1970-05-06

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 6, 1970


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Beer.
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings,]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in both official languages two copies of the report on hearing aids prepared by an interdepartmental committee chaired by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


An hon. Member:: What did you say?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hearing aids.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will indicate the business for tomorrow. The first item will be No. 94, second reading of the bill to amend the Excise Act, to be followed by item 69, consideration at the report stage of the Law Reform Commission Bill.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. J. B. Morison (Halton-Wentworth) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development, presented to the House on April 14, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, to amend the Criminal Code (Battered Child).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require a member of the medical profession to report to his provincial Attorney General within a week any bodily injury to a child which, in his opinion, may have been caused by maltreatment.
The provincial Attorney General would then be in a better position to protect children, to lay any appropriate charge, and to ensure the future protection of the child and any other children in the custody of a person afflicted with a "battered child" syndrome.
I believe this to be a worthy and important amendment to the Criminal Code and I commend this bill to the serious consideration of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-211, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to prohibit, and to make punishable as an illegal practice, the publication in any manner before election day of the results of a poll of the political opinions of the electors. The proposed amendment does not prohibit the taking of such a poll for private purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1970
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fortin: If the Post Office Department becomes a Crown corporation, is it the intention of the government to appoint representatives of the labour force to its executive?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Pending a decision on the future status of the Post Office Department, no reply is possible, in the affirmative or negative.


POLYMER CORPORATION INTERESTS IN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Fairweather: Has Polymer Corporation any financial or other interest in any corporation or undertaking in the Republic of South Africa and, if so, what is the total amount of money invested to date and what investment is projected for the next five years?


Hon. James Richardson (Minisier of Supply and Services):: In so far as Polymer Corporation is concerned. Polymer has a 5.6 per cent interest in Sentrachem Limited, a South African company which owns The Synthetic Rubber Company Limited of South Africa. As polymer and its subsidiary companies are engaged in a highly competitive business throughout the world, the disclosure of the amounts invested in any undertaking would not be in their best interests. Polymer has made no other investments in any undertaking in the Republic of South Africa and has no plans to do so. No additional investment in Senthachem is contemplated.


TRANSPORT-FERRY &quot;PRINCE OF FUNDY&quot;
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Is the new ferry Prince of Fundy to be operated by a foreign company and, if so, where will the ownership be registered?
2.	On what basis has the Department of Transport given this company permission to operate a foreign passenger ferry between Canadian and United States ports?
3.	What will happen to the Canadian National Railway ferry M/V Bluenose which operates between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and Bar Harbor Maine?
4.	What port facilities will this new foreign-owned and operated ferry use in the Port of Yarmouth?
5.	Was the new ferry built in Canada and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Will the crew of the new ferry be Canadian?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minisier of Transport):: 1. As far as the
Ministry of Transport is concerned, no application for Canadian registry has been received and no official information is available as to the ownership of the Prince of Fundy.
2.	The Ministry of Transport has no power to grant or withhold permission for a foreign ship to engage in voyages between Canada and another country.
3.	MV Bluenose will continue to operate between Yarmouth, N.S. and Bar Harbor, Maine.
4.	The vessel will use a new berth adjoining the present CNR berth and provided by the Province of Nova Scotia.
5.	No. Selection of place of building was within the responsibility of the owner.
6.	Selection of crew is similarly the responsibility of the owner.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-MAIL TRUCK ACCIDENT ENROUTE FROM REGINA TO CALGARY
Mr. Burton: 1.	Did a mail truck enroute from Regina to Calgary overturn and burn at Herbert, Sask. on or about December 19, 1969?
2.	What was the quantity of mail salvaged from this accident and what quantity of mail was destroyed.
3.	What is the policy of the Post Office Department with respect to claims for such an accident?
4.	What is the total amount of claims which have been submitted to date with respect to this accident and what amount has been awarded to date in response to these claims?
5.	What is the status of undecided claims at the present time?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes.
2.	Approximately 35 bags were salvaged of which most of the contents were damaged and approximately 565 bags were destroyed.
3.	Claims are paid for registered, insured and C.O.D. mail.
4.	Fifty claims have been received of which 24 totalling $658.49 have been paid.
5.	Twenty-six claims totalling $497.27 are being processed.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Schumacher: What will be the function of the Canadian Transport Commission after the re-organization of the Department of Transport?
May 6, 1970


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission will continue to perform the functions for which it is responsible under the terms of the National Transportation Act. Consideration is presently being given to the best means of establishing the relationship between the Commission's research functions and those which are intended to be assumed by the Transport Development Agency of the new Ministry of Transport.


CNR-CENTRALIZATION OF ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In how many cities has CNR centralized its accounting procedures?
2.	Are all the accounting procedures in Manitoba being moved to Winnipeg?
3.	How many accounting offices in Manitoba are being closed and in which cities and towns are offices being closed?
4.	How much money will CNR save as a result of these changes in Manitoba?
5.	How many employees will be required to move to Winnipeg?
6.	What arrangements are being made to pay for the costs of moving?
7.	Are any arrangements made to pay for the increased costs of housing for employees required to move to Winnipeg?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Kail ways advises as follows: 1. In addition to the plans for centralization of Revenue Accounting procedures on the Prairie Region the Revenue Accounting activities of two areas have been consolidated in Montreal and current planning is for two further areas to be similarly dealt with later this year.
2.	No.
3.	None, however it is proposed to consolidate in Winnipeg, on September 1 this year, the Revenue Accounting currently performed in the area offices at Dauphin, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay.
4.	Approximately $68,000 per annum.
5.	The number of positions in the consolidated office in Winnipeg which will be made available will depend on the results of negotiations between the Company and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport, and General Workers. When this number is known, qualified employees will be given the opportunity to transfer but there will be no requirement that they do so.
6.	The following payments will be made pursuant to an agreement between the Rail-
Questions
way and the Associated Railway Unions, including the C.B. of R.T. and G.W., covering job security in the event of technological, operational or organizational changes:	(a)
Payment of door-to-door moving expenses for the eligible employee's household goods and his automobile, including packing and unpacking, insurance, and up to one month's storage; the mode of transportation to be determined by the Company, (b) An allowance of up to $200 for incidental expenses actually incurred as a result of relocation, (c) Reasonable transportation expenses from his former location to his new location, by rail or, if authorized, by bus or employee-owned automobile, and up to $50 for a single employee, up to $100 for an employee and spouse OR dependent, and up to $150 for an employee, his spouse, and dependent or dependents, for meals and temporary living accommodation. Receipts will be required for rail or bus transportation, (d) Upon authorization, an employee may drive his automobile to his new location at an allowance of 10 cents per mile, (e) Up to three working days leave without loss of basic pay.
7.	There are no provisions to cover differences in costs, either increased or decreased, of housing when employees are transferred from one location to another. However, reimbursement of up to $3,000 for loss sustained on the sale of a relocating employee's private home which he occupied as a year-round residence. Loss sustained is determined as the difference between the value determined at the outset plus any real estate agent and legal fees, and the amount established as the selling price in the deed of sale.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO STANFIELD'S LIMITED, TRURO, N.S.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Stanfield's Limited, Truro, N.S., and if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Stanfield's Limited, and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am

May 6, 1970
Questions
informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and executive officers of Stanfield's Ltd. as of December 31, 1968 were: F. Thomas Stanfield, Truro, Nova Scotia; Charles E. Stanfield, Truro, Nova Scotia;
L.	O. Clarke, Truro, Nova Scotia; A. L. Or-mistan, Truro, Nova Scotia; W. T. White, Halifax, Nova Scotia; A. G. Archibald, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
4.	Non-residents have a 0.7 per cent interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
5.	No one non-resident corporation owns in excess of 10 per cent of the voting shares. The information is therefore not required of the corporation and is unavailable.


AWARD OF MERIT, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the Merit Awards mentioned in answer to Question Number 993 and received by Messrs. F. Mills, J. Frey, E. Parama and P. Hutchison, in each of these instances, what was the contribution or significant and imaginative proposal advanced by each of these individuals qualifying them for the award that they subsequently received and what was the amount of the award in each case!


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Mills recommended a way of reducing the work load of the Records Management Section of Headquarters. He received an award of $500. Mr. Frey invented a more secure and versatile lock for street letter boxes. He received an award of $1,500. Mr. Parama introduced the concept of preventative maintenance and critical path planning to the maintenance of equipment at the Edmonton Post Office. He received an award of $1,000. It was largely through Mr. Hitchison's efforts that the number of injuries to Departmental employees at the Toronto Post Office was reduced when staff was increased. His application of energy and sense of purpose resulted in improved morale and increased participation. He received an award of $750,


PERSONNEL OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Dumont: What are the names of the members of the Commission of Inquiry on the Merchant Marine?


Gérard Loiselle: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: There is no Commission of Enquiry on the Merchant Marine. However, as announced to the House on June 3rd, 1969 (Hansard, page 9380), a study on the feasibility of establishing a Canadian Merchant Marine is presently being conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Godin: 1.	Since 1967, how many study groups have been working in connection with the future development of the Post Office Department?
2.	What was the cost of each group?
3.	During the same period of time, how many post offices were closed (a) throughout the country (b) in each province?
4.	Is the government planning to close other post offices before the end of 1970?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Twentyseven.
2.	$
J. D. Woods & Gordon Ltd.	2,500
J. B. Pollard & Associates	6,040
D. G. Farmar Management Consultants	4,617
P. S. Ross & Partners	9,400
P. S. Ross & Partners	9,566
Simpson, Riddell, Stead and Partners 1,600	
P. S. Ross & Partners	3,754
D. G. Farmar Management Consultants	4,808
Read Voorhees and Associates Ltd. 5,000	
Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. tt it a a	
u tt tt tt tt tt a tt tt tt tt tt	258,627
tt a tt tt | Dr. Stanley J. Shapiro	43,938
Hickling-Johnston Ltd.	81,765
Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead Inc. 101,480	
Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co.	25,000
Price Waterhouse Associates	24,000
Price Waterhouse Associates	50,498
Price Waterhouse Associates	35,051
D.C.F. Systems Ltd.	23,096
Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead Inc. 63,432	
Dept, of Supply and Services	15,754
Dept, of Supply and Services	11,261
Unica Research	27,011
May 6, 1970

3.	From 1st January 1968 to 31st March 1970: (a) 1,227; (b) Newfoundland, 49; Prince Edward Island, 34; Nova Scotia, 130; New Brunswick, 92; Quebec, 218; Ontario, 305; Manitoba, 71; Saskatchewan, 142; Alberta, 132; British Columbia, 52; Yukon, 1; Northwest Territories, 1.
4.	Yes.


ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): By provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, did the federal government consult any group concerning the proposed Acreage Reduction Program and, if so (a) what farm organizations were consulted (b) what agricultural industries were consulted (c) which provincial government departments were consulted (d) in each case, who were the actual personnel engaged in the discussion (e) did each organization approve or disapprove of the program?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: (a) The Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Pool Elevators, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canada Grains Council and the National Farmers Union, (b) None, (c) The ministers of agriculture of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, (d) Mr. G. L. Harrold for Alberta Wheat Pool, Mr. E. K. Turner for Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Mr. G. Turner for Manitoba Pool Elevators, Mr. C. Monroe, Mr. D. Kirk and Mr. P. Babey for Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. A. M. Runciman, and Dr. D. Dever for the Canada Grains Council, and Mr. R. Atkinson, Mrs. E. Potter, Mr. J. McCloy, Mr. D. Yonge, Mr. F. Dietz, Mr. F. Gudmundson, Mr. D. Robertson and Mr. S. Thiessen for the National Farmers Union, (e) All consulted expressed support for the final version of Operation LIFT as a necessary inventory reduction program to place the western grains industry on a solid footing for long term industry policies and programs.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the Department of Transport considering requiring as a motor vehicle safety standard more effective car bumpers to reduce collision damage?
2.	Is the Department considering requiring passive restraint "air bag" systems in new cars?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has recently received Royal assent, gives the government authority to create safety standards for the 22375-2
Questions
design, construction and functioning of motor vehicles for the protection of persons against injury or death. Pursuant to these powers, the government is considering a standard for increasing the effectiveness of car bumpers. Such factors as bumper height and energy absorption are under consideration. While such a standard would have as its primary purpose the reduction of injury, it would undoubtedly have the further important effect of reducing the cost of automobile repairs following minor collisions.
2.	The current development and testing of such a device is being closely followed by the Ministry of Transport, and after suitable evaluation of all available evidence a decision will then be taken as to the acceptability of such restraint in motor vehicles in Canada.


PRAIRIE REGION-AGRICULTURAL CROP RESEARCH
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Does the federal government plan to extend its subsidy to farmers for not sowing crops, to any other crop besides wheat?
2.	What was the total amount of money spent by the federal government on agricultural crop research for the Prairie Region in 1969?
3.	How much money does the federal government plan to spend on agricultural crop research in the Prairie Region in 1970?


Yves Forest: 1. There are no plans to extend the principles of the Wheat Inventory Reduction Program to other crops.
2.	Estimated for the Department of Agriculture for the 1969-70 fiscal year, $5,150,000. Estimated for the National Research Council of Canada and Canadian Patents and Development Limited for the 1969-70 fiscal year, $247,000.
3.	Estimated for the Department of Agriculture for the 1970-71 fiscal year, $6,350,000. Estimated for the National Research Council of Canada and Canadian Patents and Development Limited for the 1970-71 fiscal year, $260,000.


PUBLIC SERVICE-RECRUITING OF WOMEN INTO MANAGEMENT AND ADMINSTRA-TIVE POSITIONS
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Has the government planned to initiate any programs to recruit more women into management and administrative positions in the federal public service?

May 6, 1970
Questions
2.	Has the government planned any special programs to help upgrade the skills of the women now employed in clerical and secretarial positions in the public service to allow these women to progress to higher level positions?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1 and 2. The Public Service Commission, recognizing the underrepresentation of women in higher level positions in the Executive and Administrative and Foreign Service Categories of the public service, is considering measures that are expected to improve career opportunities for women in the public service.


DR. COX AND REPORT ON &quot;ORONSAY'' TYPHOID OUTBREAK
Mr. Baldwin: 1.	What position did Dr. Kenneth Cox of Vancouver hold within the Department of National Health and Welfare at the time of the typhoid outbreak on the P & O shipping liner Oronsay?
2.	Since that incident, has Dr. Cox resigned or been demoted from his previous position or been discharged from the Public Service and, if so, what were all the circumstances?
3.	Did Dr. Cox inform the Minister and Dr. Cox's superiors that he was prepared to and wished to prepare a report on the Oronsay typhoid incident?
4.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare consent to the preparation and publication of such a report by Dr. Cox and, if not, what are the reasons for refusing to allow Dr. Cox either to prepare or publish such a report?
5.	Was Dr. Cox first permitted and then refused leave to prepare such a report?
6.	Did the Minister or officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare meet or correspond with representatives of the P & O Shipping Line about the publication of a report on the Oronsay typhoid incident and, if so, did P & O representatives request the Department not to prepare and publish or allow any person in the employment of the Department to prepare and publish a report on the Oronsay typhoid incident?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Acting Medical Officer-in-Charge of the Vancouver Clinic, Medical Services Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare.
2.	Dr. Cox has not been demoted or discharged from his position with the Medical Services Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, but by letter dated April 11, 1970, he has resigned effective August 17th, 1970.
3.	Yes.

4.	Yes. The Department consented to the preparation by Dr. Cox of a report. Dr. Cox has not requested in writing authority for publication. A consolidated report is planned concerning the work in this connection by several branches of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
5.	No.
6.	Yes. Officers of the Department met and corresponded with representatives of the P & O Shipping Line. No request was received by the Department to refrain from preparing or publishing a report or to restrain any person from preparing or publishing a report.


QUEBEC-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): 1.	What was the amount of money spent by the federal government during the fiscal year 1968-69 for technical schools in Quebec?
2.	What was the amount of money spent by the federal government during the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 for vocational training, re-training and adult education in Quebec?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The federal government contributed $54,698,556 towards the constructing and equipping of technical and vocational schools in Quebec during the fiscal year 1968-69.
2.	Expenditures in Quebec for occupational training under the Canada Manpower Training Program were: 1968-69, $66,322,000; 196970, $84,400,000 (Estimated).


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN BON A VISTA-TRINITY-CONCEPTION CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Moores: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in the constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception?
2.	How many more post offices is it the present intention of the Department to close?
3.	How many post offices are there in the constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception?
4.	What is the government's policy with respect to reviewing those intended to be closed and reconsidering the opening of those already closed?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Since June 25, 1968, eight.
2. Twenty-two.
May 6, 1970



3.	One hundred and twenty-six.
4.	When a definite decision is made to close an office, all available information relevant to the case has been carefully checked beforehand to ensure that the decision is just. Should additional pertinent information be brought to our attention between the time our decision is made and the actual date of closing, the case is reassessed and the decision reversed if deemed necessary.


&quot;OPERATION LIFT&quot;
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What agency, or agencies, are handling the publication and dissemination of information concerning "Operation LIFT"?
2.	Were tenders called and contracts awarded and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the total cost of (a) this publicity program (b) the brochures being mailed to the farmers and all interested persons (c) the advertising program for (i) daily (ii) weekly newspapers?
4.	What are the criteria for any newspaper to receive this advertising?
5.	What is the total cost for radio advertising?
6.	What are the criteria for any radio station to receive this advertising?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The publication and dissemination of information concerning "Operation LIFT" is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. Information is also being disseminated by the Office of the Hon. O. E. Lang, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Grains Group. An advertising agency Paul, Phelan and Perry Limited, is under contract to the Department of Agriculture to carry out an advertising program in Western Canada.
2.	Tenders were not called due to the urgency of launching the program at the earliest possible opportunity. To assist in the achievement of the program objectives it was necessary to develop and provide information to farmers prior to their making firm planting decisions for the current crop year.
3.	The total estimated cost of the information program up to April 15, 1970, is: (a) publicity program, $1,022.59. (b) two brochures, $6,205.67. (c) Advertising program, $16,387.20 broken down as follows:	(i)
weeklies, $7,098; (ii) farm publications, $1,869; (iii) ethnic publications, $718,20; (iv) radio, $5,444; (v) allowance for production, $1,258.
4.	The criteria for newspapers used in the advertising program: (a) listing in the rec-
22375-2J
Questions
ognized media authority, the Canadian Advertising Rates and Data publication, (b) market coverage based on editorial content and direction of the publication, i.e., wheat farmers audience, (c) circulation as confirmed by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, or the Canadian Circulations Audit Board, or by a publisher's sworn statement, (d) cost-benefit relationship.
5.	Answered in Answer 3 (c) (iv).
6.	The criteria for radio stations used in the advertising program is based on the broadcast equivalent of the criteria for newspapers.


REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR HANDICAPPED
Mr. Nysirom: 1.	What is the number of people who have received assistance in locating employment under the program for rehabilitating the handicapped of the Department of Manpower and Immigration since its inception?
2.	How many of these people have succeeded in locating employment as a result of this program?
3.	Has any follow-up study been made on these people and, if so, what is the percentage of these people still employed one year after finding employment?
4.	What were the costs to the Department of this program for each year since it has been in operation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 and 2. Since the inception of the Federal-Provincial Vocational Rehabilitation Program in 1962 under the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act of 1961, 17,458 handicapped individuals were reported by the provinces as rehabilitated to employment or self care through services provided or secured by the provinces under cost-sharing agreements covering the period 1962-63 to 1968-69 inclusive.
3.	No follow up study has been made on these persons but the 17,458 individual reports on rehabilitated cases were completed by the provinces only after it had been determined at the end of six-month follow-up period that the handicapped individual was successfully employed in continuing employment.
4.	Costs to the Department of this program
for each year since it has been in operation are as follows: 1962-63, $333,145.04; 1963-64, $516,906.20;	1964-65,	$642,211.90;	1965-66,$857,311.75;	1966-67, $1,025,074.75;	1967-68,
$2,157,894.59; 1968-69, $3,900,000.00.
An equal cost was assumed by the participating provinces.

May 6, 1970
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lewis: 1.	What resolutions at the United Nations concerning Portuguese colonial policy, and the Portuguese colonies, particularly Angola and Mozambique, has Canada (a) supported (b) abstained from voting (c) voted against?
2.	What did each of these resolutions call for?
3.	What specific action has Canada taken to carry out the intent of the Resolutions supported, particularly Resolution 1603 in 1961, Resolution 1699 in 1962 and Resolution 2395 in 1968?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH BOARD GRANTS
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	For the fiscal year 1969-70 (a) which and how many non-resident owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants or incentives under the Defence Industrial Research Board (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2.	For the same year (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the Defence Industrial Research Program (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 GRAIN INTERNATIONAL WHEAT PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the failure of the conference of the five major wheat exporting nations to agree to orderly wheat production and acreage reduction, the failure to maintain price stability in world grain trade, and the urgent need for alternative government of Canada policies to avoid further catastrophic economic conditions in the Canadian wheat economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East has given the Chair notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 with reference to

the problem of international wheat production and marketing. The Chair has serious reservations about the procedural aspect of the proposed motion. Although without a doubt the motion deals with a matter that is of national concern and of concern to all hon. members of the House, it is also in many ways a continuing problem. This is evidenced, for example, by the numerous questions which have been asked in the House over an extended period of time, as well as by the repeated debates we have had during the last month on this very subject.
I might point out by way of further example that in July last a motion to adjourn under Standing Order 26 was then proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, dealing with the International Grains Arrangement and with international price support for wheat. A number of debates have taken place since then in relation to this general situation. It may well be that a further debate on this subject ought to take place at an early opportunity, particularly in view of the just concluded wheat conference. However, in view of the terms of Standing Order 26 and the numerous precedents, I suggest that such a debate ought not to take place in the form of an emergency debate under Standing Order 26 at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion (papers) No. 409 is acceptable to the government.



CANADA-U.S. DRAFT AGREEMENT ON FISHING PRIVILEGES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 375-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the draft agreement between Canada and the United States on reciprocal fishing privileges referred to in a news release from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry dated February 16, 1970.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 166, 167, 168, 169, 350, 353, 367, 376, 387 and 398?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
May 6. 1970



INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 166-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda and other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Investment Companies Bill.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 167-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda or other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Loan Companies Act amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, reports, memoranda or other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Trust Companies Act amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, communications, reports, memoranda or other data received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD FILM RENTAL FEES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 350-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence received by the Government of Canada protesting the decision of the National Film Board to charge rental fees for its films starting January 1, 1970.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, in order to comply with this motion a considerable number of man-hours would have to be assigned to extract this correspondence from the files, and additional unknown man-hours would be required as such correspondence should not be made public without the consent of the authors.
Motions jor Papers
Since these man-hours are not presently available, extra staff would have to be employed on a casual basis in order to complete this job. Very accurate statistics on the number of such correspondence are maintained and such information could be provided in response to a question on the Order Paper. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Subject to the conditions
expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker, I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary the motion is carried. Is this the request of the Parliamentary Secretary?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be dropped?


John Stratford Burton: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 353-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence received by the Government of Canada protesting the decision of the National Film Board to fire a number of their employees in order to comply with the federal government's measure of a 10 per cent cut-back in the Civil Service.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: 1
move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the answer is exactly the same as the answer to the previous motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So I
guess the response has to be the same too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped. Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PHOSPHATE CONTENT OF DETERGENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 367-Mr. Anderson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the inter-departmental committee report which lists the phosphate contents of detergent products sold in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.

May 6, 1970
Motions for Papers



CORRESPONDENCE ON CANADA-U.S. DRAFT AGREEMENT ON FISHING PRIVILEGES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 376-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and the Government of the United States of America or any agency or department thereof relating to the draft agreement on reciprocal fishing privileges as mentioned in a news release from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry dated February 16, 1970.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



VIET NAM-CORRESPONDENCE FROM MRS. CLAIR CULHANE AND DR. ALJE VENEMMA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 387-Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence with and reports to the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency from Mrs. Clair Culhane and Dr. Alje Venemma with respect to their observations concerning Canada's involvement in foreign aid to Vietnam, possible misuse of Canadian aid and reported atrocities.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



TELEGRAPH SERVICE STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 398-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study now being undertaken by the Department of Communications with the co-operation of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the quality of telegraph service in Canada as indicated in answer to Question Number 1,344 in Hansard of March 16 at page 5039.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following: A study of the public telegraph message services in Canada is now being completed by the Departments of Communications and *Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When the Minister of Communications receives a report on this study, he expects to make a further statement to the House. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be satisfactory subject to the right to put a similar motion at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped. Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question relating to the call by the Secretary General of the United Nations for an international conference on the situation in IndoChina. Does the government of Canada support the position of the Secretary General or does the government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, still feel the same scepticism about such a conference as the minister expressed last Friday?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The answer to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition is that we are prepared to support the call of the Secretary General for a conference of all countries interested in the question of Indochina. This has always been our position and remains so.
As for the Secretary General's specific proposal, we certainly agree with him in so far as he places importance on having present all of the countries which are involved. However, this proposal does not overcome the problem which he himself admits exists with the French proposal, on which his own was modelled, that some of the parties concerned do not approve of it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us some further information about the proposal of the Secretary General? Has our ambassador to the United Nations given the minister further information? Is it, for example, the intention of the Secretary General to call such a conference himself, or is he simply urging that such a conference be convened by someone?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would have thought that the Secretary General, with all his experience in such matters, would not call such a confer-
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
ence until he was pretty sure who would attend. Therefore he is, by the announcement he made yesterday, probing the situation to see whether all the countries would be prepared to come. One of the principal problems, with which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is familiar, is that the Soviet Union two days ago said that it was not in favour of holding a Geneva-type conference. I am sure he would agree that if the Soviet Union did not come there would be a very great gap in the proceedings.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Could I ask the minister whether
the Secretary General has communicated with him or any representative of the Canadian government regarding the desirability of calling such a conference, and whether the Canadian government has intimated to the Secretary General Canada's willingness not only to participate but to promote such a conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House will recall, even before the Secretary General had talked about taking any initiative himself I had said in the House that our ambassador to the United Nations was meeting with the Secretary General to discuss an idea that we had, namely, that even if a conference could not be held it might be useful for him to send a representative. We are still discussing this proposal with him, but I want to assure the hon. gentleman that, to some extent, we have anticipated events by taking up the issue with the Secretary General and, of course, have indicated to him that we would be happy to attend such a conference if we were invited.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the Prime Minister of Great Britain has also, on behalf of the British government, stressed the importance of such a conference, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs or his department been in touch with the government of Great Britain to discuss what the British Prime Minister may have in mind and what the two countries might do in collaboration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since Canada and the United Kingdom are quite agreed upon the desirability of a conference, we have not been concentrating on that problem. The really serious problem facing the world is the possibility that some countries might not wish to attend. For example, we are exploring with the government of the Soviet Union whether their intentions remain the same as they indicated a couple of days ago or whether they would be prepared to reconsider their position.
DEBATES	6631
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the decision of the Ontario Medical Association to increase their fees by an amount which averages out at 4J per cent. In view of the fact that medical fees were raised 10 per cent in April, 1969, I want to ask the minister whether this action was taken unilaterally, or was it the result of any discussions with the Prices and Incomes Commission? Further, did the minister or his department have any discussions with the medical profession regarding this increase in fees?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Canadian Medical Association made a statement some time ago urging the provincial bodies not to increase their fees in 1970. During the course of the national conference on price stability and at the subsequent federal-provincial conference there was substantial agreement among governments that the provincial governments would do all in their power not to allow an increase in medical fees in 1970. Therefore any increase made in Ontario is not made with the approval of the federal government or of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I expect that the Prices and Incomes Commission will be dealing with the government of the province of Ontario in an effort to see that no such increases are made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this decision was taken unilaterally, and in view of the fact that it appears to be in violation of clause (g) of the agreement which was reached at the conference on price stability, may I ask the minister what action the government intends to take in order to prevent this increase going into effect or at least to hold it in abeyance until discussions can be held with the medical profession in Ontario?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that such action, as the hon. member knows, is purely within the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, and as I said a moment ago the Prices and Incomes Commission will expect to have discussions with the province of Ontario in an effort to see that these increases are not made. One would have thought that one would have received from the doctors of

May 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario a greater recognition of the inflationary problems of the country and of the need for them, like others, to keep their fees down.



INCREASE IN COST OF FISHING LICENCES BY MANITOBA GOVERNMENT

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had time to check into the increase of 33 J per cent recently made by the Manitoba government in the cost of provincial fishing licences?


Stanley Ronald Basford: (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): No, I have not, Mr. Speaker, but the fishing is much better in British Columbia and I invite the hon. member to go there for his fishing.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
When I asked him a question yesterday on the activities of the CBC, he was rather firm and categorical in giving this answer:
I will get in touch with the Secretary of State, so that he may ask the CBC for a report on its activities. Then the House of Commons will be able to decide what should be done about it.
Now, last evening incidentally, the CBC news service did not mention the answer of the Prime Minister, as they normally do. My question today is this: since some staff members of the famous Corporation will certainly want to save their necks, does the Prime Minister not agree that it would be better to appoint, from outside the present administration, an independent and impartial commission to study the whole situation and then report to the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I shall consider the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister request the Secretary of State, who reports to the House on behalf of the CBC, to inform the CBC that we are not carrying on an active war with the United States of America?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ALLEGATION BY BROADCASTER RESPECTING


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this is also a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to a series of broadcasts on the CBC during the last few days in which there has been a series of allegations that the security corps of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has given confidential information to the effect that "the teletype service between the FBI and the RCMP is used to receive advance warning of draft dodgers and deserters coming to Canada," described as "yellow tagging" by this broadcaster, one of those Americans now teaching at Canadian universities, will the Prime Minister have this matter looked into? Will he also bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that in the last few days there has been an obvious increase, in rabbit fashion as it were, of broadcasters whose apparent purpose is to incite in Canada outbreaks similar to those taking place in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious accusation by the right hon. member. I shall most certainly draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State and ask him to study it with diligence.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion as a follow-up to a question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Malpeque the other day concerning the Canada-New Brunswick regional development agreement, about which the minister's communique states, "Never before has federal development assistance been provided on such a large scale." Can the minister advise when it is intended to make modifications in the Canada-P.E.I. plan so that this new largesse may be extended to our province as well?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the program in connection with Prince Edward Island is being revised consistently by both parties. If the two governments feel it should be modified, we will be pleased to do so.
May G, 1970	COMMONS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it from the minister's reply that the Prince Edward Island plan is available for renegotiation and review upwards, we would hope, along the new lines of his generosity?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member read the agreement, he would see that it provides for renegotiation. Under the terms of the agreement, we are willing to negotiate again at any time.



TAXATION


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he be making any further amendments to the white paper proposals on taxation with regard to the mining industry in view of the opinion expressed at the Ontario Mining Association annual meeting that Canada was quickly losing its favoured position in regard to investment of international resource capital?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that a great many submissions will be made to the parliamentary committee and, of course, all of them will receive due consideration.



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the announcement in the middle of last week of the appointment of the Minister of Highways of Alberta to the position of Assistant Deputy Minister in the federal Department of Transport and yesterday's announcement by the Premier of Alberta that Mr. Taylor had decided not to accept the appointment, can the Parliamentary Secretary advise whether the appointment was announced before it was accepted or whether Mr. Taylor resigned within hours of being appointed?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker,
DEBATES	6633
Inquiries of the Ministry having been appointed to this position by the government, the Hon. Gordon Taylor himself then asked to be allowed to turn down the appointment. May I have the consent of the House to table copies of two letters, one from the Hon. Gordon Taylor and the other from the Deputy Minister of Transport stating the reasons for this refusal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary seeks the permission of the House to table certain documents.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There does not appear to be agreement. I am not sure whether the document referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary would be covered by the Standing Order which does not require the consent of the House. Perhaps the matter might be held in abeyance for the time being.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Craig Stewari (Marquette):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if negotiations are in process to lease Rivers Air Base to one of our NATO allies?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, some negotiations are in process but not to lease the base to any of our NATO allies.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: In
view of the fact that all training activities at Rivers will cease at the end of June, could the minister indicate when there will be a definite statement concerning the future use of the base? I think he will understand the urgency of the matter.


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do understand the urgency of the matter. I expect to have some definite information from the party concerned by the end of May.



WINNING OF ALLAN CUP BY U.S. TEAM-PROVISION OF ADEQUATE COACHING IN CANADA

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for

May 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of National Health and Welfare dealing with our national sport, hockey. In view of the fact that the Orillia Terriers were defeated in the final game for the Allan Cup emblematic of the amateur senior hockey championship of Canada, and that the final series was played in the United States and won by a United States team for the first time in the 62 years of the cup's history, will the minister give consideration under the physical fitness program to assisting in the provision of adequate coaching?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether or not hon. members would want the minister to reply to this important question. I am not sure how urgent it is. It may be another 62 years before the question comes up again, but perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to bring the hon. member's observation to the attention of Hockey Canada to see what can be done about the matter.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


John Carr Munro: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer an earlier question of the hon. member for Simcoe North concerning cyclamates. I would advise that no new artificial sweeteners have been cleared for use in Canada under the Food and Drug Act since the decision was made to phase out the use of cyclamates in foods in October, 1969. Saccharin, which was already listed among the acceptable food additives in the regulations under the Food and Drug Act, is being used in some instances in dietetic food products. In others, manufacturers have been able to reformulate their products by employing sorbitol and/or naturally occurring flavouring materials. Long-term feeding tests to confirm the safety of saccharin for use as an artificial sweetener are now under way in the laboratories of the Food and Drug Directorate of my department.



B.C. HOSPITAL INSURANCE SERVICES-ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In
[Mr. Rynard.j
view of the critical hospital care situation in British Columbia and in view of serious charges of mismanagement of federal contributions to the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Services levelled against the government of British Columbia by the British Columbia Hospital Employees Union, will the minister appoint a federal commission or committee to inquire into the hospital situation in British Columbia?


John Carr Munro: I shall be pleased to take the matter under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to carry out a publicity campaign for the purpose of informing Canadian consumers of their rights in the matter of remedy at law against finance companies who go too far?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is legislation before the House, now referred to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, dealing with amendments to the Bills of Exchange Act which will fundamentally change and improve the rights of consumers in regard to time payment contracts. Following passage of that bill we plan to use our information services to make sure that consumers are made aware of their newly acquired rights.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it his intention to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code in the near future which would make the seizure of aircraft and the carrying aboard of explosives or weapons specific crimes?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a meeting with
May 6, 1970

the president and vice-president of the Canadian Association of Airline Pilots. After listening to them I stated that I would take this matter up with my colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport. I also stated that I felt it would be advantageous to set forth a specific crime in the Criminal Code attaching a criminal sanction to the unlawful interference with aircraft in flight making it a crime within the domestic law of Canada. This would have to be buttressed by whatever the Minister of Transport could obtain in adding a highjacking clause to bilateral air agreements and by what we could obtain by way of putting such a crime under the list of extraditable offences within the meaning of our extradition treaties.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister give any firm indication of when the white paper on social services will be tabled? Specifically, can he assure the House that it will be tabled and available to the House prior to the end of the session or prior to the summer recess?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the white paper referred to by the hon. member, the income maintenance paper or social policy paper, as I indicated before will be available prior to the end of this session. However, that does not necessarily mean prior to the summer recess.



AGRICULTURE


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister any information to report to the House today with respect to the question I put to him yesterday concerning planeloads of New Zealand milk entering Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With regard to this question I have been advised that this report has no foundation whatever. Indeed, no milk is being imported into Canada from New Zealand.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



REPORTED HIGH MERCURY CONTENT IN LAKE ERIE PERCH

Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister say whether the high mercury content of Lake Erie perch, as reported by Dr. Morton Shulman in the Ontario legislature yesterday, has any foundation in fact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is asking the minister to confirm a statement made by-


Harold Edwin Stafford: Can the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat? I am trying to point out to the hon. member that he cannot ask the minister to confirm a statement made in another House. I have some doubts whether the question is in proper form. Will the hon. member resume his seat? He might give some thought to rephrasing the question.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Can the minister say whether the high mercury content of approximately 1.5 part per million, as indicated by Dr. Morton Shulman, has any foundation in fact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second effort is not much better than the first.



WHEAT-STABILIZATION OF PRODUCTION-CHANGES IN ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

John Stratford Burton: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the House if any new policies to control or stabilize wheat production were agreed upon at the conference concluded in Ottawa yesterday?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The conference was not called for the purpose of negotiating any new agreements. However, the delegates from all countries were advised of what each country was doing in an attempt to adjust their inventories to the effective demand.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question. Are any changes being contemplated in Operation Lift as a result of the discussions held in Ottawa in the past two days?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not directly for that reason, Mr. Speaker, but there are a number of adjust-

May 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry ments being made or contemplated in line with the very wide circumstances surrounding many farm units. However, this is not news because the House was advised several weeks ago that a board of review will be established to consider these special circumstances.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO SALE TO BRAZIL

Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion- Melville):: supplementary question. Can the minister say whether a 37 million bushel wheat sale to Brazil has been successfully completed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The minister of Agriculture does not comment on those things.



ALLEGED BOOTLEGGING ON PRAIRIES- MARKETING BY WHEAT BOARD

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the alleged bootlegging of 307 million bushels of grain on the Prairies, is the minister prepared to give serious consideration to adopting the National Farmers' Union policy of orderly marketing of all grains under the Canadian Wheat Board?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested in knowing the foundation of the story that 307 million bushels of grain are being bootlegged. If the hon. member can supply any evidence to substantiate that allegation, I would be very interested in receiving it.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the fact that these statements seem to be substantiated by credible press reports-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leroy Skoberg: -will the minister give consideration to adopting the National Farmers' Union policy if in fact these statements are true?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second question is a repetition of the first except it is perhaps a little more hypothetical.



TAXATION


John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minis-
[Mr. Olson.)
ter of Finance. It is in connection with the widespread belief that because of the white paper proposal the tax calculation formula on lump sum withdrawals from profit-sharing at retirement will result in almost a doubling of taxation of those people who have these savings set aside for their retirement. Is the minister now prepared to relieve the minds of the tens of thousands of Canadians who have these retirement plans and are asking that no change be made and that the proposed white paper proposal not be put into effect?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested in explaining to the right hon. member exactly what is involved in the matter he has raised. It is a fairly complicated matter. It was often taken advantage of by people who retired with a profit-sharing plan. Rather than turning it into a pension that would be taxable if they took it out, they had little or no income for three years and withdrew it tax free. The proposals in the white paper will stop this. At the same time it will allow people to change it into a pension and withdraw the pensionable benefits the same as everyone else in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the minister thinks there are just as many wrongdoers among those who have retirement funds as one hon. member said wrongly there were wrongdoers bootlegging grain in western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Considering that, since 1966, we are promised every six months a new bankruptcy act, could the minister tell us when the amending bill will be introduced in the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am told, as I am sure the hon. member has been told, by the committee preparing the review that it will be ready soon. I certainly hope it will be.
May 6, 1970



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the closing of the Meaford tank range will leave 81 civilian employees without jobs, does the defence department intend to take any responsibility in finding suitable employment for these people? If so, in what manner?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the usual procedures in the case of a base closure will apply in this case. Every employee has been or will be given six months' notice. After that they are placed on a preferential list for one year for alternative employment in the civil service.



PENITENTIARIES


Robert Carman Coates: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is the minister in a position to provide the House with any further information regarding the attack on guards by inmates at Dorchester penitentiary?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Immediately after the attack the RCMP were called in to investigate the incident. As a result of the investigation, charges were laid against an inmate. Those charges came before the court and indeed will be before the court again tomorrow.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the obvious conflict of interest in the minister's task force on northern conservation by the inclusion of representatives of Imperial Oil, Shell Oil and Gulf Oil, can the minister indicate to the House whether he will consider restructuring this committee to remove this conflict of interest?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I established a committee which includes three groups: the first represents
Inquiries of the Ministry people concerned with conservation, the second represents my department and the third the industry involved. I feel it is fitting that these people should meet at the three level in order that they may determine both the shortcomings and the advantages of introducing new techniques, and that all the parties involved should meet to seek a solution.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister consider making his tripartite committee a quadripartite committee by arranging for representation of the residents and native people of the area so as to benefit from the practical advice they could contribute?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the officials of my department will be happy to meet local members of the delegation and I agree with the hon. member that the opinion of Indians and Eskimos in this field might be very useful.



POLLUTION


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that a detergent containing no phosphate pollutants has been developed and is now available in commercial quantities in the great province of British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: -will the minister consider advancing the termination date for the sale of phosphate detergents to the public?


Gérard Loiselle: Since neither the minister nor his Parliamentary Secretary are here, I will undertake to report the hon. member's representation to the proper quarter.



CONFERENCE OF WHEAT EXPORTING COUNTRIES-TERMINATION OF SUBSIDIZATION- INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister

May 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry of Agriculture whether, during the conference which was held yesterday and the day before in connection with grain, the government of Canada received any assurance from the countries of the European Common Market that the subsidization of the export of wheat would be terminated?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As was stated in the press communique issued yesterday, all the countries concerned gave somewhat detailed explanations of the measures they are taking to confine wheat production. The reason this meeting was held in camera was to enable a frank exchange of views to take place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the minister has
retreated behind a shroud of secrecy as far as the conference is concerned, may I ask whether the government of Canada has ever indicated to the countries of the European Common Market that if they continue to subsidize the export of wheat this country will consider retaliation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The representatives of the Canadian government never discuss things in that frame of mind.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. gentleman would refer to paragraphs three and four of the communique he would, I think, find there a substantial part of the answer he is seeking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have it right here.


An hon. Member:: It says nothing.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Can the
minister tell us whether the International Grains Arrangement was discussed and whether any progress was made in the direction of re-establishing agreed prices?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I regard this line of questioning as inappropriate. Hon. members know that the communique which was issued yesterday was agreed to by the participating parties, and as far as I am concerned it is complete.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask the minister when the next meeting of the International Grains Arrangement countries will be held in connection with pricing and other arrangements under the agreement?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot answer that question.


Mr. Gleave:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I heard the minister correctly he stated that the questions being asked were inappropriate. I point out to the Chair that in light of the existing conditions in western Canada and in light of the failure of the conference to achieve its objectives, the questions asked were very much in order.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. W. C. Scoff (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable and amiable Solicitor General. In view of reports coming out of Montreal that the underworld in that city is working an extortion racket directed against illegal immigrants, can the Solicitor General say whether or not the federal government is giving all possible assistance to the Montreal police in bringing this situation under control?


George James McIlraith: have not heard those particular rumours but I can advise the hon. member that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do extend all possible co-operation and assistance to the local police authorities who have primary responsibility for policing the city of Montreal, as well as to the provincial police.



FINANCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It concerns Dominion of Canada perpetual bonds. In view of the fact that the interest rate on these bonds is so low, 3 per cent, and considering their ridiculous face value of $40, would the minister not allow the owners to exchange them and buy new government bonds at adjusted interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister give consideration to the owners of these bonds being allowed to use them at face value when paying succession duties?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.
May S, 1970



INDUSTRY


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I address my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday and statements made by the Prime Minister on a number of occasions with regard to the expectation of tabling a report on foreign ownership, can the right hon. gentleman now say when he expects this report to be tabled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The last time I was asked this question I said I had no means of predicting when it would be ready. It will be some time yet. I cannot add to that statement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any information as to Soviet pilots alleged to be flying Egyptian military planes in the Middle East. If so, has the government made any representations with regard thereto to the government of the U.S.S.R. in connection with the dangers of a clash between Soviet-flown planes and Israeli planes?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have been trying to get as much information as possible from our missions in the Middle East. I expect to have the pleasure of welcoming the Foreign Minister of Israel to Canada next week and I shall probably be discussing this matter with him.
[Translation}



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Will the region of La Tuque or other regions in the riding of Champlain soon be classified as special regions?


Jean Marchand: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On January 29 and subsequently, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he had received any reply from the Canadian ambassador in Washington concerning the proposed shipment of nerve gas by the United States through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I understand the hon. gentleman has now received certain information and I wonder whether I might repeat my question at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that at two o'clock today the United States government will issue a statement concerning the safety precautions it intends to take in connection with this shipment. It is our understanding, however, that the final decision to proceed has not yet been taken pending litigation in the United States courts. I therefore continue to hope that it will be possible for a decision to be taken either to avoid making this shipment or to find some other route.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he has received a favourable reply from the government of the United States regarding his representations that another route be found for the shipping of this nerve gas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the United States government has not taken a decision as to when it will permit the shipments to take place, pending the litigation that is under way and which has been instigated by some governors of states through which the nerve gas will pass. Therefore I cannot answer the question.
However, I gather that the United States government itself is satisfied that the safety precautions are adequate, and will be giving us permission, I understand, to reveal those precautions. We also have a committee at work with the British Columbia government so we can take whatever precautions may be necessary if the United States does decide, notwithstanding our representations, to proceed with the shipments.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is this not one aspect of internation-
6640	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill al law that is rather clear, namely, that the United States government has a responsibility in a matter like this, and that Canada could prevent the shipment in this area of a dangerous substance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that is a correct interpretation of international law. I think the United States has a responsibility, which it is discharging, to consult with us about precautions. However, the nerve gas will not be moving through our waters but moving entirely through United States territorial waters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member but the Chair went beyond the question period to allow the hon. member for Fundy-Royal a supplementary. Perhaps the subject might be pursued tomorrow.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-197, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last evening I had been pointing out to the government the necessity for taking effective action to ensure that legislation such as that now before us is going to be of value to the farmers of this country. I had also pointed out the necessity for making appropriate use of the legislation. In this regard I made reference to legislation already on the statute books of Canada, namely the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which establishes an agency for the orderly marketing of a specific number of grain products.
I had also pointed out that the government had placed the entire principle of orderly marketing and the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board in jeopardy by the manner in which it had made use of this legislation
[Mr. Fairweather.l
DEBATES	May 6, 1970
through the program that we now know as operation LIFT. I suggested that this represented a complete distortion and perversion of the principle of orderly marketing to which the government is at least paying lip service in the legislation that is now before us.
I think it is very difficult to imagine, for instance, a quota system being devised based on acres of land not in production. At least, it was difficult to imagine such a thing until the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) came forward with the program known as operation Lift. It seems to me that a quota system must be designed to ensure equity of delivery. The new plan is a negation of the entire principle of orderly marketing, and it has been suggested that it could undermine orderly marketing plans. If this sort of technique is used, or if this principle is applied to other marketing plans that may be evolved as a result of the passage of Bill C-197, then it seems to me there is an inherent danger. I also think that when marketing plans of the sort envisaged by Bill C-197 are developed, the area of public responsibility will grow, and this is something that must be noted by the government.
For example, we have had established marketing machinery for wheat for years, but the implication of certain government policies is that changes will be made. The International Grains Arrangement will be brought within the ambit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades. The arrangements made as a result of the Kennedy round negotiations have been very ineffective. In addition, the government allowed an 11-month period to elapse after the expiry of the old international wheat agreement before the new International Grains Arrangement was put into effect. Concessions were traded away in the over-all negotiations. The government would not take action when action was needed, and needed urgently, and as a result the farmers have been left holding the bag.
We now have no support for farm prices in spite of the fact that the International Grains Arrangement was signed by Canada as a nation and not by the farmers or by the Canadian Wheat Board. Further, this week we had the meeting to which reference was made during the question period, and it has demonstrated the fact that if governments are unwilling to take or incapable of taking action, the best marketing plans and schemes will be of no real value and cannot possibly be effective.
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
I think there are two objectives that need to be kept in mind as we consider this bill. The first is to ensure that the farmer is given a voice in marketing plans and schemes. As pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and other members, this cannot be achieved simply by the government deigning to appoint this person or that person to whatever boards or councils are established. The farmers must be given an effective and meaningful voice in whatever agencies are established if in fact plans developed in the future are to do the job expected of them.
The second major objective that I think needs to be noted is that, in addition to the specific mechanics of any particular marketing scheme, the general scheme must be developed within the framework of an adequate incomes policy. The fact is that while marketing plans, marketing boards and orderly marketing as such can achieve the very worthwhile objective of strengthening the farmer's bargaining power in the marketplace, at the same time they do not deal adequately with his over-all problem, which is to obtain an adequate income in keeping with the over-all standard of living in Canada. It seems to me that only if these factors are taken into account can this bill be assured of any success. This is the only way in which those of us who represent farmers in this House can possibly support this bill.
Reference has already been made in the debate to some of the provisions in the bill of which I think note should be taken. The first one is clause 6, which sets out the duties and powers of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. The clause provides that one of the duties of the council is:
-to advise the Minister on all matters relating to the establishment and operation of agencies under this Act with a view to maintaining and promoting an efficient and competitive agriculture industry;-
As I stated last night, I have nothing against efficiency as such, so long as it falls within the framework of serving the social and economic needs of the farmers. Simply to speak in terms of efficiency of the industry itself is a very inadequate concept.
With regard to the objects and powers of marketing agencies that may be established under the terms of this bill, clause 22 provides:
The objects of an agency are to promote a strong, efficient and competitive production and marketing industry for the regulated product or products in relation to which it may exercise its powers, having due regard to the interests of consumers of the regulated product or products.
DEBATES	6641
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Again no real consideration is given to the needs of the farmer or the position of the farmer. This should be the primary objective of this bill. As I see it, there are a number of dangers in this bill. One is that too much emphasis is being placed on supply management. The whole idea of supply management is being considered in the market place. Supply management, in itself, is not an end. It is a means and should be considered only within the context of the over-all income, economic and social position of the farmer. It seems to me we must give very careful consideration to these aspects of the bill. I believe it is also necessary to take into account the problems involved in inadequate farmer participation which flow from the bill as it is now drafted.
I mentioned the whole question of the establishment of the board, the total power resting with the Governor in Council and the fact that these boards will be capable of taking a wide range of decisions affecting the livelihood and everyday life of the farmers across this country. This is fine and well, and provision is made for public hearings whenever a marketing plan is being considered, but I suggest there is one thing we can learn from our experience in dealing with federal legislation in the marketing field and also from the experience of the provinces; that is, there must be adequate provision for a role to be played by the farmers themselves when a decision is taken which affects their livelihood. This must be a meaningful role in which they really have the power to make their weight felt in respect of decisions affecting their livelihood.
It would seem to me that these are some of the shortcomings of this legislation. We have seen some of the shortcomings in respect of adequate farmer participation in some of the programs across Canada in the past and in one current program, operation LIFT. If the government had taken the precaution of having adequate discussion with the farmers affected by these plans and of having adequate public discussion prior to a final commitment being made to a program, a better program could have been devised which would not wreak the havoc which I predict operation LIFT will do.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been mentioned. Last night I indicated that I believed the Canadian Wheat Board deserved a great deal of credit for a job well done in bringing
6642	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill order out of chaos. I think, however, that certain weaknesses have come to light. One is the lack of adequate communication between the Board and the farmers of western Canada. It would appear that the Canadian Wheat Board is now doing something about this in terms of developing an information program. I commend the Board for this. I think such an information program is long overdue. In respect of the dairy commission, we can take note of the experience there and the fact that policies are being foisted on farmers in all parts of Canada which directly affect their incomes and livelihood. The farmers have had no say in the programs of this commission.
It seems to me, in taking a look at the marketing legislation, that we could view it in terms of either the farmer existing on his own, which seems to be the attitude of some members of this House, or that public agencies with delegated powers could do the entire job. I believe it is essential to have government, public agencies and farmers working together toward a solution. It would appear to me that this is the concept which should be adopted in developing marketing legislation that would be of service to the farmers of Canada.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I had the opportunity to read the bill now under study, and I must admit at the outset that although it is wellmeaning the means suggested to reach an objective must also be considered. I will, with as little prejudice as possible and for the information of hon. members, make some suggestions liable to improve the Canadian farmers' lot.
I do not intend to repeat what has already been said in the House but knowing that all Canadian farmers are greatly worried and aware of their difficulties I could not honestly abstain from participating in the debate on the legislation now under study. On behalf of the Canadian farmers, once more I ask the minister to be more careful than ever when their survival is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on the bill to establish the National Farm Products Marketing council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies.
I participate in the debate in order to urge the government to withdraw this bill and to

DEBATES	May 6, 1970
bring forward another more flexible one, in order to improve the lot of the farmers of this country.
I also want to deal with another matter that is of very great concern to me, namely, the harmful effect that this legislation could have on the farmers of my province. I hope that after he has heard my remarks, the minister will have the courage to review the bill, otherwise, I hope that as a last resort, in committee, he will be flexible enough to see that some amendments are passed. If the minister takes a rigid position, as he did in the case of the subsidies to the dairy industry, I feel that will be the end of Canadian agriculture.
In introducing this bill, the minister has clearly indicated that the passing of a marketing legislation had been requested by groups of farmers and by some provincial governments' representatives. Now, we find by reading this bill that the government goes much further than it had been asked to do.
We recognize the need of regulating the marketing of farm products. This being said, we object to the fact that the farmers are not invited to participate in the implementation of this measure. This is why we intend to propose amendments that will provide the producers with a degree of control through their representation on the National Farm Products Marketing Council and its agencies. Moreover, we must see to it that no agency is created without the consent of the majority of the producers coming under this agency.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
This legislation is so worded that it gives the officials of the National Council and of marketing agencies absolute power to grant production licences, to set quotas, to determine controls, prices, processes, marketing, stocking, distribution and packing of all farm products or of products that will come under this legislation by orders in council, without the Parliament's approval. Those officials will therefore have in their hands the future of the whole Canadian agricultural life. This is a dangerous operation. I suggest it would have been better to say clearly that the government is in favour of having only state-controlled farms in Canada.
This legislation will give the government in a devious way over-all control of the whole Canadian agriculture. And the government, thereby, takes away from the farmers any say in the decision-making process. It is not provided for farmers to be on the Council or on the agencies. They would like us to believe that those public hearings will give the farm-
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
ers a chance to be heard. But, those who take part in the proceedings within the Committee on Agriculture know that the participation of the farmers is practically non-existent, which is a tremendous farce. The government does not change its mind although farmers appear before the committee to state their views.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the end result of the just society and of participatory democracy, which have been promised to us by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the members of his cabinet.
Before dwelling on the disastrous consequences of this bill for the farmers of my province I ask once more the minister to see that the views of the farmers are taken into account with regard to the implementation of this measure. May the minister acknowledge that the government must respect one of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy: participation.
The province of Quebec will surely be hardest hit by this new legislation. What I have to say about Quebec also applies to the other provinces. I shall talk about Quebec because I have the impression that henceforth that province will find it a lot more difficult to get Ottawa's ear, especially since the election of the new government which, according to some mischief-makers, would be nothing more than a branch office of the Parliament in Ottawa. I do not dare believe it, Mr. Speaker.
I also regret that the federal members from Quebec are not as talkative as they were during the provincial election campaign in promoting in the House the interests of Quebec farmers. I am most careful not to make exceptions, Mr. Speaker.
What was left of the famous Jean-Luc Pepin formula on co-operative federalism collapsed with the introduction of this bill. In taking over the marketing of farm products, the federal government will sooner or later force the provincial legislatures to reduce markedly if not completely their activity in the field of agriculture. The government forgot to read Section 95 of the Canadian Constitution which clearly stipulates that agriculture is a field of joint jurisdiction. Where will the bill leave the provinces? It is difficult to foresee.
The legislation authorizes the federal government to compel almost all provincial marketing offices in existence to adopt federal standards or to force non-organized producers to create marketing agencies subjected to the same standards.
DEBATES	6643
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Indeed, a plan can be organized by groups, a national agency can be set up without the unanimous consent or even the approval of a majority of the provinces. In addition, that plan could, through the extra-provincial power or the power to import, destroy the extra-provincial market or invade the provincial market of a renegade agricultural sector. Unorganized or independent sectors would be compelled to comply. They would not be in a position to hold out against an efficient federal plan for the management of stocks. According to the Constitution, the federal government could conclude with a province an arrangement to delegate powers which could be prejudicial to other provinces and that without the consent of the latter. What has happened to the principles of the Fulton-Favreau formula so warmly upheld by this government?
Why not carry out the suggestion to establish farm unions, at provincial level and under the responsibility of each province? In addition to ensuring the acknowledgment of the farming profession such unions could co-ordinate the marketing of the farm products with the co-operation of the unions from the other provinces and with the assistance of the federal authorities. They would be much closer to the farmers and could better assist them in altering, restricting or abandoning their production, whatever the case might be.
Under the bill before us, the farmers are simply left to themselves. In Quebec, it is no secret that agriculture is now in a precarious condition, especially following the recent policies concerning milk subsidies. Unless we go slowly, applying measures providing for restrictions and planning, we run the risk of destroying the agricultural sector. Quebec is in the "major league" where mixed farming and limited income is concerned. This new law will force a good number of those farms out of business. Is that inevitable consequence sought to rationalize agriculture? Nevertheless, that is what is going to happen unless the government provides for special measures to help the small farmers who otherwise will have to give up their farms as a result of this new marketing legislation.
Has a pension plan been provided for the old farmers who will have to stop producing? Before setting up this council, before coming up with legislation that quite a number of milk or wheat producers cannot accept, a government that is concerned about the well-
COMMONS DEBATES	May 6, 1970
duced by the government, the decisions were
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill being of farmers, that sincerely wants to set up that "just society" or, at least, make it more just from day to day, should have thought of implementing programs offering an alternative to the farmers who cannot earn their living off the farm, that they might have oriented themselves towards another profession.
I urge the government to set up, as soon as possible, a pension plan for farmers of a certain age.
Have training programs been provided for the others? Have welfare services been guaranteed sufficient additional subsidies to help those people? In each of the provinces, most of all in Quebec where the rate of unemployment is very high, many more than the 100,000 jobs promised by the Quebec government will be required to help the hard-pressed farmers.
Can the minister tell the House that every effort will be made to avoid frustration and discouragement among many farmers faced with an inhuman policy? Can the minister tell us right now how many producers will be possibly affected? If he cannot answer this question, I suggest this piece of legislation cannot have any positive results.
In order to protect all Canadian farmers and especially those in my province, I ask the government and the minister concerned to examine this thoroughly, before going ahead with this bill. As for me, I can assure them of my co-operation as well as of that of my colleagues.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall to all members that several briefs were submitted to the Committee on Agriculture. Incidentally, those briefs that were prepared by various associations are very well written.
The Committee on Agriculture-as was pointed out and I will repeat it-spent hours, days and weeks not only to hold sittings to find practical solutions to Canada's agricultural problems, but also to visit farms of all kinds throughout Canada, which enabled the committee members to know and understand much better the agricultural problems.
I recognize that some of my colleagues have much better qualifications than I have but it was easy for me to understand the position in which the farmers found themselves and the nature of their needs.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This having been said, I must agree that the experience I gained in that committee still worries me, for the bill having been intro-
made along party lines, as they say in politics.
I cannot unearth old memories about that party line since I am a new-comer in the House, but such party line seems to be a cause of embarrassment for many members.
Clearly, many hon. members wished to support steps that would serve the Canadian citizens, as well as their province. However, as they had probably been instructed not to make any changes, there was no hope that valid amendments that would help the farmers, who are in great need of help, according to all hon. members, would be introduced in committee.
Again, I urge all hon. members to show some courage and some sincerity, and to keep the commitments made during election campaigns and the commitments they make each day. And I believe that with such courage and sincerity, we could really serve the Canadian people and that particular group represented by the Canadian farmers.
I am worried about the work done in committee, and I believe I am right in saying so Perhaps we should, in this House, and with the minister's agreement, approve some amendments and some suggestions. Perhaps the minister will suggest to the government members to accept some admendments, and this for the ultimate good of the farmers.
If I had once more to urge the minister to intervene to improve the lot of these farmers and producers, I would gladly do it on their behalf, because I dare trust his good faith and his goodwill. All hon. members, both in committee and in the House, must show similar intentions. This is the way we can truly serve the Canadian producers.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, once again, Bill C-197 is like putting the cart before the horse.
Instead of offering solutions to cope with the farm problem, and to allow farmers to market their products, we procrastinate trying to create new agencies in order to help the farming community.
Mr. Speaker, even if we recognize that the farming community makes up only 8 per cent of the population, and that the urban community comprises 92 per cent of the people, there is an undeniable fact: it is that obviously agriculture remains the basis of the whole economic structure of Canada.
The urban population would not live very long were it not for the farmers. This is why
May 6, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	6645
we believe that instead of introducing bills to establish new agencies, in order to ensure the marketing of products and their exchange from one province to the other, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Cote) should consider what is happening in this country.
In 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965, the present Minister of Agriculture, then the Creditiste member for Medicine Hat, used to say practically the same thing I am saying now and was able to prove without too much difficulty, because he was right, that the Canadian problem was not one of agricultural or industrial production, but a problem of distribution. And we are still facing the same problem today.
Why are quotas necessary? Why are western farmers told to stop producing wheat? Why are eastern farmers told: if your dairy production exceeds a certain quota you will be penalized? Why? Because we have a surplus of products which everyone cannot afford to buy, because the member for Richelieu is well aware that there are mothers in the province of Quebec at the present time with families of 8 or 10 children who would need five, six or seven quarts of milk daily, but who cannot even afford to buy one. It is not a problem of overproduction that faces us, but a problem of underconsumption. That is still beyond the government's understanding, as evidenced by Bill C-197.
The minister is aware of all this. At one time he advocated a monetary reform with a view to making money available to consumers and disposing of production. He was the one to ask for a two-price system for wheat so that the western farmers would get rid of their grain. Today he does not mention such things any more.


Mr. Asselin:: Why did you change your mind?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have it now.


David Réal Caouette: What does the minister say?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have it now.


David Réal Caouette: Yes-no price and one price, that is your two-price system. First none at all, and then a little wee bit as a price not to produce wheat. Did the minister ever advocate such a thing while he was sitting on this side of the House as a Social Crediter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That may be difficult-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [Translation]
-the Minister is asking permission to put a question to the hon. member who has the floor.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I simply wanted to ask the hon. member, has he been made aware of the floor price that has been put on Canadian wheat for domestic consumption, which constitutes a partial two-price system?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, but the supplement to it is the worst part of it. The minister knows this. When he was sitting on this side of the House as a Social Crediter when did he advocate a policy that the western farmers be paid not to produce wheat? He never did. When did he say that as a Social Crediter?


An hon. Member:: Talk your way out of
that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He does not answer the
question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are fed up with the government making game of the farmers. My colleague from Portneuf (Mr. Godin) was right when he said last night that this is a new gimmick to appoint more bureaucrats.
A moment ago, the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said that he travelled throughout Canada with the Standing Committee on Agriculture in order to see for themselves the plight of the farmers. They have seen it, but they have been travelling across the country for the same purpose for the past six or seven years. And when the farmers dare complain, dare make representations to the government, the hon. members, especially government members, take pleasure in sitting back contentedly.
Recently, farmers demonstrated in Sherbrooke in the Eastern Townships. Yesterday or the day before, there was a demonstration at Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, in Kamouraska county. Was the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary there? Indeed not.
When farmers brought in a petition signed by 25,000 people, including the parliamentary secretary himself, did the latter have the courage to submit that petition to the house? He did not, because his party said no. Whom then does the hon. member represent here? The party or the people of his Richelieu constituency? The party or the farmers of the
6646	COMMONS DEBATES	May 6. 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill CFU in the province of Quebec? I would like the secretary to take this down and to give us an answer in a few minutes.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I feel it should be possible to give the problem serious consideration. Let us save agriculture! Even if we had to call upon other classes of society to help save agriculture, let us do so. But we will save it only when we allow Canadian consumers to purchase production.
As long as there are credit restrictions, financial problems, people on welfare or unemployed cannot possibly buy the country's production. That is where the problem lies. The Minister of Agriculture knows it: the problem is a financial one. Social credit is the solution; that is what the minister proclaimed for 25 years, but today he no longer has the courage to do so.


An hon. Member:: He has had a change of heart.


David Réal Caouette: And why? Has the Liberal spirit entered into his heart, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Goyer:: He has assimilated it.


David Réal Caouette: If he could have the hon. member for Dollard assimilate it, he would benefit by it.
Mr. Speaker, this is a consumer problem. Indeed, consumers do not have purchasing power. Even if the farmers were asked to improve the quality of milk or wheat, or the workers to improve the quality of clothes or other products, or even if grants were paid out for the purpose of reducing prices, if the consumer does not have any money to buy, how can you solve the problem? You can not.
There is only one way to solve the agricultural problem: by increasing the consumers' purchasing power so that they might buy farm products. It is a simple as that. How to do it? By handing out national dividends.
The Minister of Agriculture knows what is meant by a national dividend. He preached it for 25 years at Medicine Hat, when he was a young Social Crediter. He seems to be losing heart as he gets older. He turned liberal. Today, he is no longer right. He no longer has the right to speak of a national dividend, of a compensated discount or of a monetary reform. Just the same he is very nice, but Canadians have been had for 103 years by very nice people who could never solve our problems.
[Mr. Caouette.l
They beat about the bush year after year, session after session, government after government. Grits or Tories, governments are unable to solve our problems. The Progressive Conservative might say that they sold wheat to Russia, China, India and many other countries of the world when they were in office, but that was because those countries happened to have poor crops. It had nothing to do with the government, crops were poor.
Countries which used to buy Canadian wheat now produce more wheat than we do. The problem is growing worse.
The government proposes the following solution: let us create agencies, encourage producers and control them along socialist lines. The government must therefore make decisions for them and compel them to abide by them. The minister is shaking his head.
In connection with the dairy industry in the province of Quebec, is the government not penalizing the farmers who have a milk surplus? The minister dares to shake his head. The government is taking $10 million away from the eastern farmers and the minister shakes his head. He suggests that they are not being penalized. The farmers are ready to increase their production and the consumers expect that increased production. It is so true that in the United States $1 billion was granted during one year as an incentive to dairy production. At a given time, it was realized that this was not enough and then $2 billion was paid. Once the $2 billion was spent, there was a shortage of dairy products in certain areas of the United States because consumers were buying a great quantity of milk.
Millions of dollars are spent to promote the sale of Coca Cola, but there is never enough money to promote the sale of dairy products, especially to enable consumers to buy them.
I said a while ago that some women would like to buy 8 to 10 quarts of milk daily for their family, but they cannot afford it because milk costs 38 cents a quart. They do not have the money to buy a quart of milk! The children must therefore drink water. The hon. member for Richelieu is aware of that situation. If he does not believe what I say, let him and the minister come with me and I will introduce them to families who need milk but do not have any. And the government penalizes dairy producers!
There are limits! How much longer will we be the losers through the passing of legislation such as Bill C-197, which claim to help the farmers. A decision is made to save
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
agriculture while consumers cannot afford to buy existing products. The form of assistance is an encouragement to farmers to produce less. They are told to change their production: instead of wheat they are told to grow rye or barley.
At the time I was in western Canada a few months ago, some university students in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and even Alberta were paying for their studies with wheat or barley because they did not have any money.
It is not wheat or barley which is lacking but money. They do not want to change the system. However, they want to control and socialize the farmers. The system works and they do not want to put money at the service of the people. Certainly not since the minister has been holding that post. He thought otherwise when he was one of us. He knows exactly what I mean and today he is ready to say the opposite of what I say.
Mr. Speaker, that is all I had to say.


Mr. Benjamin:: Free enterprise-


David Réal Caouette: It is not free enterprise at all. It is the government's fault.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is a difference.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, there is a difference.

Mr. Speaker, we are suggesting something and we are telling the minister about it. In fact, the government seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The minister is a farmer. He is perfectly aware that if you do that, it won't work. Therefore, let us find a solution. This solution does exist. The consumers must have more purchasing power so as to buy the products. If their purchasing power is too low, the products will not sell. Go into a few shops and you will see that there is no production problem in Canada. This bill is dealing again with production and not with consumption nor with the consumers. The people are asked to consume but they are not given the financial means to do so.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-197 does not settle any problem at all. It promotes the establishment of a new government body to which bureaucrats will be appointed and instructed to go and see for themselves that people are starving in the Maritimes, in western Canada and in the province of Quebec. There are, in Ontario, corn producers who are facing overproduction, and the same situation prevails
DEBATES	6647
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill everywhere in Canada. Instead of increasing the purchasing power of consumers, quotas are set or still, legislation like Bill C-197 is introduced, as if it might solve the problems of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the minister to get anything done under this bill. In two years from now, I shall still be here. I wish he will be here too, at least until the next election, because I could then tell him that his Bill C-197 has not settled anything. In fact, it will not have neither succeeded in checking inflation, in relieving the producer, nor especially in helping the consumer.
What we do suggest is the full application of the Social Credit principles, in which the minister sincerely believes in his heart. Only then will we be able to say that we have in Canada a flourishing agriculture.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
following the discussions that have taken place recently, I took it upon myself to take part in the debate. At first, I did not want to delay the passage of this bill, because farmers and farm associations have been anxiously waiting and calling for it for years. As a matter of fact, they were demanding it even before I came to this House, when I ran a farm and was a member of farm associations. At that time, we were asking the government to introduce a piece of legislation that would ensure the marketing of agricultural products in Canada. When this bill was introduced, I said to myself: This bill will be passed unanimously by the House without debate.
Last week, I received a telephone call from a representative of the Catholic Farmers Union of Quebec-even if some members of the opposition believe this bill is only a ghost-who thought the bill had already been passed and who told me that the Catholic Farmers Union wanted to take advantage of it to negotiate with the provinces the marketing of agricultural products within provincial boundaries.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I unfortunately had to point out to my former colleagues that the bill had not passed yet because some opposition members, unable to appreciate its real value, as they were unaware of the nature of marketing or production in each area of Canada, could not accept this bill, which they feel is only so much make believe.
6648	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
At one time yesterday, I thought the bill would finally pass. But all of a sudden, I was challenged by my colleague the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) in a way that greatly surprised me, as he did not say anything about the bill. He is a good friend of the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette), to whom I will say something in a moment about his philosophy. The hon. member for Portneuf did not say a single word about the substance of this bill. He could not see its usefulness for the years to come nor that the associations that asked for it will find a way of turning it to account.
It is not the government that is going to use it, as this measure is intended for the farmers and the farm associations and all the provinces that will ask for increased powers from the central government. Perhaps the latter may then demand certain powers from the provinces, as the intended measures concerning the marketing of certain products may go beyond its jurisdiction.
When the hon. member for Portneuf criticized me, thinking I was the dairy industry's special consultant for eastern Canada, I was astonished because in his constituency he says I am not doing anything in the House, and here he says I am the boss in everything.
He especially criticized the dairy policy and I should not like to dwell on the subject as it would not be of any use for my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste. In fact, one of them drowned in milk, in Sherbrooke, 15 days ago, and I think another will have the same fate next Friday.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) explained to us a while ago a funny theory. He spoke to us of the Creditiste philosophy-


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking permission to ask a question. It is up to the Parliamentary Secretary whether he accepts it at this point.


Florian Côté: Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I asked my hon. friends of the Ralliement creditiste, who were quite carried away by their own philosophy, if I could put a question to them, and they refused. I now refuse to answer their questions. They can put them after-

DEBATES	May 6, 1970


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) said that a Creditiste member drowned in milk in Sherbrooke. I should like him to tell us also where the two federal Liberal members were at that time-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend, I say that when the House is sitting, the Liberal members are in the House, as they should be, instead of going around politicking as they have done. The Liberal members were here, in the House, when those things happened.


Gérard Laprise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am certainly prepared to hear the hon. member on a point of order. I wonder how quickly we are going to advance this bill if we continue in this way. I am prepared to hear the hon. member on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Further to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture who had just told us that it is the duty of the Liberal members to sit in the House during the session, I should like to ask him where the government members are right now, while we are sitting-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That again is hardly a point of order.


Mr. Cole (Richelieu):: I am willing to answer the question.
May 6, 1970	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ruled that it was not a point of order. I caution the Parliamentary Secretary against the temptation to respond. I suggest that we continue with the debate.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: There are still more absentees on the Creditiste side!


Florian Côté: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker though I would have liked to answer the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) in order to give him some information.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue said a moment ago that it was not a problem of production but a problem of distribution. Yet, the main purpose of this bill is to try to ensure the distribution of products inside Canada.
No wonder, however, that he should fail to understand the purport of this bill, because I once went to a garage in Temiscamingue in order to buy a car, and nobody ever brought out Creditiste theories to inform me about some way of financing the purchase of that car. They directed me to big business, and I could mention the amounts involved, because there were witnesses. Such are the principles which I find again when I listen to these gentlemen, here in the House, and I think it is unfortunate.
I can well imagine that the opposition should sometimes find it difficult to be up to its responsibilities when it comes to passing certain bills. But when a government as responsible as the present government asks us to pass measures as important and as anxiously awaited as this one, measures which I advocated myself before I came to this House, I fail to understand why the opposition criticizes them and say they will benefit the government politically. We introduce such bills even though we foresee the possibility of other problems cropping up, but at least we try to solve the problems of our constituents.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue was asking a moment ago whether I was representing a party or my constituents. I could answer him that if he were as familiar as I am with the farming community, and if he had learned as I did what it is like to be a farmer, with problems facing us every day and getting worse, not because of the federal government, but due to natural causes, 22375-3
DEBATES	6649
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill sometimes of an international character, he would refrain from registering his opposition every time one tries to offer solutions to problems.
I would like to come back to a principle which has been outlined a moment ago by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). Several opposition members will realize that I am not indulging in petty politics, for the hon. member, because Joliette is not on the government side. I admit that he was the first one, since I have been listening to speeches in this House, to express certain ideas to lead to the solution of this famous marketing problem. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Temiscamingue failed to understand it because he would have seen these remarks in a different light. In his presentation, he considered the speech of the hon. member for Joliette in a somewhat limited context. In fact, he saw him carrying on marketing within a board of producers. Now, this already exists.
At the present time, in each of the ten provinces of Canada, there are boards of producers who try to ensure the marketing and distribution of products and even a quota system. The boards of producers themselves resort to that fine sometimes referred to by some opposition members. Of course, when a product is produced in a quantity that exceeds the volume of consumption in a province or an area, it must be shipped for consumption to some other province. Unfortunately, it is still necessary in order to help Quebec to flood the Ontario broiler market. However, Ontario dumps its eggs on the Quebec market. Why? There is a board of broiler and egg producers in Quebec and one in Ontario, but until a national marketing board is established, these provinces will compete frantically. It is for this reason that the present bill was introduced.
When the provinces realize that they can benefit by the use of certain federal powers, the federal government will be willing to yield to the provinces part of its jurisdiction. However, when the provincial governments find themselves unable to solve certain problems, they will delegate some of their powers to the central government. It is not the provinces that have asked this of the federal government, but the farmers generally, whom all hon. members of the opposition believe they are defending. The farmers are demanding it, and some opposition members say: It is not good. That is unfortunate because the government has spent a lot of time in drafting this bill. Will it solve all problems? No, it
May 6, 1970
6650	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill will not, because others will crop up. In fact, some powerful organizations will try to monopolize the market, at the expense of others. The federal government will be compelled to intervene under the act. Opposition members, especially those who represent part of an agricultural region in Quebec, and who have no knowledge of the problems of agriculture in their province, will say to the federal government: you are dictatorial, you are preventing the marketing of this or that product. Yet, producers' associations will have requested it.
I do not want to linger on that any further because I hope that at least my sincerity is not questioned. If some hon. members believe that I did not go to Sherbrooke because I was afraid, I will tell them that if I did not show up there it was because I was in the House and that I was trying to solve the famous problem of marketing farm products which does not seem to interest those who went to Sherbrooke.
I was asked to meet farmers in my region. Things did not happen the way they were told. I went to meet them and I shall do that again. I am negotiating on their behalf because they know that I formerly worked the land and earned my living by doing so. They know I represent them properly and that is why the Creditistes are unable to get themselves elected in my district. The people there do not believe in "Creditisme". They are farmers, ready and able to stand up for themselves and they have no need for promises of pie-in-the-sky at election time or at any other time. However, when it comes to making representations, the farmers' association of the district is neither Grit nor Tory, nor Creditiste; they are all in favour of the common welfare of farmers.
That is why I feel quite free to make representations here. My district is not made up exclusively of Liberals. In fact, before 1966 there were not enough people there to elect a Liberal.
Not only the Liberals but everybody is awaiting the passage of this legislation. If my Creditiste friends are prepared to vote against this bill, I will take it upon myself, as a service to the farming class, to say that the members of some parties, and more especially those of the Ralliement creditiste, are very good at delivering speeches when the farmers are in the galleries and have come here to claim certain rights. Then, they do not blame a political party in particular, but the House itself, and after delivering their speeches, they slip away and are not seen

at the hearings of the Committee on Agriculture.
I have been blamed yesterday in connection with the $1.25 fine. If the hon. member for Temiscamingue, who was unsuccessful in having a leader of his choice elected and who tried to give a hand to the other leader of the provincial wing of the Ralliement creditiste in the Quebec election last April 29, can prove to me that he could urge the authorities of his province to give a penny for any dairy product whatsoever-


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to raise a point of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member what he is talking about because he claimed a while ago that Creditiste members did not explain the bill to their constituents.
I ask the Chair to bring him to order and urge him to explain the bill. If he wants to be understood, he must explain the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member is a perfectly valid one. Perhaps the Chair has been a little too lenient with both sides in this debate. 1 suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he might refer to the bill which is presently before the House, consistent with the recommendation just made by the hon. member.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Compton did not show the same attitude last night or earlier today.
Anyway, I shall deal with the principle of the bill. Some hon. members want to hear about the bill because they do not know what it is all about. The bill is meant to ensure the marketing of agricultural products throughout Canada. It seeks to allow the exchange of jurisdictions between provinces and the federal government with regard to marketing. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said earlier that the problem does not come from production but rather from distribution which is precisely the object of the bill. The difficulty will be tackled, provided the members of the opposition accept and understand the bill. I
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
would even be prepared to give them a retraining course on the subject if they will spare time for it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion we are dealing today with one of the most important bills ever to come before the House of Commons. Agriculture has always been one of the great bulwarks of freedom and I contend it always will be. When there is no freedom in agriculture a disappointed citizen has nowhere to turn when he becomes dissatisfied with his lot in life. This is a basic freedom of man, and has been ever since Adam worked in the Garden. If we take away from the individual the right to till his own land and the right to choose what he will grow, we reduce him to the position of being a vassal of the state. Call slavery by any other name-it still stinks. There is no state so benign, no state so allknowing that it is entitled to deprive an individual of his right to put in his 70 years on earth the way he wants to. Many a time when I was a soldier, or when I pounded the beat as a policeman, I had in mind the wonderful feeling that some day I could take off my uniform if I wanted to and go back to being my own boss.
Efficiency on the farm is important. I notice that throughout this bill, when other arguments have been exhausted, the word "efficiency" comes in. Clause 22 embodies the overriding purpose of this measure. It is intended to set up a viable agricultural industry in Canada. I claim right from the start that when the individual is ignored no industry can flourish. In fact, when an industry is taken over by the state the state becomes a monster, the individual shrinks and freedom hangs her head in shame. These are strong words, but they do not exaggerate the situation.
Agriculture is facing a problem and governments have a duty to do what they can to assist farmers in their difficulties. We have set up unnecessary trade barriers all over the world, most of them useless, in my opinion. No one government is responsible for this situation. But they exist, and one of our most pressing needs today is to eliminate them. If we were to reduce hunger throughout the world by the distribution of the world's wealth from those nations which have too much-and Canada is one of these-to those which have too little, and there are many-we 22375-3J
DEBATES	6651
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill might find a solution to some of the smaller problems; there might be better transportation, better price arrangements, better levels of government support, better help from Ph.D's in agriculture toward the production of cheaper and better food.
But I am not thinking on this world wide scale at the present time; I am directing my attention mainly to Bill C-197 which purports to answer all these questions on the local scene by setting up one big, all-embracing, bureaucratic council to handle all the affairs of agriculture on the basis of its own limited knowledge and dedication. No matter how hard they try, as they sit behind their big mahogany desks with good civil service jobs and the security of a party that may well perpetuate itself in office for many years, they do not consider facets of agriculture that cannot be legislated upon. I am referring to such things as the individual love of the land and the care of the farm home, the care of animals and poultry, which in the final analysis are the market products but which must be cared for from birth through storm, sun, drought, all those things the farmer and his family have to contend with. These are the human things which this legislation entirely ignores.
I see nothing in this bill to guarantee to the producers of this all-important wealth in the world-food-the right to say how and when they will grow their products, how and when they will care for their cattle, and how and when they will market them, what prices they will get, what quantities they are to raise. Under this bill, they become nothing more than faceless tools of the state. I say without hesitation that Bill C-197, put into legislative form, is one of the most potentially dangerous pieces of legislation ever brought before the House of Commons, and I could be party to very little of it. In principle it is wrong, and in execution it is anathema.
For 12 years in this House I have been saying that the farmers should be protected, that some form of licensing might well be needed to protect the farmers against professional people, perhaps even Members of Parliament with their limited incomes, who go into the hog business. I think that the proper place to raise hogs is on the family farm. It is unnecessary to bring in a bill of this sort in order to keep hog production within the family farm where the vast majority of hogs ought to be raised.
Legislation that guarantees a hog quota on the family farm, set experimentally at 100,
May 6, 1970
6652	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill was sensible and produced magnificent results without requiring farmers to be licensed. By cutting oil government support for all hogs raised on commercial type farms we put hog raising back on the family farm where I claim it belongs. We are talking of principles here. If the wrong principles are used, no amount of legislation or regulations will undo the damage. In placing in the hands of a governmental, bureaucratic institution or in the hands of nine self-appointed experts the full responsibility for raising, gathering, marketing, pricing and regulating all or most of Canada's farm products, I suggest you are being party to one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated on the Canadian people.
Clause 22 says that we want a strong, efficient, competitive production and marketing industry for regulated products of agriculture, and then goes further and says "with due regard to the interests of the consumers of the regulated product or products". That may sound like a very statesmanlike approach to the whole problem; it is as though the government had said it would tailor the agricultural industry to the needs of the consumers of Canada. In view of today's cost of living, I have great sympathy for the consumers of Canada. But I do not think that the consumers of Canada necessarily want to put the whole burden on the backs of the farmers. There are very few people in Canada who are more than two generations away from the little family farm. There is probably no one in Canada who does not recognize the fact that nobody does more for his take-home dollars than the family farmer.
In addition to that, when you buy a loaf of bread, a piece of beef or a sack of Prince Edward Island potatoes, you are buying not only the labour of the farmer but the labour of his whole family. You are buying a dedication to a way of life which is essential to a healthy, happy Canadian society. This is no place to start adjusting the whole cost of living. You merely reduce the farmer to the point where he becomes a so-called efficient cog in an otherwise very inefficient machine.
The agricultural industry during the last 20 years has risen to the challenge of producing cheaper and better food, and in a manner that has astounded the western world. Farmers who have been asked to double their production have done so, and in many cases have tripled and quadrupled it. What has happened to the farmers as a result? Their security has often shrunk to the point where they have had to sell out to the so-called efficient corpo-

ration that is only interested in the narrow view of efficiency-cheap food by overproduction.
In 1957 the Diefenbaker government inherited a crisis in agriculture. Although they did not think they had all the answers, they did go to work on a new, dynamic, flexible policy and experimented. True, they made mistakes. One of the mistakes they made was to subsidize certain farm products without imposing a ceiling on production. This experiment was a bold one, but it failed miserably because the subsidizing of farm products did not necessarily bring about cheaper food on the table of the working man. Instead it presented a subsidy bill for pork products alone to the Canadian taxpayer in 1959 and 1960 amounting to $23 million and $24 million respectively.
Members knowledgeable in agriculture advised the then Minister of Agriculture that his programs needed tailoring, and the result was that we went back to the same old principle of supporting the family farm. In a sense, we licensed the farmers and paid support prices to those who worked on the land, but we did not give unlimited support to those who did not make their basic living from the land.
The same sort of experiment fell flat on its face when it was tried in Ontario in the poultry industry. The broiler industry was largely taken off the farm and was exploited by corporations. Provincial poultry marketing boards were set up, organized by the poultry raisers themselves. They set the marketing plan.
o (4:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Let us call for a quorum.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They determined the quotas. I believe-I stand corrected if I am wrong- that the poultry industry in Ontario has settled down under a workable and viable system which enables the poultry people to make a living and support their families as unregulated Canadian citizens. Mr. Speaker, I appeal through you to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and his 40 Ph.D's who sit around him, I hope giving him advice, that we do not repeat the expensive errors that have already been made in the past. We have shown the way to correct them. The way is to leave these industries in the hands of the producers themselves. They have not been exorbitant in their demands. Because they are good farmers and good citizens of Canada, they have kept their prices and their quotas
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
at reasonable levels. They have not caused a strain on Canadian taxpayers.
There is no necessity to have outside interests and bureaucrats come in to control these agencies which are quite capable of policing their own industry. All that is necessary is that there be the same type of control across Canada. I believe in national marketing boards.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is what the bill is all
about.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


Mr. Fortin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to take a count of hon. members because I do not think we have a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I will ask the Clerk to take a count immediately.
And on the count being made, 21 members were declared to be present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg).


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the fact that we have a bare quorum is no reflection upon the seriousness of the situation. This is a very important bill. The minister just said that what this bill is all about is the setting up of national marketing boards. This I understand well. What I am concerned about is that I do not see any provision in this bill which would allow the farming industry to retain or increase its control over its own affairs. If this council were to be set up along the lines of our provincial marketing boards, at least 50 per cent of my criticism would evaporate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I should like him to refer to certain clauses of the bill which indicate that the main purpose of this bill, in its initial stages at least, is to co-ordinate the efforts of the provincial marketing boards.
DEBATES	6653
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am very happy to see that every effort will be made to co-ordinate the already existing and efficient provincial marketing boards. It is the latter stages of the plan I am concerned about. I am worried about what I call the blank cheque that is being given and the fact that within the bill itself I do not see any indication that the farmers will be in charge of their marketing affairs all the way through. There are knowledgeable, capable farmers all across Canada. They are capable of handling every stage mentioned in this bill. I am not at all satisfied that once the blank cheque is issued, the administration will fill in a reasonable amount. This has not been the experience of people with Bureaucrats in the past. The powers, as I read them, would appear to be sweeping. It would appear that the council is to have certain powers in situations in which it is not satisfied that marketing is being done in an efficient manner. I see nothing to indicate that if the council were not satisfied with the way poultry was being marketed, that that marketing system would not be swept aside. There would appear to be no safeguard here whatsoever.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the farmers are not satisfied, the marketing program will not be put into effect.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The farmers are not writing this legislation; we are. A great many farmers in my district, through numerous letters and dialogue, ask me what this legislation means. I have to say the same as I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I see this legislation as a blank cheque or as a bill giving unlimited powers to the administration to do exactly what it wants in respect of the whole of agriculture. There is nothing in this bill to allay those fears. I am sure the affable Minister of Agriculture will do all he can to ensure that there will be suitable farmers on this board from the various provinces from British Columbia to Newfoundland. No doubt every effort will be made in this regard, but the farmers whom I have met are not happy about the lack of assurance that this will be the situation. It would be very simple to write into the bill the assurance that the farmers themselves will have an opportunity to call their own meetings. I say they should be given the power to call their own meetings, at least in the first instance and to be fully represented on the Council with power to elect the executive officers.
I am sure the minister will say the administration will act only where it is considered to
6S54	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill be necessary. This may mean that they will not act at all if there should be a provincial set-up. I realize that the provincial organizations are not satisfactory in respect of international trade because they do not have the power to legislate in respect of prices, marketing facilities and so on. The assurance I wish is that when this oversize board is established, it will be producer-controlled. I will sit down in a moment, Mr. Speaker, and give the minister an opportunity to reply. I should like the minister to assure me that this organization will be composed of farmers who will have an opportunity to administer their own affairs, just as they have had under the provincial marketing boards.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Minister of Agriculture.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member be satisfied if I were to give him the assurance that in the initial stages particularly with the commodity groups, that by and large the members of these boards will be drawn from the existing provincial agencies.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the words "in the initial stages" or "by and large." We are writing a statute and I should like to see in black and white that the farmers will have the power to administer their own affairs. I should like to see this written into this bill so it would then become a Bill of Rights for farmers. This could be a Bill of Rights for farmers if it were drafted properly or it could be a complete negation of all the farmers' rights if it were badly drafted. These are the things I am concerned about as I read the bill. I am only one of 265 members. I am on record as saying I do not like this bill because it does not, neither to my satisfaction nor to the satisfaction of those people who sent me here, set out that the farmers will have an opportunity to administer their own affairs. I see nothing in this bill which would give this assurance.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There has been a great deal of difficulty in getting to the point of agreement. Here, I am referring to farmers or individual workers, free enterprise people in their own right. It is difficult to get a consensus among them to give up their individual freedom within their own group, but to ask them to give up their

DEBATES	May 6, 1970
freedom completely to a group not of their own choosing is asking too much and is too dictatorial.
I see nothing in this bill, and I have read it through very carefully, to show that these people will have the right to choose the officers on this council. I might be able to stomach this provision in the bill if the chairman were only a bureaucrat with no voting rights, such as our Speaker, and were only there to see that everything went nicely while the members threshed out their problems.
Let these farmers elect their own executive officers. I see in this bill a great many more things than just administration. I see in this bill no less than the right to tax without representation, and the tax could be very onerous indeed. The taxes include the full cost of the administration of this council, the travelling expenses, and the salaries of the people whom these farmers do not even elect. Can you imagine the farm union of Alberta allowing some outside body to tell them how much they should pay their president or what his travelling expenses should be as he goes around the world to improve his education so that he can be a better president of the farm union? If they sent him to Japan to look for better facilities to sell their products, they would at least have the right to choose that person. But if he has the power, as I read it under this bill, to set his own wages and those of his help and to establish what the travelling expenses of his help will be-people who are not even of his own choosing-I claim that this is taxation without representation.
It is rather trite to refer to the Boston Tea Party, but that is how Britain lost the great colony of the United States. They were taxing without representation, although I do not think this was the only reason that the colony used as a pretext for cutting itself adrift. This is the type of thing which breeds secession and isolationism. People in western Canada today are in a bad mood and they do not like the idea of somebody, who is a vague person to them, dictating to them. Sometimes they include us in that category if we are careless. They ask: "Who is that bunch in Ottawa who allow people to tax us without giving us a say? Who are these people in Ottawa who are setting up a council to run our marketing affairs and not giving us the right to say anything about it?"
I have here a fairly innocuous piece of paper which says that all our intentions are good, that in the initial stages we will do
May 6/ 1970	COMMONS
everything to please the farmers. But then we will move in closer and closer until we have agriculture well taped, efficient, strong and competitive.


Mr. Danforlh:: Competitive with what?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I wonder if there is anything in this bill which will make things more comfortable for the producer who, in the final stages, has to produce the goods. Is he going to be mentally happy? Is he going to be better fed? I know he can get his eggs sold at so many cents a dozen, but I also know many farmers who do not care so much about how much they are actually taking home but who do want to be allowed to run their own affairs and live on their own land. Some of them are working harder for less pay than a great many other people who are telling them to be strong, efficient and competitive.
These farmers have been strong, efficient and competitive and they look to us to tell them when the pay off will be. They ask us: "When are we going to be able to pay off the loans which you people gave us over the last 10 years?" They refer to us in the opposition as much as to those on the other side. They say: "You gave us large loans. At one time the interest rate was only 5 per cent, now it is 9 per cent or 10 per cent". We encouraged these farmers to borrow money, now they want to know how to pay it back and to become strong, efficient and competitive beyond words. We now see wheat piled up in mountains. We have dug up the phosphates from under the ground and we have made the prairies grow more grain than my father and my grandfather dreamed could be produced on those arid plains.
Now, the benevolent government says that all they have to do is to turn the whole thing over to them. The farmers must do what they are told without any representation on this council and everything will then be rosy. They do not believe it. I do not think it is any secret that some men whom I have considered to be socialistic are completely shocked by some aspects of this bill. They say it goes too far. There may be some benefits in socialist legislation but this goes too far, they say. They are some of the most open critics of the dictatorial powers granted under this bill.
I must say I was agreeably surprised to find that the government cannot make this bill go down just by putting a little bit of pink sugar on it. The sugar is bright pink. Socialism does nothing else but offer people a short cut to avoid responsibility, with a great pie in the
DEBATES	6655
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill sky when you die. All the farmer wants is a square deal here and now. He wants an opportunity to have some say in running his own affairs. I have found the farmers to be very capable, reasonable, strong, efficient and competitive people when they are given half a chance. It is very difficult to go to them and say: You grow it, we will sell it. Perhaps the minister will say: "I did not say that". I know who said that and I agreed with him at the time, because I still think that an aggressive sales policy and an aggressive international policy of world co-operation, through the world food bank, as well as the distribution of world wealth are probably better answers than any conclusions which we may reach today.
The point I am trying to make is that I think it is essential for a man's mental health to be master of his own destiny. I do not like to see a sugar-coated pill used to deprive him of something of inestimable value. It is like Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. The farmer does not want this legislation that badly, even for the price of an acreage payment or a guaranteed price for hogs for two or three years. He sees this bill as selling down the river for his lifetime and the lifetime of his children, the right to be master of his own house. He is only asking for the right to run his own affairs, the same as does any other professional man today. A dentist is in control of his business, and so is a doctor. Educators are well banded together. Our unions are in almost complete control of the labour market. I am not asking for a closed shop in farming. I would say to the government, even at the best of times never guarantee them the whole market.
I want to see a fellow raising chickens for himself or raising calves for himself. He does not want to take orders from any benevolent government; he wants to get himself an acre of land, milk his own cow and mind his own business. I say that if farmers want government help and control in marketing, let us give them a minimum of government dictatorship with a maximum amount of co-operation. They have the right to ask for it because today farmers are no longer uneducated yokels. Today the farmer receives an education which in many cases is the equivalent of the education of any professional man. I happen to stand in a very privileged position because I have had to do those tasks on a farm which I know are difficult, and compared with which the conveying of land or the winning of a case in court is child's play.
May 6, 1970
6656	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The man who improves his breed of cattle, who is responsible for raising Herefords, Shorthorns, polled Angus, and Yorkshire hogs, has done as much for the human race as any men who have written bills of rights, nailed them up on church doors and retired to a life of ease in the cloister. Yes, they are noble men, but I still say the farmer has a right to his own destiny. Why not give it to him now? Why write a bad statute and then have to back down from it? This bill won't work. The farmers won't take it. You will have trouble, farm strikes and all sorts of difficulty. They will leave the farms in droves, and it will be difficult to get the sophisticated consumer, who lives in a high rise apartment or in a $20,000 home, to go out and milk cows.
It is not that the Minister of Agriculture is some seven-horned monster who is going to trample on the poor little farmer, but I think he knows as well as I do that this bill is not palatable to the average farmer. Although it gives him a promise of orderly marketing, some promise of a basic price for his product, and a promise of an end to unfair competition among his own kind, it does not protect him from vertical integration, from the unfair competition of corporations.
I give one small example because I am a lawman or have been a lawman. I noticed one thing in the bill that might be easily skipped over, but it is important. In this day and age of a permissive society when we are sweeping out of the statute books all sorts of things, through this bill we are suddenly making it a criminal offence to break regulations made by professional people not of one's own calling. It is like saying that the carpenters will set rules and regulations for dentists, or that if you forget to light your bunsen burner at the right hand side of your patient instead of at the left hand side you will be liable to an indictable offence punishable with two years in prison.
It is easy for a little farmer to forget to stamp on a bag of wheat that it was grown in Alberta, but if he forgets, this is a criminal offence. But supposing some big corporation like Canada Packers forgets to say that pork products were brought in from the Argentine and sold on the Alberta market, how do you put Canada Packers in jail for two years? You don't. You have one alternative. You proceed against them by way of summary conviction, but you cannot send them to jail for six months, which is the usual sentence on 

summary conviction. So, you look for the general penalty section under summary conviction, and I suppose you will find provision for a nominal fine. This would not be a proper punishment or a deterrent for offences under this bill. It is merely a licence to evade its provisions, a recourse which the poor individual farmer cannot use but which a corporation can use. This shows that the bill is not well drafted. If criminal offences are to be created by this bill, do it in such a way that the biggest offender will be vulnerable. The individual who has attempted to rob the Canadian people of thousands of dollars may receive a two year jail sentence, but what will the minister do about the big corporation? I do not know if a fine of any size would be appropriate, but a $50,000 fine might be a deterrent. Why not stipulate that the fine will be rated according to the public interest?
The chairman of the proposed council will be in a position to act. He can appoint members to his council, and pay them. The farmers will have no control. The chairman makes regulations, and the little fellow who breaks the regulations goes to jail. I say that the minister should be consistent in this. If there are to be offences stipulated, then make the punishment fit the crime. If a corporation that offends under this legislation has its licence to market hogs suspended, that would be a deterrent. But is there anybody in Canada with the courage to carry this out? I see no reason why you should be allowed to put a small farmer out of business for raising two or three hogs on his homestead, while you allow a large corporation to get away with stamping C grade meat as an A grade product-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless unanimous consent is given to him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I just wish to make one more point, Mr. Speaker. Legislation to regulate marketing on a national scale is necessary, but not this bill. We need more time to examine the bill. I appreciate the fact that we have been given an opportunity to scrutinize the bill. I have told hon. members what I do not think is right about it. I think I am expressing a consensus throughout the country. Farmers do not like the way the bill is written. They would like to have their fears allayed. They would like more definite evidence of the participation of producers to make sure they
May 6. 1970	COMMONS
have control over their own bailiwick. I think the penalties proposed could be tailored a little more realistically.
This House should consider where we are going with this type of legislation. Have we abandoned the idea of the individual having a right to his own destiny? Have we abandoned the idea that a man can make his best efforts if we give him a little freedom? Have we abandoned the idea that we all have a contribution to make, and that we really believe farming is a profession as noble as any other? Farmers do not need to be treated like children. They must be treated as fully participating members of the community. They demand a say in their own affairs. In committee we should examine the bill in detail. We should listen to the farm organizations, and to individual farmers who are not always properly and thoroughly represented by their organizations. The minister should listen to the well-meaning members of this House who want to help, who want to make this legislation work. There is a great deal of support for a national marketing act, but through it we should help the farmer control his own affairs.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering Bill C-197 to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council.
This bill authorizes also the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products. If we consider the structure and the framework created by this bill, we realize that under the National Farm Products Marketing Council, a number of national agencies will be set up. Each of those agencies will control a certain farm product. The agency will have in its service a certain number of inspectors who will poke their nose- therefore that of the government-into the private enterprise dealing with that product. Each of those agencies will also be governed by special regulations.
Through the National Farm Products Marketing Council and its agencies controlling the various farm products-and this is the first thing that strikes me in reading the bill-the government wants to take over private or family enterprise, which has always been in Canada the agricultural industry.
For instance, one can read in section 2, and I quote:
-in relation to any farm product that is not a regulated product Includes-
DEBATES	6657
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill -selling and offering for sale and buying, pricing, assembling, packing, processing, transporting, storing-
This control will be effected according to a marketing program which is explained in section 2, sub-sections (1) and following.
If I try to summarize the bill after having analyzed it, I find that the government wants first to control production (section 2); second, to control products and producers (section 34). Thirdly, it seeks to take hold of property; I am referring to sub-section (f) of section 23, on page 14 of the bill. Fourthly, it wants to control prices and, therefore, the producer's income, whatever it may be. I am referring here to sub-section (d) of section 2. Fifthly, the government wants to control-
-selling and offering for sale and buying, pricing, assembling, packing, processing, transporting, storing-
I am referring and I also refer my honourable colleagues to sub-section (d) of section 2. Sixthly, this government bill provides for the establishment and control of 100 per cent of the quotas for each of the following products: any natural agricultural product including meat, eggs, poultry, maple products and honey. I base this assertion on clause 2 (c) and (e). Furthermore, this control will be allembracing and I quote clause 2 (e) (iii):
-the marketing of the regulated product on a basis that enables the agency that is implementing the plan to determine the quantity in which and the price, time and place at which the regulated product or any variety, class or grade thereof mays be marketed in interprovincial or export trade;
To crown this masterpiece of control which the government wishes to exercise over an industry which has always been of a family and private nature, it intends, as stated in clause 2 (e) (iv) to control income by pooling it.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the passage of this bill will be another important setback for private enterprise and individual freedom. It will mark a step forward for the socialist program advocated by the Liberal government in order to take over Canadian agriculture, and this, in every field. The producers of milk, honey, meat used to be on their own and now they will simply be civil servants, in the pay of an all-powerful boss, the federal government. It is the end, in short, of domestic agriculture and private initiative. This means full control of prices and incomes. From now on, the government will feed the Canadian people. Civil servants will be responsible for that.
6658	COMMONS DEBATES	May 6, 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Now, when people are no longer their own masters as regards food, they are subdued, they are slaves, they are "on all fours". Their feedom is destroyed. From that time on, they depend entirely on the government for their food, which is revolting.
Never, Mr. Speaker, shall I agree to the passage of this bill which will enable our governments to control calves, cows, hogs, bees, maples, eggs, milk and wheat, producers and consumers, prices and incomes.
I accuse this government, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote) who is a farmer in name only of having deliberately created such an alarming situation that we would appear justified in committing ourselves to socialism. Through government measures, implemented in the past, we began by getting family farms into debt, on the advice of the government. Farmers throughout Canada were advised to improve their lands, their buildings, their herds, their business and their equipment. Farmers engaged in all types of farming in Canada have, therefore, gone deep into debt, on the advice and the instructions of the government to such an extent that they are now facing bankruptcy or reduced to leaving their farm.
9 (5:00 p.m.)
Last year, in Quebec alone, more than 13,000 dairy producers gave up production. They left the land to join the ranks of the unemployed in the cities, or went on welfare in one way or another, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture would say. They are dependent on the government for their living. The regressive policy of wheat and milk quotas, for instance, drove independent producers and owners to the wall.
The government, through the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board, implemented restrictive and punitive legislation in the past, the effects of which can still be seen now. The incomes of the producers were whittled down because they got so deeply into debt under the present government, or else they had to give up their land, or continue to have the government ride rough-shod over them.
Bill C-197 crowns this policy whose purpose is to crush private enterprise. What a shame!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the House a concrete example of that stupidity which is encouraged by such brilliant people as the Parliamentary Secretary and the minister.

I have here an article published recently in a farm magazine. It reads:
The Ministers of the European Economic Community (Common Market) have adopted recently a program to encourage farmers to reduce the volume of the dairy production.
Mr. Speaker, it is because the governments encouraged them that the producers have improved their production and their equipment. Today, the government, because it did not take care of the distribution of the purchasing power among the consumers, thinks it has found a solution in setting up a marketing plan which is aimed at putting the independent farmers out of business. From land owners, they will become frustrated city proletarians.
I go on with my quotation:
For the small farmers keeping 10 cows or less (EEC plan) the program grants a premium of $200 for each cow slaughtered and not replaced. The farmers with 10 cows or more will receive a $200 premium per cow provided they refrain from delivering milk to the dairy industry and the manufacturers.
There is a strange likeness between this grant for slaughtering and the one handed by the federal government to the wheat producers for staying cosily at home and producing nothing. That likeness extends also to the Quebec milk producers who were asked to stop production.
And the quotation goes on:
It will remain effective until 250,000 cows have been slaughtered and until payment is made of equivalent amounts for stopping the channeling of milk into the commercial stream. The ministers will then decide whether the program is to be maintained or discontinued.
Instead of the consumers being supplied with enough money to use up production, the producers are penalized because they work and, at the same time, the unemployed and the people on welfare, in the cities, are encouraged to remain a burden for the country.
We should cheer up, however, because economists-politicians from the old countries are not any smarter than ours. In fact, they are just as stupid.
The ridiculous income of a Canadian farmer forces him to sell his cows to the butcher at the price offered and he then becomes a welfare case. Whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may say about this, if he is honest he will admit that from a producer-owner, the farmer, under the heel of the government, becomes a frustrated, demoralized
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
and shiftless proletarian, in a word, a seed of revolution and a socialist. That seems to be what the government wants.
I continue the quotation:
The small public charity allowance paid to him is less pitiful than the income he earned when slaving away from dawn to dusk, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
This is going on while hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken people never set eyes on dairy products in the filthy slums in which they live, and while the workers are crushed by the burden of taxes, debts and usurious interest rates paid to unscrupulous bankers.
I consider that this situation has lasted much too long. On the whole, Bill C-197 means total regimentation, balkanization of the various areas of Canada, as if there were boundaries between the provinces.
In introducing Bill C-197, this government is overstepping its role in the field of agriculture. The programs should be administered by farming organizations and not by public servants. A government should just help out by co-ordinating the various efforts, and not exercise a dictatorial and totalitarian control. This bill runs counter to individual freedom since it grants abusive powers to the various offices supervising, administration, delivery of permits and marketing by means of rules and regulations and through their production inspectors.
Furthermore, it will not be the government that will finance the administration of these agencies, but the producers themselves, who will be taxed in that respect. As a matter of fact, according to the provisions of this bill, the government provides only $100,000 for its financing. Producers will pay to be controlled, and to have the government master their own industry.
Today in Canada, milk and wheat are regulated in the same manner as proposed by the minister for other products, according to Bill C-197. Now, what is the present policy in this respect, and what are its results?
Before giving our consent to Bill C-197, we must conscientiously ask ourselves whether such a policy is in existence today in Canada, and if so, what are its results. If the results are good, I would be inclined to think that this bill could be of some value, but the Canadian experience and that of many other countries show that such a measure of control and balkanization of certain areas in Canada, not only prevents us from controlling production, even if Bill C-197 is passed, but that in addition, we will not solve to any greater extent the problem of the consumer. We will 22375-4J
DEBATES	6659
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill not have improved the situation. There will still be a superabundance of products on the shelves, and hardship and poverty will prevail in our Quebec families, as well as in the rest of the country.
Injustices will continue just the same, in spite of the denial of the members opposite, because this bill will certainly not cope with the present Canadian problems.
Mr. Speaker, according to the members opposite, there is in this country an overproduction of milk and wheat. At the same time, we of the Ralliement creditiste maintain that it is not a problem of overproduction, but of underconsumption. As for the government, it proposes a bill which provides that, through a marketing program, we will ensure the marketing of production, in order to absorb overproduction.
Indeed, that is what the government really wants. With this principle, Mr. Speaker, I am fully in agreement. Nobody produces for the sake of producing and production does only makes sense in relation to consumption. Even the consumer who is not involved in production because he is disabled, blind, handicapped, on social welfare, or unemployed, must also have his share of the Canadian production. So no matter which kind of marketing system is available as long as we do not provide every Canadian citizen with the means to achieve production, if the consumer is unable to have access to production, we shall never solve the problem of poverty.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Personally, I favor marketing. However, if the program of the government is to be effective, interesting and economic, we must give each Canadian his share of the production and thus make it possible for him to participate. If the parliamentary secretary had more grey matter inside his skull, he would not have spoken such nonsense to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe) a moment ago. He showed once more that he does not even begin to understand the Creditiste proposal.
We are not against the bill just for the sake of being against it. We want to oppose it in a constructive and positive way while pointing out that the principle of marketing as far as production is concerned is sheer nonsense. Indeed, at the present time, marketing is not controlled by the government, but by several agencies taking advantage of the producer and the consumer. We must set things right.
May 6, 1970
6660	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill
However, we must go one step further and see to it that the consumer takes part in the production.
I feel I have to mention a special point raised by the hon. member for Richelieu, who stated that the bill was specially meant to follow in marketing the principles of the Social Credit. It is not true. This bill could be included in a comprehensive plan and become a forward step concerning our production pattern and its adjustment to consumption.
If members opposite accept the principle of the bill, they will also have to admit this. Why do they wish the establishment of a marketing system? Because today they realize, like myself and thousands of Canadians, that the Canadian production remains unsold. They realize also-


Mr.   Coie@Richelieu: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member made a mistake when he said that I believed this bill was about marketing. He has just said that I had stated that this bill was about the marketing of Social Credit. It is not about the marketing of Social Credit, but about the marketing of agricultural products.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have come to Parliament to work and not to act as a rubber stamp like the honourable member for Richelieu. I ask you to allow me to speak and to complete my remarks.
The honourable member for Richelieu said that in his riding, Liberals, Progressive-Conservatives, Creditistes, Pequistes and others had voted for him. I should tell him that the farmers have not voted for him and that he was elected with the help of the party funds. That is why we shall defeat him in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my bawling
friends on the other side might resume their seats and listen to my constructive comments-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
[Mr. Fortin.)


André-Gilles Fortin: If they do not agree-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Would the hon. member kindly keep to the subject-matter of the bill under consideration. I would also ask the hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and allow the member for Lotbiniere to go on with his speech.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was therefore saying, before being ridiculously interrupted by some members who dare not speak in the House but who make so bold as to bawl while others speak.


An hon. Member:: Nobody is asking now if there is a quorum!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier to check if there was a quorum because there were three Liberals in front of me. In fact, I wanted to speak to some Liberals. When I rose to a point of order, there were only 14 members in the house, three of them Liberals.
If we do not knock them about, we do not see them.
Mr. Speaker, I should like you to order the members to either sit down or go out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would ask the members, who are all seated, not to interrupt the member for Lotbiniere, to whom I ask again, as I did earlier, to confine his remarks to the subject of the bill before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would not stray from the point if I could count on the cooperation of the government members, but I see that fair-mindedness is still a thing to come.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-197 is to establish a marketing board, according to a marketing plan. If the government as well as the opposition members admit that we are producing at the present time and that we have no production problem any more, we can therefore produce without limit. It is precisely because they want to establish a marketing system that they admit there is overproduction. If there is overproduction, it is because the entire production does not reach the consumers.
Here is the Creditiste proposal: Give every
Canadian citizen his share of the national
revenue, through the compensated discount or
May 6, 1970

national dividend, which would enable him, by means of a marketing system, to get his share of the national production.
It seems to me that we could then, while respecting the right of every individual to private enterprise, respect also the right of every Canadian citizen to get his share of the Canadian production.
Why penalize the dairy producers at $1.25 per hundredweight beyond their quotas, when those people are working and when, at the same time, according to the just society's policy, we give $6 per acre to wheat producers so that they will not produce?
While one is being paid not to produce, the other is being penalized because he does. If that is what is called a just society, I do not understand a thing.
The marketing program is an attempt to solve that problem; but it cannot be solved as long as we do not strike at the root of the real problem, that of making money available to the Canadian people.
When we penalize the dairy producer because he produces too much milk, the time has come to look back upon the past. At one time, federal and provincial advisers told the producer: Old boy, you must improve your equipment, your buildings, your herd, you must buy a ball-tank, and go into debt. And that was possible only at exorbitant, staggering interest rates.
The Minister of Agriculture knows that. One day, I introduced to him a group of potato producers of Sainte-Seraphine, in the riding of Drummond; he told them: I can do nothing for you. Those people lost their business because the minister could do nothing about it, and they were head over ears in debt. Why? Because they had followed the advice of the former government and were the victims of a policy similar to ours now.
Today, Sainte-Seraphine is a ghost-town; the potato industry, at that time, very prosperous, has now disappeared completely. Why? Some will say, because there was no marketing system. But, it must be recognized, as I do, that regardless of the marketing system, if the consumer does not have enough money to participate in it, and get his share of the production, the results are nil.
If in addition, private enterprise is done away with, not only must I accuse the government being the direct cause of the failure of the farmers and producers who lose their farms, because they are indebted, but in addition, today, through Bill C-197, through State
DEBATES	6661
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill agencies, civil servants, inspectors, rules penalties, all kinds of things, producers have also lost control of their business. I say that is unfortunate in an economy that prides itself in being progressive and respecting the individual.
Some time ago, I witnessed an unfortunate experience in Sherbrooke. There were, 3,000 producers directly concerned by bill C-197 who came to protest against the present dairy policy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
They came to protest. They killed an ox or a cow on King Street, in Sherbrooke. It smelled of violence and rebellion. In my opinion, they were largely right to act in this manner. They cannot be held responsible, indeed, for the fact that they produce too much because the government told them to get organized to produce. In fact, it is the government that even told them to get into debts in order to produce. It suggested they improve their production, which they did. Today, without being able to express their views, they are subjected to a policy which will crush them even more. I refer to the $1.25 for 100 pounds of milk in excess of the allowed quota, which will cut back their revenues accordingly, taking into account the quota system set by the Canadian Dairy Commission.
While I am against violence, I think that this kind of policy, should it be about wheat or milk, will nilly-willy push peaceful Canadian citizens towards rebellion, whether they are wheat or milk producers, potatoe or tobacco growers; indeed, not only have we prevented them from leading a decent life by taking their income away from them, but through Bill C-197, we will deprive them from their very means of survival, that is, their business itself.
I would not want to be one of those who have committed such an act of vandalism against the Canadian people, through unconcern, laziness, absence from the House or manoeuvers concerning the passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is all I had to say. I suggest that the members of all parties represented in this House can make a concrete contribution to this debate.
We have a concrete proposal to make. I feel the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is able to understand it, because when he was a Creditiste and was sitting in the seat I now occupy, he was saying the same things I am
May 6, 1970
6662	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill saying now. With a finger pointing heavenwards, he stated that each Canadian citizen should receive a national dividend and thus get his share of the production. He added that consumption is the only purpose of production and that it is futile to produce for the sake of production if the product does not reach the consumer. Mr. Speaker, he said all this in the other official language, with much greater eloquence than I do, so I feel he is able to understand what I am saying.
I do not claim that Bill C-197 should be burned or tossed aside. I maintain it is false and dishonest to say in the House and to tell Canadians that the bill will solve the problem of over-production.
The problem of overproduction cannot be taken care of as long as the problem of underconsumption has not been settled, and as long as the products have not been made available to the consumers. I wish to refer to the United States which developed a $2-billion program for distributing milk to school children. In Canada, they drink Cokes and Seven-Ups, for the farm organizations cannot afford to set up an advertising system that could compare with that of the Coca-Cola Company, for instance, which sells Cokes at $30 per hundredweight. If we figure it out quickly, we see that producers work for nothing and, in addition, they are penalized.
Here again, there is a loophole in the legislation: there is no provision for the setting up of an intensive publicity campaign about farm products and by-products and their various uses. There is no provision connected with a research program to find other uses for dairy products.
We can give ourselves all the plans we want but if we do not make production available to the consumers we have solved absolutely nothing.
Before I resume my seat, it is my duty to set something straight. At the time of the demonstrations in Sherbrooke I was most distressed by the fact that not one government member from Quebec, and more than 50 of them want to impose on us the present dairy policy, was there to explain this policy. Once again, the Creditistes alone were there to speak for the milk producers. The federal Liberal members were not there. I still believe, in spite of the nonsense uttered by the member for Richelieu that their cowardness prevented them from going to Sherbrooke. Yet they had been duly invited.
Next Friday night will take place-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have cautioned before about proceeding on this line of argument. It seems to me it results only in a series of points of order which are quite irrelevant to the subject before the House. I suggest that the hon. member not pursue it. I take it the hon. member has concluded his remarks.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill C-197 which is before the House today, may I say the government has introduced a very severe form of farm marketing legislation the like of which was not, I am sure, contemplated even by the most enthusiastic farm products marketing board supporters in the past. This, in my opinion, is a thoroughly bad bill as presently constituted, and I shall endeavour to convince the government that the bill would be very detrimental if passed in its present form.
Marketing boards have had a fitful vogue for many years on the agricultural scene in Canada. For most farm commodities, they have been provincially controlled, and were always handled in a certain way. First of all, a significant number of producers of a particular commodity would petition the government to set up a marketing board. The provincial government then investigated the matter, and if it decided to proceed then all the producers were registered and a vote was taken. If a majority, say 66 per cent, were in favour, a board was set up with the producers in full control. They elected officials to carry out the policy of the board and every year at annual meetings these producer-elected officials had to give an accounting. Then, if a significant number of producers petitioned the government to have a referendum carried out, a referendum was held and the board disbanded if the majority of producers favoured this course.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), in his statement, suggested that farm organizations had been waiting a long time for this type of legislation. But in briefs and at the Canadian Agricultural Congress farm organizations have been asking for a kind of national marketing legislation which would establish agencies jointly initiated and administered by government and farmers.
What does this bill propose? It proposes to develop a structure which is exclusively governmental and which was not given support by either the government's task force or farm
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
groups at the last agricultural congress. This bill has all the earmarks of being one of the most dictatorial, coercive and restrictive measures that Canadian agriculture or any other industry has had presented to it, even in times of extreme national emergency. Let us look at what the bill provides, what it means to the farmer and the whole of the food industry right on down to the consumers.
In my opinion the minister is not being frank in presenting to the House Bill C-197. To the joint convention of the Farmers Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture on March 24, 1970, he said: National marketing agencies will not be set up until it is demonstrated that there is a wide producer consensus on the needs for them. It will not be the role of government alone to actively work for and organize that consensus. It will require the assistance of the producers themselves, through their organizations, such as this one.
We are creating the machinery. It will be up to the producers to use it.
With careful planning, national marketing agencies represent, I feel, an opportunity for Canadian producers to get together for stable, orderly marketing, of their products. That they will work only with your support.
In the House on second reading of the bill, the Minister of Agriculture stated, as reported at page 5868 of Hansard:
I would like to set the preamble to that discussion by making the comment that the situation that we have respecting the marketing of foreign products in Canada, in my view at least, makes it at least desirable, if not essential, that we have enabling legislation on the statute books, that is, authorities from parliament for the government to respond from time to time to the request of a substantial majority of producers in this field.
The minister has implied in his statements that he is expressing popular sentiment, but this is far from the black and white, statute power that he is asking for in Bill C-197. This bill establishes a very central, severely controlled establishment.
What are the centralization features of the bill? First, the Governor in Council may by proclamation establish an agency with powers relating to any farm product or farm products in interprovincial trade that are not regulated pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act or Dairy Commission Act. Second, the National Farm Marketing Council members are to be appointed by the government at their pleasure. They will be full-time civil servants at the pleasure of the government. What a chance for political appointees to have a haven for a lifetime if the government party remains in power!
DEBATES	6693
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
The duties of the council as stated in the bill will be broad. It will advise the minister on the establishment and operation of farm products marketing agencies and will review their operations on a continuing basis. The council will consult with the provinces on the operation of interprovincial agencies and exercise control over such commodities that are offered in interprovincial marketing channels or for export. The council will be free to evaluate the necessity or desirability of establishing marketing agencies or of broadening the authority of any existing agency. The council has the power to direct any producers of farm products for interprovincial export sales to register with the council or appropriate agency and to maintain books and records in relation to products grown. The producer will be required to produce these records on demand.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Now, in one of the provisions of the bill it states that a public hearing may be held-I emphasize the word "may"-if the council so decides. It is not required to hold public hearings, but may do so at the whim of the council. What does all this mean? It means that, regardless of the wording of Bill C-197, the cabinet has monopoly power to regulate agriculture at will. The agencies will likely be developed and administered exclusively by government officials. Public hearings do not have to be held. There is no assurance consumers and producers would receive direct or satisfactory attention from such hearings. There is no assurance that the government would in any way follow what the interested parties wanted done as expressed at any public hearings that might be held.
The bill imposes severe and heavy restriction on the farmers. I am sure that when the full import of Bill C-197 reaches the farm community, it will have little support. By means of this bill the government, by itself, can regulate authoritatively all aspects of food production, distribution and marketing. It invites a central and statist administration with an all-pervasive scope over supply and market management. This is what the government is asking for and it is not what farmers have been requesting. In the federal task force report on supply management and national marketing boards it is stated:
The major political problem is that the national marketing board would have to be responsible to the federal government since it cannot be responsible to eleven legislatures. It is true that the government of Canada could attempt to create advisory councils and to consult the provincial departments of agriculture, but ultimate authority
May 6, 1970
6664	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
would rest with the federal government. This was not opposed in the ease of the Canadian Wheat Board, nor the Canadian Dairy Commission though the first was introduced in times of emergency and the second to assist the dairy industry, and did not offer any threat to the continuation of existing provincial marketing boards.
... There are 120 provincial producer-controlled boards; vested interests have been created, both personal and organizational. Provincial departments of agriculture have a long involvement in marketing board legislation and operations, and they will be reluctant to jeopardize the work of the past and turn over much of their role to the senior level of government.
The report continues:
To implement rational supply management, the whole structure of institutions and criteria would have to be radically changed. This is not a matter of the desirability or necessity of national marketing boards as opposed to provincial boards, but of a national supply management agency which would encompass practically all of agriculture. Commodity marketing boards, whether national or provincial might prove a political hindrance to rational supply management in the interest of all farmers and total farm income.
And in conclusion, the task force stated:
Supply management of the all-pervasive type which would be in position to allocate resources rationally, would have to include most farm products, would involve inspection, research, administration and control far exceeding anything we have experienced in Canadian agriculture to date. Such an extreme should be avoided at all cost if reasonable satisfactory alternatives exist. Fortunately, there are alternatives, which though not fully satisfactory, should be given every opportunity before launching the "ultimate weapon" of supply management.
In total, this would seem to indicate to me that the task force did not advocate supply management and market management as the government has indicated in Bill C-197.
Again, Mr. Charles Munro accepted a kind of supply management entirely different from the structure available to the government in Bill C-197. He states:
On the subject of supply management and national marketing boards, it is clear, we think-and here we agree in general with the task force-that a high degree of market organization is necessary and inevitable. In continuing integration in some form of supply-production-processing-distribution is inevitable. But farmers want to keep their business in their hands as this process moves forward. They want to determine, for themselves, the choices that are made among the often hard alternatives that face them. They want to remain independent producers working with other farmers. Without comprehensive organization by producers, without intensive research as a priority need, without willing and forward looking co-operation from governments the job will not be done. This job urgently needs to be done, though the kind and degree of supply management and marketing methods required will vary from commodity to commodity.

There are many other distasteful features of this bill. The bill proposes that Parliament grant the government a monopoly of the agricultural industry of Canada, except for interprovincial marketing of grain and dairy products.
Under clause 17, the cabinet will have power to delegate the complete control and regulation of any natural product of agriculture to a cabinet-controlled agency. This power extends to deciding who can grow it or produce it, who can sell it, buy it, price it, assemble it and any other act till it gets to the ultimate consumer. The cabinet will directly control this by means of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. All members of the council are to be appointed at the pleasure of the government. All the supporting staff will be civil servants, either by appointment or assignment. The council will be a completely dominated government agency and completely subject to cabinet administerial direction. Marketing agencies can be established without public hearings, although the government may direct the council to hold hearings. Agencies will be effectively removed from control of Parliament because they will be corporate bodies.
The agency, once established, will have complete control over its designated product and will be responsible for operating its own resources. This means that no matter how badly it operates, it will be able to charge up its losses to the growers and producers by imposing levies and fees. This amounts to delegation of taxing powers. The bill can control any agricultural produce grown anywhere. This was correctly interpreted by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on April 14, as recorded at page 5871 of Hansard:
With respect to international ramifications, the bill does not provide the opportunity to give marketing agencies established under it direct or, indeed, automatic control over the importation of agricultural products. In certain circumstances authority could be delegated to these agencies.
In fact, the government could, without consulting the consumer, producer, Parliament or GATT agreement, regulate the supply and price of food products entering Canada.
Now, this bill is in line with the policies of the present government. The Wheat Board Act is being as a basis for the LIFT program, so that by means of the quota system production is to be stopped, but the quota system was originated to give fair market opportunities. Similarly, thousands of small dairy producers have been put out of business by
May 6, 1970	COMMONS
application of dairy quotas. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is at stake in this bill could be the very life of Canadian agriculture and the Canadian nation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
According to a study published by the Agricultural Economic Research Council of Canada, agriculture represents 42 per cent of Canada's gross national product. In the primary producer area wheat, grains and meat products generated over $9 billion. The food processing industry generated another $11 billion, and retailing added another $6 billion. All in all, this amounted to almost $27 billion since 1967.
Clause 6(1) of Bill C-197, under "Duties and Powers", reads:
The duties of the Council are:
(a) to advise the minister on ail matters relating to the establishment and operation of agencies under this act with a view to maintaining and promoting an efficient and competitive agriculture industry.
How will the agency define efficiency? It can only be the value judgment of one or two officials. For whom is the agency to be efficient? Is it for the consumer, for the producer, or the processor? The government is characterised as being bureaucratically authoritative. Bill C-197 will allow the bureaucrats to decide what is to be the goal of any particular agency.
The bill does not declare government policy. It might bring about disaster in agriculture, and it is against the national interest. Supply and market management must be concrete goals to be reached, and strategies to that end must be devised. The bill leaves many questions unanswered. It does not state whether the goal of the legislation is to stabilize farm income or raise it through supply management. This is of immense importance. How is the initial allocation to producers of quotas in any one commodity to be carried out?
How many arbitrary decisions will have to be made? How can these be fairly carried out? How are the transfers of quotas to be carried out? This is a particularly knotty problem, as the dairy commission people learned to their sorrow when in western Canada many of the small producers lost their quotas through no fault of their own. These quotas also made re-entry into the dairy industry in western Canada almost impossible. Under such marketing boards, quotas become a paramount economic feature and not the commodity to be marketed.
DEBATES	6665
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
There are numerous other questions that must be answered and which will be touched upon in the bill. Will small farmers be forced out of agriculture? This bill will have to deal with this question. Will an agency benefit certain producers, large and small, to the detriment of the consumers? It would appear that in many ways Bill C-197 might have the effect of taking 200,000 farmers out of farming units that are declared redundant by this government, as is suggested in the latest government sponsored outlook conference on agriculture. This is to be called supply management. This is the new cliche.
Let me give one example of supply management of this type. In the 1968 crop year, only 27 million bushels of barley were exported by Canada. Yet, in this present crop year a reported 50 million to 70 million bushels of barley will be exported, and already, according to the grain trade, upward of 40 million to 50 million bushels have been contracted for in the forthcoming crop year. This was done by a reduction in the price, and I agree with this. But if we had applied supply management in 1969, we would have grown only enough barley to export on the basis of 27 million bushels. So, you can see what great problems will face any supply management board or agency.
It would be more correct to say that this bill calls for reduction management. In 1968, Canada imported $1.1 billion worth of foodstuffs while it exported $1.4 billion worth of foodstuffs. If wheat is excluded, Canada would be a net importer of foodstuffs. The difference between exporting and importing totals has been steadily narrowing for some time. I think this bill will increase the trend toward narrowing this gap, because I do not think it will increase the export of our natural food products.
In the final analysis, Bill C-197, as it now stands, should be rejected. The Bill is secretive because it gives no evidence of the real philosophy behind it, and it does not spell out what group in our society or in our economy is to be helped. Is it the farmers or the consumers? The bill does not state any definite aims of the government. It is arbitrary because it sets out many arbitrary features. In my opinion, this bill will not bring benefits to Canadian agriculture or to our economy.
This bill will reduce the number of small businesses and farmers and reduce the pools of capital that the state will have to manage. Is this government, by means of this legislation and through the white paper on taxation,
May 6, 1970
6666	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill effectively reducing the economic power of all individuals and transferring it to the state? We must sadly admit that this will likely be the case.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: In
rising to participate in the debate on Bill C-197, my objective is to outline some of the points which to me are not too appealing, some of the points on which many of the producers to whom I have spoken in my part of the country have expressed a certain amount of fear. It is my hope that we may discuss the contents of the bill in such a way as to improve it and amend it in the interests of all those concerned.
I have become concerned over the fact that some government members have tended to frown upon or cast derogatory remarks about those in the opposition who have spoken out on this bill, but I think this is a very important piece of legislation. It certainly contains more than meets the eye, and I think it must be discussed. The purport of the bill must be made known so that the producers, those involved in processing, transporting, packaging, etc., will be made aware of what the bill actually contains.
I wonder just what all the rush is about. The government seems to want to push this bill through in great haste. I do not believe that many national farm organizations have yet had the opportunity to examine in detail the implications of the bill, and I believe that we are being rushed into this farm marketing legislation before the government has given us a full and comprehensive agricultural policy. I believe that there is need for a national program on the marketing of farm products. I believe it is both desirable and essential. As pointed out by other speakers, we presently have many marketing boards in existence. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to co-ordinate the various groups, particularly when it comes to the question of interprovincial marketing. There is a complexity of marketing procedures and of customer demands.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
At the present time in the province of Alberta we have a situation wherein an egg marketing board has been established. However, it is being disrupted by a flow of eggs from other provinces at prices well below those established by the marketing board. Hence, the determined effort to create stability and orderly marketing is undermined and jeopardized, and the marketing board as well

as the producers are facing a dilemma. One would hope that this legislation would serve to overcome situations such as that. In addition, it is only fair to point out that many small producers are also facing a difficulty, that is, the problem of finding a market for small lot shipments and low grade eggs. I can assure hon. members of this House that if this legislation does not take into consideration the welfare and the needs of the small producer, it is certainly not going to be a very effective tool in solving some of the problems and disparities which individual farmers face today.
Turning specifically to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remarks made by the minister when he introduced it on April 14 were somewhat misleading and tended to distort the main purport and intent of the bill. He stated that the bill will provide the legislative framework which would make it possible for farmers to work together in solving their marketing problems. I am sure no one would find any objection to this. However, I have searched diligently but without success throughout the bill in an attempt to observe any clause which might give the slightest indication that farmers are going to be invited to participate meaningfully in solving their problems pertaining to marketing, producing, packaging, and processing.
What we see in the bill is an over abundance of the words "Order in Council" and "the Minister", which spell nothing more than a unilateral proclamation by the government to take over the total operations of the present day producer. This is very sad because I believe most farmers treasure their independence. The producer is the only remaining bulwark of free enterprise and individuality. The bill should be seriously considered in the light of what it may indicate for the future.
The legislation in its present form will create nothing more than governmental paternalism, which will result in very little if any independence for the individual producer. It will give him very little freedom of choice with respect to what he may produce, where he may produce it, and when he may produce it. It will provide very little in the way of opportunity and flexibility for individual producers who may seek to expand or improve their operations.
This bill tends to lock producers in a permanent strait jacket. We have had lots of experience of this in the performance of the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is discriminatory against the small producer. No one can
May G, 1970	COMMONS
deny that. The dairy producer has a complete lack of opportunity to expand. There is a total lack of opportunity for anyone to get into the dairy business. In fact, under the recently announced policy farmers who are really trying to earn a living are gravely penalized.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this legislation appears to be tailor-made to suit the large operator or corporate farmer. I suspect they will be eager to support this measure. It will allow them to participate in a monopoly, notwithstanding the provisions of the combines Investigation Act. It can only lead us to assume that the legislation will provide for the intentional eradication of the small producer, at a more accelerated pace than we have seen in the past few years. In all sincerity, I suggest that unless the legislation provides for adequate producer representation, and it certainly does not do so in its present form, a large majority of the farmers will not
DEBATES	6667
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill support the proposals contained in it because it is conceivable that through a gradual process of continual assimilation all products could be defined as regulated products, leaving the small man with nothing to produce.
Regardless of their origins and intentions, many theories when applied in a practical sense do not work out. The objectives orgi-nally laid down are not always achieved. This afternoon we heard the minister state that in the initial stages of its application the bill would provide merely a continuation of the co-ordination of existing farm marketing agencies within a province. But what will happen after that, Mr. Speaker? Therein lies the danger. May I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, May 7, 1970