1970-04-27

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of the following member:
Of Douglas Charles Rowland, Esquire, for the elecLoral district of Selkirk.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Douglas Charles Rowland, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Selkirk, introduced by Mr. T. C. Douglas and Mr. Stanley Knowles.


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, last February 2 I indicated that a sum of $200 million out of CMHC's capital budget for 1970 was being reserved temporarily in order to proceed with some experimental projects to provide shelter for low-income families. The object was to provide a catalyst to launch an intensive movement to find more effective ways to house families in the $4,000 to $6,000 income group. The reaction this proposal has generated from municipalities and provinces, and especially from the builders, has been most encouraging and I believe has justified our hope of two months ago.
In view of the number of proposals which were received, a special group of senior CMHC officials was formed under the direct chairmanship of the president to evaluate each of them. Proposals varied from municipal offers to convey land to developers at the cost of servicing, to amendments in zoning regulations and bylaws to permit higher densities, to a provincial offer from Alberta to provide the builder with a 2 per cent interest rebate on NHA loans under this program, to various new building techniques that eliminate unnecessary frills and provide higher densities without a dehumanizing overconcentration of units.
In view of this positive response and in order to maintain the incentive effect, I have instructed CMHC to proceed with negotiations on 15 projects which are to be located in the following cities; St. John's, Newfoundland, 50 units; Halifax, 60 units; Moncton, 150 units; Montreal, 1,450 units; Hull, 300 units; Kitchener, 50 units; Calgary, 200 units; Regina, 50 units; Vancouver, 300 units, and Toronto, 1,800 units. I have further instructed the officials to finalize discussions with all possible dispatch. This first phase of this special $200 million program for low-cost housing will involve the release of close to $56 million of this special fund and will provide for some 4,400 units and 200 hostel beds.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that the real significance of this special program lies in the commitment implicit in these proposals to provide good, clean housing for families with incomes in the range of $4,000 to $6,000 per year. The projects thus authorized will be programmed for 1970 starts, and I am hopeful I will be able to announce the second phase of this program before the House rises.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reply to the minister because I sincerely believe that innovation and experimentation are some of the keys in respect of housing and so far as the future of Canada is concerned. The housing authorities forecast a need for some two and a half million homes by the end of 1970 at a cost of $4 billion. Therefore we can readily see that the housing crisis presents a very great challenge to all of

April 27, 1970
Housing
us. It will call for a great deal of imagination and co-operation at all levels of government and also of the industry, which is also so much involved. We are all interested in new house building techniques, and I hope the minister is placing some emphasis on the acceptability of mobile homes, modular construction and pre-fab mass production because of the need for these types of homes to be accepted in order to bring the cost down.
When we speak of innovations and new technique I think we must be aware of the fact that housing starts are down as much as 95 per cent in Saskatchewan, and of course we are all very aware of the figures in Toronto. We must be very concerned about the lack of money which is a critical factor in housing and, of course, one must place a great emphasis on the fact that high interest rates also are a very great deterrent. No matter how many innovations or new techniques we are presented with, the effect of these innovations and techniques will be minimal unless ways are found to ensure that an adequate supply of mortgage money is available.
In my respectful submission, the minister has three choices. First, he can ensure that CMHC makes more money available for mortgages. His second alternative is to have serious discussions with the lending institutions which seem to be more interested in equity and a piece of the action. As a matter of fact, they have stated that the amount of mortgage money so far as they are concerned will be very small. So I think the minister must reassess this whole problem to ensure that more mortgage moneys are allocated for this purpose.
He should also discuss the matter of housing with his confrere, the Minister of Finance who so far as I am concerned-and I say this with a great deal of respect-has shown no appreciation of the need for housing, particularly in view of his white paper which brings homes into the capital gains structure, and has shown very little interest in new societies in terms of bringing more money into housing.
In closing I should like to say that urban renewal also is a fact of life and as long as we have these great megalopolises we shall be continually confronted with urban renewal. I hope the minister will reassess the position he has taken with regard to urban renewal because there are many people in Canada in the low-income brackets who are looking for leadership and direction in this regard.

We on this side of the House are very pleased that there has been concerted action on the part of industry and the government to attempt to solve the very critical housing situation but, as 1 stated earlier, the key to solving the problem of housing lies in the provision of more mortgage moneys and the lowering of the exorbitant interest rates.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: On February 2 when the minister in charge of housing announced the capital budget of CMHC he said that $570 million would be applied to low-income families and persons. The breakdown of that figure indicated that 265 million would go for public housing, $105 million would go for low-rental housing and the development of co-operative housing, and $200 million would be reserved temporarily for innovations and the balancing of distribution based on need.
The minister's statement today is in regard to the $200 million. The minister said in February that that amount of money would produce 35,000 housing units for low-income families. I wish to remind the House that, as I said last week, there are 100,000 families across Canada on public housing waiting lists, and the 35,000 housing units to be built this year will cover less than one-third of the total need. The target should be between 60,000 and 70,000 for this year alone and will necessitate a substantial increase in the public housing budget.
The statement made today is only factual and does not deal with any innovations in the housing field. The minister said there will be 15 projects in 10 different cities, the net result of which will be 4,400 housing units and 200 hostel beds at a cost of $56 million. There is no information regarding the types of projects. There is no information on whether they are to be apartments, condominium housing, single family housing, row housing, mobile housing or co-operative housing. We would also like to know whether these are rental units, whether they carry with them the right of purchase, and whether there is an income range with regard to the purchase of these units and a form of rental subsidy if necessary.
Another important question which we would like answered is to whom these moneys are going. Are they going exclusively to private builders or are they going to other groups? Will any money go toward the development of co-operative housing? I thought the minister would say a few words about a
April 27, 1970

Housing
conference in the Maritimes to discuss ways and means of building co-operative houses in that area and to develop techniques with regard to the purchase of materials for mass production building. I thought he would deal with the problem of shell housing in the Maritimes and Newfoundland and give some assistance in that respect. I thought he would deal with the open systems approach which has been developed by co-op housing groups and experimented upon in that field, whereby they integrate parts, they have mass production techniques, and have rationalized building techniques.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I thought the minister would also deal with moneys and the question of whether they were going to churches or not. Many churches across the country have the necessary vacant land upon which to build homes but they do not have enough interim financing for architectural and other administrative costs. I thought the minister would help trade unions with regard to their house building problems and assist them in land assembly.
The problem of mobile homes is one to which some of these moneys could be directed. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West and other hon. members have urged that the minister take steps with regard to assisting people in mobile homes.
I also thought that the minister would direct certain moneys to the development of homes for the Indian and Metis people that would be suitable to their particular areas and climatic conditions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the minister would say he was setting up a crown building corporation which would specialize in building homes for low income groups, that he would use the facilities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to meet engineering and architectural problems and the research facilities of the National Research Council to develop new building products, and use Polymer Corporation to manufacture these new products.
The statement is disappointing in that it is not bold and imaginative; it is dull and dreary. I would hope that the second-phase statement by the minister will be more exciting and challenging and more productive as a result of incorporating the suggestions of the opposition parties.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will only indulge in a few brief remarks to express our satisfaction following the minister's announcement on housing. We hope that these $200 million in subsidies will be well received everywhere in Canada and mainly in the province of Quebec.
I do not want to enumerate everything the minister should have done. I merely want to say that we are satisfied with this announcement as a first step toward the improvement of the housing situation. However, I see that these funds are only intended for important urban centres and will be available to large contractors and, as always, the construction of low-priced housing is neglected.
There is no doubt that we always keep in mind the welfare of the citizens of our regions, and if the minister could some day announce a decrease in interest rates in order to promote the building of low-priced family units this would encourage our local contractors.
I do not live in a large urban centre, but since we always do as the United States do, 1 think the minister should have a look at what is going on there. In fact, our southern neighbour has started to reduce interest rates and I believe that if the Canadian government were to do likewise, this would be a first step giving a new start to the building of low-cost family units in our regions.
Today, while loans are granted at 10 and 10.5 per cent, the man who would like to build a small house for his family is not encouraged to do so. If he decides to build a $6,000 or $7,000 house, he will have to pay back $14,000, $15,000 or $20,000. And when the government claims that it is helping low income families, while at the same time, it allows finance companies and banks to charge such interest rates, I say that this is all a big joke. In my opinion, as long as no decision is taken to standardize interest rates, nothing will have been done to help build low-cost family units.
We wholeheartedly hope that announcing within the next few months the second stage of his program, the minister will state that his first objective was to reduce interest rates.
Questions

April 27, 1970



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.


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

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

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Are any personnel of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion stationed in Charlottetown and, if so, how many and what are their duties?
2.	Is there a regional office of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion at Amherst, N.S., and what is the number of personnel there?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes; six. Duties: Direction, one; Secretarial, two; Clerical, one; Resource development and adjustment program administration, one; Industrial, commercial and small business program administration, one.
2.	No, but there is an engineering services unit; 42.


CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL PERSONNEL
Mr. MacLean: How many of the members of the new Construction Industrial Development Council are from (a) British Columbia (b) the Prairies (c) Ontario (d) Quebec (e) the Atlantic Provinces?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a) Four; (b) Three;
(c)	17, including 4 federal public servants;
(d)	Nine; (e) Two.
Members of the Construction Industry Development Council were selected from candidates recommended by the industry, mainly through its national associations and institutes.
The submissions were reviewed and members appoin ed on an individual basis having regard to special knowledge and expertise. 
In the selection process the principle of assembling a Council reflecting all facets of the building industry throughout Canada was observed. No one was appointed to represent an association, institute, corporate group or specific region.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO ERNEST HARRISON AND SONS
Mr. Burion: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Ernest Harrison & Sons, Parrsboro, 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 Ernest Harrison & Sons 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 informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Slatistics 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 C. Ernest Harrison & Son Ltd., as of April 1, 1970 were as follows: C. Ernest Harrison, President, Parrsboro, Nova Scotia; Donald Harrison, Vice-President, Parrsboro, Nova Scotia; Charles Harrison, Secretary-Treasurer, Parrsboro, Nova Scotia.
4.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
5.	None.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. MacLean: 4.	(a) What is the total value of the first year interest coupons on the 1969 issue of Canada Savings Bonds held by the public (b) what amount is provided in the 1970-71 estimates for payment of interest on the 1969 issue of Canada Savings Bonds (c) what will be the disposal of any part of this amount referred to in Part (b) which may not be paid out in the fiscal year 1970-71?
5.	What is the estimated total amount of interest which will have to be paid on the 1969 issue of Canada Savings Bonds in each fiscal year up to and including their year of maturity?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The total value of Canada Savings Bonds held by the public as at April 1, 1970 was $6,593,000,000.
2.	At February 28, 1970 which is the latest date for which detailed information by issue is available, there were $6,626 million C.S.B. outstanding of which $6,145 million were of those series which, when issued, provided an interest compounding option.
3.	Interest on the public debt is charged to budgetary expenditure as the interest accrues. Accordingly any unclipped coupons together with other accrued interest charges are reflected in the Public Accounts of Canada as current liabilities. In addition there has been established, in the Public Accounts, a reserve for the estimated outstanding liabilities in prospect of compound interest on Canada Savings Bonds.
4.	(a) The total value of the first year interest coupons on the 1969-70 issue of Canada Savings Bonds held by the Public at February 28, 1970 was $331.6 million. (To the extent that there are net sales or redemptions of the 1969-70 Series after this date, the value of the first year coupons on the coupon date will differ from this amount), (b) The provision in Main Estimates 1970-71 for interest on the public debt, amounting to $1,799.7 million included an estimated amount for interest on the 1969-70 Series similar to that in (a) above, (c) See answer to no. 3.
5.	Since 1969-70 Series of Canada Savings Bonds are redeemable at the option of the holder at any time, and since the rate of redemption and the utilization of the compounding option cannot be determined in advance for the lifetime of the issue, it is not possible to forecast the total amount of interest which will have to be paid on the 1969-70 issue of Canada Savings Bonds in each fiscal year up to and including its year of maturity.
22218-51j
Questions


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS- RESEARCH STUDIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of External Affairs during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the-studies presently in being or contemplated during, the next five years?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. Research into economic and political problems which affect Canada's relations abroad forms a major element in the normal work of the Department of External Affairs and it is not possible to provide a breakdown of internal research activities performed by Departmental personnel. The following research was done under contract to outside consultants.
Financial records are no longer in existence for years prior to 1964-65. 1964-65-(a) Rules governing the responsibility of the State in international law, $2,800; (b) History of early participation in the International Commissions for Supervision and Control-Indo-China, $2,143. 1965-66-(c) ...Supervision and Control in Indo-China (Cont'd) $545; (d) United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, $3,275. 1966-67-(e) Ownership of off-shore mineral rights, $1,659; (f) Continental Shelf, $1,593. 1967-68-(g) Canadian content in United States education curricula, $3,742; (h) Sources of Information concerning Foreign Affairs in Canadian Press, $5,000; (i>
Canadian public interest in Latin America, $3,122; (j) Canadian public attitudes towards NATO, NORAD and peacekeeping, $1,875.
1968-	69-(k) Socio-economic and political reporting-Latin America Posts, $2,800;	(1)
Peaceful settlement of international disputes $3,600; (m) Trade between Canada and Commonwealth Caribbean $30,802; (n) State papers on Canadian External Relations, $9,460.
1969-	70-(o) State papers on Canadian External Relations (Cont'd), $20,045; (p) Bibliography on Canadian External Relations 16001969, $3,000; (q) Arctic Sovereignty, $1,850.
2.	(i) Projects presently in being and estimate of further costs: (o), (p) and (q) above-$8,500, $500 and $4,000, respectively, (ii) Projects contemplated and estimated costs:

April 27. 1970
Questions
Research in the field of Arms Control and 4- To what extent is this company non-resident disarmament is currently under consideration or toreign-owned or controlled? but it is impossible to project an estimate of 5- what Is the name and country of the known relative costs at this time.	non-resident ownership in this company?
Numerous studies are anticipated during the next five years as a result of negotiations at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, at NATO or at the United Nations, but the nature and costs of the projects will depend on the requirements devolving from those negotiations.
The Department's 1970/71 budget includes an amount of $70,000 for research in the field of automatic data processing. It is anticipated that the Department's annual estimates for the next five years will include a similar amount for the services of professional consultants to study and to prepare in detail the means by which information which uses the language of international relations can be classified for automated storage, retrieval and analysis.
An electronic engineering study will also be made of improvements to the productivity of the telecomunications systems at Ottawa.
3.	See answer to 1.
4.	See answer to 2.


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What annual remuneration will the Chairman of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board receive?
2.	What annual remuneration will each of the Board's commissioners receive?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: 1.	$200 a day for each day of service to the Advisory Board.
2.	$150 a day for each day of service to the Board.



INCENTIVE GRANT TO MARITIME MOTOR SUPPLY

['No, however in March 1969 the federal government agreed to assume under 22218-52\nOrders for Returns\nARDA 50 per cent ($12,500) of the cost of a study of tourism and recreation for the northwest region of Quebec.']
Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Consumer and Corporate Affairs 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.	Maritime Motor Supply Company Limited was incorporated under the laws of the province of Prince Edward Island on June 30, 1955 and information on the officers and directors is not available.
4.	No information available.
5.	No information available.



Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Kainai Industries Ltd., Lethbridge, Alta., 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 Kainai Industries Ltd., 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?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Consumer and Corporate Affairs 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.	Kainai Industries Ltd. was incorporated under the laws of the province of Alberta on January 27, 1970 and no information is available on the officers and directors.
4.	No information available.
5.	No information available.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO HOUSE OF CHAN
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, au-
April 27. 1970



thorized or provided an incentive; grant to House of Chan, Saint John, N.B. and, it 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 House of Chan 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?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1 and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
On investments On operating balances
The average rate of interest on funds invested in securities of the provinces and of Canada during fiscal year 1967-68 is 5.84 per cent, fiscal year 1968-69-6.72 per cent and fiscal year 1969-70-7.63 per cent.
In addition to interest earned on investments the Plan earns interest on the daily operating balance on deposit in the C.R.F. equal to the average of the unweighted average yield at tender on three month Treasury Bills during the month in respect of which interest is being paid less J of 1 per cent.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What amounts did the federal government pay to the Quebec Government in equalization payments for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70?


Edgar John Benson: Under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, and its predecessors, the federal government paid the Province of Quebec the following amounts on account of equalization for the following fiscal years: 1966-67,
Questions
3.	House of Chan Ltd. was incorporated under the laws of the province of New Brunswick on January 13, 1965 and no information is available on the officers and directors.
4.	No information available.
5.	No information available.


CANADA PENSION PLAN-INVESTMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Horner: What are the total earnings and rate of earnings realized from investments made from contributions to the Canada Pension Plan for the years 196768-69?


Edgar John Benson: Amounts credited to the CPP Investment Fund:
	($ millions)	
1967-68	1968-69	1969-70
		(preliminary)
42.2	84.4	139.71.4	2.4	3.7
$155,529,018; 1967-68, $249,876,746; 1968-69, $276,507,486; 1969-70, preliminary, $360,308,964.


PERSONAL INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Of what amount would the federal Treasury be deprised if personal income tax exemptions were raised to 52,000.00 for single persons and $4,000.00 for married persons?
2.	How many people would be affected by such a change, using the year 1969 as a base?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	On basis of 1969 incomes and tax rates the estimated loss of combined federal budgetary and old age security tax revenue would be approximately $1,730,000,000.
2.	All individual taxpayers, estimated to total 7,700,000 in 1969, would have their tax reduced. Of this group approximately 1,850,000 would be dropped from tax rolls.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO McCULLY AND SOY LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act,

April 27, 1970
Questions
authorized or provided an incentive grant to Mc-Cully & Soy Ltd., Truro, Nova Scotia, and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of McCully & Soy Ltd. and what is the address of each.
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors and executive officers of McCully & Soy Limited as at October 31, 1968 were as follows: James M. Soy, President, 86 Main Street, Truro, N.S.; Sidney D. McCully, Secretary-Treasurer, Debert, Col. Co., Nova Scotia; Manning McCully, Director, Debert, Col. Co., Nova Scotia; Bernard Soy, Director, 287 Picton Road, Truro, N.S.
3.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
4.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO TRANS-CANADA STEEL PRODUCTS LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an Incentive grant to Trans-Canada Steel Products Ltd., Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Trans-Canada Steel Products Ltd. and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of S'.atistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors and executive officers of Trans-Canada Steel Products Ltd., as of December 31, 1968 were: J. E. Nant, President, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; L. W. Patterson,

Vice-President, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; E. K. Dokken, Secretary, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
3.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, eiiher directly or through intermediate holdings.
4.	None.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO NORTHWEST DESIGN AND FABRICATION LIMITED
Mr. Burlon: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Northwest Design & Fabrication Ltd. of Winnipeg, Fort MacLeod, Alberta, and if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of Northwest Design & Fabrication Ltd. and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	The directors and executive officers of Northwest Design and Fabrication Limited as of June 30, 1968 were: D. S. Paterson, 131 Ridgedale, Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. N. Paterson, 1735 McGregor, Ft. William, Ontario; R. J. Turner, 409 Shatesbury, Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. E. Searle, 800 Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. R. Fraser, 1215 Wellington Cres., Winnipeg, Manitoba.
3.	The company reports no shares held by non-residents, either directly or through intermediate holdings.
4.	None.


EXEMPTION FROM SALES TAX OF MATERIALS FOR SEWAGE, DRAINAGE AND WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Mr. Burton: 1.	Are materials used in sewage and drainage systems exempt from federal sales tax and what is the basis for government policy on this matter?
2.	Are materials used in water distribution lines exempt from federal sales tax and what is the basis for government policy on this matter?
April 27, 1970


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Yes, when sold to or imported by municipalities for their own use and not for resale.
2.	No. The government has exempted from federal sales tax a limited number of items which are purchased by municipalises as a measure of assistance to these bodies.


FREE DENTAL SERVICE FOR INDIANS
Mr. Burton: 1.	Are people of Indian origin entitled to free health services for the extraction of teeth and, if so, on what basis is this service provided?
2.	Are people of Indian origin entitled to free service for filling of teeth or work on dentures and, if so, on what basis is this service provided?
3.	If there is any difference in the service provided in Parts 1 and 2, what is the rationale for such differences?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Heallh and Welfare):: 1 and 2. Not by treaty or statute. The federal government has always taken the position that responsibility for health lies in this order: (a) With the individual; (b) With his group; (c) Within the provincial programs.
Only when these three resources fail to meet requirements does the federal government become involved. This position is supported by the fact that traditionally and constitutionally health care services have been the responsibility of the provinces for all residents within each province.
Many of these people of Indian origin, however, ei her live in isolated areas or are indigent and thus are unable to ob ain or pay for dental or medical attention in the ordinary way. Each year Parliament appropriates a certain sum of money for the provision of public health and essential dental and medical care for this group. To ensure that funds are used for the purpose intended, it is necessary to establish certain cri'eria concerning the acceptability of individuals for assistance, and to place certain limits upon those services which medical services is prepared to approve.
The acceptability of any individual is governed by the following conditions: 1. A patient must be listed on a Register for an Indian Agency; 2. The patient must be medically/ dentally indigent, or so isolated that the costs of transportation associated with procuring necessary treatment would place such care beyond normal economic means; 3. No other Agency, e.g., Provincial, D.V.A., Workmen's Compensation Board, Insurance, etc., has responsibility for payment of the account;
Questions
4. When an Indian has established residence away from a Reserve or his Indian community for a period long enough to qualify him for assistance from a Provincial, Municipal or any other organization, he generally ceases to be acceptable for assistance from Medical Services.
The objective of the Indian Health Program is to provide or arrange for health services for eligible Indians in order to assist them in achieving a standard of health comparable to that of other provincial residents. Indian groups are, in most provinces, receiving the same benefits under hospi'.al and medicare plans as all other citizens. Where special needs above and beyond what provincial programs provide are required, the federal government endeavours to augment provincial services.
3.	N/A.


COMPETITION NO. 69-NHW-NB-l, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Was competition number 69-NHW-NB-l for CR4, Department of National Health and Welfare, Fredericton, withdrawn and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was Quebec included in the area from which an appointment could be made under competition number 70-NHW-NB-l for CR4 positions in the above department, Fredericton, and if so, for what reason?
3.	Are there any fully qualified people in the Fredericton office to fill the position being advertised?
4.	Are employees with long service disqualified from promotion under this system?
5.	Was an assessment of staff requirements made in the Fredericton office, Department of National Health and Welfare, before the above competition was announced?
6.	If appointments are made, and assessment then carried out, could there be layoffs of employees with long service but who are not bilingual?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Yes. To prescribe knowledge of both official languages as an essential qualification.
2.	Yes. To increase the number of potential candidates with knowledge of both official languages.
3.	The selection board for this competition has not yet received the applications.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	No lay-offs from the unit concerned have been or are being considered.
Questions


REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON JEWELLERY
Mr. Moores: Does the government intend to remove the Excise Tax on jewellery and, if not, for what reason?


Edgar John Benson: This is a matter of government policy. If the government should decide to propose an amendment to the Excise Tax Act to remove the special excise tax on jewellery it would be announced at the appropriate time.


CBC-COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since January 1, 1970, how many complaints have been received from residents of the Northwest Territories concerning the radio service of CBC?
2.	Has a protest on the matter been received from the Legislative Council of the Northwest Territories?
3.	What is the estimated number of residents of the Northwest Territories who are able to receive service from (a) radio Australia (b) CBC radio?


Gérard Pelletier: am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. None.
2.	No. However there has been a cordial exchange of correspondence between the CBC Northern Service and a member of the Northwest Territories Council concerning radio reception in the District of Keewatin.
The existing shortwave service will be improved with the installation of higher powered equipment including a specially designed antenna directed solely to the North. This is part of the Corporation's overall shortwave modernization project which has had to be phased over four or five years due to financial restrictions.
3.	(a) Unknown to CBC. (b) CBC estimates that its radio service is available to 90% of the residents of the Northwest Territories through standard band or shortwave facilities.

INSTALLATION OF TIDE-GAUGE, DESCHAIL-LONS, LOTBINE&RE


Mr. Fortin: Did the government grant special work contracts for the installation of a tide-gauge at Deschaillons in the constituency of Lotbiniere in 1969-1970 and, if so (a) on what dates were these contracts granted (b) who were the contractors chosen (c) how much was paid to each contractor?

April 27, 1970


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes. (a) and (b) On November 21, 1969, a contract for the construction of a tide gauge at Deschaillons, was awarded to Camille Vezina Construction, Fortierville, P.Q. On December 10, 1969, a contract for the relocation of the electrical power line connections at Deschaillons was awarded to Marcel Bastien, Point-aux-Trembles, Montreal, P.Q. (c) Camille Vezina Construction, $7,460; Marcel Bastien, $998.


TRAIN ACCIDENTS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of train accidents in Canada in 1965 and 1969?
2.	What was the number of deaths in these accidents?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. The number of train accidents in Canada reported for the year 1965 was 1,955. Data for the year 1969 will not be available for several months. However the number of train accidents in Canada reported for the Year 1968 was 1,911.
2. The number of persons killed in these train accidents totalled 229 in 1965 and 215 in 1968.


MANPOWER RETRAINING-MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What are the minimum educational requirements for manpower re-training?
2.	What programs exist for those who have not met that standard?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. There are no minimum education requirements for assistance under the Canada Manpower Training Program. However, provinces set education entrance requirements for most skill courses offered in their institutions.
2. Adults may be provided with basic training for skill development so that they may meet the education requirements of employers or qualify for admission to skill courses.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-AMOUNT PAID IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO 1968-69
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What was the total amount of money paid by the federal government during the fiscal year 1968-69 for Family Allowances in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?

April 27, 1970


John Carr Munro: During the fiscal year 1968-69 the federal government spent the following amounts for family allowances: (a) In Quebec: $163,502,052; (b) In Ontario: $189,231,474.


OLD AGE SECURITY-MONEYS SPENT IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO 1968-69
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What was the amount of money spent by the federal government for Old Age Security during the fiscal year 1968-69 in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?


John Carr Munro: During the fiscal year 1968-69 the federal government spent the following amounts for old age security: (a) In Quebec: Old age security, $297,931,760; Guaranteed income supplement, $66,181,574; Total, $364,113,334. (b) In Ontario: Old age security, $475,408,561; Guaranteed income supplement, $75,201,906; Total, $550,610,467.


CREATION OF INFLATION BY TAX PROPOSALS
Mr. Robinson: Has the federal government considered the possibility of inflation being created by the "tax proposals" and, if so, will this be rectified and in what manner?


Edgar John Benson: The possibility that implementation of the White Paper proposals for tax reform might have inflationary effects has been considered and the Government believes that this would not be a result.


DUPARQUET, QUEBEC-REQUEST THROUGH ARDA FOR ASSISTANCE IN ORGANIZING TOURIST PARK
Mr. Laprise: Has the Quebec Government made a request through ARDA for a federal contribution toward the organization of a tourist park in Duparquet, Quebec and, if so, when was this request made and what amount was involved?


Abram Ernest Epp: No, however in March 1969 the federal government agreed to assume under 22218-52
Orders for Returns
ARDA 50 per cent ($12,500) of the cost of a study of tourism and recreation for the northwest region of Quebec.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Godin: 1.	Since 1962, has the Canadian Government taken part in the exporting of cattle and, if so, under which program and to what countries have such sales been made?
2.	Were such sales dairy or beef cattle?
3 What are the names and addresses of the Canadian producers who sold the animals?
4.	For each, what were the number and total price obtained for sales of (a) cattle under 6 months of age (b) cattle under 1 year (c) cattle under two years (d) cattle 2 years of age and over?
Return tabled.


OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	What courses are available for men and women with grade six education or less who desire occupational training?
2.	What proportion of Canada's unemployed are enrolled in occupational training programs?
3.	How many Indians, Metis and Eskimos are enrolled in occupational training programs and, what courses are they taking?
4.	How many women are enrolled in occupational training programs and, what courses are they taking?
5.	(a) How many people who receive occupational training are employed subsequently (b) what proportion of these people remain employed in year round occupations for at least three years?
6.	What incentives exist for employers to provide training or re-training for workers?
7.	What proportion of the regular wage are employers required to pay workers who are receiving on-the-job training?
8.	What are employers' obligations to workers who are about to be displaced through changes in technology?
9.	What percentage of the workers, who receive occupational training, subsequently receive mobility grants?
10.	What occupational training programs exist aimed at particular disadvantaged groups (a) hardcore unemployed (b) native peoples (Indians, Eskimos, Metis) (c) women (d) men and women under 21?
11.	How many people are receiving assistance through OTA for completion of Grades 11 and 12?
12.	How often are schedules of re-training allowances revised?
13.	What are the per capita costs of the various occupational training programs financed wholly or partially by the federal government?
Return tabled.

April 27, 1970
Orders for Returns


INDIAN RESERVE COMMUNITY PASTURES, SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA
Mr. Burton: With respect to the community pastures listed in answer to Question Number 1,031 (a) how many cattle were pastured on each reserve in 1969 which were owned by members of an Indian band (b) how many cattle were pastured on each community pasture in 1969 which were owned other than by members of an Indian band (c) with respect to Part (b), what is the name and address of each owner and how many cattle did each owner have in the pasture (d) how many cattle owned by members of an Indian band is it planned to have on each pasture in 1970 (e) how many cattle is it planned to have in each pasture in 1970 which are not owned by members of an Indian band (f) with respect to Part (e), what is the name and address of each person who has been authorized or allowed to have cattle in the pasture in 1970, and how many cattle has each such person been allowed to have in the pasture?
Return tabled.
lems for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. It is more than four months since I put the question on the Order Paper. It is a fairly simple question and I hope it will not be too long before I get the answer.	"


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Speaker, on April 19 I placed question No. 1284 on the Order Paper after a most interesting statement by the Prime Minister to students at Carleton University about our policy toward the Republic of South Africa. I asked the President of the Privy Council some days ago about hastening the answer. It is a pretty simple answer and I should like to have it soon, please.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	What is the total amount of the projected contractual outlay proposed for the construction and completion of the Bath-Millhaven Prison complex?
2.	How many contracts have been let, to date, in connection with the construction of this prison?
3.	What are the names of each successful bidder in the contracts which have been let?
4.	What were the amounts of each bid, from the lowest to the highest?
5.	How many more contracts will it be necessary for the government to let in order to complete the project?
6.	What has been the method of inspection of each of the contracts performed and/or in performance?
7.	What is the name of each inspector employed by or acting for the government on each of these Bath-Millhaven Prison contracts?
Return tabled.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I heard the Parliamentary Secretary refer to question No. 1,646. If he did, I apologize to him. This is a simple question with the facts lying squarely and immediately within the knowledge of the government. It deals with the S. S. Oronsay and in view of the public anxiety it should be answered. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will direct his very intelligent mind to this question and that it will be answered soon.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, on December 19 I put question No. 773 on the Order Paper asking for information about a study being conducted on housing policy and urban prob-


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. As steadily rising interest rates have not slowed inflation during the last four years but rather have added to costs which have driven prices higher, thus causing inflation to increase at a steadily accelerating pace, will the government now give consideration to other methods of combating inflation, particularly the method of controlling price rises through tax incentives, before the government's policy of restricting economic activity and causing unemployment to rise drives this country into a depression from which it may take many years to emerge?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: That is a very interesting speech, Mr. Speaker. I will take up the substance of it with the Minister of Finance. Thank you very much.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is about time you started.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be willing to debate this vitally important matter publicly at a time and place of his own chosing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would consider, if the hon. member resigned his seat, speaking against him in his riding in the by-election.
April 27. 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wait until the hon. member resigns, which he has no intention of doing. I challenge you to face me in a debate; you will not accept it because you know your policies will not stand up to public scrutiny.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: If you have any courage, accept that challenge on behalf of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: That's right. Put up or shut up.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the announcement by General Foods Limited of Canada, a subsidiary of General Foods Corporation of the United States, that they are now increasing the price of coffee by six cents a pound following an increase of four cents a pound last December and also last October, thus bringing about a very considerable increase of some 14 cents a pound over a period of six or seven months. Does this increase come within the guidelines that were set down at the price stability conference? If not, what action is the minister's department proposing to take with regard to this increase?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is believed that all these increases are due to increasing world prices from exporting nations, and the hon. member has undoubtedly seen such statements over the past six months. However, the matter was brought to the attention of the Prices and Incomes Commission some little while ago.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are no longer the
housewife's friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the statements to which the minister refers. Since it is the minister's responsibility to see whether these are valid reasons or merely excuses for these increases, I am asking whether his department has secured the necessary information to determine whether these three
22218-52J
Inquiries of the Ministry successive increases in the price of coffee were warranted or were just exorbitant profiteering? If the latter, what action does the minister propose to take?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the matter had been brought to the attention of the Prices and Incomes Commission some little while ago. It is the commission's responsibility to determine the factors that the hon. member has raised.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the findings of the Prices and Incomes Commission be made public? We have had matters referred to them for some time and nothing seems to happen. Will the minister undertake to publish the findings of the Prices and Incomes Commission with regard to these particular increases?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, all the findings of the Prices and Incomes Commission as a result of their price reviews will be made public. Quite a number have already been made public. I am sorry that the leader of the New Democratic Party is not aware that several reports have already been tabled in the House.


David Orlikow: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister prevail upon the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, who comes under the minister's direction, to stop making speeches throughout the country long enough to enable him to appear before the committee more often than once every three weeks?


FORECAST INVESTMENT EXPENDITURES AND ANTI-INFLATION POLICY
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Following the announcement lasit week that the general investment plans of Canadian companies for the forthcoming year call for expenditures of approximately 14 per cent more than last year, does the Prime Minister not consider that this evidence ought to call into serious question his whole anti-inflation policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the facts the hon. member refers to. I will look them up and draw my own conclusions.
April 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry DEPARTMENTAL POSITION ON INVESTIGATION OE PRICE INCREASES


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister clarify his position and that of his department regarding the matter of inquiry into price increases? At one time the minister accepted that responsibility. Is he saying now that the Prices and Incomes Commission only-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he will appreciate, I am sure, that he cannot ask the minister to make a statement at this time, by way of a reply to a question asked during the question period, that ought to be presented to the House by way of a statement on motions.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. Would the minister consider making a statement on motions, in view of the confusion that surrounds his role and that of his department?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have had on the Order Paper for some time a motion to establish a committee, which would provide an excellent forum for such debate. I believe the House Leader has indicated that the motion will be proceeded with this week.


WHEAT-ALTERNATIVES TO ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing emergency in western Canada and since the great majority of western farmers have rejected the LIFT program, is the government considering any alternatives? Also, will the Prime Minister consider reassigning the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board to other portfolios where they can do less damage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question in those terms, as the hon. member will appreciate, is not acceptable.


URANIUM
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unfortunate absence of the ministers concerned with commercial affairs, may I direct my question to 
the Prime Minister. As a result of the government announcement about three weeks ago with regard to the possible takeover of Canadian Denison Mines, the subsequent negotiations by the owners of that company with the government, the statements made within the last few days by the president of Canadian Denison, and the uncertainty of the situation at Elliot Lake, I wonder whether we could have a definitive, up-to-date statement of the government's intentions with regard to these matters and what the government has in mind to take care of the long-range problems of the uranium industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the long-range problems I did state that these would be the subject of a statement by the government when we are ready to make it. If there is anything further to report I will discuss it with the minister and see if he wants to make an interim report.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government indicating publicly that it intends to cease purchasing uranium ore for stockpiling?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer this to the minister.


BRIDGES
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing absence of the Postmaster General I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion which is prompted by the ministers' recent announcement of a new bridge to be built to Hull by the National Capital Commission. Considering that there is also an election in Prince Edward Island, will the minister follow his promise of a bridge for Bourassa with a causeway for Campbell?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the United States government has filed a suit against the manufacturer of Geritol and Femiron and its
April 27. 1970

advertising agency for claiming in television commercials that the products will help that tired, run-down feeling, does the minister propose to take similar action to protect the Canadian consumer against such false and misleading advertising?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that health claims are a responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of health claims at all; it is a matter of false and misleading advertising, and the United States government is prosecuting in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Stand up and answer like a man.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is rising on a question of privilege.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statement by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. It was clearly Your Honour's intention not to allow me to answer the question. Therefore I think it should be recorded that I remained in my seat as a result of directions from the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: On the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member can answer but perhaps the statement made by the minister might also apply to the hon. member. We will go on to another question. I really do not think there is a question of privilege. If there is not, the matter should not be pursued.


George Harris Hees: It was equally obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had no intention of replying at all, as usual.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplementary.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. If the minister feels unable to handle alone this matter involving false and misleading advertising, is he willing to coninquiries of the Ministry suit with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to see if between them they can find some way of overcoming this tired and rundown feeling?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, first with respect to the matter of health claims, in order to clarify my previous answer may I say that we take advice in so far as whether or not anything is misleading from the experts on health in the government, namely, the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. When they advise us a health claim is misleading, we take the action. We have consulted on this before and we will consult again.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Minister. In view of the fact that retired civil servants are currently receiving their pension cheques with the first increase which was recently granted and that those in receipt of veterans allowances are finding a corresponding decrease in the moneys they are receiving, does the government plan amendments to the veterans allowance legislation to raise the ceiling in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression this question was asked previously. In view of the importance of the matter, perhaps the minister might reply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the minister is unavoidably absent today. I will see that he gets notice of the question at the earliest possible opportunity and provides an answer to the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Was the minister expressing government policy in Toronto on Saturday night when he said that regional economic disparity was now the No. 1 problem in Canada? If so, does this now mean that the government's fight against inflation will be conducted on a regional basis?
6294	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question asked in those terms is not in order. The hon. member knows that he should direct the question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the statement made outside the House represents government policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: On Your Honour's advice I will rephrase and redirect the question. I ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was expressing government policy in Toronto on Saturday when he said that regional economic disparity is the No. 1 problem in the country? Consequently, can we now expect a change in government policy in fighting inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because it is such an important priority, our fight against inflation has always taken into account the regional disparities in Canada. The budget of the Minister of Finance indicated this and our very high expenditures with regard to regional economic expansion confirm this.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be good enough to convey that information to the premiers of the regionally disadvantaged provinces of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am quite sure they are aware of it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that this is now the No. 1 priority facing the nation, is he prepared to put his money where his adequate mouth is in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member this type of question is quite unacceptable for many reasons.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My
question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the March unemployment statistics have revealed that nearly 40 per cent of the unemployed in Canada are under the age of 25, can the minister indicate to the House whether his department has begun any new youth programs that might help alleviate this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member the question he has asked should be answered
(Mr. McGrath.]
DEBATES	April 27, 1970
by way of a statement. The minister may want to indicate whether such a statement will be made in due course.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister indicate whether he is prepared to make a statement on this situation within the next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a United States citizen, an inmate of Prince Albert penitentiary, completed serving his debt to society on January 28 last but is being held on a deportation order to the United States, and in view of the fact that this man is desperately in need of specialized individual care, will the minister say whether he will immediately initiate plans to have this man admitted to an institution other than a penitentiary until the deportation order can be carried out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I heard about this case just today, Mr. Speaker. I will investigate and see whether any better arrangements can be made for this person's care.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that United States hospitals have already refused admittance to this man, what facilities do we have in Canada to care for people in this type of situation other than leaving them in a penitentiary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary should be placed on the Order Paper. The first question was quite in order, but not the supplementary.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister received any indication from the Danish Minister of Fisheries, Hon. A. C. Norman, that Denmark may withdraw from the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission if the other
April 27. 1970

member nations insist on a ten-year total ban on high seas fishing for salmon in the north Atlantic? If so, in view of the implications this action would have on our resources control, what response has the minister given?


Mitchell William Sharp: Like the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I have read this in the newspapers. I have not yet received direct information from the Danish government.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question. In view of the importance of this question to Canada's Atlantic salmon fishery, is the minister prepared to call in the ambassador of Denmark and discuss this matter with him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if that seems the best way of handling the matter, the answer is yes, but it might be more desirable to make our representations in Denmark.


Robert Muir: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I ask the minister the reason for changing the emblem, insignia or design on his letterhead. Would the minister be so kind as to explain this to the House and advise under whose authority it was changed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure what the hon. member's question refers to in detail. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the question might well be placed on the Order Paper. If it is a matter of urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment. The question can be placed on the list of questions to be debated on the motion to adjourn this evening.


Robert Muir: With all due deference and respect to Your Honour, I rise on a point of order. There is an element of urgency. Daily since it appeared many members have been trying to decipher this code, emblem or whatever it is. I think it is urgent to the extent that many members are spending time on this when they should be working on something else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may well be urgent as the hon. member suggests. My suggestion is that it be considered at the time of adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and is related to the previous question I posed. May I ask the hon. gentleman if this hieroglyphic that appears on his letterhead could be some form of graffiti which appeared on a wall some place?



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister on a matter that is becoming more and more urgent in my ethnic riding of Vancouver East. I ask the Prime Minister if, with his motivation toward a just society, any policy action is anticipated at this session to ensure that no person is denied citizenship or landed immigrant status without any reason or objection being given to the applicant in order that the applicant will know the allegations and be in a position to refute any charge if it is false?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer to the extent that the Secretary of State, under whom the citizenship laws come, is reviewing the situation of citizenship and the laws relating thereto and will be reporting to cabinet on the matter. I cannot indicate a date at this time.



TAXATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that there has now been appointed by the government a director of revaluation for the five-year capital gains tax plan under the white paper on tax reform, together with five assessors of valuation, are we now to take it that this part of the white paper has become firm and is no longer subject to negotiation or change?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Annapolis Valley.



INFORMATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secre-
6296	COMMONS DEBATES	April 27. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry tary of State and refers to the submission made by the Secretary of State before the Davey committee on the mass media last Friday. In view of the minister's statement that officials of his department are working on guidelines for the control of the mass media, do the minister and the government intend to await the recommendations of the Davey committee before defining those guidelines?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that the phrase "control of the mass media", which perhaps goes beyond what the hon. member has in mind, and it certainly does in my case, does not appear in my testimony before the Davey committee.
The question of information monopolies, because that is what we are talking about, I presume, has, as a matter of fact, been under study in my department for many months. I told the Davey committee that the work was far from over as this is a very complex question, both in fact and in law, and that guidelines would certainly not be given to the CRTC tomorrow. That means that, most likely, the Davey committee will publish its report before any guidelines are given to the CRTC.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question. Does the work that is now being done by officials in the minister's department include and extend to attempting to define Canadian content for the press, the written media, so that the national press can foster and promote national unity in accordance with certain guidelines laid down by the government?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. I think that the hon. member has an entirely wrong concept of the work and, above all, of this question. The point is to know what constitutes an information or broadcasting monopoly. It does not mean at all trying to direct the press or the broadcasting system of this country, particularly not as regards the views that they may express freely.



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In light of the

activity taking place in connection with the $1,300,000 pool set up by charter parties to clean up oil spills, can the minister indicate when those individuals who were affected by the oil spill in Chedabucto Bay might receive some procedural directions as to their recourse?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, any announcement about this serious matter would be made by my colleague the Minister of Transport.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give some indication as to time? Time is going by and the initial fund is being depleted and used up for other reasons.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the timing will depend on the Minister of Transport. I really cannot add anything to what I have said.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of figures issued a few days ago by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which show that fewer than 42 of every 100 Canadians receive dental attention in any one year, can the minister say whether the government is giving consideration to including dental care in the medicare legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is not one of the areas of prime concern at the moment.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport in the absence of the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether he has received protests from the town and community councils of the Placentia East area of Newfoundland against the decision of Canadian National to decrease ferry service on the Sydney-Argentia run, with the possibility of discontinuing the service altogether?
April 27, 1970


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Transport.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that protests are being registered against this proposed decrease in service, would the minister undertake to discuss the matter with Canadian National with a view to having them abandon their plans to decrease the service and eventually discontinue it altogether?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion which he will have to assume the minister will take into account.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Dunlop plant in Toronto is closing on Thursday, can the minister tell the House how many lay-offs, if any, will occur at the Yarmouth textile plant and what action will be taken to overcome this situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is true that when the Dunlop plant ceases activity this will have some effect, I understand, on the Yarmouth plant. We are aware of this. We have made some effort to identify the extent of the problem and if there are projected lay-offs we will offer to Yarmouth all of the services which we are currently offering to the Dunlop employees, and which we think will be very helpful to the situation.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister stated previously that he was going to look into the effects and study them. He also said he would offer other employment to these people in Yarmouth. I suggest that there is none in Yarmouth under the ordinary program of the government.



LAY-OFFS BY DUNLOP CANADA LIMITED- RESPONSE BY ONTARIO MINISTERS TO TELEGRAMS FROM FEDERAL MINISTER

John Gilbert: Has the
minister received a reply to the telegrams that he sent to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Development of
Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario in regard to any help that the federal government would give the provincial government in arriving at a feasibility plan to keep the Dunlop plant open? If he has not, what steps does he intend to take to get direct answers from those provincial departments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on my last check I had received no reply from either of the Ontario ministers. We are, however, working on our own in the Dunlop area with our manpower programs. I do not propose to take any further steps to get a reply to the messages that I sent some weeks ago.


John Gilbert: A further supplementary question. Is the minister aware that his manpower facilities have yielded less than 10 per cent of employment opportunities for those employees at-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is not in order.



LAY-OFFS BY DUNLOP CANADA LIMITED-LEGISLATION TO ASSIST WORKERS IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform the House whether or not the federal government is giving consideration to legislation that would enable workers in the Dunlop kind of situation to have a more effective say in dealing with decisions that are made outside Canada?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Dunlop situation falls within the provincial field. The federal role, particularly that of the Minister of Labour, is very difficult in this sort of situation. I am afraid that the Dunlop lay-off has come about as a result of an international rationalization of an industry. With this type of international labour decision being made outside the country, the labour force and the government are becoming more and more helpless. While these decisions are very deplorable and do have an adverse effect on the labour market in Canada, we are almost helpless in light of the situation.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary question. Is the minister saying that there is nothing the federal government can do in this area? This is an important point of clarification.
April 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. I said that appropriate legislation in this field is particularly difficult because of the international connotations of the Dunlop decision.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the government of the right hon. gentleman intend to follow the example of its friends in Quebec and print currency that is partly blank to show the effects of inflation?



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF HARVEST DEADLINE

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture relating to the LIFT program. Inasmuch as many farmers in the north central and northern parts of the prairies have indicated they will be unable to take advantage of the provisions of the LIFT program as it relates to the planting of nurse or cover crops because of the lateness of the planting season and the July 15 harvest deadline, can the minister say whether any consideration is being given to extending the harvest deadline to meet the climatic realities of these areas?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the date of July 15 when cover crops would have to be removed or when any farmer would be permitted to seed a cover crop, of course, is about the middle of the summer for all regions. I think we should dispel any misunderstanding about the purpose of a cover crop. It is not primarily designed for the purpose of growing a crop of any great value but to prevent soil erosion in those areas where there is a high risk of soil erosion from large areas of summerfallow.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister answer my question? I asked whether any consideration is being given to the considerable representations being made by the farmers in the northern part of the prairies for the extension of this deadline.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will examine the answer I gave he will notice that the answer to his question is very clear and specific in that respect.



WHEAT-NUMBER OF FARMERS WHO WILL QUALIFY FOR PAYMENTS UNDER ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Agriculture indicate if he has made an assessment to determine what percentage of western farmers will, in fact, benefit from the LIFT program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, all farmers in western Canada will benefit because if the LIFT program is successful it will substantially strengthen our bargaining position in the international market.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was not referring to the generalities of the program. I wondered whether or not the minister could possibly tell me what number of people will qualify for cash payments under this program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All farmers who were farming in 1969 and who had a permit book have this offer open to them and, therefore, they can benefit if they choose to do so. In respect of the other part of the question concerning how many farmers will in fact apply for the wheat acreage reduction benefit, this of course will not be known until seeding is completed in western Canada. We do not expect all the applications to be in until farmers have finally decided what pattern their seeding and summerfallow operations will take.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a direct question. It has to do with the use of the weed chemical 2-4-5T and it is further to his answer to my question on April 21 that the use of this herbicide is continuing to be reviewed. In view of the fact that the main application of this type of chemical will commence in some three weeks time, can the minister inform the House if it is his intention to ban the use of this chemical or is the matter still under review?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed restricted the use of this herbicide, and several pesticides, in respect of preparation which may be licensed. It may be that we will further restrict the use of 2-4-5T. I would draw to the hon. member's attention, however, that there has been no residue of this chemical found in any
April 27. 1970

food and, indeed, if there should be the Food and Drug Directorate would withhold that food. In other words, there is a nil tolerance.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact that the threat in respect of this chemical is not the residue which may be left in plants but rather its effect on people who may use it, will the minister undertake in the near future to make a statement on motions concerning the use of this chemical and outline the manner in which it may be used.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my previous answer a few days ago, this question is under active review at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On two or three occasions I have raised with him the question of the use of picloram for the purpose of defoliating the Canada-U.S. border and he stated his intention to look into the matter further to see if it could not be reconsidered. Has the minister any further information on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have very little I can add to what I said previously. We have inquired into the possible damage and we have been assured that it is safe to use this chemical in the border areas. All the information I have is a reassurance on that point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the projected transportation of nerve gas from Okinawa to this continent. A week ago the minister said he would give the House some information. Can he tell us now whether the United States government has acceded to the continued request that another route be found so that the nerve gas will not pass through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and whether he has any information concerning the date when the transfer is to take place?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House will have noticed, we have been receiving some support from governors of states through which the nerve gas would pass. Apparently the United States government has not decided whether or not it will pay any attention to these protests as well as to ours.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister state when the government will have a policy regarding Polish-Jewish refugees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we do have a policy with regard to these refugees.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the announced lay-off of between 500 and 800 employees of the CPR, an industry which does come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, can the minister indicate whether the government intends to bring forward in the near future legislation based on the Freedman commission report which would deal with this kind of lay-off?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that, under the present collective agreement between the CPR and members of the affected union there is a provision for this type of advance notice. The difference of opinion between the railway and the union concerns whether a section of the collective agreement has been violated. I am now informed by the union that the matter is to go to arbitration in order that a decision may be rendered.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that there is a dispute concerning whether or not this action is covered, and in view of the fact that many agreements do not have that kind of provision, can the minister indicate whether the government intends to bring in legislation incorporating the recommendations in the Freedman report?
April 27, 1970
6300	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows that no collective agreement is so carefully drafted that there are not cases sent to arbitration. This is the situation here, and I have full confidence that the unions are quite capable of looking after themselves in this particular dispute.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister seize the first opportunity to advise the House, by statement or otherwise, of all the facts surrounding the P & O Steamship Oronsay which was quarantined in Vancouver and the relationship of this matter to his department? In doing so would he refer to the question I have on the Order Paper, which is unanswered, having in mind the allegations made?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I made note of the hon. member's reference to his question of April 7 not having been answered. I expect the answer to be forwarded within the next couple of days, and if the hon. member finds that answer insufficient he can let us know.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. Would he also take this opportunity to deal with all the facts surrounding this vessel, the quarantine enforced in respect of typhoid and the relationship of officers in his department which have been the subject of some discussion?


John Carr Munro: I am prepared to go into that subject in as much detail as possible in answer to the hon. member's question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 14, 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.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. There were some discussions earlier today concerning debate on this bill and it was pointed out that the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth), who is the official spokesman for the official opposition, had not had an opportunity to participate in the debate. I think there might be agreement in the House to enable him to do so.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Keni-Essex):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to begin by expressing my sincere thanks and appreciation for the courtesy that has been extended to me by the various parties of this House in allowing me to proceed with the criticism of the bill. The necessity for this procedure arises because the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), who began his speech the other night, is ill and unable to complete a very commendable statement on this subject.
In dealing with Bill C-197, which is a bill to institute in Canada a national farm products marketing council and national marketing agencies for farm products, we are dealing with what I consider to be one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought forward with regard to agriculture in the current session. I say this because of the fact that should this legislation be passed in its present form or even in an amended form, no section of agriculture in Canada or, in fact, any allied business will remain unaffected to a large degree.
The minister in his introductory remarks indicated quite correctly that legislation along this line has been sought for a number of years. Various farm commodity groups, marketing agencies and farmers in general, have been asking the federal government for this type of legislation. I think they were justified in doing so because it has been the experience of the administrators of marketing agencies on a provincial level that often great advances have been made in stabilizing the prices which the primary producers were receiving for their commodities and at the same time creating stability in the marketing of these very products. All too often it has been our experience that whenever there were inter-provincial or international move-
April 27. 1970	COMMONS
ments of these commodities, the provincial marketing agencies lost control, and all too often the market that they had established for their own membership became of benefit to areas or regions outside their control. Their experience has been very costly in many instances.
I maintain that there are some important differences between the bill presented to us today and the legislation under which the marketing agencies received their jurisdiction from provincial authorities. I note in an editorial in one of the daily farm papers in my own province of Ontario an indication that my party has gone on record as opposing the proposed national farm act because it gives too much power to the federal government. The editorial goes on to say:
Yet the fact is that Mr. Olson's bill contains no more power than that which the Ontario farmer products marketing act has contained for more than 30 years.
The statement is absolutely incorrect. I would like to point out, for the benefit of this House, the primary differences about which we as representatives of the farm community are concerned and which make the present legislation very different from the provincial legislation. I should like to dwell for a few moments on the differences between the two. In a provincial scheme, generally speaking, no primary farm product is placed under an agency unless the following steps are taken in the following sequence: first, a group of the primary producers of this product petition the provincial government to form such a marketing agency; second, if this is thought to be a truly representative body, the government registers all the provincial producers and a plebiscite is held by ballot among all the primary producers to determine whether or not the majority feels that such a program should be introduced. This plebiscite would be carried out by the provincial government and a 66 per cent majority of those who cast their ballot would be required before such a scheme could be introduced.
Following this, the primary producers, at a meeting or meetings called specifically for this purpose, elect from among themselves the directors who will conduct the affairs of the agency, and from among these directors, officers of the agency are elected to conduct the affairs of the agency. These officers and directors are elected on an annual basis, so if there is any dissatisfaction, either with the administration of their duties or the representation of the primary producers, the produc-
DEBATES	6301
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill ers may, at the next annual meeting, express their displeasure by changing the directors or even the officers.
The next step is equally important. If it is found that a particular agency is working to the detriment of the primary producers rather than to their benefit the provincial government can again be petitioned to hold a plebiscite on whether or not the agency should continue in being. If the agency fails to obtain a majority vote, the provincial government will dissolve the agency. This is a fair, just and democratic way of administering agencies.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It is at this point that I part company with the present bill because under this bill the government appoints the directors of both the council and the agencies. It is the government that decides whether or not there shall be an agency for any primary product. It is the government, not the producers, that designates who shall be the chairman, who shall be the vice-chairman, who shall be the men who create the policy for the agency. It is all right for the government to say, "Certainly, the producers and consumers will be considered and we shall choose an appointee for this particular purpose from among their ranks." But such an appointee, if he comes from among the primary producers, will be acting on behalf of the government from which he receives remuneration and not on behalf of the primary producers themselves. So, I say that although the principle of the bill is good, and marketing agencies need federal legislation to help them nationally, they do not desire, and I venture to say will not accept, state control through legislation such as we have before us now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: Anyone who states there is nothing in this bill that has not been in provincial legislation just does not know and does not understand the industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: What are the actual powers of this government appointed bureau with its government appointed directors? These regulations go as far as to refer to any other thing that the directors may wish to do from time to time, and "any other regulation" that may be prescribed from time to time by the governor in council, all of which constitutes a blank cheque? We have a prime example of
6302	COMMONS DEBATES	April 27. 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill this policy in the National Dairy Commission. Producers will need a licence if all the terms of this bill are implemented. Under this bill an agency will have the power to allocate quotas, to tell the farmers how much they may produce. This is already being done through the national dairy policy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not.


Harold Warren Danforth: Not only are producers being told how much they may produce but there is a levy against any production over the amount that they are allocated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, can you imagine Canadian producers being fined for producing food in Canada? This is what is happening. Is this what the agricultural industry wants for its members? These agencies have the power to allocate quotas, to licence producers, to set up grading stations, to place feed lots-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Harold Warren Danforth: Certainly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is a very simple question. Is he aware that all of these things he is talking about with respect to production controls are in the Ontario legislation?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, certainly they are in the Ontario legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course; it is all there.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister says it is all there, but it is all there under the control of the representatives of the industry, not of a government bureau.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is the members of the industry who make the decisions, not rocking-chair generals.


George Harris Hees: That is the difference. Listen, Bud, and you will learn something about your own legislation.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, not only does the agency have the power to allocate quotas, designate who shall produce, licence producers, control marketing, pricing, sales, processing, distributing and packaging, but under the new provisions set out here the agency can levy against producers all the expenses incurred in the administration of an agency,

the office buildings of the agency and even, Mr. Speaker, the salaries and pension plans set up by the goverment for these government appointed directors. It is the producer who is going to pay, not the government, not the taxpayers, and all this is the work of a department which is supposed to promote the well being of the agricultural industry instead of decimating it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: The thing that bothers me more than anything else is that the basis of this bill is the establishment of a means for supply management and production control in Canada. I think the minister would be the first to agree with me. This is the basis of the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And that power is exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.


Harold Warren Danforth: At the present time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Wait until this bill is passed.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister says it is for supply management-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And production.


Harold Warren Danforth: What do we have under supply management? Who are the advocates of supply management? Naturally if I had a large well established business, with all the volume that I could handle, I would be a supporter of a bill such as this because I could set up a monopoly with the blessing of the government. Government regulations could prevent any young farmer in the nation from starting in competition against me and could prevent anyone else from extending his business to take a share of mine. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be in a comfortable pew and I would certainly support this bill. But anyone who has the welfare of the agricultural industry at heart, an industry that perhaps is going through its greatest financial crisis, will take a long look at this legislation which places such power in the hands of a government bureau.
The government is proceeding with this supply management effort and I am very much surprised because this was not the recommendation of its own task force. The government set up a task force to advise it on what was going wrong with agriculture, and I would like to quote that part of the report of
April 27, 1970

the task force which was submitted to the Congress on Agriculture. I am reading from the official document:
Supply management of the all-pervasive type which would be in a position to allocate resources rationally, would have to include most farm products, would involve inspection, research, administration and control far exceeding anything that we have experienced in Canadian agriculture to date.
It goes on to say, and this is important:
Such an extreme should be avoided at all costs if reasonably satisfactory alternatives exist.
And it concludes by saying:
Fortunately there are alternatives, which, though not fully satisfactory should be given every opportunity before launching the "ultimate weapon" of supply management.
That is not all, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote from some statements made by Secretary Freeman, former Secretary of Agriculture in the United States. The United States tried this idea. There is nothing new in supply management. There is nothing new in government control of supply management, but the United States learned a bitter lesson. I would like to quote from part of a speech by Secretary Freeman, to be found in "Successful Farming" of June, 1963:
Only about one-fourth of our farm income is from commodities for which both production and pricing decisions have been relinquished by the individual to central authority. This includes wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts and tobacco. Yet this 25 per cent of agriculture accounts for about 75 per cent of farm program costs, 85 per cent of the accumulated stocks, and 95 per cent of the contraversy.
He went on:
For two years the Administration made strong efforts to impose or extend mandatory controls to feed grains, dairy products, turkeys, broilers, and potatoes. These drives were made from deep conviction and with abundant willingness to spend public money-by a political party in Arm control of both the Congress and the White House. None of these drives succeeded!
The new farm policy proposals by the administration have been few rather than many and voluntary rather than mandatory.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It has been tried and it is a failure, yet we in this country are being asked to pass a bill to set up government control of supply. That is why we take a dim view of this legislation and the power it gives to the government. We do not think it can succeed.
Experience shows that the agricultural industry in Canada is in balance. Wherever something checks the free flow of primary agricultural product, there is a natural and an economic tendency to diversify into some-
DEBATES	6303
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill thing more lucrative. Governmental control on one primary commodity brings about a shift to another commodity, which in turn means a further shift to another commodity and so on ad infinitum. This is why the task force report emphasizes that supply management cannot succeed unless there is government control over all the main primary products in agriculture today. But Mr. Speaker, this is not what the industry wants; it does not want to be fenced in. What primary producers want is greater emphasis on markets, particularly in the international field, not a cutback to satisfy our domestic markets in a shrinking international field. This is not competition. This is throwing in the sponge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: What would be the effect on agriculture if all the powers the government requests in this bill were implemented? Maybe the government will never use these powers, but we have to assume there is an intention to use them. We, in the opposition, must deal with the bill on that basis.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill is implemented in its present form not only the agriculture industry but the allied industries, the chemical plants, packing plants, distribution and processing plants will be reduced to the status of public utilities working on government directive only.


George Harris Hees: For shame.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister indicated that the National Dairy Commission was a prime example of what could be accomplished.


An hon. Member:: Heaven forbid!


Harold Warren Danforth: Although the appointees to this commission were supposed to represent the producers of the nation, in the actual fact they turned out to be public relations representatives of the government, selling government policy to the producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: If one thinks that a commission of this kind is going to be effective for the primary producers, one only has to look back to the time when the minister indicated to the industry that there would be a $10 million cutback, and that they should cut their coat according to their cloth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is not misrepresentation from the industry, that is regimentation by
6304	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill government. I am afraid that is what is going to happen under this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, in initiating such a bill and in initiating government policy, there has been an indication that legislation to move farmers off the farms will be introduced. If this measure is so good for farmers, they should be moving farmers onto the farms. It is a deliberate policy to desiccate agriculture. Is it not ridiculous that in Canada today, when the highest price in the history of our country is being paid for fluid milk, the government has embarked on a program to restrict its production? There does not seem to be any logic in this.
The terms of this bill imply that consumers will profit but, Mr. Speaker, consumers cannot profit under supply management. It just means additional costs to the producer and to the consumer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: How about the tobacco industry?


Harold Warren Danforth: Experience has shown that the consumer does not profit, either. When this government reduced the tariff on the importation of head lettuce, for example, the consumer did not profit from that. This is an indication of what happens as a result of government intrusion and interference.


An hon. Member:: What a mess they made.


An hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


Harold Warren Danforth: I started by saying-


An hon. Member:: When are you going to finish?


Harold Warren Danforth: -that we agree some form of control is necessary interprovincially and internationally. Farmers have found through bitter experience that their marketing agencies cannot compete with state trading nations or international food cartels. What they want from the government is aid in putting muscle into their efforts to enter the international market. Instead, the government brings in supply management control to curtail supply. The government will be the only one to benefit. There will be no problem connected with marketing surplus farm products because there will not be any more farms.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, completely transfers responsibility for all the major decisions

DEBATES	April 27. 1970
connected with the agriculture and agrobusiness industries to a government bureau. The bill does not lay down the qualifications for the members of this bureau and we have learned from experience the criteria used by this government when placing people in office. It will not be their knowledge of agriculture which gains them a place. This is what bothers me about the bill before us. We have been asked to transfer the power of decision making from the industry to a government appointed bureau. Anyone reading this bill who has a knowledge of agriculture will realize that it was drafted by administrators for administration purposes and not by anyone with a knowledge of agriculture.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. During debate on this bill our prime objective will be, by way of amendment, to attempt to retain in the hands of the primary producers the control of regulations which the government will seek to impose over the industry.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: We feel that no one is better able to assess the climate of agriculture and the moves that ought to be made than the person who is engaged in the agricultural business. It is not our intention to play God as far as the farmers of this nation are concerned. They must make their own decisions and our objective will be to point out as forcefully as we can the weaknesses of the bill and the direction in which we are heading which will lead to absolute state control. It will then be up to the farmers to make their decision.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, as I read this bill, it is a proposal to bring the federal government into the field of farm product marketing and to give it a great deal of power and scope in that field. I suppose few primary producers in Canada are as vulnerable to the pressures of the market place as the farmers and ranchers in western Canada. There are few producers who have suffered more at the hands of market forces, both domestic and international, than the people on the farms and ranches of Canada. So, when we look at a proposal such as this, the first question we ask is: what sort of bill is it? Will its provisions meet the needs of our farming people? Is it going to help them to
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
achieve their aspirations for the good life, the just society or, more important than that, security.
I remember a number of years ago being at a meeting here in eastern Canada. We had invited an economist from the University of Saskatchewan-an economist for whom I had the highest regard and who is no longer with us-to come to that meeting and discuss the role of agriculture in an industrial society. He agreed to come. In his reply to me he said, "If you had written me a letter before the second world war, or even six or seven years ago, asking me to talk about the role of agriculture in the industrial society of Canada, I would probably have refused the invitation because at that time, in my opinion, we did not have an industrial society; but now we do have an industrial society." Therefore, the role of agriculture has to be defined, considered and dealt with in light of the fact that agriculture is operating within an industrial society.
An industrial society as I see it, or as I observe it, Mr. Speaker, is a society in which monopoly operates, in which price maintenance is a daily fact of life and in which the government of the day-and in my province it brags that it is a free enterprise government-busily sets up a Prices and Incomes Commission to prevent those who are practising price maintenance from gouging the consumers of Canada. Admittedly, this commission is almost totally ineffective, but none the less this is its purpose. So, this is how the government of the day regards Canadian society.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this bill is designed to operate in that kind of society. If this is so, it seems to me that the first question is, how effectively will it operate in that kind of society? The other question is, how much of a role will the actual producer play under the provisions of this bill? To what extent will the producer play a part in those decisions that will have to be made? To what extent will he continue to be the master of his own fate; to what extent will he become the servant of the state and, even worse, a pawn of the state in its manipulations of the economy and in the pursuit of its objectives in the world in which we live?
The previous speaker mentioned the Canadian Dairy Commission. I agree with him. The operations of the dairy commission give me cause for concern.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	6305
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have received letters from people who are desperate. Because their right, and indeed their ability, to earn a living on their farms has become seriously jeopardized, because in some instances they have been partially denied the opportunity to follow the vocation they had been following, and because they have been unable to put their case before the commission, these dairy farmers have, in desperation, written to their Member of Parliament asking, "What can you do for me?"
It may be, as individual marketing boards operate, that some instances of this sort of thing are unavoidable. But such things under the aegis of such boards, in my opinion, have been only too common. Under operation LIFT, we have a situation in which the government has taken powers wholesale unto itself. The Government advised this House that it was doing this with the support of the farm organizations and the provinces concerned. Yet within a few weeks of that announcement, we heard one of the major farm organizations saying, "No, this is not our baby." It seems to me, therefore that there ought to be a provision in this bill, a provision I have not been able to find, that the farmers who are going to be affected by this legislation shall have the right to elect either the majority or possibly all the people responsible for directing any marketing board or agency which is set up.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It seems that this is an essential requirement if the individual farmer is going to be able to say when the operations of an agency are not serving his purposes or if an agency is operating very well. An individual farmer or a group of farmers who do not consider they are being fairly treated as a result of the operations of the agency should be able to come before a forum of their own people and say that this or that is happening to them or, in their opinion, the agency is not working well. This is the protection the farmer should have. According to this bill, the appointment of those people who are going to operate such an agency, will be at the pleasure of the government. The people who dreamed up operation LIFT in western Canada were selected at the pleasure of the government. Some individual farmers will suffer severely under that program because of the limited alternatives open to them. The unfortunate thing is there will be many such instances. I
April 27, 1S70
6306	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill could say more, but we are not here to discuss operation LIFT. We are here to discuss this particular bill.
I refer to page 5 of the bill which reads:
(1)	The duties of the Council are
(a) 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;
I wish to emphasize the words "an efficient and competitive agriculture industry." Before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) visited Saskatchewan in February, the grain industry in Saskatchewan and in the rest of western Canada was an efficient and competitive industry. No one denies that fact. This bill says, "maintaining and promoting an efficient and competitive agriculture industry". What does it omit? Only the people.
Even though there may be an efficient and competitive agriculture industry, there may still be a lot of people who are hard up. I have looked through this bill in vain trying to find a place where it proposes to attempt to maintain the income of the people on the land. There is no such statement in this bill. This is not an objective of the people who will be the commissioners or administrators. According to this bill, they are not to be concerned with the income level of the people on the land. The bill further states:
(2)	(b) have regard to the interests of consumers of farm products and of those engaged in the marketing thereof as well as to the interests of producers of farm products.
The producers of farm products are not mentioned first, Mr. Speaker. The consumers of farm products in this nation have done very well. The consumers of farm products in this nation pay a smaller percentage of their income for food than do the consumers in almost any other country among the developed nations. The consumers are able to buy products that are sorted, crated, washed and packaged. If there is anything more that can be done to make the product more presentable to the consumer, that is done. These are the services the consumer is receiving today from the distributors of farm products in Canada, yet in this sentence that I referred to the producer is mentioned last.
I wonder why the government found it necessary, in introducing this bill, to very carefully state that the interests, of the consumer will be carefully protected. Has the consumer been that badly abused? If so,
IMr. Gleave.l
where and when? Beef is imported from New Zealand so that the consumers in eastern Canada will not be forced to pay high prices. Last year the amount of beef imported from New Zealand was tripled. Great care is taken to ensure that the consumer is not at the mercy of the farmer or rancher on the North American continent. Alternative supplies are available.
The bill also refers to "those engaged in the marketing thereof". They also take precedence over the producer. Those who have been doing the marketing have not done that badly. I refer to those marketing our grain, the elevator companies and the brokerage people. They are guaranteed a return that is sufficient to enable their operations to run very smoothly. They have not been suffering that much. The packing industry slaughters, processes and packages our beef and hogs. It packages our eggs. This industry has managed very well, Mr. Speaker, yet in this bill it has a special place.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Under this bill control can be exercised over any farm product. Clause 17 provides:
The Governor in Council may by proclamation establish an agency with powers relating to any farm product or farm products the marketing of which in interprovincial and export trade is not regulated pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act or the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
This means that the agency will have power over practically any farm product in Canada, with the exception of wheat, barley and oats.
Clause 19 provides:
The members of an agency shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure.
As I said before, the bill makes no provision for producer participation. The agencies can operate without it. I thought I heard it said that these powers were given to the provincial governments, but this is not the case with regard to marketing grain. The government found it quite possible to get around any provincial participation here. Never has a member of the Wheat Board been elected by the producers: all have been appointed by the federal government. There are at least three different types of operation in connection with the marketing of hogs, one of which is a commission in Manitoba.
So as I see it, this bill gives the agency concerned the power to do almost anything with any given agricultural product. Unless provision is made within the bill for partici-
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
pation by farmers and producers in the decision making by the agency, you could conceivably see much of Canada's farm production handled, administered and sold without any producer participation. The producer would be little more than the hired man of the agency that is to be set up, and I do not think this is what we want. Our thinking should be much more advanced than is evidenced by the provisions of this bill.
In this day and age one hears the phrase "industrial democracy". People connected with plants, factories and some of the academics in our universities are saying that the man who does the work should now be thinking in terms of participating in those decisions and operations that affect his daily life. This the farmer has done up till now, though as I said at the beginning of my address he has done it at a frightful price in terms of income. We know that farm income has lagged consistently below the national average in Canada, with the exception of the odd occasion. Indeed, a recent report issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates that farm income in Saskatchewan dropped by
19.9	per cent, I think is the figure, between 1968 and 1969.
In order to correct this kind of situation and to give the farmers the bargaining power that they need, does the government have to take all of the decision making with regard to the marketing process and other matters away from the farmers? I think not. As I say, unless some protection is afforded the farmers in the bill, I am afraid in many areas they will merely be trying to conform to decisions that are made by civil servants, ministers, and perhaps managers in the processing industry who have power to make such decisions. The only thing that will assure the farmer a say in this kind of operation is the elective process. The farmer is one of the thousands at the bottom of the ladder; at the top you have the few. Only the elective process will assure him any real part in the decision making that takes place.
Supply management has been brought into this discussion, and this could very well be part of the government's objective in this legislation. Operation LIFT in western Canada is nothing more nor less than a supply management operation; indeed, it is declared to be such. Yet the farmer was given no vote or opportunity to make a decision in a matter that affects his daily life.
The stated objective of the bill is to establish an efficient and competitive farm prod-
DEBATES	6307
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill ucts marketing board. This we must have, otherwise the needs of the people of Canada will not be served. But in addition to this stated objective, the bill should provide that part of the job of those who administer the act is to improve the income position of the farmer. This the board can do by bargaining for a better price for his product in the marketplace. The regulation of quality and markets is something that benefits the consumer. Any regulation that controls the product the farmer sends to the marketplace is not designed to protect his interest but to protect the interest of the consumer.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
So, if this is to be a bargaining agency and if the objective is to bargain for a price for the farmer, then that objective should be stated in this bill. If it is not stated in this bill that the objective is to bargain for a price in order to achieve an acceptable income for the farmer, I would have very considerable difficulty in supporting the bill. What other objective is there in asking the farmer to submit to regulations under which an inspector, by virtue of a piece of paper someone gives him, could enter the farmer's premises any time and find out what the farmer has there, how long he has had it and what he intends to do with it. If a farmer should not choose to conform to these regulations, under certain circumstances he could land in jail. If a farmer is to submit to this kind of pressure, then there should be some benefit for the farmer. What the farmer is interested in is a fair price for his product.
We can use all the fancy words we know to say that we need economic, efficient and competitive farms. One could stand up at meetings and say all these things, but when one is all through the farmer would ask, "How much income will I have; what is the price of the product going to be and what will my balance sheet show at the end of the year?" That is what the farmer wants to know. This information is not contained in this bill. I suggest this is one of the important things which should be considered in respect of this bill. I refer to income maintenance. If the farmer, as this bill suggests, is to be an efficient and competitive individual, then we should also tell him how he is going to live. Any good economist will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the term "perfect competition" is a term that is used. This is a situation when there is no control over price and when a product has to fight for its place in the
6308	COMMONS DEBATES	April 27. 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill market place. If perfect competition is carried to its logical conclusion the result is bankruptcy. Any group of businessmen who possibly can avoid perfect competition do so, because the result of it is ruin.
We have the example of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have heard people say many times that we should let the Wheat Board go into the markets of the world and sell wheat for whatever it would bring. At a meeting which I held in western Canada a farmer said, "If you do that how far will we go down; what will the end be"? I said to him that I do not know how far down it would go. I do not believe anybody else knows the answer. In this situation we would have perfect competition, and when you have adequate supplies and perfect competition there is a long way to go. So I should like some government member or the minister, either while this debate continues on second reading or after the bill goes to the standing committee, to tell us what the objectives of this bill are in respect of income for the farmer and what the pricing policies are to be.
As we know, under the support policies of this government, there is some support in respect of beef, hogs and so on. This support is very small. It is set low because there is no control over the volume of product as there would be if the government should raise the support price and have to buy the product. So, the support price is kept very low. This bill, however, proposes to institute supply management. The intent is to control the volume of product that will come on the market, the manner in which it will be handled and the manner in which it will be marketed. If the farmer is to be controlled to that extent by a bill such as this, he is entitled to a fair price. If he were to be left alone to sink or swim, then maybe there would be some justification in saying that we will not do anything about pricing.
Perhaps we could tell farmers they can produce what they like and then they would be on their own. But if we introduce legislation of this type to establish a policy of supply management, then the farmer is entitled to know what is to be done about price and income. This is the essence of the Dairy Commission operation. This is the only way they can justify what they are doing to the producer. In return, the Dairy Commission says the producer will not go broke. That is the essence of it. There is a similar situation here. We are saying these things to the pro-

ducer and at the same time we should be willing to tell him what we intend to do about price and income.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should not want to miss this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-197 to establish a National Farm Products Marketing Council.
At first sight, this bill, like all the others, seems to make sense. It seems it would be wise to create a National Farm Products Marketing Council. But it is always in the application of legislation that we are taken for a ride and this bill is a classical example of all the legislation introduced by this government since it came to power.
The setting up of councils, royal commissions, boards and other bodies means further expenditures. In addition, the government certainly has many friends to bring in and I presume all appointments will be made by the government itself at the cabinet level. That is exactly what I am concerned about in connection with this bill.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, when you read the Governor General's recommendation, you note that, having dealt with the establishment of the Council, it goes on to salaries, fees and expenses. It never fails. That has to come first. The recommendation then deals with the organization of the Council and its staff, with the expenditures to be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor, and with the creation, if necessary, of marketing agencies for farm products.
If the National Council is unable to advise the minister adequately, agencies will be created. In this connection I would like to quote in part the recommendation:
-to provide that the agencies shall conduct their operations on a self-sustaining financial basis without appropriations therefor by Parliament;
It is said that the agencies will be self-sustaining. This means they will not be swayed by money. It is said further that the government may grant a certain amount of money, and I quote:
-to enable the agency to meet initial operating and establishment expenses, the aggregate amount of such grants not to exceed one million dollars.
And that is how the government establishes the agency. It reminds me of the way Information Canada was established. In my opinion, it will be another agency like Information Canada, for the purpose of selling government policy to farmers.
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
It has always been my belief, Mr. Speaker, and it still is, that in a democracy the government should support the efforts of producers whereas in a dictatorship the government gives them orders. When I examine both systems, I wonder where the present government stands. And that is what frightens me, Mr. Speaker. We claim to be a democracy, we pretend to be one. We claim to be a democracy and we are living under the worst dictatorial government we have ever known. All the decisions the government has made so far in the field of agriculture prove it.
The farmers cannot foresee the plans of the government, nor wait for it to announce its policy, without participating in the study of those programs. They must wait for what the minister will be willing to give them.
This bill provides for public hearings, but we know what the results are of those famous public hearings. Pretence is made of consulting the farmers, but when the time comes to apply the law the recommendations of the people who are really concerned, the producers and their associations, are totally disregarded.
We have had a striking example of this in the province of Quebec in the case of the manufactured milk production. Everyone expected concrete results, after numerous evening study periods and numerous meetings with the government and each and everyone of the parties. We ourselves had talks with the C.F.U. and farm organizations with a view to submitting, to the government, a well defined plan on the future dairy policy. All this was confined to oblivion, and the officials of the Department of Agriculture, as well as those of the Dairy Commission, completely ignored the recommendations and studies that had been made.
That is why one could read in La Terre de Chez Nous, on the editorial page, after the dairy policy was announced by the minister, and I quote:
Quebec manufactured milk producers bitterly disappointed.
It is quite a disappointment, for it means the disintegration of our dairy production. Indeed, a third of the farmers are now leaving their farms, precisely because of the "good" conditions the Minister of Agriculture has provided for them.
If only the same fairness had been shown, the same advantages had been given the milk producers, as the wheat producers out west. We are not asking for much, all we want is equal treatment with the wheat producers,
DEBATES	6309
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill which would put an end to bitter criticisms by the farmers.
How are the wheat producers treated? There is too much wheat, so we are going to pay to prevent them from producing. It is nothing terrific, but at least we do not let them perish with their wheat, without a cent. They are paid so as not to produce.
If our farmers were paid, $200 per dairy cow for instance, to be able to kill a percentage of their dairy cows, they would keep only the herd that would enable them to get their quotas. But no. More cruelty, more barbarism is shown here. They are smothered. The dairy farmer does not get a single cent for his surplus dairy cows. While the western farmer is being paid not to produce, this dairy farmer is penalized because his cows produce milk. What a ridiculous situation.
If he were at least given $200 for each cow to be killed, that cow would no longer give milk, milk he does not know what to do with. There would be some justice. But no. Producers have to pay $1.25 per hundredweight of above quota milk.
For two or three years, they were asked to produce more, by means of propaganda on television and over the radio, so much that I wondered what the Department of Agriculture was driving at. Now that they have accepted the conditions assigned to them, they are penalized.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Only one solution could be adopted today: if a dairy producer exceeds his quota by 50,000 or 100,000 pounds, he should be paid to slaughter some cattle in order to remain within the limits of his quota. He would then use the money available to turn to some other crop. We should not be afraid, for the farmers are not crazy. They will not waste that money. On the countrary, they will use it to grow other crops or to breed stock.
The government has ignored all the relevant studies that were conducted in the province of Quebec. In fact, an editorial writer has stated the following, and I quote:
These studies and this research made by the associations of producers, which are far from easy, were not made, without the federal authorities knowing about them. Far from it. Since November 1969, all the federal members from Quebec, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and the cabinet ministers concerned have been kept informed through continuing consultations that everybody tried to keep objective and as close as possible to the problems of the producers. What did all that work result in? Nothing or almost nothing.
Such is the farmers' conclusion.
6310	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
That is why the farmers are now asking themselves: what is wrong? You may find the answer to that question on page 4 of the April 8 issue of La Terre de Chez Nous, and I quote:
If agriculture is not sick its leaders are-
This article does indeed state the truth of the matter. Some members of the Canadian Dairy Commission should submit to an economic health cure.
This bill provides also for the creation of new jobs in order to have studies undertaken. Indeed, consideration will again be given to the possibility of marketing farm products. I was under the impression that all the employees and experts of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would devote themselves to the sale of Canadian products, but it seems that another council will have to be set up, in each department, in order to advise the minister's own council so as to bring about marketing planning.
Once all those councils, sub-councils and agencies have been set up, farm producers will be told that nothing can be done for them, as the milk producers have already been told. Formerly, when there were some hard to solve problems, particularly in our area where illnesses like, for instance, brucellosis, have caused considerable damage, it was possible to try to cope with some cases.
Today, that is not possible anymore. The door is closed and locked.
Once the agencies and sub-agencies are established, the minister will be like the queen-bee surrounded and well protected by his staff. One word from him will be enough for the implementation of a decision. Indeed, no matter how many laws are passed and how many agencies are created, we can see in the last part of the bill that the minister is the supreme authority: he is the only one to decide.
That is exactly why so many farmers are dissatisfied, and rightly so. We know that there are surpluses. Farmers should be spared some of the blows and be able to diversify their production. They must be helped as were wheat producers. The government must give them assistance if it prides itself in helping producers.
Today, we have some indications that the government is no longer helping the producer, but gives him orders and lays down conditions. This is why I am protesting.
I do not accept a dictatorship at the ministerial level or at the government level. We

DEBATES	April 27, 1970
are living in a democracy and as long as I am here, I will plead on behalf of democratic rights and all the more for those of farmers and milk producers which make up our basic industry in the province of Quebec as well as for hog and potato producers.
Mr. Speaker, if the government wishes to pass Bill C-197, it should make it more democratic. How can that be done? Instead of having these public servants appointed by the government in power, it would be desirable to divide the Council into three sectors. First, the federal sector, second, the provincial sector and, third, the producers' sector. Each sector would choose its own representatives.
That seems to me the only way to set up a national administrative council of a democratic nature so that farmers and producers may have their say for once and may delegate to the council representatives of their associations. Furthermore, relations with the provincial governments are anticipated since the recommendation reads and I quote: and further to provide for federal-provincial agreements.
If agreements are to be entered into it is absolutely necessary that provincial governments be represented on this council.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In introducing this bill, the government has acted in the same way as when it introduces any other legislative proposal. The government decides, without consultation, and then it says to the provincial government: Do this, or else you will not receive anything. And it calls that co-operation. Well, I suggest that this is not co-operation. And co-operation must be established without fail at the council and the agency levels. And there will be co-operation as I recommended a moment ago, through the establishment of a council comprising three members from the federal government, three members representing the producers and three members from the provincial governments. To be logical and to ensure the autonomy of this council, each organization represented on it would pay its own delegates. It may be said that because this is again a federal organization, it should pay the representatives of farm associations and provincial governments. I do not agree since this would endanger democracy. Let these three elements pay their delegates to the National Council. This would be the best way to be sure that everybody will be entitled to participate in studies and findings.
April 27, 1970

And if, after these findings, the minister does not agree, as is sometimes the case, it will rest with Parliament to show the people the lack of sincerity of some representatives regarding findings reached in a democratic way.
I feel that this would not only protect the producer but the members of the Council, the federal government officials as well, and would permit more objective studies at the federal and provincial levels. It would be a great relief to the Council and it would eliminate a good deal of controversies which set provinces over against each other presently, because of the dictatorial spirit that you feel hovering over each of them.
If the government wants to force dictatorship upon us, let it say so. We shall get organized accordingly. Provinces are led to believe that government is exercised in a democratic manner but it is not so. That is the reason why the provinces are in revolt. I hope that for once, the minister will think it over and amend the paragraph of his bill which provides for the establishment of the National Marketing Council, so that each one of the elements which I mentioned earlier will be represented. Here is a way to obtain more democracy, which will greatly contribute to the understanding and national unity that we all want.
Today, we have reached the point where most provinces are at war with the federal government. And who is to blame? Not the provinces. No, no! Let us face facts. It is rather against this dictatorship which is forced upon them. For once, let us come back to democracy and I sincerely hope that this bill will provide the opportunity to make such a gesture.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-197 and in doing so, I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for the speed with which he has implemented another of his pre-election assurances. These assurances, Mr. Speaker, were given to the vast majority of farmers who are clamoring for the right to study, plan and organize their commodity groups on a proper business-like basis in competition with other food commodity producer groups, as well as area and international competitors.
The enabling legislation provided in Bill C-197 is not new or earthshaking. It complements similar enabling provincial legislation
DEBATES	6311
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill which will extend the benefits of planned production and marketing on a national basis. Farmers everywhere have been conducting a quiet revolution in an attempt to bring stability to farm product markets. They have worked diligently in co-operation with governmental experimental research and have been highly successful in reducing production costs over the years. As costs were reduced, the savings were passed on to the consumers. Little or no work has been done on a national basis relating to market research. The only factor in our economy which can assure a fair return to the producer is the market price. This factor has been almost totally neglected. Most business and service industries are permitted to price their products and services, while the farmers must take what they are offered.
Individual farmers engaged in commodity production are expected to estimate market requirements without the slightest scrap of information regarding the intentions of the other thousands of farmers. It is true that periodical market outlooks have been issued by various government agencies and that politicians have made forecasts, but no specific approach to market research relating to individual products has been carried out which could assure producers some safeguards when the time came for the product to go to market.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian agricultural producers have been encouraged to produce in surplus in order to provide cheap food. Overproduction causes low market prices, usually below cost of production. The low prices discourage production and subsequently result in short supplies and high prices to consumers. For many years farm product prices rose and fell like the ocean waves. This unstable, disastrous system was called the law of supply and demand. The producer received high prices when he had little or no product to sell, disasterously low prices when he overproduced. Occasionally the surpluses, especially on perishable products, became so burdensome that the law of supply and demand was temporarily repealed. The government would then provide a subsidy, but this policy has never been able to solve the problem of instability in market prices.
Subsidies, Mr. Speaker, were and still are a valid charge against consumers. The subsidy payments merely pay production losses and enable producers to stay in business. Today, we live in a climate of agricultural subsidies and as long as farmers are unable to plan
6312	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill their production to a market, with allowances for safe inventories, subsidies must continue to exist. Any thought of removing or reducing subsidies at this time is unconscionable and must be resisted, especially while labour continues to force increased costs. But farmers know that living in a climate of subsidies during today's standard of living is unacceptable and are now demanding an opportunity to gradually shift away from a system of indiscriminate production and ignorance of market potential.
During this debate, we will undoubtedly hear the usual reference to curtailment of farming opportunity. This argument usually comes from people presently engaged in surplus production who are more interested in confounding governments for political purposes than seeking solutions to existing production and marketing dilemmas. Hon. members opposite speak in terms of hypothesis and refuse to listen to reports from groups who are already operating within successful programs.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not new. Highly successful planned production and marketing schemes have been operating in Western Canada for many years. The uninformed members will endeavour to quote hypothetical possibilities suggesting ruination without taking the trouble to study existing results available to them for the asking. Provincial governments have found a way to pass acceptable enabling legislation. Bill C-197 will provide national assistance.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that previous attempts by the federal government to provide enabling legislation to establish marketing boards have failed to produce desired results. If we examine the reasons for failure at the federal level, as opposed to success at the provincial level we find that the fedeal approach has relied heavily on the public service whereas the provincial legislation places the burden of administration and responsibility on the shoulders of the producers-the people who actually own the product for sale. We also find that the federal approach fails to recognize that orderly marketing must be accompanied by orderly production. Orderly production, Mr. Speaker, is practised by every type of production and service industry today, with the exception of agriculture.
There is no successful production type industry in Canada which would deliberately manufacture or produce without positive

DEBATES	April 27, 1970
assurance that they can control their inventories. It is true that occasionally giant corporations misjudge the markets or ignore the warnings of their research departments. However, Mr. Speaker, when they do, it is always a temporary problem. I refer to the potash industry in Saskatchewan. When excess inventories of potash became evident and the bottom fell out of the market, a plan to cut back production was introduced, because world demand for potash did not coincide with excess production. As demand increases production will increase, as will sensible and safe stock inventories.
There are two requisites to the successful operation of supply-management programs. The first is to plan production for safe inventories and market demand. The second is to serve secondary industries and through them the consumer with adequate production of low cost products. Surplus production beyond safe inventories and market demand must not occur. Therefore, self-discipline by producers has proven the only successful method of avoiding costly surpluses to date. If there is another method which works I would be most happy to learn of it, because I have been unable to find one over the years. Secondary industries have engaged in a system whereby they buy indiscriminately at prices suitable to them and sell their products for prices they can obtain. Certainly, that type of approach has not brought sufficient return to the farmer to enable him to stay in business and anticipate any kind of stable market.
I wish to deal for a moment with the advantages of producer controlled boards operating under self-discipline. My first reference is obviously directed towards successful commodity marketing boards now in operation. May I ask the indulgence of the House to refer to the practice in British Columbia? That province has been my base of operations, and I gained my experience there. That province has also the longest record of successful operations involving this type of planning. There, provincial marketing legislation has established a type of marketing council similar to the council proposed in this bill. I have no quarrel with the government for suggesting that the council should be made up of men from the public service. They are the shock troops between the producers, their agencies and government itself, and I would not request that that part of the bill be changed.
In British Columbia, the ground rules are provided in the Natural Products Marketing
April 27. 1970

Income Tax Act
(British Columbia) Act. It contains the enabling legislation. A council of three public service employees act as a council of referees. Those in each commodity group hold a plebiscite of all producers who qualify for registration. If the majority of producers within that commodity group favour a marketing board, the producers proceed forthwith to plan the type of operation they feel suits their commodity group within the terms of reference provided in the act.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the producers themselves study the regulations proposed and submit a plan to council. The council looks at the plan, and eventually approves it. But it is important to note that participation by the council in the administration of the regulations ceases at this point. The producers' organizations elect the board, and in so doing place the responsibility for the requirements of product supply directly into the hands of the producers of the product where, I submit, it rightfully belongs.
Advisory committees are formed and include representation from all interested secondary industry groups. It is the duty of the advisory committee to advise the producer board. It is not their prerogative to be involved in final decisions. Production quotas are increased or decreased according to market demand, plus reasonable inventories. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)- Trade-grain-suggested permanent foreign sales missions; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Veterans affairs-integration of veterans charter with social welfare programs; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) Royal Canadian Mounted Police-consideration of payment for overtime.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business listed in today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that the Governor in Council will amend the regulations under the Income Tax Act whereby the deduction in computing income allowed self-employed professionals, tradesmen and workmen in respect of capital costs of tools necessary to their trade and similar property be extended to all professionals, tradesmen and workmen, whether self-employed or otherwise who must purchase themselves such property in the course of their employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this notice of motion is to draw to the attention of the House what I consider one of the most glaring inequities in the present Income Tax Act, as it relates to certain tradesmen and professional people. At the present time such people, unless they are self employed, are unable to claim any deductions or depreciation for the tools and equipment which they are compelled to purchase and maintain and which are used in conjunction with the discharge of their respective duties and responsibilities. In many cases the inventories of such tools and equipment cost many thousands of dollars, and yet there is no provision in the Income Tax Act for the deduction of the cost of those tools and equipment.
Specifically, I am referring to those people who by occupation are mechanics, plumbers, carpenters, technicians, electricians or any tradesmen who find themselves forced to invest quite substantially in tools and equipment which are necessary if they are to perform their respective tasks. To some degree, perhaps, teachers and professors are similarly affected in that their investment in books and instructional aids amounts to a very significant outlay of capital which directly relate to the discharge of their duties. It is quite true that under the white paper proposals for tax reform, provision has been made for a maximum allowance of $150 per year as employment expenses for any one who is employed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
However, this provision in no way removes the inequity which this resolution seeks to remove because it does not distinguish between the classifications of employment. For example, an office clerk probably does

April 27, 1970
Income Tax Act
not have to purchase his own pen but, on the other hand, a mechanic may invest up to $2,000 in tools and equipment. He must maintain those tools and equipment, provide replacements, upgrading the tools from time to time with new and improved items. Both occupations are treated alike at present, and proposals for the future indicate no changes, which to me is unfair and calls for reconsideration.
I respectfully submit the tax reform proposals provide an excellent opportunity to correct this anomaly and thus create a more equitable tax benefit with the self-employed counterpart. However, once more we see another of the numerous shortcomings in this so-called great revolutionary tax reform document which in the final analysis will discourage incentive, will discourage productivity and will do nothing more than make us all slaves of the state. This observation simply reiterates the assertion that this document is a proposal for social reform rather than tax reform, with very little consideration being given to help those who are in need and those who, by virtue of their trade, are being subjected to unfair tax treatment.
Returning to the specific motion as related to the present act, Mr. Speaker, one would naturally assume that, in the spirit of the act, all persons who are self-employed, or those who must provide the tools of their trade as a condition of employment, are covered in the same way by the provisions of section 11. However, this is not the case, Mr. Speaker. For some reason, perhaps known only to those who drafted this section, a large segment of our working population is excluded from enjoying the exemptions allowed under this section. Furthermore, if we turn to section 11, subsection (11) of the Income Tax Act, we see a provision allowing any employee who must use an automobile in the performance of his duties to deduct for tax computation purposes capital cost allowance in accordance with the corresponding tax regulations. I simply say if such a provision can be made for an automobile, it should certainly be provided in the same spirit with respect to tools and equipment necessary for the performance of one's duty. It seems this is a realistic analogy.
Looking at it from another aspect, a doctor, under the provisions of medicare, quite frankly is no longer a private practitioner or a self-employed entrepreneur. He is really now an employee of the government. I ask, what then is the difference between a doctor,

who is being paid by the state, being allowed to claim deductions and depreciation on capital equipment expenditure and a mechanic who works for Myers Motors in downtown Ottawa? For that matter, he may work for the federal or provincial government. He can claim no deductions whatsoever with respect to the often significant capital outlays that he is compelled to make to provide him with the tools necessary to discharge his job.
Similarly, we can make an analogy with respect to a lawyer. A carpenter, who must provide his own tools as a condition of employment, is not allowed the same exemptions. It might be said that a doctor's instruments and lawyer's books are necessary conditions of their employment, but a carpenter without a hammer, a saw, a plane, a wood chisel in my estimation is no different. These tools are in integral and necessary part of his occupation.
I am sure most hon. members will agree that tax reform is needed in many areas, this being only one. What I want to say is this, Mr. Speaker: A reform such as outlined in this resolution would not require a white paper, it would not require the expenditure of millions of dollars in public hearings, answering services, debate, committee meetings etc. It would simply require an amendment to the present act which would ease the burden on many people in this country in the lower end of the income scale. Above all, such a resolution would not overburden our governmental structure with a huge build-up of bureaucratic officials.
It is my belief that we can make a meaningful start in the direction of tax reform by such methods as outlined in this resolution. First, by isolating examples of gross inequities in the tax laws and bringing forth provisions to correct these injustices. I think we would do much to restore confidence in our governmental process without upsetting or disturbing the fundamental goals and desires of Canadians. This resolution simply seeks to amend section 11, and the capital cost regulations of the Income Tax Act, to broaden the scope of exemptions allowed to persons who must provide their own tools, and maintain their tools at their own expense, as a provision of their employment.
One wonders, Mr. Speaker, whether those who drafted this section of the act failed to include such a large segment of our tradesmen and skilled workers from the exemptions allowed professional persons simply through the lack of knowledge of the extent to which
April 27, 1970

tradesmen are required to invest in the tools of their trades. For example, Mr. Speaker, a first-class mechanic-I mention a mechanic because I happen to be familiar with mechanics-working in an automobile repair shop is required to invest, out of his own pocket, as much as $2,000 for necessary tools in order to secure a job. In addition, he must continue to spend money to maintain his tools. He must replace broken tools at his own expense, and must replace worn out tools as well as those tools that eventually become outmoded as the design of machinery changes. This can conceivably run to $500 per year.
Today, we hear a great deal about productivity. Productivity must be directly related to the skill of the user and the availability of adequate tools and equipment, at his disposal. If we are truly concerned about increased productivity within large segments of our population, let us ask ourselves what are we as a government, as a society, doing to encourage the upgrading of those fundamental components, skill and equipment? In the field of training perhaps, we are doing a fair amount, but in the field of advanced equipment and tools the present Income Tax Act certainly does not provide any encouragement or incentive at all.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I will conclude my remarks by saying I feel it is grossly unfair that a person who goes to work each day and uses nothing more than his two hands and a couple of university degrees, degrees which were obtained in schools which we collectively as taxpayers provided, should be granted the same exemptions under the provisions of the income tax legislation as a worker who must provide and maintain the necessary chest of tools and equipment that is supplemental to the requirements of those in other occupations and professions. Whether such regulations in the Income Tax Act are deliberate or simply an oversight, it is urgent that such inequity be removed without delay. I ask all hon. members to join with me in support of this resolution.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and found what he had to say a rather useful contribution to the discussion on the white paper on tax reform. As a member of that committee, I may say we have questioned the officials of the Department of Finance in this area and, as he 22218-535
Income Tax Act
knows, the subject is dealt with in the white paper on pages 15 and 16, sections 210 to 215, but more specifically section 213.
As the hon. member pointed out, it is difficult to make a precise distinction in this regard. In the committee the other day we had a rather lengthy discussion in attempting to determine whether this amount was equitable. I do not think any of us were thoroughly satisfied that it was completely equitable, any more than we could really reach a truly equitable tax system; but like many things, it seems to be the most practical and workable approach that we could see. I must say I was rather interested to hear-because this is beyond my experience-that the cost of tools could amount to $1,000 or more. I think this is something that those of us in the committee should reflect upon.
There are also other inequities. I think we would be looking to the working man who has tools or safety or special clothing when this particular provision is considered. On the other hand, this provision is available to all employees. I assume that it is available to the secretary of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) so that she can have her hair done and look as attractive as she does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
will also be available to the hon. member, whether or not he has to provide tools.


Barnett Jerome Danson: April 27, 1970
Income Tax Act
believe in it, many fail to offer alternatives, or offer such weak alternatives that they are ludicrous. .
The other day I had the opportunity of appearing on a panel discussion with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and he suggested that the leader of his party, if he were ever Prime Minister, would withdraw the white paper. That is the sort of thing we can expect in the name of tax reform! I suggest there is developing, for the first time in this country, a significant radical right, and I think Canadians should be conscious of this. Groups are springing up in the name of tax reform that are using tax reform as a tool to discredit any social benefits or movement that the country is making toward a just society-and I am not afraid of that term.


Mr. Bell:: Ha, ha!


Barnett Jerome Danson: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) may laugh at the expression "just society". I do not think we will ever have a just society, any more than we will ever have an equitable tax system. But I suggest it is not a bad objective, and I would like to see his party substitute something better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
too bad that the Prime Minister dropped it.


Barnett Jerome Danson: If he drops it, I will pick it up. To me it is an objective, an ideal, and ideals are things to which we should aspire.
To get back to the notice of motion, I suggest that the provision in the white paper seems inadequate to most of the members of the committee. I suggest the hon. member has given us room for thought when we pursue the matter further and listen to representations made by delegations appearing before the committee, particularly those representing labour groups who might have more to say on the matter. It also presents some quite massive administrative problems.
The hon. member is concerned about growing bureaucracy. Again this might not prove to be insurmountable. I think we should be more concerned about some of the things that we do rather than what we do not do, things that very much affect the working man, or for that matter all Canadians. I think we are aiming at a certain class in our society-it is not quite a classless society yet-in the allowances that are provided for working mothers, in the deduction of unemployment contributions, something quite new, and in 
raising basic exemptions, which I think will give fundamental relief. What we are looking at is the process of examining our tax structure, and the hon. member's notice of motion, I think, should be given very serious consideration.
This is a new thing for us. Although white papers themselves are old, the way they are being used now is a departure from past practice, and I think a very healthy one. It gives the government an opportunity to present proposals without being locked into legislation, thus putting the government in a position of not having to defend those proposals quite as tightly. It gives those most affected by them the chance to respond, so that there is a dimension, a balance, a greater reality when the legislation finally comes into being.
This is not the first white paper. There was a white paper on Indian affairs, one on veterans affairs, one on housing and one on antidumping. All of them were very helpful. The hon. member mentioned a white paper, and I assume he is referring to the one on tax reform, which is just one of many. But a white paper is a process to which we must respond. It is a process that challenges us all very much. It is also disturbing. It is disturbing to us as politicians because it makes us work harder; we have to try to deal with the immense amount of work it generates. It is disturbing to the public, because it makes people think about legislation, something they have never had to do before. It is a process that I think contributes to good government. I am convinced it is democratic. I am not sure it is good politics, because people used not to like to be disturbed, or challenged, or asked for their ideas. Nowadays, our young people do. They want to be involved. This is a departure that I hope will work well for future legislation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I could not help but be impressed by a statement of Mr. Malcolm Davidson of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He said:
If they (the government) don't listen to our constructive proposals, then they've thrown away participatory democracy. But if we act hysterically, then we've thrown it away in advance.
So, this gives us an opportunity to reflect about the effect of legislation such as is before us this afternoon. Perhaps we have chosen something which is too complex in respect of tax reform. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in speaking in Toronto, referred to an old German saying something
April 27. 1970

to the effect that you should not allow the public to see you making sausages or tax laws. Maybe there is something in this. This is a very complex matter which touches everybody very deeply. However, I think that to fail to proceed with this process would be giving up too easily. I believe it is a challenge to all of us and to our democratic institutions. I think it is a credit to the intelligence and maturity of Canadians who I believe are benefiting and will benefit by being able to participate in governing themselves.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this interesting resolution introduced by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) I feel almost inclined to say to him, "Welcome to the club". The subject matter of the resolution deals with something related to our tax laws that I have followed rather closely ever since I first arrived in this House. Indeed, I have put forward many amendments and resolutions and have made many proposals on this particular subject matter to various governments. I know my colleague sitting in front of me, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was doing much the same sort of thing long before I arrived in this House and certainly back into the 1940's, unfortunately without too much effect so far as our income tax laws are concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except in respect of trade union dues.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was about to say that one of the points raised by the hon. member in the 40's concerned the deductibility of trade union dues which is one item that is now allowed as a deduction by working people under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. I believe this is an item which is equitably applied to the general working force. I have examined the terms of the motion. Perhaps I should spell them out, because I wish to make one or two comments concerning the details of the proposal. We find that the hon. member proposes the following:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that the Governor in Council will amend the regulations under the Income Tax Act whereby the deduction in computing income allowed self-employed professionals, tradesmen and workmen in respect of capital costs of tools necessary to their trade and similar property be extended to all professionals, tradesmen and workmen, whether self-employed or otherwise who must purchase themselves such property in the course of their employment.
In the course of his remarks, the hon. member made particular reference to Section
Income Tax Act
11 of the existing Income Tax Act. I should like to point out that in my view his resolution is so phrased that he is asking the government to amend regulations. I would submit for his consideration the idea that what is required is not an amendment to the regulations but rather an actual amendment to the act itself. As I understand the act, it is not possible to cope with the situation he has in mind by a simple change in the existing regulations. I should like to direct his attention, and the attention of members of the House, to Section 5 of the Income Tax Act which I believe to be more pertinent to this issue than Section 11. Section 5 of the Income Tax Act is the section which spells out specifically, exactly what deductions a person whose income is from wages or salary is allowed. As I recall the phrasing in that section it makes very clear that, except for those particular items, no exemptions are allowed for anything else or for any benefits of any kind whatsoever.
At various times and in various arguments, I have submitted that there are three main areas in which the working force of Canada whose income is derived from salary or wages is discriminated against, so far as deductibility of expenses under the Income Tax Act is concerned. Two of these areas apply particularly to working people who, in the course of their employment, must be away from their normal place of residence for periods extending into days, weeks or months. This involves the cost of living away from home and all unusual travelling expenses incurred in going from the place of residence to some other part of the country in the course of carrying on employment. The third area is the one to which the hon. member makes particular reference in his resolution; that is, the type of expenses incurred by a tradesman or professional person employed for salary or wages in supplying himself with the necessary tools and equipment which he is required to have in order to carry on his particular trade or vocation.
These three areas of expense are freely allowed to self-employed people as a deduction, but they are not allowable in respect of persons whose income is from salary or wages. Herein undoubtedly lies the discrimination which is of concern to the hon. member for Vegreville, as expressed in his resolution. I submit that the appropriate manner in which to bring about this change would be in the form of an amendment to Section 5 of the Income Tax Act. There was

April 27, 1970
Income Tax Act
an occasion when rectifying this situation was made in the Income Tax Act to deal with the almost within the grasp of members of this situation which is of concern to the hon. House.	member.
Indeed, in a very fragmentary and partial way, it was dealt with in a proposal advanced to this House by a Minister of Finance in his budget. I refer to the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance in 1957. The Minister of Finance at that time was the Hon. Donald Fleming. As a result of a change of administrative practice in the Department of National Revenue, at that time the Minister of Finance did propose-and if the hon. member has not noticed this he can look it up-a special amendment to Section 5 of the Income Tax Act which partially covered the situation in respect of discrimination against some people in so far as expenses incurred in earning a living are concerned.
That amendment provided that people employed in the construction industry can claim as a deductible expense the cost of living away from home and the cost of travelling to their place of work from their normal place of residence. This was restricted to those people who maintained a self-contained domestic establishment, to use the phraseology of the act. In that sense, I believe it was very realistic. In other words, a single person who had his home where he was working, perhaps in a camp, would not be eligible to deduct this kind of expense while a person who was maintaining a home elsewhere would be. I remember pleading with the Minister of Finance-the Minister of Finance of the first Conservative administration in recent times-to go the whole way while he was about it. In other words, I pleaded that he make this amendment to Section 5 of general application to all workers under similar circumstances. I pleaded that it should not be restricted only to construction workers and should be extended to cover loggers, miners and other people, whatever their occupation might be, who were involved in this situation.
I also argued that it should be extended to cover the particular cost to which the hon. member refers in his resolution, namely, the cost incurred by tradesmen or professional people in supplying themselves with the necessary tools to do the job which they are called upon to do in their particular vocation. Unfortunately, that particular opportunity went by. While at various times and in various ways this argument has been advanced in the House since that date, no change has been

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We did have the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation which, I was delighted to note, covered the particular point that is of concern to me and to the hon. member as indicated in his resolution. I hoped that after all these years of fighting an uphill battle, and with the weight of the royal commission four-square behind the idea of eliminating this discrimination, perhaps at last the government of Canada and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would place before this House proposals to amend the Income Tax Act in order to deal with it-
To my great regret this has not been the action of the government, as indicated in its White Paper proposing not necessarily tax reforms but tax changes. I think the Minister of Finance would have been much more accurate if he had labelled this document "Proposals for tax Changes". The question of whether they are all reforms is very debatable, and some of the issues are under discussion in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to which the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) made reference.
What did the government do? They completely ignored the concept that has been advanced in this resolution. They completely ignored the concept that was partially implemented in the Income Tax Act in 1957. They certainly completely ignored the argument that I put forward in amendments to income tax bills at various times, which were ruled out of order. They came in with something that I described as political nonsense. Let me refer to the White Paper proposal at page 10, entitled "New Deductions". The government's proposal is as follows:
The government has examined the deductions individuals may claim for various costs they incur, as well as differences in treatment between taxpayers who are employed and those who carry on a business or profession. The royal commission said many employees have been over-taxed because they have been denied the deduction of almost all expenses incurred in earning wages and salaries. But millions of taxpayers are involved, and a very wide range of expenses could be related to earning their employment income. These taxpayers do not keep detailed records. The government has found no practical way to permit employees to deduct actual costs as do those carrying on a profession or other business. We proposed to provide employees with a general deduction to cover expenses, in addition to certain specified deductions. The amount would be 3 per cent of employment income, up to a total of $150 a year.
April 27, 1970

This is the complete opposite of the principle of bringing fairness to the tax law, because all it does is provide an additional basic exemption to all workers whether or not they have any definable expenses in the course of earning a living. Here the government is advancing exactly the same arguments that Hon. Walter Harris used to advance in the House, and they have the gall to label this a document for tax reform.
In 1956 the Minister of Finance admitted this discrimination and said the government would look into it. Apparently Liberal administrations have been looking into it ever since, and this one has come up with exactly the same answer that was given to members of the House in 1956 so far as the principle involved is concerned. That is why I submit that any suggestion advanced in this House or elsewhere that this proposal in the White Paper is designed to meet the situation outlined by the hon. member for Vegreville in his speech is at complete variance with the fact.
All this nonsense about the millions of taxpayers involved and about not keeping records has nothing to do with the kind of situation the hon. member for Vegreville is outlining in his resolution, or the kind of special expenses incurred by certain workers because their employment requires them to live away from home or to travel long distances from their normal place of residence. These are the kinds of expenses that selfemployed people are allowed to deduct. Selfemployed people are not allowed to deduct the bus fare from their home to the office, and neither should any other working people be allowed to deduct these expenses. Presumably these expenses which everyone has-we all have to eat, have clothing and shelter- can be covered in a general basic exemption.
Let us not confuse these two issues. To do so simply makes nonsense of any suggestion that we are moving toward tax reform in the area covered by the resolution of the hon. member for Vegreville. This matter would not involve millions of taxpayers. It would not involve any more difficulty so far as administration is concerned than administration of the tax law for the self-employed farmer, fisherman or any one of a dozen other categories of people, be they professionals or tradesmen. I wish that for once the government could get this simple proposition through its head. Let us not have any more of the kind of nonsense that is peddled with the white paper, about the government being the great
Income Tax Act
white father and saying, "We are going to be very big hearted and allow you an extra $150 a year." This is not what it seems.
I submit, Mr. Speaker-I mention it for the benefit of the hon. member for York North who participated in the debate-that this proposal will increase discrimination against working people so far as expenses are concerned because it is based on a percentage of income principle. It has no relationship whatever to the amount of the expenses. In other words, as long as one is discussing income below the ceiling, in effect the more poorly paid worker is charged more for the expenses he incurs than the person in a higher income bracket. Is this equity? I suppose it is the Liberal concept of a just society.
I hope the hon. member for York North will make an attempt at least to consider my argument. He is a member of the august Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to which I have not ventured to aspire. Nevertheless, when it comes down to these fundamental, practical questions of equity and tax law it seems to me that one does not have to move too far into the ethereal realm of high finance to be able to understand simple economic justice for working people.
I am very happy that the hon. member for Vegreville has recognized the existence of this problem and has taken the initiative to put this resolution on the Order Paper. I hope he will continue to pursue this matter. I think there is a growing disposition in various quarters of the House to recognize that this is a real problem of discrimination and that it can be dealt with in a sane, practical manner. We no longer need to be fooled by the kind of smokescreen of administrative difficulties that has been drawn across this issue over the years in many sessions of Parliament.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion on which a member of the official opposition by private member's resolution has brought to this House matters that are basically under consideration in the Finance Committee study of the white paper. On the previous occasion resolution No. 12, in the name of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), dealt with similar matters-basically, the travelling expenses incurred by certain categories of employees. With some regret at that time I found myself unable to support the motion, principally because due

April 27, 1970
Income Tax Act
to faulty research and draftsmanship the motion, if adopted, for some unaccountable reason never explained, would have discriminated against persons who were ordinarily domiciled in situations that did not involve relationships such as by blood, marriage or adoption.
The single man or the man living in sin, but working away from his place of sinful activities or of his single bliss as the case may be, would not have been allowed the same deductions for travelling expenses-


An hon. Member:: What about for tools?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: -as the man who was more conventionally situated. Now we find a resolution which certainly is very fine in spirit but again, due to faulty research, we are asked to recommend to the government that it deal with regulations under the Income Tax Act. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has pointed out, passage of this resolution would be futile because the particular provisions of the law that give offence to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) are contained in the act itself and not in the regulations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did say an amendment to the act and the regulations.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I am sincerely sorry, Your Honour. I was merely reading the resolution as it appears on the Order Paper. We are being asked to support the following motion:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that the Governor in Council will amend the regulations under the Income Tax Act-
I did not catch the hon. member amending the motion in the course of his comments. In any case, the provisions of the act define income from office or employment and the deductions by which a taxpayer is permitted to reduce his income, and the act itself states that no other deductions are allowed. Accordingly, while one may comment on the principle advanced here, it is with regret that I cannot support the resolution because to do so would be futile.
The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) has spoken most eloquently on the white paper that we are studying in the general area of tax reform. That is certainly an exposition which the country and members of this House perhaps not as intimately acquainted with the process as members of the Finance Committee would do well to refer to. This is a genuine exercise in participatory

democracy. Whether or not it will be a successful exercise remains to be seen. However, I think its success will in large measure be affected by the sincerity and honesty with which members of this chamber on all sides approach the process, and comments that the white paper proposals for tax reform contain certain social goals are not particularly honest when expressed in terms of amazement at the discovery of some sinister plot.
The fact is that the white paper states very frankly and openly that one of the goals of tax reform in Canada is a social goal. Paragraph 1.13, for those who have been critical of the white paper without getting down to reading to page 7 of it, gives the reference and it is very clear and very precise. There are other goals as well. Just what weight a person gives to the achievement of different goals is a matter of bona fide contention and bona fide debate. It is my personal feeling that economic goals should carry considerable weight, since I cannot quite visualize how an economic shortfall would result in anything but a social shortfall, whereas I do not feel that a social shortfall would necessarily bring economic disaster to Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, in considering the white paper we are being asked to consider many goals. Certainly the social one mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville is one, but it is far from the only one. Just what priority a Member of Parliament or a Canadian taxpayer may give the achievement of the various goals is, as I have said, a matter of very legitimate choice on this part. But let us not kid ourselves that there is anything sinister in the white paper suggestion that social goals are legitimate objectives of the tax system.
A second item which the hon. member for Vegreville evidently discovered with some surprise is the rather inequitable situation which exists, and I would be the first to admit it, regarding the treatment of bona fide expenses incurred by employees in earnings their salaries of wages. This is nothing new, either. The Carter Commission noted the situation in rather eloquent terms on page 290 of volume III of their report, when they said in one short sentence:
The present unfair discrimination against employees should be removed.
However, they rather disputed the basic premise of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni by saying:
-because a large number of employees would be involved, the task of assessment would be enormous if each employee submitted an itemized claim for his or her actual expenses.
April 27, 1970

Further on in their report they noted that the Income Tax Department was having quite enough difficulty dealing with the half million itemized expense claims that it was dealing with when the commission was conducting its hearings, and that the problem would probably be insurmountable if it had to deal with another 4J million itemized claims from all the taxpayers of Canada. However, the Carter approach was different from that taken in the white paper. The Carter approach would suggest that employees should have the option of deducting actual expenses of this nature or electing the optional deduction of 3 per cent with a ceiling of $500. I think that the Carter approach on this particular item has considerable merit, and I know it is an alternative which the Finance Committee of this House will be considering in its study of the white paper.
The proposals in the white paper dealing with this item, in paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13, suggest no option at all-everyone drawing wages may take a deduction of 3 per cent up to a maximum of $150. That effectively places the ceiling, so far as deductions are concerned, at $5,000 wages or salary. The $500 ceiling proposed by Carter would have raised this ceiling to the $16,606.77 mark. I am not too sure that the Carter ceiling is necessarily desirable. It seems to me that employees in that salary range have a considerable amount of influence on the conditions of their employment and on the supply of tools, books or whatever is necessary for the proper conduct of their trade.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I was very glad that the hon. member for Vegreville mentioned the problem faced by university professors and teachers. In this area it may be said that the law is an ass. A university professor cannot claim the cost of books or research materials relating to his employment by an institution, but if he does freelance work or independent research the cost of the materials used can be set off against the income derived in this manner.
Some years ago a journalist took a case to the Income Tax Appeal Board in the full knowledge that he could not win, but he hoped to draw attention, to the rather silly situation which existed in the case of a person whose income was derived from salary and freelance work. He pointed out the illogical treatment of expenses under the law. The board informed him that had he chosen to set off his expenses against the freelance income
Income Tax Act
instead of the salary, the appeal would have been allowed. His was a public spirited gesture to demonstrate the folly of the existing procedure, but all he obtained from the appeal board was sympathy.
This question comes before the House at a time when taxation is of great concern to all of us. I am grateful to the hon. member for Vegreville for bringing it before us so that we may discuss it publicly. However, I must oppose the motion because I do not feel it will achieve his objective. With a general revision of the income tax laws due in a short time, we will have a opportunity to deal with this and other items that appear inequitable. Hopefully, we will be offered an income tax system easily administered and understood, which will not require an extra cadre of bookkeepers on the staff of the Department of National Revenue. It should be simple enough that the taxpayer can understand it and that the tax collector can quickly establish the identity of those evading taxation.
I suspect that the Carter recommendation might have resulted in an overly complex system. There is merit to the suggestion of setting tax as a flat percentage of salary with a ceiling as an allowance for employment expenses, but this opposes the pure equity of the idea that a person should be able to deduct legitimate expenses incurred in the earning of income. Practicality is also an objective of a tax system, and I am prepared to listen to argument for a workable system which would allow the deduction of expenses without imposing too great a burden on the taxpayer and the tax collector. This Mr. Speaker, is desirable but it may not be possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much time left but I should like to say a word in this debate and congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on the intent of his motion. As has been pointed out, it may not be the right way to raise the subject, but this is a matter of opinion. I feel that it should be brought to the attention of the Finance Committee and included in the consideration of the white paper changes.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett) took a cynical line about the processes of the white paper and the intent of its authors. I do not think he has any reason to believe that the process
April 27. 1970
6322	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill will not be followed. It is the government's job to bring in legislation, and the job of the opposition to criticize it. In fact, everybody in Canada has been given the opportunity to criticize and comment on the white paper on tax reform. I hope the hon. member will have constructive criticism to offer to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour
appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, just before the witching hour set aside for private members' business, I was discussing the success, work and involvement of various marketing boards throughout Canada. I was somewhat pleased with the speech delivered by my hon. friend from Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) who, while seeming to disagree with the most vital requisite of programming and planning involved in marketing boards and questions relating to supply and management, nevertheless agrees, I feel, that producers must be in a position to plan then- programs.
I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) who spoke about some of the problems in Quebec. It is interesting to note that the dairy industry there is considering adopting a program which would effectively reduce surplus milk production in Quebec. I hope this type of thinking will spill over into other agricultural endeavours in Quebec which are experiencing

very heavy surpluses in domestic and other markets. We hope their endeavours will be successful. I hope-this may not be the right term to use-that a somewhat different position will be created with regard to broiler prices across Canada.
In speaking about marketing boards of British Columbia previously, I wanted to state categorically that I was not referring to hypothetical examples. I was making a report from actual experience. For many years past various commodity groups in British Columbia have brought a measure of stability unequalled anywhere in Canada. A great deal' of work has been done in our dairy industry. While we all agree that this is a very complex problem, it is interesting to note that the cost to the taxpayer in that province for the subsidy payments for manufacturing milk have been somewhat less than $1 million. They operate so as to take care of their fluid milk but import many of the products developed from manufacturing milk from other provinces.
If Your Honour will permit a reference to the broiler industry, may I point out that only twice during the past eight years has that industry suffered from depressed wholesale1 markets. On both occasions secondary industry processors pressured the broiler board into excessive quotas. The experience was very educational for them and I doubt if the processors will permit a repeat performance. 1
A frequent argument of the uninformed and inexperienced centres around the mistaken conclusion that supply management programs tend to stifle competition. The opposite is true. Indiscriminate production is usually coupled with indiscriminate diversification. Of course, in this way a farmer can swing from commodity to commodity as the bottom falls out of the markets. Supply management programs tend to lean toward more specialization. We therefore find commodity groups competing with each other for the consumer's dollar.
I feel this is a very important point that ought to be considered by all those now endeavouring to examine Bill C-197. It will not create monopolies if those in the various individual commodity groups are prepared to establish programs, plans and agencies so as to be in direct competition with those in other commodity groups. Turkey men will compete with broiler operators. The hog people are continually striving for a higher spot on the volume scale, as opposed to beef and poultry operators. The egg industry is also in there
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
pitching. We never experienced that degree of sincere competition during the days when secondary industry was in the driver's seat.
Another argument that I feel is false is that under supply management we protect the small and inefficient producers. In view of many years of involvement in the food industry-an involvement in areas of hatchery production, processing plants, cash crops and egg farms-I am convinced that bigness alone does not guarantee efficiency. We small operators have successfully competed with giants in the meat packing industry for years. Under a program of supply management, inefficient operators still go out of business or sell out to more efficient operators. The important point to remember is that under supply management programs the efficient operator can survive in competition with other commodity groups.
Area and international competition play an important role in demanding high efficiency without wrecking stability. Anyone who imagines that Bill C-197 will create a giant monopoly for farmers and farm products is simply mistaken. The facts show that farm commodity groups operating under supply management programs are providing high quality, low priced products at reasonably stable prices the year round. If you doubt this, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you ask a consumer to list the high protein items she prefers, based on quality and price. While doing so it might be advisable to undertake a producer check as well. Learn of the hazards of the sharecropper operating at the mercy of secondary industry in certain areas. This is only one area in Canada where marketing boards are not in evidence. Compare them with the independent, financially sound farmers operating within a supply management program. I refer again to British Columbia because that is where my experience lies.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It has been said that supply management boards assist giant corporations to build vertical integration at the expense of independent farming. Here again, the opposite is true. Vertical integration preceded supply management programs and were stopped in their tracks by marketing boards. There is no evidence that vertical integration can provide lower-cost farm products to consumers. Millions of dollars have been wasted in the United States while attempting to prove that vertical integration without supply management works. In one attempt a number of years ago a giant corporation in California lost $40 million
22218-54J
DEBATES	6323
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill before they gave up. A very large milling company lost $21 million in Washington and Oregon before they gracefully withdrew.
Only the companies who were content to draw on their huge financial reserves have continued their vertically integrated operations in the United States. There is presently a great deal of evidence to show that since a few companies now virtually control the entire production of some commodity groups in the U.S.A., they are commencing to practice supply management techniques. Farmers have been reduced to production helpers. It now appears their only hope is to join unions which will give some financial security while further eroding their once enjoyed independence.
There is an expressed feeling by some that self-disciplinary measures as provided by enabling legislation restrict individual rights. Proponents of voluntary participation should explain why voluntary restraints as recommended by the Prices and Incomes Commission are not working. Without the totally unsatisfactory policy of tight money and high interest rates, inflation will not be brought under control. Human nature will not permit it. Voluntary restraints in marketing simply have not worked. They have been tried on many occasions in many sections of Canada.
I quote from an article by Mr. D. C. Fillmore, Q.C., who is considered an authority on marketing as related to the tree fruit industry in British Columbia. He stresses the importance of industry self-discipline in these words:
The British Columbia growers long ago found that merely having most of the growers co-operating to build expensive cold storage plants so that the marketing season could be extended, merely supplied an umbrella under which the selfish minority of growers could find good markets (which would not otherwise exist) and be able to sell all their crops in a few weeks without incurring any of the costs of co-operative marketing. A brief review of the tree fruit industry bears this out clearly. It had become obvious even as early as 1913 that some form of collective action would have to be taken by the growers and these were primarily men who had come from other parts of Canada and from the United Kingdom and were as staunch supporters of free enterprise as any that could be found.
He says in a later paragraph:
Even the most individualistic growers realized that there had to be some means of ensuring that when a substantial majority had decided that a certain method was essential to permit economic survival, their plans could not be upset by a minority who could gain an advantage through staying outside-an advantage that would only exist because of the foresight of the majority.
April 27. 1970
6324	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
While I am referring to testimonials in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker, may I also quote from a speech delivered by Mr. Fred Beeson, editor of Canada Poultryman. His speech was presented in San Francisco on invitation from the American Poultry and Hatchery Federation, the largest trade organization of its kind in the world. This quotation is from a letter written by B. H. Creelman, general manager, Surrey Co-operative Association, Cioverdale, B.C.:
In reply to your enquiry as to my opinion of the merits of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, since its inception in January 1962, I may say that without the control of this board, our broiler industry would not be nearly as financially sound as it is today, and I believe that many of our producers would not have been able to carry on in the business but would have lost their investment and been forced out of the industry. I can recall the very desperate condition of the industry before the board came into being. The prices were low and uncertain but since the board has been functioning there has been much more stability in the industry here and prices have been more stable. There have been occasions when great pressure has been exerted on the board to lower prices due to large stocks on hand but the board in their wisdom have been able to maintain a reasonable price and reduce the placement of chicks until the surplus stock has been reduced. This board is elected by the producers of broilers and this gives democratic control of the industry by the industry itself. I feel that orderly marketing of agricultural products is necessary and desirable in the interest of all phases of the industry.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Creelman does not represent a producer co-operative in the sense that they market farm produce. They service farmers with feed and other essentials, operating more as a secondary industry. I wish to point out that during the formative years to which he is referring the price of broilers remained stable, even at the chain store level, and the quality of the product improved tremendously. This can be confirmed by those who purchased chicken products in the area.
Bill C-197, Mr. Speaker, must be considered to be a good bill. However, there are those who agree with me that it is not a perfect bill. I am therefore serving notice that I intend to introduce some amendments for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when the committee is in session.


Mr. Ricard:: Do you have permission?


M. Ervin Pringle: I consider that early reference to the committee is most important in order to enable consultation with witnesses from organizations representing farm commodity groups across Canada. It is felt that the defi-

nition of "farm products" requires more clarification. More emphasis relating to producer majority representation on the council and agencies should be considered. Without being specific in Bill C-197, it has been suggested that the definition of authority of the agencies should be broadened to facilitate administration. The powers of inspection could also stand some clarification.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the committee will approach the examination of Bill C-197 objectively, fully realizing it is long overdue and can only serve to provide agricultural producers with the incentive to join other Canadian industries in adopting operational programs which will allow full competition between food commodity groups, while providing Canadian consumers with high quality food products at the lowest possible price, commensurate with efficient costs of production. I am confident the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is looking forward to the meetings with members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am confident that with suggestions from his department and suggestions from the committee we will be able to introduce some very worth-while amendments which I think will improve this bill.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Governments can continue to establish the ground rules, and they should, in consultation with producers and members of allied industries. But the governmental, paternalistic approach is really not acceptable any longer. Farmers in many areas have proven themselves capable of handling their production and marketing affairs in face of competition from various food commodity groups, and to the mutual advantage of producers and consumers.
Bill C-197 will lend some federal support to existing provincial legislation. It behooves us all to support Canadian farm producers in their earnest desire properly to participate in the production and marketing of the products they produce. I am confident that Bill C-197 will be given early second reading and sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying I consider Bill C-197 is the most amazing piece of legislation ever presented to a democratic Parliament. It is not the type of marketing board referred to by my good friend from Fraser Valley East
April 27, 1970

(Mr. Pringle), though I would add that I agree with some of his opinions on vertical integration.
No one can deny the need for marketing agencies to handle the produce of half a million farms spread over a vast area embracing millions of square miles. But we wonder whether in this legislation we are discussing state control rather than marketing boards. The bill proposes to take control out of the hands of the primary producer and provincial bodies and place it in the hands of government appointed bureaucrats. What guarantee have we that all areas of agriculture and all sections of the country will be represented by these appointees? Does this not suggest some shocking possibilities, such as the favouring of some areas of the country over others? I will deal with this question further in regard to the Dairy Commission.
Although the bill mentions the interests of the consumer, no examples are given of how the consumer will benefit. I failed to find any mention of specific benefits to the primary producer in my study of the bill. On different occasions the minister has talked about "consensus" and about the "requests made by a substantial majority of producers" for marketing boards. But I should like to ask what relation Bill C-197 has to this particular concept.
After an initial grant from the government for the purpose of establishing such an agency, the producer will be required to pay for maintenance of that agency. With the rigid controls that will be placed on his production, the farmer will be uneasy, to say the least, about the benefits, if any, that he is going to derive from this legislation. His profits are dwindling now, and this is but one other expense added to many. It is something like buying a pig in a poke.
Cannot you picture, Mr. Speaker, the farmer, who is one of the most independent operators to be found anywhere-I might add he has not much left but his independence- reacting to the added chore of keeping the records that are required by this agency, to be submitted to them on request? What about his reaction to having an inspector prying into the sale of every item? I shudder to think of the cost, paid by the farmer, of hiring enough inspectors to police every farm in Canada. Considering the mood of today's farmer, he may well ask whether he will also be asked to contribute to the cost of building more jails to house those farmers who, inadvertently or otherwise, fail to come to heel
DEBATES	6325
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill and may be required to spend two years in jail to bring to their attention the fact that this is not a free country after all.
As an example of this type of legislation- and this surely cannot be regarded as a hypothetical one-let me refer to the Canadian Dairy Commission. When it was formed in 1966 it seemed an innocent enough body, set up to handle dairy products and related problems and to pay subsidies where subsidies were required. For the record, I may say the commissioners were top-flight men. They were co-operative in every way, and I mean no criticism of them by any of my remarks tonight. However, the commission set limits on production or quotas for subsidy payments on manufacturing milk. Aside from an upper limit, a producer had to produce so much per year or no subsidy would be paid. When a dairy herd was dispersed, if the quota attached reverted to the commission it could be reallocated or not, as the Dairy Commission wished.
The next step was to subtract all costs involved in exporting milk surpluses from the amount of money voted for the payment of subsidies. A hold back of 26 cents from the $1.25 subsidy per 100 pounds of 3.5 per cent milk left a subsidy of 99 cents a hundredweight. On all over-quota production, the holdback was doubled to 56 cents a hundredweight. This year the holdback on overproduction has been increased to $1.25 a hundredweight. In addition to this, the government is now seeking provincial cooperation to get control of the fluid milk business so that it might place a levy of $1.25 a hundredweight on all surplus milk produced by fluid milk shippers. As most fluid milk quotas are small in relation to total production, this would, if allowed to take place, put many producers out of business immediately. If anyone thinks this is not so, they should, as I have, talk to these fluid milk shippers. Since fluid milk shippers are not subsidized on any portion of their milk, this cannot be called a holdback but a straight, downright fine. Is it any wonder, then, that as a farmer for over 30 years I am suspicious of the absolute power that is granted by Bill C-197?
The provincial governments are going to be asked to collect this fine for the federal government. It is to be hoped that they will have enough guts to stand up to the federal government on this matter and protect the rights of their fluid milk shippers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 27, 1970
6326	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Harry Andrew Moore: I mentioned earlier that there is no guarantee that the official appointed by the government to act on the proposed National Farm Products Marketing Council will represent all areas of production, geographically or otherwise. To illustrate this, I understand that recently the official from western Canada resigned from the Dairy Commission. Has his place been filled by another man from western Canada? Western Canada is a pretty big area. I will answer that question: It has not. This only adds to my suspicions, shared by many western farmers, that this government is not too interested in the problems of agriculture in general and in western Canada in particular. Can we be blamed for being concerned when the officers of the marketing council are to be appointed by the government?
What are some of the results of this rigid state control by the Dairy Commission? I do not think this sort of control can be called anything else. First of all, the producers are receiving little more for their product, in the face of rising costs. Some are receiving less. Many have been forced out of business. In addition, it is virtually impossible for a young dairy farmer to become established at the present time. The fluid milk shipper, especially those with small operations, is worried about his future, and he has cause to be.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The consumer is paying more than ever before. In other words, there are more problems than ever before and nothing has been solved. We might ask the many members of this House who have a dairy industry in their constituencies about the number of letters and calls for help they have been receiving. An illustration of the type of assistance we can expect is contained in the statement made by the minister concerning what the farmer could do with the $2 milk which would result after a fine of $1.25 per hundredweight had been levied.
There is no suggestion that it should be fed to school children, needy families or even all consumers. No, the $2 milk is to be fed to calves and $4.85 per hundredweight will be realized for the milk. Remember that the minister is speaking about the dairy industry and dairy cows. Most dairy cows in good herds today-and we are talking about good herds because we are talking about fluid milk shippers-produce about 100 or more pounds a day when they freshen because of the advances in breeding and genetics. One hun-


dred pounds of milk today will not feed only one calf; it will feed at least five calves. We are talking only about male calves. I am quite sure the minister is aware that one can count on 50 per cent of his calves being male calves and 50 per cent being heifer calves. No good dairyman will pour the milk into a heifer if she is to be a producer when she matures.
Therefore, what do we need? We need cows that have litters, I guess. I know from experience that before the dairy policy was enunciated, 104 dairy bull calves were sold in one afternoon at a little sale down in my constituency. By the way, these calves sold for an average of $70 each. They were about three weeks old, because under the law in Alberta they cannot be sold at an earlier age by public auction. Shortly after the dairy policy was announced the price went up to $1 a pound, and soon there were not any for sale; people became panicky and decided they should keep their calves since they would have the surplus milk. There certainly would not seem to be much thought behind this suggestion.
In conclusion I ask, is it not dangerous to place this particular control in the hands of a government-appointed body which can make up the rules as it goes along? The welfare of an industry, a basic industry, and in fact the very way of life of a great number of Canadians, is to be placed in the hands of a few bureaucrats.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer I am naturally quite interested in legislation of this type. During most of my life as a farmer I have been involved with the problem of surpluses and low prices. Sometimes these low prices were not necessarily a result of a surplus but, rather, because farmers did not have the power to ask for the prices for their products to which they were entitled. As a consequence, when legislation of this nature is being discussed I have more than a normal amount of interest in it.
Sometimes people who do not understand the problems of farmers and the marketing position of farmers, and who do not understand the situation in respect of the low prices farmers receive for their products and the high cost of farming these days, suggest that farmers are a little like purple people eaters and ask what is the matter out on the farm.
I should like to suggest one reason is the poor bargaining power and consequently
April 27. 1970	COMMONS
prices which are too low. I have a book entitled "The Search for Stability," written by Charles Schwartz. It is not a new book, but after reviewing it today I find that some of the arguments in it are still valid. He deals with a time during the 1920s when farmers were concerned about the lack of bargaining strength, or what he calls the countervailing power. My father was a farmer in Saskatchewan early in the history of that province. The story he tells me is quite similar to my own experience.
With the exception of a short period during World War I and a short period immediately following World War II, the farmers in western Canada have fought low prices and a poor bargaining position. Last spring and last summer, as a member of the Agricultural Committee I toured the country and discovered that Prairie farmers are not the only people who have problems in this regard. I discovered, for example, that in the Niagara Peninsula there are vegetable producers, fruit growers and so on whose problems are similar to mine except that they produce a perishable product which must be marketed within a very limited time so that its value will not be lost.
I was a little disturbed about the bitterness expressed by some of these farmers. In Prince Edward Island I heard the same story. In the Fraser Valley I heard a somewhat similar story. I have heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) talk about market management and the value of it. I would agree with him that this is a desirable objective. I have also heard the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) talk about the problems and experiences of fruit growers. They do have their problems, but I believe they have been more successful in respect of marketing than some other producers in Canada. I suggest that it is not as simple a matter as they seem to think. I do hot say this facetiously at all. They produce a product in a relatively small area among relatively few farmers. It is easier to organize these farmers than it is to organize farmers who are spread right across the country. I think they have achieved more than has been achieved in other agricultural or farming activities. I compliment them on that.
I suggest to the members who represent these areas it is my experience that in a wider area of farming, involving a larger number of farmers, the problem in respect of organizing farmers and the marketing end of the business is not as easy as it is in a smaller
DEBATES	6327
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill geographic area or in an area where there is a relatively limited or, if you like, captive market which is shut off by mountains or other physical features from the remainder of the country. As a farmer and producer representing a farming area, I should like to see the farmers in my area emulate what they have achieved or at least come closer to achieving it.
As a Member of Parliament representing a farming area, I should like to place in the hands of the farmers more power to control the marketing methods and the price of their products. I think this would be a desirable objective and one which the farmers would applaud. How can we achieve this? I support orderly marketing such as we have had through the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of grains. However, I regret that over the years we have not had more farmer representation on this board. I feel that the farmer's interests might have been better served had this been the case.
0	(8:40 p.m.)
On looking at the legislation and checking the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, if my understanding of these two acts is correct,
1	find that the one which we have on the statute books already allocates federal powers to provincial marketing boards, while in the case of the act now before us the reverse is true. Under the bill before us we are to set up a federal agency and request or invite provincial marketing authorities or boards to cooperate. In effect, this bill is permissive, not compulsory.
I am not quite sure-perhaps someone will tell me before the debate is over-how we will secure the participation of all provinces in a particular item. A particular province might be allowed to participate if it has such legislation on its statute books. I should like someone from the government side of the House to tell us how this might work. Certainly, I look forward to discussing some of the items in the committee. As I understand it, this legislation is permissive. If the provinces wish to join, they may.
Some mention was made earlier today of the reservation that many of us have about the lack of control by farmers over their products. This disturbs me somewhat. The last speaker mentioned the dairy policy in his province. I have seen things happen in regard to the Wheat Board which I thought were errors of judgment. We all make errors, so I do not suppose we should throw stones too
6323	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill readily. But if the people directly affected by this legislation have no means of registering a protest except through their Member of Parliament, I wonder if this is the wisest type of legislation to have. If we could introduce some means whereby farmers who grow fruit in the Okanagan Valley, or who produce meat in other areas, or chickens or eggs, could register a protest directly to the board, I would be happy to hear about it. Perhaps the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary could enlighten us in this respect. I understand he is going to speak on the bill.
I read the minister's speech this evening and I find that he did not go into great detail on how this legislation might work. I do not see in the legislation any means whereby farmers may have some control over the products which they grow and which presumably will be handled by a suitable marketing agency.
As I said earlier, I favour this type of approach. I feel very strongly that farmers need more bargaining power nationally. I notice that the minister made reference in his speech to the fact that foreign trade is not covered by this legislation. I am not sure of the reason for this. As I recall, he did not say what it was but told us only that the act does not cover it. Again, this raises a question in my mind: Why is there this reservation? Perhaps a government spokesman, again, will tell us why this particular item is omitted. For example, if we raise meat in Canada and there is an import of beef from the United States, why should not a board or agency dealing with domestic beef also deal with imported beef? I would be glad to have an answer to that question. I am raising the question now, not arguing about it.
As I have said, the intent of the legislation is good. What I question is how it will be applied. I think that primarily there is concern among farmers that they will be forced out of farming in increasingly large numbers, and that the need for them is disappearing. I wonder if it is wise policy for the government to reduce the number of farming people in rural areas of Canada. It is true that some of them may not have economic farming units, but when they are forced into cities or urban communities they become a social problem and they increase the unemployment problem.
I ask: What is the cost, financially or socially, of the disruption when a rural family is forced to move into the city? I believe that a cost analysis would prove it to be more efficient to maintain the size and viability of

DEBATES	April 27. 1970
rural communities, and that the thousands who find rural life attractive should be provided with incentives to permit them to remain on the land. I hope that legislation of the type that we are presently considering will stabilize the price of some agricultural products to such an extent that at least those farmers who have efficient and economic farming units will be enabled to continue farming.
I should like to speak for a moment about some of the changes I have seen taking place in the area which I represent. When I was home during the Christmas recess I visited two large-scale hog producing plants on individual farms. They are somewhat like those one sees on experimental farms. They are efficient units run by up to date, forwardlooking farmers. We see quite a few of these, and I am sure there will be more. Farmers nowadays know more about their business. Many of them are highly skilled, efficient operators but they have to be guided by advice from the government.
Not too long ago we were advised to grow more wheat. This, of course, proved to be a mistake. Now we are advised not to grow any wheat. I feel that this, too, is a mistake. I think that if farmers were given some voice and the right to make a decision in the growing, marketing and pricing of their products, there would be less error. Government statisticians and theoreticians are a long way removed from the production area and they do not always understand the problems involved in production.
It is true that we will have surpluses in Canada. I feel that a reasonable surplus in one area is not a bad thing. I recall hearing Jimmy Gardiner at one time talk about having to keep enough butter in the pipeline because if you did not, someone would charge too much money for it. The thing that he did not get around to explaining satisfactorily was that the minute there was five pounds too much, the price went down and nobody made any money. This is something I cannot accept.
We should be prepared in Canada to produce at least some surplus in all fields. I think this would be a national asset, particularly in some areas which produce, for instance, grain of which we should have at all times a fairly large amount in reserve for our own benefit as well as for the benefit of those who depend on us for supplies. I do not think it is a bad thing to have a little extra butter or a little extra of some other produce.
April 27. 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I would not suggest that we go out consistently and overproduce in any line. I do not think we should plan for overproduction in this sense, but I do not think necessarily it is a bad thing when we do have an oversupply, except that the way in which we market our products can mean that prices will be too low.
I cannot accept this as being necessarily a right way of doing things. It does not happen with automobiles. If automobile manufacturers overproduce, they do not cut prices very much. Maybe the automobile manufacturer will cut the price on one line, but not on all lines. In agriculture, the price of everything comes down.
I know there are other hon. members who wish to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to dealing with it in committee. I have raised questions which I hope someone on the government side will answer.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill which is one I consider to be very important. As the hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) so kindly pointed out, I represent an area of the country that has had a great deal of experience with organized marketing and I would say a great deal of successful experience because organized marketing in the Okanagan Valley has served as a guidepost for agricultural organizations throughout Canada. The fruit growing organizations there have accomplished a remarkable thing with their central selling and marketing agency. They have developed a very close link between the customer, wherever he may be in the world, and the producer, the man who grows the fruit in the Okanagan Valley. I think this close link is lacking in the control of our agricultural marketing programs in Canada.
A few months ago I had an opportunity to travel with the Agricultural Committee into some parts of the Prairies. One of the things that impressed me was the lack of understanding between the producers of grain on the Prairies and their customers throughout the world. The attitude there seemed to be, "We produce it; now here it is, Mr. Government, go out and sell it. We don't care what you do with it in the meantime; just get rid of it. Don't bother us." One of the great benefits of a central selling organization, provided it is run and controlled by the producers, is that a link develops between the producer and his customer whereby the producer
DEBATES	6329
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill begins to understand the customer's demands, he understands better what he should produce and how he should produce it and market it.
I heard some startling things this afternoon when the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) was complaining about government intrusion, through a marketing bill of this kind, into the affairs of the farmer. There was talk of government interference. We have heard all these phrases previously, yet what happens when there is a problem in the agricultural industry? Who comes to this House first to say, "We must hand out some money. We must do something to help the farmer"? The hon. member for Kent-Essex is right in there. He wants government interference then. He does not want government interference, regulations or any sensible control by the farmers themselves to solve their farm management problems.
I am not afraid of controlled marketing because I have seen it work. Many years ago when the program began in the Okanagan Valley during the depression years, the farmers were suffering badly. They got together and they said, "A cent a pound or on the ground". That was the beginning of central selling or orderly marketing in that area. Over the years it has become a very successful program. It has built an agency that has developed packaging programs, shipping, sorting, controlled atmosphere storage, educational programs for growers and all the facets of an advanced marketing system that is run and controlled by the producers, the farmers themselves.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is it.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I agree with you, and there is provision in this bill to allow and to encourage that to happen.


Harold Warren Danforth: You had better read the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Somebody there has not read it.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, Dean MacPhee of the University of British Columbia produced a monumental report on the fruit industry in 1958. One of the things he said was, "Fruit growing may be a way of life, but it is also a way of making a living". 1 think that sometimes people in our farm communities forget this, when we hear about the God-given right of anyone, anywhere, any time, any place, to be a farmer and to produce in any way that he likes without regard to the effect that his
April 27, 1970
0330	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm. Products Marketing Agencies Bill
production may have on other producers in Canada. I suggest that perhaps this is the only economic sector where we say it is possible for anybody at any time to go into the business and do whatever he likes in it. There are not very many opportunities of that kind today.
Here we are faced with an industry that is affected by the vagaries of nature, sometimes great and sometimes poor. It is sensible that the people engaged in it take measures to market their products in an orderly way so they can dispose of surpluses in an orderly fashion when they have surpluses, and so they can store for lean years and build up production if demand is greater than the supply. These are sensible things which sensible people do. I do not shy away from them, and I do not shy away from recommending this bill to the people of Canada.
I am surprised when I hear opposition members saying this is not the kind of thing we should be doing. I heard the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore) say what a shameful thing it is that growers, producers, might have to keep records, that there might be some kind of control on production and there might be some regulation of supply. I do not think that is a strange thing in this modern day and age: it is not at all surprising.
I wish to quote from the 1958 MacPhee report on the fruit industry of British Columbia. One of the recommendations in the report reads as follows:
That the provincial government request an amendment by the Governor in Council to the federal Order in Council under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act of Canada to give the Fruit Board powers similar to those given it by the Lieutenant Governor in Council in the province of British Columbia, and in addition the powers to pool and equalize returns on tree fruits sold in interprovincial and export trade.
We are beginning to get around to that with this bill. I have some other words here, this time from one of the producer organizations in the Okanagan Valley, with regard to this bill. This is what they say:
There are situations for certain commodities where co-operation between producer groups and different provinces is needed for the benefit of orderly marketing and can only be effective with national or regional agencies which must be provided for by federal legislation.
That is what the farmers of Canada are saying. I wonder if hon. members opposite who are opposing this bill listen to the farmers of Canada. I admit that this bill is not perfect. I share the concern of other hon. members as to how marketing agencies should

be controlled, but if hon. members opposite would read the bill they would see there would be a board which did the controlling.
It is intended that with respect to an individual marketing sector, be it hogs, dairying or whatever, the producers themselves can form a marketing board under the guidance of the government body set up under this bill-a board set up by the producers themselves with their representatives on it to organize and control marketing for the industry. If that is done I think we will solve the problem of control.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
This is an extremely important point, not just from the standpoint of farmers having the say in the affairs of their industry; it is important in itself. It provides that vital link, contact between the producer and the marketplace, something which is lacking today in the sale of wheat and feed grains on the Prairies. In that case there is not enough contact between the farmer and the customer, and for that reason I do not agree with some of our marketing methods. The provisions of this bill are such that a link will be established. This is why I support this bill with great enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker. We should proceed with it as quickly as possible and develop it fully in the next few years so that it becomes an important link in our agricultural marketing program in Canada.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago when I stood up, before the previous speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) whispered to me across the aisle, his surprise evident, "Are you going to speak on this bill?" I have not spoken on agricultural matters more than three or four times in the past ten years since I ceased to be Minister of Agriculture. However, this bill is so dangerous, Mr. Speaker, that I feel I have an obligation to point out the manifest dangers which I believe to be inherent in it-dangers to the agricultural industry and to Canadian society generally.
In my view, if this bill were passed and fully implemented we would have a completely state-controlled agricultural industry in this country, meaning the complete removal of freedom on the part of the farmer to decide how to manage his land in the best way, what to grow, and how to dispose of it. I do not think the farmers in this country want that.
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
I have been connected with agriculture all my life. My first memories are of a farm near Brampton, Ontario. My boyhood was spent on a ranch in Saskatchewan. I have owned farms or been connected with farming enterprises since that time. Of the tens of thousands of farmers I have known and spoken to, each wanted to make his own decisions, individually or collectively. He did not want some outside group of people telling him how to run his business. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill is designed to do.


Harold Warren Danforth: Hear, hear!


Douglas Scott Harkness: 
An hon. Member:: That is the whole idea.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They will be defeated Liberal candidates and people like that. These certainly will not be boards such as the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary mentioned, elected by the producers and responsible to the producers. They will not be responsible to
DEBATES	6331
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill anybody except the government, and will be completely under the thumb of the government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The people elect the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They do, but unfortunately once the government is elected it is in office for four or five years and a lot of damage can be done in that time by an irresponsible government such as this one. If the minister wishes to ask a question or make an intelligible interruption, I shall be delighted to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, but it is very difficult to deal with unintelligible interruptions.


An hon. Member:: Or intelligent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I did not say that, but people can draw their own conclusions. This bill is designed to put the producer in the position where these government appointed councils or agencies can tell him how much of any particular commodity he can produce, how it is to be marketed, and so forth. There is no doubt that this will make for an extremely dangerous rigidity in the whole agricultural industry. We will have the same type of system in effect in agriculture as there was in the feudal ages, when the economy was in a rigid frame and it was impossible to break out of it. If this bill is passed and implemented, we will have in agriculture a rigidity which will make it difficult for farmers to operate and which in the end will drive them out of business.


Mr. Gibson:: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am always delighted to accept a question.


Colin David Gibson: I ask this question with humility, realizing that I am not an expert on the subject. Is not the real aim and substance of this bill the guaranteeing of various marketing factors in the country, particularly with reference to interprovincial matters, where there is a problem in one province in the west, say, and a different problem in another province? Is the idea not to get the various farm agencies in the different provinces together, and through co-operation to set up a network of agencies so they can come together on policy and serve their common interests?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's lack of appreciation of this bill just from the short speech he has made.
April 27, 1970
6332	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Had he made a longer speech, I suppose he would have demonstrated his lack of knowledge of agricultural matters to an even greater extent. Regarding the question he asked, I think the purpose of the bill is to have the government assume complete control of the agricultural industry in this country.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can see nothing else for it but that


Colin David Gibson: Will the hon. member permit another question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, not now, if my hon. friend does not mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This bill is nothing but state control.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) has the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member may think he will interrupt my train of thought by these questions, but that is not the case. I will be delighted to answer his questions as soon as I have finished my remarks. He can get up at that time.


Colin David Gibson: Thank you, sir.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to the rigidities which the implementation of this measure will impose on agriculture, and therefore on our economy as a whole to a considerable extent, this bill will put those people who produce a particular commodity that comes under the act in a monopoly position and make it extremely difficult for anybody else to get into that type of production. We have laws against monopolies, but apparently they will not operate so far as this bill is concerned.
I consider one of the worst features of this bill the fact that it will make it extremely difficult for any young man to get started in any type of agricultural production. In order to do so, he will have to obtain a permit and pay for it. And if the production of any commodity, be it hogs, eggs, cattle or anything else, is profitable it will cost a great deal for someone to buy a permit, quota or whatever is necessary in order to get into production. These rigidities, again, will be reflected in the entire industry.

Another inevitable effect of the bill will be that it will squeeze out the small farmer. We have already seen what has happened in this country so far as the Dairy Commission is concerned. According to figures I have seen, between 25,000 and 50,000 small dairy producers have been squeezed out of business as the result of the operations of the Dairy Commission. An effect of this bill will be that inevitably the type of board contemplated will exercise complete control over commodities to be produced, whether the commodity be carrots, honey or anything else, and again the small man will be squeezed out.
You will find that the production of various commodities will be concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of people, and our whole agricultural industry as well as our rural areas will suffer very materially as a result. One of the effects of this situation will be to expedite the flight of people from the country to the cities, which in my view has been a very bad development in recent years. You will be left with an extraordinarily small rural population. So, just from the general social point of view, I look upon this as a bad and dangerous bill.
Now I should like to pose a question which really comes back to what my hon. friend was asking me. What is the purpose of the bill? Is its purpose to secure a greater return for the producers? I think nearly all farmers who support the bill are supporting it because they think they will get greater returns by doing so. Is this the purpose of the bill? If so, how is this purpose to be accomplished? Surely the chain of marketing which we have at present is going to remain the same. Commodities will move from the farm to the processor-who may be a meat packer, an egg crater or somebody like that-from the processor to the wholesaler, and from the wholesaler to the retailer who will distribute it just as at present to the general consuming public.
That marketing chain will continue; I think there is no question about that. Of course, there will not be any reduction in the cost of marketing at the levels of processing, wholesaling and retailing. That cost will not be any less and I think it will be a great deal more, because farmers and others will be filling out returns for the government and will have to waste lots of time taking inspectors around and showing them they are not bootlegging eggs, butter or something else. Therefore, the total cost involved in this general marketing chain will be greater.
April 27, 1970

In addition to that you will have the costs of a very large bureaucracy, which will be added to the marketing costs. There will be costs attributable to this council, to these agencies and probably to a horde of inspectors who will be going round to make sure the farmer is not selling a few dozen eggs to his friends. So you will see a very great increase in the cost of marketing because of the bureaucracy which is essential if you are to operate a system of this kind.
If you are to have an increase in marketing costs-unquestionably there will be an increase; I do not think anybody can argue otherwise-this increase will have to be borne by someone. If the purpose of the legislation is to give the producer more money, who will bear the increased cost? It will be the consumer. Perhaps that is the government's idea. Perhaps the idea is that the consumer will be charged considerably higher prices for all agricultural products. If this is the case, I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has the duty and responsibility toward the consumers of this country to tell them that the cost of butter, eggs, beef, pork and so forth, once this bill passes, will go up and up by fairly considerable amounts.
That being the case, I suggest that the government, before putting this measure through, should wait for the reaction of the consumers. If the government wanted to be honest about this matter, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should, as it is his duty to do, inform the consumers of the country that the purpose of the bill is to increase considerably the consumers' food costs. As I say, if the purpose of the bill is to secure a greater return for the farmer, the inevitable effect is that there will be an increased price for consumers, and that ought to be made clear to the consumers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, that is not correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, Mr. Speaker, if that is not the purpose of the bill, its only other purpose that I can see is to give to the government complete control over our most important basic industry and, in effect, to reduce the farmers of this country to a status very little different from that of feudal peasants of medieval Europe who were told what to do, what to grow and how they were to grow it, only to have their produce taken from them. That is the position the farmers of our country will be in. They will be told by
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill the government and its bureaucrats exactly how to carry on their business, what to plant, how much to plant, and so on.


Colin David Gibson: Not under clause 8.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is so under any clause, so far as I can see.


Gerald William Baldwin: President Pierre will tell the
farmers what to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let us look at the clause which particularly appalls me, clause 37(1), which provides in part:
Every person who violates any provision of this act or of a marketing plan that an agency is authorized to implement or who fails to comply with a requirement of the council pursuant to paragraph (e) of section 7-
In other words, any farmer who violates any provision of the act or any regulation made by the council, and so on, under the act is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Here we can charge a farmer with an indictable offence if he decides to grow, we will say, 40 acres of tobacco after the marketing board has told him he can grow only 20 acres. He will be liable to be imprisoned for two years, or he may be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction in which case he will pay a fine or go to jail.
How ridiculous can we get in this country, if farmers are to be jailed for growing or selling wheat, cattle, eggs, tobacco, or whatever the product may be, without first having authorization from the duly authorized board to do so? Here you have a situation in which a poor little farmer who sells a few dozen crates of eggs to some of his friends will be liable to go to jail for two years for doing so. The thing is so ridiculous that in any past period, when I would consider more common sense attitudes prevailed, to bring in any provision along that line would have been laughed out of his House. In addition to that, I submit from the practical point of view this whole scheme is a sort of pipe dream. It cannot be put into operation on a Canadawide basis unless all the provinces agree.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I find it almost impossible to believe that as far as marketing a certain number of commodities is concerned, in fact quite a large number of farm commodities, every province will agree, particularly if the farmers of a province have a relatively small share of the production at the time the bill is put into
April 27, 1970
9334	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill effect, and they would have the possibility of very greatly increasing their production. It would not be in the interest of the farmers or the province to agree. In any case, I think it is an unpractical pipe dream. I hope the government will have second thoughts and withdraw the bill. If the hon. member wishes to ask me a question, I will be delighted to answer it.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member castigated the government pretty solidly for being undemocratic in its approach to this problem. You seem to have overlooked the fact that clause 8 provides for a public hearing. The words of the clause are:
-broadening the authority of an existing agency to cover an additional farm product or farm products-
My question is, do you not consider that if you have an agency set up, the members of that agency can go to the people and ask them what their problems are and if they want an agency? Does he not consider that is a step in the right direction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member replies I want to remind the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) that his question should be directed to the Chair. Also, I have some misgivings about discussing the individual clauses at this stage. Hon. members know at this point we ought to be discussing the content and the principle of the bill; we should not get involved in detailed consideration of the individual clauses of the bill. This having been said, I am sure the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) should be permitted to reply to the question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I quite agree with Your Honour that we should be discussing the general principles and features of the bill. This is what I have been attempting to do. In connection with the hon. member's specific question,
I consider clause 8 nothing more than camouflage designed to fool the farmers of this country into thinking that they are going to have some control with regard to the marketing of their products. The clause says "A public meeting may be held"; that is all. It does not matter what goes on at the public meeting. The government or the bureaucracy they have appointed can go ahead and do what they want anyway. The fact that a public meeting has been held means absolutely nothing.


Colin David Gibson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is rising on a point of order.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member said a public meeting may be held. The bill stresses that a public meeting should be held.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. Again we are discussing the details of the clause.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask hon. members not to embark upon a detailed discussion of the individual clauses of the bill. Obviously, this is what the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is now doing. I think we should limit our discussion to the question of the principle of this bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is attempting to do a little nit-picking which has no connection whatever with the general purpose of the bill. Furthermore, as I said before, I think it makes no difference whether a public meeting is held so long as the government still has the power to go ahead and do what it wants, no matter what the feeling of the public meeting.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length on this bill and I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible.
First of all, I should like to say that I support the principle of Bill C-197, and I am even ready to state further that during my election campaign, I promised to my constituents that I would support the principle of the establishment of a National Farm Products Marketing Council and national marketing agencies, especially in respect of potatoes which is an area that concerns me most, since I represent a riding where they produce a lot of potatoes.

I do not question the sincerity of hon. members who direct questions to the minister and others on this side of the House as to why the government introduced a bill of this nature. They ask what the need is for such a bill. In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, I could quote headlines from fairly recent newspaper articles. I quote from the March 1, 1969, Telegraph-Journal published in Saint John, New
April 27, 1970
Brunswick, a three-column headline which reads, "Potato Growers Ask for Help. Prices are Plunging".
I wish to quote from an article in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner, the most Conservative of Tory papers in the Maritimes. The headline reads, "National Potato Board Urged by Federation." This is the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture. I quote from the article regarding the potato situation:
The New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture meeting in Fredericton voted for establishment of a National Potato Board, to operate in a similar manner as the Canadian Wheat Board.
The National Potato Board would be responsible for marketing the Canadian potato crop, establishing price levels, and imposing marketing quotas on producers.
The New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture is a body composed of farmers, producers and potato growers. This board is not talking on behalf of the government or the government establishment; it is talking on its own behalf. The federation is requesting the government to set up a national marketing board and to introduce legislation to that effect. The article continues:
In the discussion which took place, before the potato board resolution was adopted by the meeting, it was pointed out that the procedures currently being developed for the operation of a Canadian Egg Commission might be adapted for use in the national marketing of potatoes.
New Brunswick growers, during the past two years,-
This refers to the 1966-67 and 1968-69 potato crop years.
_have been selling potatoes at less than the cost
of production, estimated at 80 cents for a 50-pound
bag.
It was also pointed out that in order for a National Potato Board to operate effectively, it would be necessary for growers in each potato producing province to organize provincial marketing plans. Growers in New Brunswick in the past have found it impossible to agree to any marketing plan for a long enough period of time to give the plan a chance to work.
That was in 1968. This year we have had another example of farmers, not refusing to cooperate with the provincial government but refusing to find a decent compromise to the solution of some of their most pressing problems in the field of marketing. I may make reference to this situation later on. The fact is that farmers recognize that something must be done, and done soon, to organize then-industry, because they are left at the mercy of fluctuating markets and the law of supply and demand which does not always work out, in this age of technology, the way they would like.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill (9:30 p.m.)
In respect to the bill itself, I think it is imaginative and far-reaching. I am a little sorry that some hon. members opposite did not feel it proper to adopt a more positive attitude when commenting on the purposes of the bill. As a matter of fact, they seemed to prefer to point out some of its shortcomings. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, there are some shortcomings and I have recognized a few. If I am given the opportunity to sit on the Agricultural Committee, I intend to speak about them. But tonight we are discussing the principle of the bill, which I think is a good one. Some order in the over-all field must be brought to the marketing of agricultural products. Too often has the whole industry been open to speculation.

-and open as well to dishonest people, to profiteers who have no qualms about crossing provincial boundaries now and then in order to shamefully exploit these poor farmers.
Needless to say, the latter sometimes take us to task for blaming them for their ignorance. It is true that there may still be illiterate farmers, but they are not ignorant.
However, when we the representatives of the people, in many cases elected by a majority of these farmers, want to make constructive suggestions to them, they immediately believe that we want to make them look like a bunch of ignoramuses.
Personally, I blame the farmers not for their ignorance or their illiteracy but especially for their stubbornness and their refusal to want to consider a situation and co-operate more with governments. After all, they are the ones who elect the representatives, but once these have become members of the government in power, the farmers sit back and wait for the government to work miracles and get them out of their troubles.
Sad to say, it just happened again in New Brunswick. While the farmers resent our saying these things in public, they do not hesitate to sling mud at us when things are not going well. In fact, when the year has been a good one and potatoes sell well, the politicians get no credit for it, but when things go wrong, the farmers blame it on the members of Parliament, the government and the Public Service.
Mr. Speaker, I said my remarks would not be very long. So I shall now conclude by saying that this bill must be referred to the Committee on Agriculture as soon as possible

April 27, 1970
6336	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill so that we may study it in depth and point out its benefits. I think most of its components are very good, but I also recognize that there are some loopholes in it and that, in a few places, there is room for improvement. The proper body for that study would be the Committee on Agriculture. Even though I might add a few things tonight, I shall sit down, for I intend to come back on this later on.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, at this stage, as you have rightfully pointed out to the members of the House, we are discussing merely the principle of Bill C-197. I want at the outset of my remarks to indicate that this is the point on which I mean to dwell this evening, and to state quite emphatically that I disagree fundamentally with the purposes of the bill that is sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
I think, unfortunately and tragically, that the bill is moving in the general direction of dealing with the many economic problems that confront Canada at the present time by depending on government action as the final solution and arbiter. Every time a problem, particularly an economic problem, presents itself in this country, automatically the government's response is to have more and more arbitrary power and control in the hands of the government, and perhaps what is even worse than this, more and more arbitrary control in delegating power to a growing public administration in Canada.
It is not necessary for me to enumerate some of the recent trends, but we had the notorious example of Rule 75C which was before the House less than one year ago, under which the government, in its desire to streamline parliamentary debate and to deal with what it regarded as a major difficulty in the Canadian body politic, the expeditious handling of public issues, gave unto itself by legislative decree-in this particular instance, by the use of closure-absolute control over the debating time in this House of Commons.
I oppose Bill C-197 because it follows precisely this trend that has become the pattern of the government's approach to all problems facing Canadians at the present time. I suggest this approach is moving in the opposite direction to that required for the solution of our extremely difficult agricultural problems.
My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was in my constituency about two weeks ago and met a group of concerned citizens and farmers in the city of Brandon. I think he


will agree with me that he did not get a very positive response to some of the solutions that he, as minister in the government responsible for dealing with agricultural problems today, is proposing as long-term solutions. I know that this particular bill was not directly under consideration that evening; the farmers were most concerned with the topical subject of LIFT, the "Lower Inventory For Tomorrow" program which they have nicknamed the "Lower Income For Tomorrow" program. The farmers oppose LIFT for precisely the same reasons as they will oppose this piece of government legislative initiative to set up a National Farm Products Marketing Council as it becomes understood and filters down to the grass roots of the farm economy.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The government has failed to deal with the fundamental problem in respect of agriculture. This is a marketing and sales problem rather than a supply management problem. I do not know why the Minister of Agriculture, who is a westerner and a farmer, has embraced this dogma. It has become such a well established pattern that I think we can refer to it only as a dogma or an automatic conditioned response whereby the solution to any problem on the agricultural front is to cut down on the supply. That is what the LIFT program is all about and it is what this measure is all about.
Instead of bringing forward this and other measures, the minister should take a more positive position and deal with the question of marketing the farm commodity. I am sure it is fair criticism to say that the government has decided that the number of farmers employed in the agricultural industry must be reduced by government action. The government says that the farm economy can no longer sustain the number of producers in the industry, and therefore is deliberately by its policy initiatives aggravating rather than solving the problem of the rural-urban drift which has been going on apace in the North American continent, if not in the world, during the past two or three decades.
By its policy the government is merely shifting the major problem from one sector of the economy to another, because the only possible alternative employment for farmers who have been displaced due to the decline of the agricultural industries is in the big, booming, buzzing urban communities which already have reached such a size that in many respects they have become quite
April 27. 1970	COMMONS
unmanageable. I believe it is already quite clear that the problems of our urban communities are even more pressing than the economic problems of our rural communities. This government has not even started to think in terms of solving the problems in respect of the rapid urban growth. Indeed, the housing situation is in a state of confusion. We are told there are 18,000 people in the city of Toronto alone waiting for adequate public housing. We know that urban renewal has not entered into the government's program or planning at all. A Minister without Portfolio has been appointed to deal with this particular situation. As yet, however, no solutions have been forthcoming.
We know the situation concerning one leading minister of this government, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who with great, crusading zeal set out to solve one arm of our economic problem. He gave up in disgust because he could not get any action from the administration. I would think that rather than bring in this type of negative approach to the rural side of Canada's economic difficulty, the government would be much better advised to use the time at its disposal to deal with solutions concerning the other side of the coin, the urban situation which is in such a critical state that it will become much worse before there is any improvement.
In returning specifically to the principle of this bill, may I say that it is just a few years since we were concerned with the problem of the world food supply. Agriculture is the basic arm in the matter of food supply. We sent representatives abroad to participate in FAO conferences. This organization was the leader in respect of positive programs to establish food banks to feed the hungry of the world. We emphasized that the Canadian agricultural economy had all the production potential necessary to meet the growing demand for food in the world, so long as we could on a basis of international co-operation work out suitable marketing policies.
There was progress in this regard until this administration took over. I do not know why it has suddenly departed from this international outreach in assisting the world which is obviously short of food. We know that three-quarters of the people of the world are undernourished. Surely the real demand for food is not being met by any nation. One might ask why at this critical juncture in international affairs the government of Canada should retreat behind a negative supply management system with relation to
DEBATES	6337
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill agricultural production. This is beyond my understanding and it is beyond the understanding of the farmers.
This is one theme the farmers repeat over and over when they discuss the critical problems they face. Why does the Minister of Agriculture, a westerner, not use his influence in emphasizing marketing and international co-operation, rather than restricting production which will inevitably lead to a further integration of our agricultural industry? I know the administration is committed to a continental policy. In its international relations, politically and militarily, it is withdrawing behind the continental frontier. It could be, of course, that the same philosophy in respect of agriculture is motivating its action in this regard.
Surely all members of the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, do not subscribe to this sort of nineteenth century, narrow nationalism. Surely the minister could use his influence to persuade his colleagues who are continental isolationists to move out into the mainstream of twentieth century life and become tuned into the needs of the word as they exist. If the minister does not agree with the approach of the government, he has an alternative, as had the former minister responsible for housing. He could resign and express his protest over the present trends in government policy.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Those who defend Bill C-197 say that it is a response to the wishes of the farmers for a more orderly production and marketing system. I have been reading the comments that have already emanated from farm organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, and I find they do not express the sort of sympathy and general support for the legislation that the minister in his opening statement earlier in the month indicated was present.
The minister, speaking in Alberta on March 24 of this year, obviously ran into the same negative response with which he was confronted when in Brandon a week ago last Tuesday because of the failure of the government and the minister to consult the farm organizations. At that meeting, according to press reports, he promised that there would be consultation in detail. He also stated, as he as stated in the House, that the legislation is merely enabling legislation, it merely sets up
April 27, 1970
6338	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill the machinery and once the machinery is set in place it will be up to the farmers themselves to determine whether they want to make use of the machinery provided by government policy and government planning.
As I read the bill-whether this is deliberate, I do not know-it seems to me it is certainly a misrepresentation of the powers that are set down in the bill to control rigidly and coercively the whole agricultural industry at the production level, because it seems to me that the cabinet has complete monopoly power. The minister and those who defend the bill talk about public hearings where the vox papulae will be able to express itself. But this is optional, it is not mandatory; and judging from our experience in other areas of government action and policy it will be the exception rather than the rule for the government to consult, in the intimate terms that it professes in the statements of the minister, with the agricultural producers.
There is nothing in the legislation, as I see it, which indicates that after the consultations, the recommendations which will be forthcoming will be followed by the government. I know that the government's attitude has been to completely ignore public opinion because it follows the philosophy-this goes back to the pursuit of power that has been characteristic in most areas of government action under the Trudeau administration-of going completely against the wishes of the public with respect to public action and policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister also makes the point that in this legislation he is attempting to follow the precedent of provincial marketing boards that are already established. As I read some of the background papers that were presented to the Agricultural Congress, which will result in a task force report which has been pending for several years, the warnings with respect to marketing boards were diametrically opposed to the sort of solution proposed in this bill. For example, one of the papers said that to provide the marketing boards with powers on the scale proposed in the legislation would be to provide the "ultimate weapon" in supply management control.
This is not the positive program of agricultural adjustment to be implemented without authoritarian police and procedures such as was requested, for example, by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its representa-

tions to the cabinet as recently as April 9. To compare it with the sort of producer-controlled marketing board at the provincial level is, of course, a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Rather than being patterned on that precedent, the federal plan erodes the constitutional rights of the province in agricultural marketing. For example, they will be able to levy special charges or make special levies, which is a sort of arbitrary, delegated, indirect system of taxation.
My time has almost expired. Rather than go into another aspect of my argument, may I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Leroy Skoberg: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has had enough punishment for today, but since he is in such a genial mood I hope he will take my comments into consideration.
On March 13 I asked the minister whether, in view of the statement of the secretary general of the Canada Grains Council, we should have permanent foreign marketing missions to promote grain sales, if Canada is to retain markets and gain new markets, and if the minister could tell the House whether the government was considering the establishment of such foreign marketing missions.
The minister suggested at that time that the Canada Grain Council was really set up to consider this type of selling mission. In a supplementary question I asked if the minister could indicate whether the government was considering setting up such missions throughout the world. Again he suggested that he had received no direct communication from the secretary general of the Grain Council and that all he knew was what he had read in the newspapers.
The reason I raised this question was that many people throughout this country are condemning the Canadian Wheat Board. They are suggesting there should be selling agencies other than the Canadian Wheat Board. I then placed on the Order Paper a question which related very clearly to the question I asked on Orders of the Day, asking how many brokerage firms are now handling Canadian grain sales.
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
To my amazement I found that 43 eastern and western exporting firms are acting as agents of the Canadian Wheat Board and handling Canadian grain sales abroad. I suggest that if these exporting firms are acting as Canadian agents, and at the same time as agents for other countries, Canadian producers can expect no consideration in so far as the handling of Canadian grain is concerned.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
There are some supposedly responsible people-we have them in Saskatchewan-who deliberately attack the Canadian Wheat Board for not doing a proper job. Does the minister not think that if we set up permanent Canadian missions abroad to sell our agricultural products, under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board, giving that board the tools to do the job, instead of letting these 43 eastern and western exporting and shipping firms handle our produce, we would have better selling machinery?
We know that certain private entrepreneurs would love to see the Canadian Wheat Board broken. We know that certain stockbrokers would like to see the Canadian Wheat Board broken. At the same time we know that the Canadian people, particularly those engaged in the agricultural industry, would like to see selling missions permanently established throughout the world to sell our produce. Such selling missions would look after the sale of Canadian produce alone; they would not attempt to handle everybody's produce at the same time.
I am given to understand that some of these 43 exporting firms also have interests in shipping firms. No one has to draw a map to realize that if they have interests in shipping firms, and at the same time are trying to sell agricultural produce, they will try to sell that produce from the country in which their ships are located at any given time. It is important that we look into this situation now. If we are to have credible grain selling Canadian missions, we must establish them under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This is something Canada must decide today, not tomorrow. We cannot wait for the Canada Grains Council or any other board to carry out a further examination.
I am pleased to note that the Alberta Wheat Pool has come up with an excellent suggestion, one which I wish to read into the record. In a statement dated April 16, 1970, it says:
While existing agencies have achieved commendable results in selling its products, Canadian agriculture is ready for a yet more aggressive
DEBATES	6339
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion marketing attitude on the part of ail those responsible for handling and selling its products. Techniques now being used by competing nations, and marketing procedures not now in effect must be explored and developed if Canada is to maintain any success in the world's agricultural marketplace.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that unless Canada establishes permanent selling missions throughout the world, our agricultural economy is due for a complete bust. We simply cannot have 43 exporting and shipping firms trying to handle our produce. Unless the government realizes this, it will stand accused forever and a day. Our producers know what is going on. They do not really expect these 43 exporting firms to handle their produce properly. I plead with the minister to give serious consideration to the suggestion that we establish these permanent marketing agencies throughout the world, otherwise our agricultural economy will suffer complete collapse in the very near future.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked this question a few days ago, part of the question, as I then understood it, was with respect to the response we had given to the Canadian Grains Council in respect of its declared purpose in promoting sales of Canadian grain in the international market. It seems to me there are a lot of contradictions in the hon. member's assertions respecting the best interests of the producer in selling the largest volume of grain on the international market. It certainly does not seem to me that we would enchance our position by withdrawing our offer to sell to all the international agencies because that, in my opinion, is certainly not in conflict with the sales promotions that the Canadian Wheat Board has carried on so effectively over the years. Certainly we are the first to admit that they have the same difficulties as every other country when we run into a situation such as the present one where supplies are excessive in relation to the immediate market demand.
I believe there are some encouraging signs, however, and I would not agree with the hon. member that it would enhance our situation, or the position of the Canadian Wheat Board, to stop selling through all the international agencies who would be willing to take large or small quantities from time to time. It seems to me that they can be complementary. Some action is being taken by XCAN, a collaboration among the various wheat pools and producer organizations in western Canada, in
April 27, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion their attempt to establish an export marketing agency. As I have said many times, I welcome this. But I know, and so do they, that they will have to meet the competitive position in the world market, which includes arrangements for shipping so that they are competitive on that basis as well. This is a very important part of delivering grain, arranging for shipping from the export point to the delivery point at the lowest possible cost. My friend knows how important it is to arrange for shipping in advance in order to obtain the service at competitive cost.
I do not have time to go into detail, Mr. Speaker, but I reject the hon. members accusations that we are trying to break the Canadian Wheat Board. In my view, the function of the Canadian Wheat Board and other agencies is to continually and constantly promote sales in the markets we have.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Minister, but his time has expired.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of 12,000 Canadians, 9,800 who are regular members and the remainder public service and other supporting staff for the finest police force in the world, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have often seen municipal police forces in different parts of Canada engaged in activities such as policing ball games and that sort of thing. It may be of interest to know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do municipal police work in 145 municipalities across Canada. For this work they receive no overtime pay. It is overtime pay that brings the illustrious Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and myself into confrontation this evening. The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, W. L. Higgitt, put it this way at page 7 of No. 16 of the Minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
We are one of the last police organizations in Canada-I hope it can remain that way, but I do not see how it can for much longer-certainly of any major size, at least, that does not have overtime compensation. We simply do not have compensation for overtime and last year we put in an equivalent of 2,068 man years of overtime or something over 3.75 million hours of overtime for which there is no compensation at all.
At page 10 he said:
I think we are the only police organization in Canada where management is still speaking for

the men. I think we always have been successful in getting a pretty good deal for our members, and so long as that exists I do not foresee that this system needs change.
Prior to this pay increase-
He was speaking of the last pay increase of the RCMP.
-from a pay point of view we were about 17th in the scale of police pay in Canada. I am basing that on the pay of a first-class constable. This pay increase brought us up to where we are tied at this moment for second place, which is not a very unhealthy place to be. However, it is a little unrealistic for me to say this because you will recall that I just said we put in last year something in excess of 2,000 man-years of overtime, for which there is no pay at all. When I say that we are tied for second place, that is only in basic pay-
You see what I mean, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
-because every other police force in Canada gets fairly handsome overtime allowances and payments which we do not enjoy at all. So while I say we are tied, that is only in a basic pay way. If it was really take-home pay and we actually could examine the take-home pay of the various constables, we probably would find that we had dropped down considerably from the second position.
When I asked the witness at page 16:13 a question about the overtime problem, he answered in part:
-we are still nowhere near the top pay across the land if we take overtime pay of other forces into account. We are not, at this moment, pushing an overtime case. If I could answer it that way.
Finally, at page 16:14 of the Minutes of Evidence there is a reference to a 4 per cent attrition rate in the force. I wondered whether that related to lack of overtime pay or not.
I then asked this question:
I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, how the commissioner proposes to solve this overtime problem. If he is not asking for 20 per cent more men and he is not vigorously pursuing a question of overtime payments, where is the solution?
I should say here, parenthetically, that I estimated that the men worked more than 16 per cent of their time as overtime, and Commissioner Higgitt calculated that the overtime work amounted to something like 20 per cent of their time. So that is one answer to the question I have put on record. Answering the question I asked of him on page 16:14, Commissioner Higgitt said:
There are two answers to that. One is that I am sure that we are not going to have to pursue this overtime matter before too long as a separate item. However, I should like to be able to think that we can take cognizance of this in our general pay packages each time. If our men can see that
April 27, 1970	COMMONS
we in management are doing a pretty good job for them in general pay negotiations I think they will be reasonably content to carry on.
I think, sir, it is fair to say from the evidence that was given by Commissioner Higgitt, a truly excellent witness before the committee, that there was a sort of split in this respect. He would like to have seen things go on as they had been going on, but on the other hand he could not see that they could go on this way. That perhaps sounds like Alice in Wonderland talk, and I think that is exactly the position our witness found himself in. So the other day in the House of Commons I dared to raise this matter with the Solicitor General.
I cannot say I was dissatisfied with his answer, because I know that when someone schooled at the feet of the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King gives you any kind of answer, you must be prepared to accept it. None the less, I thought I would press our dear friend, the Solicitor General, to come here this evening and answer the question further. I will boil it down to this, Mr. Speaker, and this is my question to the Solicitor General: Would the government welcome the recommendation from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that the matter of overtime pay for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be considered by the government?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Answer in the affirmative.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Now get out of that one.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there are two rather interesting questions raised by the hon. member tonight. One is the procedural question emphasized by the new question he raised at the conclusion of his remarks, and the other is the substantive question of overtime pay for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The first question is a purely procedural one and is rather interesting. He apparently is asserting the proposition that this motion to
DEBATES	6341
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion adjourn, and the right to debate it, can De used for a discussion of current matters while proceedings on those matters are before the standing committees of the House of Commons. This matter is before a standing committee of the House of Commons, the Standing Commitee on Justice and Legal Affairs which is examining the estimates of the department. In that examination a question has been raised and an answer given.
When the hon. member raised the question the other day, despite his remarks about my reply I would point out to him that, as I said, when the committee completes its work and reports back to the House, the government will consider all the matters that have come before it. That is the exact position. But I would point out to hon. members that they are making a new departure tonight in permitting this matter to be debated at this time; because now items in respect of all matters currently before standing committees of the House may be debated here concurrently.
As to the substantive question, which is a matter of real importance, the situation is that the RCMP, in addition to their specialized duties with regard to federal statutes, police eight of the ten provinces, and the two territories. A large part of the work is done in a vast area with a small population. This means that many detachments are small with regard to the number of personnel. In some places there are only two men. I invite hon. members to consider the question of overtime in parts of the Northwest Territories. There is every indication that the men do not want this problem handled, as the hon. member pointed out, by way of overtime pay. The point is, how to deal with the extra requirements put on them. It is unrealistic to blandly assume in relation to a force covering so much of the area-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, April 28, 1970