June 8, 1972

PC

Robert Elgin McKinley

Progressive Conservative

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):

Mr. Speaker, the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is in effect a fowl buying program, although he did not wish to call it that. Another fowl buying program was announced last October 29-I have that statement here, Mr. Speaker-which was to be carried out over an eight-week period. So there is a familiar ring when in the present statement the minister says that this program will be in effect for an eight-week period. Following the earlier program I asked the minister the following question on March 16, 1972, as recorded on page 889 of Hansard:

Surplus Egg Reduction Program

With regard to the fowl buying program announced by the government last year under which assistance was going to be given to producers, how much money was paid to producers under that program?

The minister's answer was:

None, Mr. Speaker.

Most of us know of the terrible situation in the egg-producing industry in Canada today. Over 202,000 30-dozen cases a week are being produced. That is about 10,000 or 15,000 too many, and there has to be a cutback in order that egg producers can make a decent living in this country. This situation has gone on too long.

I am happy to see that the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture have negotiated on a little better terms with the egg producers and the provinces than they have with the provinces in regard to the small farms development program which we heard about in committee this morning from some of the provinces. I hope the minister has listened to better advice in working out the details of this program than he did on the previous one and that the program will do some good. I do not know whether the minister is aware of the normal laying period of a hen, but I think he should suggest that all hens that have been in production for ten months or more should be marketed through this program. That might be of some assistance. More direction has to come from the minister and he should listen to people who know what they are talking about.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAM TO REDUCE EGG SURPLUS
Permalink
NDP

Alfred Pullen Gleave

New Democratic Party

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) had given us more information. We know that negotiations have been going on between the provinces and the federal Department of Agriculture to work out a program of egg marketing under Bill C-176 which was passed by the House a year ago. One question that was seriously raised in committee at that time was whether sufficient information would be provided to the producer and indeed to Parliament when national marketing programs got under way. I suggest to the minister and to the House that the information that has been given to us at this time is sketchy, to say the least.

For instance, in addition to the fowl slaughtering program, which can be only one facet of a total approach, what is going to be done about the import of eggs from other countries? The minister referred to supply management being achieved between the provinces. If this is the case, what is going to be done about imports? What is the policy? No information is given. What is the actual division between the provinces? We do not have that information. We have not been told what the formula is for distributing the money. If fewer birds are killed the price per bird goes down. One area may have fulfilled its obligation and another area that has not will suffer. There are too many unanswered questions. The minister may have the answers, and I would be pleased if he would provide them to the House at some future time.

June 8, 1972

Surplus Egg Reduction Program

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAM TO REDUCE EGG SURPLUS
Permalink
SC

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert

Social Credit

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):

Mr. Speaker, the minister began his statement with the following paragraph:

I am pleased to be able to announce that negotiations and discussions have been successfully concluded with the provinces-

That means an agreement is still possible. I continue to quote:

-and producer groups and that a program designed to adjust egg production to market requirements has been developed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the subsidy mentioned by the minister will be added to the amount received when the fowls are killed. I fear that this will be a double-edged knife considering the short delay specified. In fact, if the objective is reached in less than six weeks, I foresee the danger of having a market over-supplied with fowls and, consequently, a drop in prices which are already very low.

We read recently in a farm weekly that in the week of May 31 producers received 12 cents a pound for fowls of 7 pounds or more, 10 cents for 6-pounders, 7 cents for 5-pounders and 6 cents for fowls of 5 pounds or less. Such prices are very low. So, if the market becomes suddenly overstocked, I am afraid prices will drop and grants paid by the Department of Agriculture will accordingly lose their value.

Egg producers have been experiencing great difficulties for a very long time and it should be pointed out to the House that even in January 1972 the amount paid to them averaged 15 cents a dozen, while the production cost ranged from 30 to 32 cents. This is an interesting problem which should be considered.

If, according to the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the proposed means are such that they will make it possible to reach the objective, that is the establishment of a long term policy to stabilize the situation and to give a certain degree of satisfaction to egg producers, all the better. But right now, the situation is distressing.

Mr. Speaker, according to the price list that we have been supplied with, producers received 26 cents for Grade A eggs during the week of May 24 and 20 cents during the week of May 31. These losses are extremely high and there is real danger that many producers will very quickly be moving towards bankruptcy.

If we really have surpluses in Canada-I would not know if it is true or not, but someone must know it-it means that we have a great production capacity. On the other hand if there are people who don't have any surpluses and are hungry, we should send them our surpluses. Such a gesture would enable some human beings to consume them and satisfy an essential need.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that one day at the Committee on Agriculture I was interested to hear a good Liberal member made a statement on the planning, the orientation given to agriculture by some economists who, after having tried for 10 years, admitted that their recommendations and plannning had failed. Yet they do not give us any alternate solutions.

We have visited in Canada big egg producers which should be doing well. However, there are proofs big producers have difficulties; production is not always efficient enough to allow benefits when the production cost is higher than the sale price. What we need is a miracle and I do not think it is possible these days.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAM TO REDUCE EGG SURPLUS
Permalink

POLLUTION

CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

LIB

M. Ervin Pringle

Liberal

Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I wish to request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That in the light of the damage in Canada and the United States arising from the recent oil spill at the Cherry Point refinery this House support the urgency of a reference to the International Joint Commission of the environmental consequences of the movement of oil in the narrow waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait, and Puget Sound both now and in the future and of the measures necessary to minimize the hazards, and requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to immediately convey the terms of this motion to the government of the United States.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

This motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
PC

Thomas Miller Bell (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, since the hon. member for Egmont was the first to move a motion on this matter three days ago, we naturally will support this motion wholeheartedly.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

This motion by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East shows that there is at least one Liberal who knows something must be done.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Will the hon. member kindly indicate who the seconder is?

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
LIB

M. Ervin Pringle

Liberal

Mr. Pringle:

The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

If there is unanimity, the motion will be put. There appears to be unanimity.

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
NDP

David Lewis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Lewis:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order that the hon. member who spoke before me raised. Not only the hon. member for Egmont-

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

June 8, 1972

Topic:   POLLUTION
Subtopic:   CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Permalink

June 8, 1972