not qualify under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Farming is industry. Some farming is big industry. This gracious government had all the answers in December, 1979. What is the cost of fuel to the farmer today? Diesel fuel costs have increased by 62 cents. What does my friend across the aisle have to say about that? It was his party in opposition which told us how to run the country. Where are their promises today? Why should the people have any confidence in this government? What about their promise for a better society which they made in the winter of 1980?
Last week I received a phone call from a farmer in my constituency. He not only complained about the high interest rates. I am not a corn grower; however, he asked me to bring this to the attention of the members of this House. He said that for a 45 gallon drum of Lastle corn spray he paid $1,000. I suppose this product has its origin in the chemical industry. In all fairness, I should mention that it probably would be diluted with water, but it is still pretty expensive spray for the corn field. This farmer will be meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) tomorrow in Toronto along with the provincial minister of agriculture.
This is one of the plights our farmers are facing today. We have been ignoring this industry. We bend the knee to the motor car companies and other manufacturers which do not make as great a financial contribution to the economy of this country as the farmer. There are those who think the farmer's price is fixed in the world market. Price setting is beyond his control. All he can do is lower his cost of production. How can farmers do that? The cost of their tractors, fuel, and everything else is increasing. The increases are staggering. For some, the only option is to sell their assets and their farm and try to salvage something before they lose everything. We should have begun to help this depressed industry long ago.
I now want to refer to the chain store and the specials they carry in the red meat sector. Last week pork was selling in some chains at the following prices: liver, 29 cents a pound; pork hocks, 49 cents a pound. The consumer cannot keep this meat forever. He could not buy it last week and have it for the rest of his life. Picnic pork shoulder roasts sold at 89 cents a pound; pork butt roasts at 99 cents a pound; pork legs, 99 cents; pork loin roasts, $1.29; pork butt chops $1.19; loin chops, $1.89; and side ribs, $1.49. What is the cost of production of that animal? Stop and think about that. The farmer probably received 63 cents live weight.
Let us now deal with the beef industry. The chains go in and offer so much money for so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of carcasses of beef. I am probably a little bit premature because the advertising is not out, but I can back up these figures. Blade roasts, cut and trimmed, this week will sell for $1.39 a pound. This is lovely for the consumer. The government realizes there are more consumers than farmers, so they do not give a darn which way it goes. They receive more votes from consumers than from farmers. Blade steak roasts will sell at $1.39 a pound, short rib roasts at $1.39, cross
June 3, 1981

rib roasts at $1.59, and rib steaks at $1.79 a pound. And we wonder what is wrong with our agriculture industry!
I will now deal with the Farm Credit Corporation. Not too long ago I went to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the case of a farmer who had gone bankrupt and was forced to sell. He had an 8 per cent mortgage. Three entrepreneurs came out. If they were connected with agriculture, it was very remotely at that time. They bought the farm and assumed the 8 per cent mortgage, the preferred farm credit rate of interest. It was a very good investment. This was brought to my attention and I confirmed it to the Farm Credit Corporation. It was true, and the minister said he would take steps to correct it. I honestly think he will. I have no reason to believe he will not. Probably he has taken care of it already.
I believe some of our Farm Credit Corporation people have too negative an attitude. When many of our young people try to buy a farm close to the family farm, which they need today to stay in production, they can get no positive response and are turned away. I suggest that the ones I have had experience with are very legitimate cases. Yet a chap or group not connected with agriculture can buy a farm or farms from underneath these young people, who I think have a right to wonder why.
The small business development bond is still denied our farmers. Our farmers are very capable business people and should not be denied the opportunity to take advantage of the small business development bond. I am not saying that is the answer to everything, but it would be a big help. I am asking why the Minister of Agriculture cannot get the farm community included under the provisions of the small business development bond program when he can go down to the Chrysler Corporation in Windsor with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) with huge grants. We have an agricultural industry we are so proud of but which is being depressed and set aside.
I am sorry the minister is not here as I would like to speak a little bit about him. I can assure Your Honour that I will be very kind, but I will be very honest. I have known the minister for some time, even before he was a cabinet minister. In the first election when he was the Minister of Agriculture I had more opposition from the present Minister of Agriculture than I did from the Liberal candidate in the riding, because people thought he was going to be the minister who understood the agricultural industry in Canada and was really going to help the farmers. The Liberal candidate who ran against me three times was rewarded with his Valhalla last week when he was appointed a judge.


An hon. Member:: What else is new?


William C. Scott: Yes, and that is just part of it.
This is not true today of the Minister of Agriculture. They think of him as a very kindly gentleman, but they do not think he is getting his fair share or is speaking up for them. This was
Agriculture
true to some extent in the last election, but it is very evident today that he has not fulfilled the dreams and wishes of the agricultural community in Canada. Probably he should rethink his approach to the agricultural industry.
I am not a farmer to any great extent, but I am proud to be associated with agriculture in a small way. I would hate to have somebody come along to me at some future date and say, "You can have so many cows, probably as many as you have now, but you can have no more". I do not say the minister's idea of marketing boards is all right. As far as possible we should have orderly marketing. But 1 think we will have to promote an educational system, and I am talking about the cattle industry.
Let me say something else to the minister. It is my prediction that we will see a great change in the red beef industry in Canada. When we can grow cash crops we will not be able to afford to have cattle on our prime lands. Our cattle will have to be raised on our less expensive agricultural lands. I know of many feedlots in Ontario that have been closed down. You can see them from the air, you can see many of them from the road, and I will name some of them. Probably some of these are in the riding of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy).
A very good friend of mine was chosen the agriculturalist of the year not too long ago in his home town by the Rotary Club, and I think the hon. member for Kent was there at the time. This man was in the cattle business but is out of it now. He was in the hog business but he has gone out of that too. It was not through poor management that Crawford Langstaff went out of those businesses. He went out of business because there was more in cash crops. It is true that he was sitting on some choice land. This is something that will have great influence on the way our agricultural industry will go, but it is something we must be prepared to live with and plan for.
The Minister of Agriculture said that we never imported eggs and we never imported broilers, and that we were the envy of many other agricultural countries of the world regarding our agricultural industry. We do not argue with that at all. However, I can remember not too long ago when we imported eggs. I can remember not too long ago when we imported broilers, and we still do. We import turkeys and we rent hens. If we want hens we go out and rent them to lay eggs. I know one chap who invited me into his egg farm. He had 19,000 laying hens and he did not own one. He rented them from a company. Who controls some of these industries? This chap was renting these hens from a company. I am sorry to say this guy is not in business today, but that is an example of some of the things that go on in the agricultural world.
When the minister said we were the envy of so many countries in regard to agriculture, I think probably this is the result of God's grace in nature, and because our agricultural people are farmers. That is probably the reason, more so than because of good government management. I do not think we can take credit for the fact tht we have bounteous agricultural areas and the way they produce. We luckily are situated geographically-

June 3, 1981
Agriculture


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I must interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time this week agriculture is the subject of debate in the House. To some extent I deplore today the fact that we were to appear before the agriculture committee to put more stress still on the beneficial effects of Bill C-46, the Meat Import Act. The motion introduced by the hon. member of the New Democratic Party contains six points, but I think that its main purpose is to say that the government should encourage the establishment of national agencies for the orderly marketing of all farm commodities. Surely the House is aware of the fact that we have in excess of one hundred marketing agencies, either federal or provincial.
Of course, through the National Farm Products Marketing Council, the federal government is responsible for three national marketing agencies, namely the Egg Marketing Agency, the Chicken Marketing Agency and the Turkey Marketing Agency. In addition, a few years ago the government established the Canadian Wheat Board and, more recently, the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is known that these marketing agencies have been a boon to Canadian farmers, perhaps more so in the case of milk since Canada is known for producing huge quantities of milk and dairy products which we sell on international markets. The Canadian Dairy Commission was not set up by milk producers. Heaven knows it was not a cinch! Suffice to recall the years 1974 and 1975 when farmers marched before the Parliament Buildings in groups, in huge delegations, to demonstrate and even decry the agricultural policies of those days. Since then, of course, the Canadian Dairy Commission has had very beneficial results, and I think that farmers who are now marketing dairy products would not leave that field under any consideration.
A while ago, the previous speaker referred to a farmer in his constituency who phoned him this week to complain that he had to pay $1,000 for a drum of grain corn spray, but the member forgot to say that ten years ago, the same drum might have cost $500. Ten years ago, grain corn cost $100 per ton compared to $175 today. He did not mention that fact. I referred to milk a moment ago. In 1968-70, milk cost $2 or $2.10 per hundredweight. At present, with the new indexation formula put forward by the Canadian Dairy Commission, the dairy producer gets $16 or $17-and the amount increases every three months-or even $18 per hundredweight.
Production costs have increased, of course, but the selling price of the finished product has also gone up substantially. Everyone knows that the profits derived from the orderly marketing of products by those boards and commissions are used to prevent the duplication of marketing services by
providing leadership to implement and enforce quality standards, to seek and develop new outlets and markets. Those boards advise producers and take care of promotion and publicity so as to increase the sales while guaranteeing to consumers a security of supply at reasonable prices and to producers a fair return for their investment, their work and their production costs. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is most important that I deal briefly with the protection which should be granted to farming, so that the farmer will get a fair return for his product, but there is also the consumer at the other end.
It must not be forgotten that in this vast country where our agricultural industry stands as one of the most prosperous in the western world, a mere 5 per cent of our farmers are living from the farm while the other 95 per cent are just plain consumers. This I have been privileged to see some weeks ago, when we had meetings with the various farm groups from each and every Canadian province. The Canadian Consumers' Association went on record as stating that farm prices were too high, especially with regard to milk, butter and cheese.
I think that what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Department of Agriculture have been trying to do during this past decade and have very well succeeded in doing has been to make sure that farmers get decent income while providing consumers with a healthy and stable supply of goods at competitive prices. And this is why recently, Canadian and even international statistics have shown that of all industrialized countries Canada still had the cheapest food basket. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that we have very good farmers, very good producers, but they must keep on being more efficient, and this is important. They must be increasingly efficient. Agriculture Canada, thanks to budget appropriations for research, aims at helping these farmers produce more, in order to lower production costs and, of course, protect consumers across the land.
These national marketing boards, at least the three that come under the National Farm Products Marketing Council and the Canadian Dairy Commission, have the authority to regulate supplies. This means they can monitor production to make sure that production levels meet consumer needs so that the market is never allowed to be glutted, as I will indicate later in the case of pork. It is a matter of more or less matching supply and demand, because these are the two main forces regulating the so-called free market. However, Mr. Speaker, we know about the controversy with respect to supply management. To put it mildly, the marketing boards have been widely discussed and, I feel, will continue to be for quite some time to come.
We live in a free society within the capitalistic system, where success is almost always linked with the concept of free competition. This of course is the law of efficiency, the guarantee of success. In the pork industry, for instance, the hon. member who spoke before me referred to the price of pork in food stores. Of course, consumers enjoy very low prices for
June 3, 1981

pork chops, pork roasts, bacon or any other pork cut. And of course there is still no marketing board. In Quebec, a vote was held only a few months ago on a quota-fixing agency. Assuredly, every province will have to fix quotas within its own boundaries, and later on, hopefully, but this is not for tomorrow, pork producers will ask their provincial organizations to set up a national marketing board, as has been done with other commodities mentioned earlier such as milk, chicken, turkey, etc.
It is a fact that hog overproduction on the North American continent has caused a price slump and the Canadian hog industry must sustain the impact of the Chicago Stock Exchange reaction. Our hog industry produced over 12 million hogs last year. In my own riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, hog production between 1979 and 1980 increased by as much as 27 per cent; similar increases were recorded in several other Quebec ridings, and elsewhere in Ontario, Alberta and Quebec, which are the main hog producing provinces. That is why the Agricultural Stabilization Board under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture will stabilize hog prices at $8.96 a carcass which should result in expenditures of over $100 million. This will certainly not cover all the losses incurred by the hog industry, but will nevertheless help hog producers plan their production.
I can assure the House that I recently had the opportunity to discuss the situation with Quebec hog producers, and was told that there will not be new producers and that production quotas will possibly be introduced at least in Quebec, and I think that Ontario and Alberta will probably follow suit. We export hogs to foreign markets, especially Japan. We produce excellent hogs. But what I want to say once again to the House is that the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture have come to grips with the situation and through stabilization will help this industry which, for the second year in a row, is going through difficult times because of overproduction.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is the same in all other areas of agriculture, and the government cannot intervene vigorously and impose marketing boards on Canadian farmers for every type of production. First of all, it must come from the grassroots and our producers themselves must say: We want to organize, join our forces, control our production. And I suggest that for many years the Minister of Agriculture has never abandoned Quebec farmers and that he supports this idea. On several occasions, he has asked Quebec farmers and especially hog producers to get organized as soon as possible.


An hon. Member:: That is consultation!


Marcel Ostiguy: Right. Historically, Mr. Speaker, marketing boards have been set up at the request of producers to solve problems of particular concern to each type of production
Agriculture
according to their needs and those of consumers and the possibility of increasing or reducing production depending on demand.
Markets for various commodities must also be taken into consideration. Naturally, a commodity for domestic consumption will not be dealt with in exactly the same way as another whose production exceeds domestic demand. In the latter instance we are at the mercy of export markets for selling our surpluses. Once again, when Canagrex is set up, it will help farmers, Canadian producers, dispose of excess production. We export over $1.5 billion worth of farm products and we need that Crown corporation, to be known as Canagrex, to help our farmers. Its agricultural development strategy will have four main objectives. First to promote the development of domestic and foreign markets for Canadian agri-food products. Second, to maximize the value of our agricultural production by ensuring that our resources are used to produce commodities whose markets are most attractive. Third, increase the productivity and efficiency of Canadian agriculture in order to give producers the best return possible while lowering the cost of food. And four, to stabilize farm income and maintain a steady supply according to market conditions.
That is but an outline of what Canagrex will be in a position to do, if hon. members will just give the Minister of Agriculture the time needed to introduce that very important bill in the House. Of course, we are not necessarily saying that this marketing board should be given supply management authority. The powers of such boards therefore have to be determined according to a lot of factors, and I have just mentioned a few. Very many things should be considered before steps are taken to have all the various types of agricultural production regulated by well-structured marketing systems. Mr. Speaker, we know what the Minister of Agriculture thinks about marketing boards. He had so very often the chance to take up their cause that it would be almost illogical to think that he does not favour marketing boards. I may repeat myself, but every time he meets with producers, he asks them to get organized into marketing boards.
Actually, the Minister of Agriculture not only stands up for the marketing boards which are already in operation but he favours also the setting up of new boards in areas where there are almost insuperable difficulties, and this is the case in the pork industry I have just mentioned. It is also the case in the potato industry in eastern Canada which has been in a difficult situation for many years.


An hon. Member:: This is the area of the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne).


Marcel Ostiguy: Yes, this is the area of the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
Two years ago, at the annual Agricultural Outlook Conference, our Minister of Agriculture met with his provincial counterparts and sought their support for the setting up of a

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
potato marketing board in eastern Canada. Since then, a technical committee of federal and provincial officials has met several times. The ministers also had the chance to discuss the subject further, and a task force was established to hold public hearings and report on the subject. The report which was tabled a few months ago recommended the setting up of a board which will emphasize the exploration for new markets and the promotion of the product, but which will not be empowered to manage supply. That is another one of this minister's initiatives which was put forward. The setting up of such an office is a democratic process which should be initiated by the base, namely, the farmers themselves, and all those involved in the industry; provincial authorities should also commit themselves.
Mr. Speaker, this democratic process works quite well in the case of the Potato Marketing Agency for Eastern Canada. And 1 believe we can expect some action in this area very soon. The early stages of a marketing board are not always easy, as is well known, and I mentioned this a moment ago in the case of milk. A breaking-in period is required before the system works well and the various components are welded into a smooth organization. At the outset, therefore, all parties concerned must agree and recognize the need for the system, otherwise all efforts are doomed to failure. I believe my colleague for Chicoutimi knows something about this for having worked strenuously as regional president of the Quebec Federation of Potato Growers. It is essential to proceed with restraint and without undue haste. I believe that in time, the whole agri-food sector in Canada, from producer to consumer, will benefit from this.
In the area of farm credit, it is true that as a result of the financial hardships experienced by many farmers because of high interest rates, some government action in the area of farm credit is being considered. This matter was raised in this House recently and the government is now considering the possibility of empowering the Farm Credit Corporation to raise part of its funding in the private sector. Total long-term credit extended to farmers-


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


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that, like others who have spoken before me today, I am not a farmer but many of my constituents are. Indeed, farming is the largest single industry in my constituency. For that reason and for the effects of agriculture on the whole of western Canada, today's debate is of great interest to me.
One of the most significant areas in which westerners feel the federal government is not working in their best interests is that of its present inadequate agricultural policies. At present the minister sports a stetson and western boots and gallops
about the country mouthing platitudes about helping farmers and fighting high interest rates charged by the banks, and making hundreds of other promises. For all his promises, he and his colleagues have been unable to do anything in a meaningful way to help the farmers.


Eugene Whelan: That is not true.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Perhaps the minister does not understand how serious is the situation of our farmers.


Eugene Whelan: We give them more money in Manitoba than the government of Manitoba does.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I know how he talks about high interest and farm incomes.


Eugene Whelan: You seem to forget about the herd maintenance program.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Also he talks about other problems, but perhaps it is just an intellectual exercise for him. I find it rather strange that hon. members on this side of the House were asked to extend a little courtesy to the minister when he was speaking, but he does not extend the same courtesy to me.


Eugene Whelan: I will, I will.


An hon. Member:: You are getting to him!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: While it might be an intellectual exercise for the minister, in my home province it is not an intellectual exercise. It is hard, cold economic reality, and it hurts.
In Manitoba last year total farm cash receipts were up only 6.9 per cent, while farm operating and depreciation charges were up 8.7 per cent. In other words, in 1980 the realized net income for the average Manitoba farmer increased by only 1.8 per cent. Considering that inflation was running at 11 per cent, Manitoba farmers lost quite a bit. If it was a bad year in general for Manitoba farmers, it was a particularly bad year for cattle and hog producers. Their cash receipts actually decreased by one half to one per cent. A little later I will talk about that.
What does next year hold in store? It will be more of the same. The projections that have been prepared call for a decrease of 8 per cent in the net income of Manitoba farmers in 1981. If the government has some agricultural policies, clearly they are not working. Certainly the government does not have the answers or, if it thinks it does, they must be the wrong ones.
Let me turn for a moment to some of the areas in which we feel the government has failed or taken wrong-headed actions. Perhaps the underpinning of our agricultural policies has to be a sound approach to the transportation of goods. My colleagues and I believe that for the further development of western Canada, the Crowsnest Pass freight rates are vital, must be maintained and extended.
Presently there seems to be a monumental battle taking place within cabinet as to how the Crow rate issue should be
June 3, 1981

resolved. We have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) staking his position; we have the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board in the other place with another position; we have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with a third position.
If that were not enough, we have the hon. minister from western Canada, who knows as much about transportation and freight rates as he knows about humility and women's rights, who also wants to get into the act. Of course, it is little wonder these ministers are confused. After all, Conservative provincial governments in Manitoba and Alberta tell them one thing, farmers' groups tell them another and the CPR, which incidentally contributes $35,000 to the Liberal party coffers, tells them something else.
The Crow rate is more than just a sacred cow. It is a vita! component in a transportation policy which allows us to sell our landlocked grain in the competitive international market. If the Crow rate were abolished and farmers were forced to pay the commercial rate for moving grains, prairie farmers would lose $320 million per year. In other words, each and every Wheat Board permit book holder would pay an additional $2,000. When one considers that this extra cost will reduce the farm spending of farmers, it could take almost $1 billion out of the western Canadian economy.
The Crow rate benefit scheme proposed by some would give carte blanche to the railways to charge higher rates on those branch lines they wish to abandon. Farmers will be forced to abandon branch line elevators and, in turn, the communities which sprung up around them to service the elevators will wither to dust. Our rural way of life will be changed, perhaps beyond recognition.
Of course, any Crow rate benefit scheme would also be open to unwarranted government abuse. Crow benefit cheques would be presented as hand-outs to farmers, just as acreage payments were given prior to elections and then later withdrawn. If the benefit is frozen, farmers could be forced to pick up the tab on all inflationary increases.
Justice Emmett Hall said the following:
There is a school of thought which keeps repeating that, yes we favour the Crow rate, but maybe there is another way of doing it. My frank opinion is that the other way is to load it on the backs of the grain producers.
In 1977 Justice Hall presented the report of his commission to the government. It was well received in the west, but successive governments have ignored this worth-while report. The NDP stands wholeheartedly behind the recommendations of the Hall report.
The CPR simply has not pulled its weight when it comes to hauling grain. Over 14,000 hopper cars have been provided by provincial and federal governments and by farmers' groups. Every year the government pays the railways $85 million in branch line subsidies and another $70 million to fix up the branch lines, because the railways have not reinvested branch line subsidies in branch lines.
The statutory Crow rate should be monitored for western farmers. At the same time the railways should be paid directly
Agriculture
for their losses. However, the railways in turn must also pledge to fix up their track, buy more hopper cars and extend Crow related rates to processed goods. Extending the Crow related rates to processed goods would be a positive step in aiding our struggling cattle and hog producers.
Since 1972 the west has lost 40 per cent of its meat packing capacity because of high freight rates for meat. For example, from Saskatoon it costs $33.80 to ship a 1,000 pound slaughter steer to Montreal, but it costs $53.04 to ship the same animal processed as meat, hide, tallow and blood. If Crow related rates were established for meat, livestock and other processed goods, western economic development would be encouraged, but not at the expense of our grain farmers as could be the case under other propositions.
While I am on the subject of the problems livestock producers have with freight rates, let me turn to a fair return for producers. This is another area in which the government has failed miserably. Orderly marketing should be a priority for any minister of agriculture. He should be encouraging the establishment of orderly marketing agencies for all farm commodities.
In my riding of Selkirk-Interlake there are cattle producers and hog producers living alongside fishermen. The fishermen in Manitoba's Interlake have experienced the value of a marketing board for their product for over ten years. Through the work of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, fishermen have seen how the unstable, wildly fluctuating price which existed prior to 1969 has been replaced by a stable and fair return that has kept pace with changes in the economic climate. However, livestock producers have not had the same benefits as their neighbours, the fishermen. As many members of the House know, cattle prices are currently about 25 per cent below the cost of production and hog prices are worse.
Earlier in my speech I referred to the bad year experienced by hog and cattle producers in 1980. Their cash receipts were down .8 per cent and .3 per cent respectively. I would like to compare that to the areas where there are marketing boards- dairy and eggs. Manitoba dairy producers increased their cash receipts by 14.8 per cent in 1980 and egg producers increased their cash receipts by 16.8 per cent. While it may not be possible to state categorically that marketing agencies are responsible for all of this difference, there can be no doubt that the boards did provide their members a stable price and stable incomes, not the down-again-up-again incomes of some producers.
Surely the time has come to take effective action permanently to end the boom and bust cycles in our red meat industry. Recently the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) asked the minister to hold a plebiscite to establish orderly marketing for hogs and cattle. The minister has not responded to that request and we are condemning him today for this lack of action.
However, should the minister have a change of heart, stop talking and start actively promoting the establishment of marketing boards, I suggest on behalf of my party that he consider a marketing board for rapeseed, flax and rye. Without

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
such efforts by the minister, we may never see lasting stability and fair prices for many producers.
When I began to speak, I noted the minister's crusade against high interest rates and their effects on short and longterm financing and operating costs of beginning farmers. Here we believe it is the responsibility of the government to use the vehicles which it has at its disposal, such as the Farm Credit Corporation, actively to intervene on behalf of farmers.
One does not have to look much further than farm bankruptcy statistics to find proof of the crisis in farm financing. In
1980,	as we all know, farm bankruptcies were 78 per cent higher than the previous year; and so far, in the first quarter of
1981,	farm bankruptcies have risen a further 70 per cent. Record interest rates are squeezing our farmers right out of business and yet our government sits back and does virtually nothing.
There is a line from an old Woody Guthrie song that is rather appropriate today:
The mortgage worked the steadiest and the hardest of us all;
It worked all week and Sundays, it worked each holiday;
It settled down among us and never went away.
Let me show the House how severely interest rates are affecting farmers. Here are two examples. The first case concerns a Saskatchewan farmer who bought one half section of land three years ago for $130,000. His three-year mortgage is renegotiable this year, which will result in an increase in the interest rate of from 10 to 20 per cent. This will mean a further doubling of the interest payments on his land. This farmer also owns a further one and one half sections which are paid for. For every bushel of wheat grown on this farm, including the owned portion, the cost of interest is increasing from $1 to $2. The cost of interest on wheat grown on the recently bought one half section of land is $8 per bushel. The current price of wheat at Thunder Bay for that same bushel of wheat is $6.57. Why should he farm? He can sell out, invest about $400,000, earn $60,000 per year on the interest, and watch some European rent the land to a young Saskatchewan boy who could only dream about buying the farm he now works as a tenant farmer.
The second case is a young Ontario tobacco farmer who has been farming since 1973. In the last couple of years his crop has been hurt by frost and disease. He recently formed a corporation solely to qualify for a small business development bond, but by doing so, he has increased his interest costs. On April 30, 1980 they were $26,934. On April 30, 1981 his interest had risen to $58,163. While extending small business development bonds to unincorporated family farms would help and should be considered, high interest rates simply cannot be sustained by farmers much longer. The Farm Credit Corporation should be used positively by this government, but instead the FCC is chronically underfunded and this year it has less money than in any of the last five years.
Months ago, groups like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked the minister to increase FCC funding by
$150 million. Instead he raised FCC interest rates to 14 per cent. It is hard to believe that this same minister really wants producers to refinance short-term debts through the FCC.
My colleagues and I believe that the Farm Credit Corporation can be used to challenge the banks by allowing more flexible terms for borrowing and at the same time allowing more flexibility of use for the money borrowed. In the past our recommended changes have fallen on deaf ears, but I will repeat them on the unlikely chance that they may yet provoke some action.
First of all, the minister should agree to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's suggestion and increase the FCC's available capital by at least $150 million.
Second, the Farm Credit Corporation should be allowed to borrow money on the Canadian market using government guaranteed long-term bonds.
Third, an annuity program for retiring farmers should be established to allow some relief from capital gains in exchange for long-term investment commitments with the Farm Credit Corporation.
Fourth, an income-averaging trust account should be established through the Farm Credit Corporation, as has been requested by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, to allow farmers to average incomes and to provide the Farm Credit Corporation with more capital funds.
These are just some suggestions we have made regarding the Farm Credit Corporation and, of course, we could go into others, but I do want to mention one other change in particular; that is, removing discrimination on the basis of age as contained in the present Farm Credit Corporation regulations. The Human Rights Commission has found that restricting the Farm Credit Corporation assistance to farmers under 35 is a violation of human rights. I have attempted to have drafted a private member's bill that would right that wrong in the legislation; but House rules prevent me from introducing such a bill, as it has some financial implications. So I ask this government, one that seems fervently to believe in a charter of rights, to take immediate action to end that blatant discrimination.
Before I close, let me offer the government some thoughts on its ill-fated drought relief and herd maintenance programs. In my short tenure as a member of Parliament, I have not seen any other program that has so confused, frustrated, and angered my constituents. The rigid and inflexible criteria that were established in order to qualify for relief have kept deserving farmers from receiving aid, and at the same time have left them questioning the sincerity of the government's motives. Some are still awaiting aid, hoping these appeals will be successful, while others have been told that cheques they have received will have to be returned. What this confusing mess underlines is the urgent need for the federal government to negotiate cost-shared agreements with the provinces in advance, and that these agreements should form the basis of ongoing emergency aid to farmers. Instead of the present ad
June 3, 1981

hockery, farmers would then know what to expect when emergencies arise.
In March, 1981 the government of Saskatchewan requested federal sharing for a long-term drought relief program. Since that time, the federal government has indicated its concern with the drought situation and has agreed with the need for a co-ordinated effort to deal with the problem. However, no cost-sharing agreement has been reached. Let us hope that the government moves quickly to provide our farmers with assured long-term relief.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what is the situation facing our farmers today? It is bleak. We have a government unprepared to use the tools at its disposal to rescue farmers from the high interest rates. We have a government which is unprepared to assure producers a stable and fair return for their product through the establishment of marketing boards. We have a government which is split every which way on the question of grain transport and the Crow rates, and one which is unprepared to implement the recommendations of Chief Justice Hall for fear of upsetting their friends at CPR. As well, we have a government which is smitten by ad hockery and that refuses to establish a long-term aid program for farmers who must cope with the uncertainties of our environment.
What does that mean for our farmers? It means higher farm bankruptcies, more farmers selling their land to foreign speculators, an increasingly powerful agribusiness conglomerate, and even tougher economic times for the farmer who is just barely managing to get by. Surely we have good reason to condemn the inadequate policies of the present government in agricultural areas and to call on them, and, indeed, plead with them, to consider some of these very useful suggestions that would have nothing but a positive effect for our farmers.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I have read carefully the proposal made by a member of the New Democratic Party, and I believe that we cannot reject it entirely. Where I disagree with the sponsor of the motion is when it comes to the means which he would use to achieve his objectives. Mr. Speaker, I think that whatever our political differences in the House of Commons, we must pay homage to the Department of Agriculture, and especially to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has shown for several years that he can listen to farm producers from all regions of Canada. Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister cannot solve by himself all the agricultural problems which face a country as vast as Canada. Of course, I have even more respect for the Minister of Agriculture because of the way he has consulted the producers in one region after another in Canada. It is easy for me to say this, Mr. Speaker, because I knew the Minister of Agriculture long before I entered politics. When I met him, I never thought that I would one day become a politician. I say this without any partisan feeling. What I like about the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture is that, as he so clearly
Agriculture
stated in his speech earlier, he believes that the decisions must come from the farmer himself. I support this consultation policy favoured by the minister even though we have financial problems occasionally in several sectors of agriculture in Canada. It is, however, up to the farmers to organize.
Mr. Speaker, I was a farmer for many years and I would never have agreed to-sometimes risk capital of $500,000 is invested on certain farms-any level of government or public servants telling us what should be our role and our vocation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to look at the progress made in Canadian farming. Recently the Department of Agriculture has stabilized and supported the price of certain products. I should mention that we now have marketing boards in Canada. We have the Turkey Marketing Board, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and the Chicken Marketing Board. Not so long ago certain opposition members now in the House must have heard, and I am convinced that these are not people who defend Canadian agriculture, blame the Minister of Agriculture for the slaughter of hens to maintain the price of eggs at an acceptable level. One day, they think one thing, and the next, they think another. When we try to stabilize prices to provide a better income for the producers of certain goods in Canada, there are always some people who are shocked to see that for once we want to provide a fair income to producers who have made major investments.
Mr. Speaker, we also have the Canadian Wheat Board, which is now working very effectively in Canada and whose role it is proposed to extend. We also have the Dairy Commission which, as I noted last Monday during another debate on agriculture, nearly provoked a revolution among dairy producers a few years ago when it made certain decisions. Today, like my colleague for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ostiguy) also noted, the dairy producers would not want to leave the sector of agriculture since it has been stabilized once and for all, and I believe that this production could be a model for several others in Canada on the condition that the farm producers can play their proper role. Whatever the decisions of the Department of Agriculture, whether they come from the other side of the House or from this side, and whether or not they are the best possible decisions, if the farm producers do not want to co-operate with a farming policy, no board and no national plan can function. I could describe something which has just happened in the Quebec pork industry, for instance, where some say the support price of pork has been detrimental to the industry in other provinces. I disagree completely with that statement since the minister had announced a $100 million hog price stabilization program with a subsidy of $8.96 per carcass. Of course if some provinces have implemented different programs of their own, certain amounts may be deducted from the provincial program, but nevertheless the fact is that

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
the provincial and the federal levels provide together a total amount of $8.96. The minister said a moment ago that he wanted to be fair to all Canadian producers wherever they live.
This week we discussed Bill C-46 which is tabled before the House and deals with meat imports. I took part in the discussions in the committee of agriculture. I expressed my views and urged the minister to take into account in his policies the needs of Canadian producers, our structures, our climate, while reviewing to some extent the GATT agreements which might often work to our detriment.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today of a type of farming in which I was involved for several years, namely potato farming. 1 would like to try to explain how a marketing agency works, its complexity, how long it can take to establish one and how much time is often required to convince producers of the need for such an agency. Since 1970, I have worked in close co-operation with potato farmers from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Quebec, and we have held many meetings in Quebec City, Fredericton, Ottawa and Montreal and have achieved a fair degree of success.
Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a provincial potato growers convention held in Drummondville, Quebec, where producers agreed to abide by strict regulations, and it will no doubt surprise many to learn that Quebec producers agreed this year to set membership fees into the marketing agency at $35 an acre. Regulations are very strict and the agency will control production, quality, production costs and marketing. I was personally very surprised to see this. Since 1970 producers have been working on the establishment of this marketing agency.
In 1974 I was involved in a study on production costs for seven types of crops. I think any type of farming requires a basic scientific study of its production costs. No farmer in Canada can hope to have an efficient operation if his production costs are not adequate. I was looking at the way these potato growers in Quebec were going about this. Quebec produces only 50 per cent of all potatoes consumed in the province and yet, even though there is no overproduction, growers got together and organized. I was comparing this to New Brunswick and P.E.I. New Brunswick produces 600 per cent of all potatoes consumed in that province and yet to date growers are not organized. The situation is about the same in P.E.I.
Now that growers in Quebec are well organized, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that meetings between the five eastern provinces will continue so that this provincial marketing agency can lead to the establishment of a national agency. Because in my view, Mr. Speaker, we will still have to find a way to market our commodities from one province to another. I also considered how Quebec producers organized themselves to market their products. I looked more fully into the legislation or the services provided by the Department of Agriculture through subsidies
which have transformed potato production in the province of Quebec. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is possible and even desirable that a similar agency be set up in all other provinces.
I looked up the subsidies granted to producers by the Department of Agriculture for storage purposes. A few years ago, Quebec potato growers marketed their produce in the months of September and October, while the remainder of the year, potatoes had to be imported from other provinces or even from the United States. Thanks to the building of modern refrigerated storage facilities, Quebec growers now can market their produce practically year round, and washing facilities, also subsidized, have helped further improve the quality of the product. I think that we must pay tribute to the Department of Agriculture for these subsidies, given the fact that when the pre-washed potatoes from the U.S were imported into Canada they were in direct competition with the Canadian produce and looked much better. The situation has changed in the past few years and these washing centres have a very high efficiency rating since pursuant to the policy of the Department of Agriculture, many producers are requested to bring in their production to these centres where it is classified, packed and delivered.
We must therefore keep up the good work and once again, Mr. Speaker, what is most important, indulge in consultation. This process must be intensified in order to sell the idea and convince additional producers that no matter in which area they live they must develop these marketing tools. There again I agree in part with the suggestion made by a member from the Opposition but with regard to the manner in which to get it done I disagree with him. It has to originate from the people concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that something imposed on them would not be that efficient. That is evidenced within the marketing boards that are at present successfully serving the interests of Canadian producers and they also put to the test the efficiency of these producers since the production costs of these boards are figured out in a very scientific way and are related to very cost-efficient farms.
I do not yet see the Canadian farmer's situation as being disastrous. However, he will soon have to get organized and the government, as advised by the minister and his officials, has never been against any well-structured organization of the Canadian farmers. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the floor for a period of five minutes to my colleague for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) who is in a position, I believe, to make interesting suggestions regarding the farmers of Canada.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague on the Standing Committee for Agriculture, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), who has given me a few minutes this evening. I spoke to him previously and although I pointed out to him that some
June 3, 1981

of the things I was going to say about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would not be very complimentary, he still granted me five minutes. At any rate, I want to point out some of the shortcomings in the minister's speech.
1 was appalled that the Minister of Agriculture would talk for 20 minutes, have extra time, yet not mention very much about interest rates, which are a major problem in this country. Nor did he mention anything about energy prices and the problems industry will have as a result of the 9-cent a gallon increase we had yesterday. He did not mention the problems associated with Bill C-57 which will produce increases in natural gas prices, resulting in increased fertilizer prices. The minister did not mention anything about what needs to be done with the western grain stabilization fund. I have written letters to the minister with suggestions to make it more effective. Those are just some of the things the minister could have talked about in terms of implementing programs to benefit agriculture. He did not talk about grain transportation.
We heard that great grain farmer who comes from Winnipeg, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), talk about the Russian grain sale involving 25 million tonnes over the next five years. Yet we see no policies coming forth from this government to ensure that we have a transportation system in place to meet our commitments to the Russians. That is a national priority. This sale will benefit the whole country in terms of our balance of payments, our interest rates and the value of our Canadian dollar.
We did not hear the Minister of Agriculture mention those things. Nor did he mention anything about transportation as it relates to livestock. We have major problems with the CNR and the CPR with regard to the moving of livestock in Canada. Representatives of both the CN and the CP have been before the Standing Committee on Transport. There seems to be no leadership nor movement on behalf of the CN or the government to see that we have cars for moving livestock.
I did not hear the minister mention anything about the Grain Transportation Authority in Winnipeg which was set up by the previous minister of transport. A co-ordinator was appointed but it took the previous minister roughly five months to do that. It has been eight months since the director, Dr. Hugh Horner, resigned last October, and this government has not been able to find a replacement in that period of time. I would have liked to see some reference to that as far as agriculture in western Canada is concerned.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act is certainly in need of some amendments and revamping to make it more useful. Many producers would like to see more of a participatory plan where producers and the government could contribute to make
Agriculture
it more meaningful when producers encounter problems in marketing.
The sheep industry in this country is in very bad shape. Literally we get clobbered when we get into the ethnic market. There are problems there. It is a small industry but an important one to the people involved. We did not hear the minister say anything about what he has done for the sheep industry. Nor did we hear anything about the Farm Credit Corporation.
There have been some interesting ideas expressed about how we could increase funding for the Farm Credit Corporation. As my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), mentioned, we could simply increase capitalization from the government. The head of the Farm Credit Corporation has suggested that it issue bonds to people who sell land. That is a way to increase the funds available to the corporation without its having to go back to the government or into the market itself. That would be a very useful tool to use. I suggest the minister should take that suggestion seriously and pursue it. It would be one way of keeping capital generated in agriculture and working in agriculture after land is sold. Very briefly, those are some of the things which the minister fails to recognize.
In the two minutes remaining to me, I want to castigate the minister as strongly as I can for some of the things he has said on Bill C-46, which is the meat import bill. He mentioned speedy passage. This bill was referred to in the Speech from the Throne which was delivered over a year ago. My colleague from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and myself have both asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to get the meat import bill on the order paper so we can get it through second reading.
The committee on agriculture did not meet for two months at the beginning of this year. We would have been very happy to get that bill through second reading and into committee. The agriculture committee has had one meeting on the meat import bill, and that was yesterday. Yet that bill was promised in the throne speech over a year ago. In my opinion, it is disgraceful that we could not have had that bill through committee, back into the House for third reading and thus have it passed. There was willingness by our party and also, as far as the NDP was concerned, to put it through second reading very quickly. I find it incredible that the minister would come here and say that we should have had speedy passage on Bill C-46. All the minister had to do was talk to his own government House leader to get it on the order paper. The opposition would not have put up any more speakers than needed in order to get it to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to

June 3, 1981
Agriculture
Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, expired. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 pursuant to Standing Order, p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Thursday, June 4, 1981