1970-05-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Isabelle.

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


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a report, in both languages, of the Prices and Incomes Commission on glass container prices which indicates that the commission, with full government support, has effected a roll-back in certain prices.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today amendments in regulations under the Bankruptcy Act to expand the scope of procedures under Part X of the Act, which provides for debt consolidation and orderly repayment by individual wage earners.
The regulations under Part X of the Act have been proclaimed and are in force in the provinces which have chosen to implement it-Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Consultation is under way with two other provinces wishing to take advantage of the federal legislation, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.
The changes in the regulations being approved today remove any limit on the amount of debt which a province may allow wage earners to consolidate through a court order. Until now the limit has been $1,000. Manitoba has already chosen to double the limit to $2,000, and Saskatchewan and Alberta have decided to let the procedure apply to debts of any amount.
A brief word on the nature of the plan might be helpful to hon. members. In the provinces where the Act is in force, individuals may apply to a court clerk for an order consolidating their debts and setting out the terms and schedule of repayment, and the court approves a plan within the debtor's means. The regular payments are distributed among the creditors on a pro rata basis until the debts are fully repaid. Until the debts are entirely repaid, the individual is immune from legal proceedings and cannot be sued by his creditors. At the same time, the individual is prohibited from contracting new debts.
This plan can provide badly needed assistance to unfortunate wage earners who cannot cope with their debts and who cannot afford the more costly step of declaring a personal bankruptcy. From the creditor's point of view, it means he can give the debtor time to pay without any fear that another creditor might seize the assets of the debtor through legal proceedings.
I wish to emphasize that the entire Bankruptcy Act is being reviewed with a view to complete revision, including Part X, but I consider the relief these changes make right away to be so desirable that I wanted to go as far as we can now with the existing act. However, some provincial Attorneys General may quite properly wish to wait until a complete revision of the Act is dealt with by Parliament before requesting that the existing Part X be declared in force in their province.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been waiting a long time now for a ministerial announcement in connection with revision of the Bankruptcy Act. When the minister rose in his place today I was hopeful that at long last the statement he was about to make might be a

May 7, 1970
Bankruptcy Act
preliminary announcement of that event. Instead, today he has made an announcement dealing with debt consolidation and the orderly repayment of debts on the part of individual wage earners. I understand the importance of this matter and I am aware that it was discussed in committee by the hon. member for St. John's East as recently as last week.
As the minister emphasized, there is some urgency in dealing with this matter prior to the comprehensive revision of the Bankruptcy Act because Canadians are falling deeper and deeper in debt as a result of the dual pressures of the rising cost of living under runaway inflation and the growing unemployment. This is true in all parts of Canada and in all sectors of the economy.
As the minister has indicated, I believe it is significant that the provinces which have already acted on this problem are located mainly in western Canada. Manitoba has raised the limit of debt consolidation from $1,000 to $2,000 and Saskatchewan and Alberta are applying the procedure without limit; in other words, there is no ceiling restriction. This is understandable when one considers the growing problem of the prairie farmers in respect of debt and credit and the very difficult economic situation which exists there. The minister did not refer specifically to farmers but I presume this procedure has been introduced in anticipation of the wider amendments so that the farmers may at least be able to stay afloat for a reasonable length of time.
The essential features are urgently needed. The individual will now be immune from legal proceedings and cannot be sued. I believe this is the essence of the matter. Individuals are also prohibited from contracting any debts above an amount of $500 until the consolidated debt is fully discharged. This feature indicates that the present action is merely a stopgap measure.
Because of the disastrous state of the economy at the present time, many Canadians have reached levels of credit or debt much larger than is provided for. If the situation is to be dealt with-and it comes directly under the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-something must be done by the government to control runaway inflation and to come to grips with the problem of growing unemployment. The people cannot live on debt and credit forever, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement
made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs deals specifically with Part X of the Bankruptcy Act. As hon. members are aware, Part X was added to the Bankruptcy Act by Parliament in 1966 mainly at the request of the province of Manitoba and those provinces that had had orderly payment of debt legislation which had been found unconstitutional by the courts. When that request was granted in 1966 the action taken seemed to be appropriate, but it has now become clear that the level of debts is such that the ceiling must be raised.
We welcome the action of the minister in bringing in these regulations. However, I think this word could be added. If the wages, salaries and pensions of our people were a little better, and if we had a minister who would act aggressively on behalf of the consumers of this country, there would not be so much individual debt and we would not need this kind of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Well said.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told the House that small wage earners who account for nearly 85 or 90 per cent of the population, are in debt, but I do not think that extending the scope of this legislation would prevent our small businesses and industries from going bankrupt.
Hon. members know that under the La-combe Act, which is in force in the province of Quebec and in other provinces throughout the country, low-income people can bring in to court part of their monthly, weekly or semi-monthly wages, which enables them to pay off their indebtedness over a number of years. But the minister will agree with me that if small wage earners have debts, it is precisely because they could not afford to pay cash. Here again, it is a matter of dollars and cents.
Under the present legislation, the small wage earner will be able to make payments to the court and, until he has paid all his debts, he will not be allowed to contract new ones above a level of $500 until the consolidated amount is fully repaid.
In other words, if a man is indebted for $1,500 for instance, he can undertake to repay $20 monthly and afterwards he will be
May 7, 1970



allowed to go into debt again, up to $500. The measure therefore is not likely to help the businessman or even the wage earner.
For instance, if a wage earner owes $200 or $300 to a small businessman and is allowed to repay his debt in monthly instalments of $10, $15 or $20, this will jeopardize the business of the small businessman who has extended credit. Now, under the new act, the government does not help the small businessman and will not be able to prevent bankruptcies. It is possible to keep an individual from going bankrupt. It is expensive for a man to declare bankruptcy, but it will cost him less to make monthly repayments. This is not, however, a solution to the present problem.
The minister clearly states that the problem in Canada is not one of production and purchase. The problem, in my opinion, is related to the repayment or payment of items bought. The Creditistes are quite aware of the problem and are suggesting to the government solutions which are not meant to drive everyone to bankruptcy, but to help everyone to become solvent following bankruptcies brought about by the government.



NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North) moved: that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, presented to the House on May 1, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a proclamation of the Governor in Council dated May 7, 1970, relating to Part VI of the National Energy Board Act. The proclamation was made by the Governor in Council in accordance with section 87(1) of the National Energy Board Act and I am tabling it at this time in accordance with section 87(4) of the Act.
Oil Policy
For the information of hon. members I am also tabling amendments to the National Energy Board Part VI regulations, which have the effect of limiting the application of controls under the Act to imports of motor gasoline into Canada, east of the province of Manitoba. The amendments also provide more complete reporting procedures for the importation and transfer of oil and oil products.
The purpose in making Part VI of the National Energy Board Act applicable to oil is to facilitate the enforcement of the national oil policy, which has now been in effect since 1961. As members know, the policy provides for markets west of the Ottawa Valley to be supplied substantially from Canadian crude. It is to the credit of the industry that the policy has worked well on a voluntary basis since its inception. However, it is now being jeopardized by the risk of increasing movements of foreign-origin product into Ontario west of the Ottawa Valley.
The western Canadian oil industry has flourished under the national oil policy to the well-being not only of western Canada but of the country as a whole, as all parts of Canada enjoy the downstream benefits of a thriving western Canadian oil industry. Therefore it is in the interests of all Canadians that the policy be maintained in order that the western Canadian oil industry may continue to thrive and prosper.
I would expect the National Energy Board to administer these new provisions in a manner which will result in non-disruption of supply and will provide for orderly and equitable conformity with the national oil policy.
Hon. D, S. Harkness (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have neither the National Energy Board Act nor the regulations before me and thus am not able to determine what the actual effect of these changes will be. I am sorry that the minister did not make it very clear in his statement what the effect will be. If it is, as I hope, that the flow of gasoline and oil from foreign sources into the area west of the Ottawa Valley is now going to be effectively controlled, then this action certainly has my full support. I only regret that the government has been so long in taking steps in this direction. Several times during the past two or three years I have asked questions in the House concerning what action the National Energy Board and the government were prepared to take in order to prevent substantial importation of foreign gasoline

May 7, 1970
Oil Policy
and other petroleum products into the area west of the Ottawa River which was supposed to be reserved for Canadian oil, and up to date have never had satisfactory answers.
In his statement the minister says that the market in Ontario which is supposed to be reserved for western oil "is now being jeopardized by the risk of increasing movements of foreign-origin product into Ontario west of the Ottawa Valley." I must say that it has taken a long time for the government to wake up to a situation which has been one of very great concern to western oil producers for the past three years. The flow of foreign gasoline in particular into this area has been increasing at a very rapid rate for the last two years, and I fail to understand why the government has hesitated so long before taking action. However, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the minister's announcement means that action is now to be taken to ensure that the provisions of the national oil policy are carried out.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister did not give us more information about the reasons for taking this step but I think it is predicated on two main theses. The first is that the national oil policy is becoming increasingly obsolete in light of the greatly increased capacity for oil production in western Canada. Hon. members will recall that under the original national oil policy western crude was to have a fairly free field in the American market. There was also to be a line of demarcation at the Ottawa River, and east of the Ottawa River offshore or foreign crude would enjoy most of the market. However, the increasing capacity for producing oil in western Canada made it necessary for the western oil industry to send more oil to the United States.
The second problem that has arisen is that the President of the United States recently imposed very rigid restrictions on the importation of Canadian oil into the western states of that country. I was glad to see that in a recent speech in Washington the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that he thought the President's decision in that regard was a mistake.
The action now being taken by the government would appear to be in response to the President's decision in order to safeguard
[Mr. Harkness.J
some of the markets in eastern Canada for western crude. It may help to some extent, but I suggest to the minister that there should be a complete revision of the national oil policy very soon. For a long time we in this party have urged the minister to use all the powers at his disposal to extend the oil pipeline east to Montreal so that Canadian crude can have the eastern market in order to allow oil wells in western Canada to operate at a much higher capacity than at the present time.
The immediate step which the minister has taken to in an attempt to resolve the situation certainly will not be the complete solution. We look forward to the minister making a fuller statement and introducing a revised national oil policy in the near future.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, here we can say better late than never. This afternoon the minister has made a statement on the protection of the development of our natural resources, particularly our oil resources.
The minister said and I quote:
-the enforcement of the national oil policy which has now been in effect since 1961.
The national oil policy is now being jeopardized by the risk of increasing movements of foreign-origin products into Ontario west of the Ottawa Valley.
As the minister said, there is no doubt that the western Canadian oil industry has flourished since 1961. It is of course in the interest of all Canadians that the national oil policy be maintained so that the industry may continue to thrive and prosper.
Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) said earlier, we feel the government must take steps and revise the law, if necessary, in order to protect our natural resources and their development in the interest of Canadians.
We do not suggest to cease all foreign trade, far from it, but the prime concern of a government should be to make sure that our industries and the Canadian people benefit as much as possible from the development of our natural resources.
Therefore, we support the action taken by the government. It may be a little late but,
I repeat, better late than never.
May 7. 1970	COMMONS



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor but I am sure it is of sufficient importance that the Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to one of the other ministers will be able to answer it.
Was the decision to reduce the margin requirement in the purchase of shares on the stock market made after consultation with the government of Canada or the Bank of Canada?


Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will inquire of the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister, when he makes his inquiries, also re-examine the advisability of proceeding with the proposed government measures to regulate consumer credit, because it may be rather difficult to make a convincing case now for regulating consumer credit for the ordinary people when credit is being eased for the purchase of shares on the stock market?



LABOUR RELATIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the towboat strike on the Pacific coast. Is he aware of the fact that the Canadian Merchant Service Guild is accusing the Department of Transport of assisting in strikebreaking by virtue of the fact that home trade or coastal trade papers have been granted to a mate and two engineers to enable the rail carrier Haida Transporter to engage in strikebreaking activities? Has the minister received any information or complaints from the workers regarding this matter, and has he made any representations to the Minister of Transport in this connection?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such
DEBATES	6673
Inquiries of the Ministry allegations by the unions, nor am I aware of what one might call illegal strikebreaking activities, certainly none that the government are involved with. I can only discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport after the matter has been brought to my attention officially by the unions in question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if his department has conciliation officers in the area, if discussions are going on between the Canadian Merchant Service Guild and the tubgboat owners and whether there are immediate prospects of a settlement of this dispute which I understand is based mainly on the question of safety and undermanning of towboats?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that a conciliation board report was tabled with my department. That report was a unanimous report. If the members of the union want to endorse the recommendations of their representatives, the strike could be over tomorrow morning.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In conferring with the Minister of Transport on this matter which is very important to British Columbia, would the minister draw to his attention that other industries are being very adversely affected by this dispute? My information is that 2,000 workers have been laid off today by two mills in British Columbia.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member, a member of the NDP, is not suggesting that possibly, in view of the disastrous effects the strike is having on other workers in the province, that we introduce compulsory arbitration in the House and bring the matter to a settlement.



WEST COAST TOWBOAT STRIKE-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MANNING AND SAFETY

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not, for one, accept the implications of the remarks of the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has been given the floor for the purpose of asking a question.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that at the root of part of the dispute is the Department of Labour report, known as the Elestrom report, on the very
6S74	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry difficult manning and safety provisions for towboats on the west coast, and since this report has now been leaked to the public, will the minister please consider making the report available to Members of Parliament?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we have identified the leak. It has come from labour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Second, Mr. Speaker, in view of that report and as a result of it, the Minister of Transport has done something very positive which labour should appreciate. He has immediately set out to improve the regulations governing the towboat industry, and he has done it on a tripartite basis so that labour has a full voice in the preparation of these regulations. This might have been more suitable in the long run than tying up the whole coastal trade by a strike that may or may not have been necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister seems to want to argue the case for the employers, may I ask-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -if the minister or his colleagues have taken any steps at all to ensure that the safety regulations which were criticized are being rectified? Would the minister use his good offices as Minister of Labour to have these safety precautions included in the collective bargaining agreement which is in dispute at the present time?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have not been accused too often of fighting the employers' case. I am more interested in fighting the people's case. I am not fighting for the employer and I am not fighting for labour. I am fighting for the people that the hon. member from the NDP pointed out are the innocent victims in a dispute that may not have been necessary. The hon. member has asked what the Department of Labour has done about the situation. The Department of Labour, in co-operation with the Department of Transport, is at this very moment preparing appropriate regulations in order that safety measures will be applied to the whole industry and not only to the unionized section of the industry. In the final analysis this is in labour's best interests because it reduces the

DEBATES	May 7. 1970
scope of non-union activities in this very vital industry in British Columbia. I can only repeat that we are present at that table, as are representatives of the Department of Transport and as are representatives of the unions and of management. This has been done in as fair and equitable way as possible, and if we have full co-operation we can get that industry back into operation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter should not develop into a debate at this time. The hon. member is rising to ask a supplementary question. I will recognize him for that one supplementary, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Temis-camingue.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when the proposed regulations will come into effect, because this is the matter in dispute? The employees in question need to have some assurance that the safety provisions will be incorporated in the collective bargaining agreement. When will the proposed regulations be put into effect? If the minister could let the workers know that it would remove some of the fears.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the workers could at least trust their own representatives in the group formulating the regulations. In so far as the question of collective bargaining is concerned, the unions have decided that they will bring this matter within the collective agreement. This is what the dispute is all about. Certainly the government will not, not while I am Minister of Labour, impose conditions in the collective agreement, because it is the prerogative of management and labour to include or exclude. In other words, if they want to compromise, if they want to be good citizens and do what is best for the workers as well as the industry, we will get an early settlement through the collective bargaining process.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Since this is one of the most hazardous industries on the west coast I wonder if the minister could answer my question as to when this report will be available to Members of Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
May 7, 1970	COMMONS



POST OFFICE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Following the acts of vandalism carried out as recently as last night in Montreal against mail trucks, new truck drivers and the public, is the department now taking any action to ensure the protection of the public and of property.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we are in continuing contact with the Montreal police and department officials are investigating this situation which I deplore, as do also all hon. members of this House. We definitely intend to take action against all the guilty parties.



POSSIBLE NATIONAL STRIKE-DELIVERY OF SOCIAL SECURITY CHEQUES

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the threat of a nationwide postal strike in May, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether arrangements will be made in order to ensure delivery of social security, family allowance and other cheques before such a strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already made such arrangements.



NEGOTIATIONS TO AVOID NATIONAL STRIKE

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications what kind of negotiations are now underway, what contact he has with the representatives of the union for the purpose of avoiding the strike planned for May 19.


Eric William Kierans: That is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	6675
Inquiries of the Ministry



WAGE POSITION OF FORMER LAPALME EMPLOYEES NOW WORKING FOR GOVERNMENT

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: May I ask the Postmaster General what the status is of the four former Lapalme employees who accepted the government's offer of $3.25 an hour? Will they be given the benefit of the new postal increases or will their wages be frozen at their present level until the others catch up with them?


Eric William Kierans: I think the hon. member might address his question to the President of the Treasury Board.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-QUOTA PRIVILEGES FOR SUNFLOWER-PLANTED LAND

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the production of sunflowers has proven to be an alternative to the production of wheat, thus providing a means for the reduction of wheat acreage, and also has the added advantage that it requires no public transportation or storage, will the minister consider adding land in this crop to those special crop lands eligible for quota privileges?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: A great deal of thought has been given to that question and the decision, as the hon. member knows, is that we ought not to encourage diversion into crops where there is a possibility of overproducing with the result that the market is depressed. This is the reason oilseeds were not placed in the category mentioned.


George Robson Muir: Since there is no surplus in sunflowers, would the minister consider allowing this crop to be included in the special quotas for this year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I said, we have given consideration to that question.



WHEAT-GRANTING OF THREE-BUSHEL QUOTA TO CERTAIN DELIVERY POINTS-LACK OF EQUALIZATION

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. Having regard to the severe
Inquiries of the Ministry shortage of operating capital felt by all Saskatchewan grain farmers, and since there were over 300 delivery points in Saskatchewan still on a one-bushel quota as of April 27, why were 112 points in the province granted a three-bushel quota before equalization was realized at the low delivery points?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Specifically, because of the cash shortage in certain areas quotas are opened up as room becomes available. The block system is effectively working toward equalization of delivery opportunities but of course it is at times necessary to place the requirement of moving specified grain to market ahead of the equalization of quota opportunities.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In view of the fact that the block system is not a cure-all, will the minister inform the House whether any of the 300 points I have mentioned are non-competitive points?


Otto Emil Lang: I would have to check into that situation. But I have no doubt that some of them are single elevator points, if that is what the hon. member means.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASES BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: My supplementary question has to do with marketing and sales. Can the minister comment on whether or not India and other countries whose representatives have been in Winnipeg negotiating contracts for the purchase of wheat have concluded any major purchases?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member may be aware that it is not the custom to comment on negotiations prior to their completion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Has a sale been made to any of these countries? Can the minister not give some encouragement to this industry? Has a sale been made or does he hope to make a sale tomorrow, or the next day?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is repeating the question he asked in the first instance.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I got no answer in the first instance, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: A
supplementary question regarding sales. Can the minister tell us when we may expect

May 7, 1976
a statement from him concerning the results of the talks which are going on with other countries pertinent to the marketing of wheat and other grain products?


Otto Emil Lang: In the ordinary course, announcements about sales are made from time to time as sales occur. Hon. members should note that there has been fairly frequent news recently of sales not only of wheat but of barley and other grains, and that these are running at a fairly high level now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I should like to ask the
minister whether it is his intention to make a statement this afternoon.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROVISION OF FREIGHT CARS FOR SPECIAL DELIVERY PERMIT WHEAT

Mr. John Burfon (Regina East):: A supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that many of the delivery points still at the lowest quota levels are points which were unable to deliver a five-bushel quota last year and in respect of which provision was made for special delivery permits, may I ask whether provision is to be made for extra cars to take account of deliveries on special delivery permits?


Otto Emil Lang: The grain to be delivered under special delivery permits is not treated differently from grain deliveries under other quotas. A purpose of the block system is to ensure in due course an equal opportunity for delivery as far as possible. Often it is the individual elevator companies which decide which particular elevator within their ownership should receive cars ahead of others; responsibility often rests with them.



ACTION TO EXPEDITE MOVEMENT OF WHEAT

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: In view of the fact that grain shipments into and out of Thunder Bay are falling seriously behind the target figure of some 1,200 or 1,300 cars per day, can the minister assure the House that steps will be taken immediately to make up this deficit so that our grain marketing commitments may be promptly and fully met?


Otto Emil Lang: Steps have already been taken to adjust the schedule for the handling of grain to the fact that the Lakehead got off to a slow

May 7, 1970	COMMONS
start in terms of the opening of navigation. 1 was speaking to Mr. Hope, co-ordinator of the block system, about this yesterday. A number of steps have been taken to ensure that a new schedule will effectively allow delivery of the grain required.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I address a related question to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminals at Thunder Bay unloaded an average of 250 cars a day between April 29 and May 4, though they have a capacity to unload 650 cars, can the minister advise what action, if any, is being taken to improve the rate of unloading at these pool terminals? It is reported that unless the number of cars unloaded can be increased in the coming weeks, operations will have to be curtailed.


Otto Emil Lang: Most of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminals at Thunder Bay have had more cars on track than they have been capable of unloading, the only exception being the large No. 7 terminal where a shortage of cars developed recently. The co-ordinator of the block system and the director of operations at Thunder Bay have been taking steps to see that more cars are made available to the Saskatchewan pool.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that under the block system the railways at the very best provide cars on a once a week basis on their branch lines, and in view of the fact that the minister and the board were recently supplied with a list of 100 shipping points which would not be able to take delivery of a four-bushel quota unless additional cars were allocated and scheduled for delivery, may I ask the minister what steps have been taken in regard to these specific points?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the specific nrob-lem of seeing that cars are available for those points is in fact under consideration.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether the chairman of the Commission on prices and incomes, Mr. Young, was expressing the view of the Canadian government when he told the
DEBATES	G677
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian Manufacturers Association that there were only two means of fighting inflation, restrictions on salary increases and unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. The question in its present form is out of order.



QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE AFFECTED

Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the damage caused by the sudden rising of the water in the electoral district of Berthier, and especially at Saint-Michel des Saints, will reach several million dollars, would the Prime Minister consider designating this region as a disaster area, in order to provide assistance to hundreds of families who have suffered heavy material damages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has already established a policy concerning damage due to floods. However, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. If local authorities want to make representations to the government, we will see to what extent we can provide help within the framework of the established policy.


Roch La Salle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister to have some concern too for the region of the beautiful riding of Joliette affected by the disaster?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear that this beautiful riding has also suffered damage. I refer the hon. member to the answer I have just made to the hon. member for Berthier.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has a decision been taken to change the make-up of the Consumers' Advisory Council by reducing the membership on the council, in view of criticism that was levelled at the council by the Consumers' Association of Canada yesterday?
May 7, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. I made some appointments some months ago and I am considering further appointments at the moment.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. Was the information officer of the minister's department speaking for the minister yesterday when she said that the membership on the council would be reduced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question cannot be asked in those terms.



REPRESENTATION OF LOW-INCOME GROUPS ON ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, in considering the new make-up of the council, he would contemplate introducing two or there representatives of the low-income groups?
Kon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people on the council now who certainly give me the impression that they represent low-income groups and their point of view, so I am not sure to what the hon. lady's question refers.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the low-income groups do not think they are represented, would the minister be willing to make a statement on this matter on motions very shortly?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the problem is that it is the hon. member's belief that they do not represent low-income groups. I happen to find their representations very useful and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that both the minister and the hon. member are now engaging in debate and that the matter should not be pursued.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister undertake to deport United States citizens, such as Captain America and Mad John Free, who come

to this country to incite riots, break the law, live on the taxpayers' money or take jobs from unemployed Canadians?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
cannot possibly give that assurance to such a question. Each case would have to be considered on its merits in accordance with the law established by Parliament, as well as the policy endorsed by Parliament, with respect to immigration.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take steps to inquire into the identity of what were quite clearly large numbers of United States citizens who were creating and inciting riots in the city of Toronto yesterday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire and determine whether these persons are in Canada legally.



MANPOWER


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the question I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on April 23 in respect of student employment and working hours in excess of 80 hours a week. I wonder whether the minister has an answer to the question today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that the students to whom my hon. friend refers were employed on the Trent Canal under the administration of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport has the information for the hon. member and I am sure will supply it to him on the first occasion that he and the member are in the House at the same time.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the repeated statements by Dr. Young, the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, that wages, which are one form of income, should not be increased by more than 4 per cent, will the minister request Dr. Young to institute an immediate
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
inquiry into the large increase of 9.3 per cent in cumulative dividend payments, which are another form of income, made by Canadian companies for the first five months of this year?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the pricing criteria which were agreed on at the national conference on price stability provided that increases in prices would have to be lower than increases in costs, and were designed to force companies to take any price increases out of profits. I think that is the result of that agreement. Dr. Young is now calling on others to make a contribution to fight against inflation.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in drawing from the answer of the minister the conclusion that the only form of income that the Prices and Incomes Commission is interested in restraining is the wages of workers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously that kind of question is argumentative and not in order.



BILINGUAL BONUS FOR PROTECTIVE STAFF

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to maintain its policy on bilingualism by granting a 7 per cent bonus to the bilingual members of the House protective staff?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously this question is not for the ministry. The hon. member's inquiry should be sent in writing to the Chair.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Since it is forbidden under the rules to ask questions directly to the Chair, I thought it proper to direct it to the Prime Minister so that he may pass it on to you.


Mr. Speaker:: It would not reach me. The hon. member must agree that under the Standing Orders, the procedure to be followed is that the hon. member should forward his question to the Chair.
DEBATES	6679
Inquiries of the Ministry



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCES

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When the federal government unilaterally declared exclusive federal jurisdiction over the resources on the continental shelf, with narrow belts on the coast allocated to the provinces for jurisdictional purposes, this arrangement was not generally accepted by the provinces. My question is: In view of the possibility of oil being discovered in this area, what is the present state of negotiations with the provincial governments concerning jurisdiction over the resources on the continental shelf?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question would require a lengthy statement on motions. Since the government adopted a position in regard to a possible sharing with the provinces and the establishment of resources administration lines, there have been many meetings and a great deal of correspondence between the federal government and the provinces. Perhaps at some stage the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will see fit to report progress to the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate when we may expect a report on motions on this very important and urgent matter, having regard to the possibility of an oil discovery on our continental shelf?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government are very aware of the urgency. That is why we have been working steadily for two years to obtain some kind of agreement from the provinces, but all have not yet reached agreement. I can only say that the minister is engaged in discussions with them and will report in due course.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have any protests been received on an official basis concerning the 100-mile limit for pollution con-
6680	COMMONS DEBATES	May 7, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry trol proposed under recent legislation and, if so, what reply has been given?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the only official protest that has been received from any country has been the protest from the United States of America. A summary of that protest was tabled in the House, together with the reply the Canadian government made. We have had some representation from the Japanese government but not in the form of a protest. On the other hand, we have had a good deal of support of our position from many countries around the world. We think it has been reasonably well accepted.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what resources are immediately available to protect the integrity of the Arctic and enforce the provisions of the legislation if it should be questioned.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I expect that our law, when it becomes law, will be observed by the countries of the world. Certainly, firing upon ships that had oil in them would not reduce pollution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question arising out of his answer to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. Are we to infer from the minister's statement that the position of the government of Canada is simply that other countries are expected to comply with our law regarding the prevention of pollution and that there is really no way to enforce that law should it be contravened?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I expect we shall take the customary action by way of apprehending ships that contravene our law, but I do not expect that we would be placed in that exigency. I am pretty sure the countries of the world will agree with us that pollution control in the Arctic is most desirable.



PARLIAMENT HILL


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works? In view of the increasing number of tall buildings being constructed in close proximity to Parliament

Hill, would the minister say whether the government is taking any steps to protect the view of the Peace Tower and to protect the environs of Parliament Hill for the sake of all the people of Canada?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a committee has been set up to deal with the requirements of Parliament and to bear in mind the necessity of protecting the Hill. A variety of suggestions have already been made. I would hope some of them would be pursued. I think, however, there is an opinion that it is essential that the Hill be protected and that if necessary we must look across Wellington street to do that.


Mr. Danson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my colleague and seatmate, the hon. member for Sarnia, jumping Jack Cullen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Richmond.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Does he consider to introduce in the near future a bill to make the issue of unsolicited credit cards illegal and to make it compulsory to indicate on the credit cards the interest rate on the accounts due?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some considerable federal-provincial complexity. I would advise the hon. member that two provinces have already dealt with the matter through provincial law, and possibly others might like to follow the example of those two.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Canadian government considering a grant of financial assistance to the International Planned Parenthood Federation this year?
May 7, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. Because of the currently reported conflict of interests and responsibilities between the Canada Grains Council and the grain group, which has come about in the past few days, particularly in the field of prices and sales policy, has the government been able to reconcile these serious differences between these two groups so that our agricultural industry can receive the benefit of the advice of these important organizations at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the question asked in those terms is in order. Perhaps the hon. member might consider the possibility of having the subject discussed at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Defence or the Parliamentary Secretary. It results from a long-standing nuisance in the southern part of my riding. There has been a recurrence of sonic booms which in past years resulted in considerable damage in the form of cracked masonry and broken windows for which the government has avoided paying so far.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member reach the sonic boom very soon.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, sir. My question is-


An hon. Member:: Boom!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -are Canadian forces planes the cause of the recent frequent and harmful sonic booms which have been taking place over the communities of Bath, Conway and Sandhurst in the southern part of Lennox county?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that this is the type of question which might well be considered at ten o'clock.

Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



ABORTION-RECEPTION BY GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE OF DELEGATION ADVOCATING REMOVAL OF PROVISIONS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that groups of women who have travelled all across Canada will be on Parliament Hill on Saturday and wish to make representations to the government on the subject of removing from the Criminal Code the provisions in respect of abortion, and in view of the government's well-known brief on behalf of participatory democracy, I should like to ask the minister whether he or some other representative of the government will make themselves, himself or herself available to meet this delegation?


An hon. Member:: Mcllraith.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sarnia.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought we had had enough questions on the loaves and I should like to ask one on the fishes. It is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Have all tests for pesticide and mercury residue in cohoe salmon been completed? Were the levels found to be safe and, if so, has the ban on the sale of fresh cohoe salmon in Canada been lifted?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report that the cohoe salmon in Lake Huron have a clean bill of health, both in respect of pesticides and mercury.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will officials of the minister's department meet with the FDA people in the United States as soon as possible so that the ban can also be lifted there?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant touch with them, but I will certainly take the hon. member's submission into account.



SAFETY OF LAKE ERIE PERCH FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Has the minister
May 7, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry received any recent evidence indicating that Lake Erie perch are unsafe for human consumption?


John (Jack) Davis: Lake Erie perch are in good shape. Literally thousands of tests have been made and the results produced have been well below the safe limit set by our food and drug authorities. Incidentally, the figure reported by Dr. Morton Shulman was roughly ten times that level and is a figment of his imagination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the very alarming situation created by mercury pollution of our lakes and rivers, is there any industrial equipment in use at present for monitoring mercury spillage?


John James Greene: The checks in regard to mercury are largely done by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and possibly the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry could answer the hon. member's question. In my department, we deal largely with more precious metals.


Philip Bernard Rynard: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would repeat his question for the benefit of the minister.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wish to ask the minister whether, in view of the very alarming situation created by mercury pollution of our great lakes and rivers, there is any industrial equipment in use at the present time for monitoring mercury spillage?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes; in the last few years new equipment has been developed for monitoring very minute quantities of these metals, and we have several of these machines in use in Canada. Indeed, other countries, including the United States, are coming to us now to learn the techniques for operating them.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I have to advise hon. members that the time for questions expired


approximately three minutes ago. I think it would be in order to call Orders of the Day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the House leader for the normal outline of business for the following week.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: As the House knows, today we will continue the debate on second reading of the national farm products marketing council bill, to be followed by second reading of the bill to amend the Excise Act. The third item will be the report stage of the law reform commission bill. Tomorrow will be an allotted day, as will Monday. Tuesday we will deal with Bill C-5, the criminal records bill at the report stage. On Wednesday, we will take up government order No. 49, debate on Bill S-5 with regard to oil and gas production and conservation. The business for Thursday will be discussed among House leaders next week.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 6, 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 Frank Mazankowski: In the
closing remarks of the first part of my contribution to the debate on this bill, I was attempting to point out some of the shortcomings of the legislation. I was also attempting to point out that, regardless of the good intentions behind the principle of the legislation, in actual practice the application of its provisions might yield results which at times may be highly unjust and discriminatory.
I believe that in this piece of legislation the minister failed to foresee the effects of this bill In the future. He has stated that initially the provisions of this bill will call for nothing more than a continuation of the co-ordination
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
of the existing farm marketing agencies throughout the provinces. This is all that the producers want, a mere co-ordination of the activities of the respective marketing agencies throughout the provinces with one goal in mind, namely, the establishment of orderly marketing, processing and transporting of agricultural products. But this is not what the producers are getting in this bill. However, this is what they think they are getting, and therefore in this sense I believe it is a vicious piece of legislation because it puts the affairs of the primary producer completely into the hands of the government. It will be the small producers who do not have a strong organization to back them up, and who do not have the power to lobby, who will be affected most adversely by this legislation.
I sincerely believe that the minister failed in his duty to make known to the producers across the country the details, facts, and implications of this bill. It is a fact that the body to be set up under the terms of the bill will not be a producer oriented board similar to the provincial marketing boards, and it is also a fact that it is the minister and the marketing council, which is made up of appointees of the government, who will be calling the shot. There is no question in my mind whatsoever that the producers will endorse a marketing board similar to those which we now have, in other words the usual producer oriented board. However, after the numerous producers across this country have fully studied and learned the effects and the implications of this bill, they will not support it.
It is in this spirit that I must oppose the bill as it is now drafted. Our party will naturally be moving amendments to give consideration to the welfare of the producers, and also amendments to control certain financial aspects in relation to producers. I hope that in this alleged era of participatory democracy in which we are living, the government will see fit to adopt some of the proposals that our party intends to bring forth.
I want to deal for one moment with the marketing council which is really the core of this bureaucratic monstrosity. However, before I do, I want to draw attention to the fact that every day we seem to be increasingly experiencing the intrusion of a dominant government into the everyday lives of average Canadian citizens with the resulting loss of freedom for them. The probable effects of this bill will be that the government will become involved in all the affairs of the pro-22375-51
DEBATES	6683
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill ducer from the time he prepares his land until his produce is harvested, marketed and ends up in the hands of the consumer. The council is totally comprised of government appointees, for whom the Governor in Council unilaterally establishes salaries, pensions and other terms and conditions of employment. The Governor in Council also lays out a broad set of powers aimed at promoting and maintaining an efficient and competitive agricultural industry. This pious platitude only reaffirms the broad policy of both past and present Liberal governments in trying to assure the Canadian people that they alone can best solve the problems of agriculture through such measures as we have before us today. I call these measures repressive and these bureaucratic controls will amount to nothing more than state control unilaterally imposed without the approval of the majority of those affected.
In addition to having the power to administer marketing agencies, the council is given the broad power to do any thing which may be incidental or conducive to the fulfilment of its duties. Then, in clause 8(2) we note: ,
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A public hearing may-
Not "shall"
-be held by the Council in connection with any matter relating to its objects where the Council is satisfied that such a hearing would be in the public interest.
With terms of reference this broad, it seems to me that the producers will need to have a tremendous amount of faith in the fairness, wisdom and ability of the minister and his public servants, to allow complete domination by government bureaucrats not only in the marketing of agricultural products but in the producing, storing, distributing, transporting, licensing, pricing and packaging of them. This will require a lot more faith than I am sure the producers have in the present administration.
The minister reiterated most emphatically that discussions were held with the producer groups and provincial ministers. Did he discuss with them in detail the broad powers which this legislation will give to him and his appointees? As I have stated previously, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that most producers support orderly marketing and the co-ordination of marketing, but the regulatory body must be based on the principles upon which the provincial marketing
May 7, 1970

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill boards are established. In other words, there should be a producer plebiscite and proper producer representation.
I find it difficult to understand why provincial governments would support this type of legislation which does not provide for any provincial representation on the council or agencies. As I see it, there is no provision in the bill to allow the provinces to have any say in or jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the setting up of an agency, or pertaining to the products which have to be designated.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Then, you have not read the bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are we to assume that all provinces in Canada will comply? I wonder what will happen if one province, or two, three or four provinces decide to opt out? What complications will arise then? Furthermore, it seems somewhat strange that when the provinces are making overtures regarding provincial representation on the Canadian Wheat Board, in order that a more direct line of liaison be established in the interests of the producers and the provinces, they are willing to accept a board upon which they would have no representation, and have no means for having any say, or jurisdiction over the board.
The minister stressed the importance of cooperation and co-ordination among producers. I ask the minister, where is this provided for in the bill? How can this be achieved without providing for adequate and proper producer representation on the council and agencies? The bill suggests that the council will consult and co-operate with producers. How often has this happened with respect to the implementation of the dairy policy, with respect to formulating our annual policy under the Canadian Dairy Commission? It seems abundantly clear that there was not too much in the way of consultation with producer groups when the government decided to introduce the LIFT program.
An answer to a question placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart), recorded in yesterday's Hansard, states that among those consulted on the LIFT program the respective wheat pools, the National Farmers Union and the UGG had all supported the final version. But it seems strange that today each one of these organizations has totally rejected the LIFT program. One can only assume then that these words are rather empty.
,
It is obvious that the primary producer will have very little jurisdiction over his destiny if this bill becomes law in its present form. To understand that, we only have to look at the effect of the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission, which have been instrumental in putting some 5,000 dairy farmers out of business. I am fearful of a repeat performance if this bill is enacted.
In his introductory speech, the minister said that the legislation was being sponsored in the best interests of the producer. But if this is to be a producer marketing council, if its objectives are the provision of uniform price structures and stability for producers, then I suggest clause 6(2)(b) will have to be amended to place the emphasis on producers rather than on consumers and those engaged in marketing.
Is it the intention of the bill to provide cheap food, look after the consumers and distributor and then, if convenient, look after the producers? It seems to me that the priorities are arranged in that order in the Bill. Hence, I suggest there is some ambiguity between the contents of the bill and the minister's statement as recorded at page 5870 of Hansard when he said:
The council is vested with the prime responsibility for determining that such plans are in the interests of the agricultural industry and have regard for other sectors of the economy, including the consumer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Isn't that clear?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not suggesting that we should have a producer monopoly. The minister asks, is that fair? I am not arguing about the principle of it. I am arguing about the ambiguity that exists between the bill and the statement made by the minister. I think this should be clarified. I do not suggest for one minute that the producer should have a monopoly. I am only suggesting that the producer should have a meaningful and equitable degree of representation. He should have this representation in order that the deliberations of the council will be in the interests of all those concerned. It is only fair that the producer be represented on the council and on the other agencies. That is not asking for too much. There will not be any problem getting support from this side of the House if that is provided for in the legislation.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I have some doubt whether this legislation is being proposed with the genuine interests of the producer in
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
mind. I feel that for too long the producers have been exploited, have borne the brunt of monopolistic practices and retailers. Of course, they are always subjected to the adversities of the elements, the ups and downs of the respective industries at home and abroad. Now, we see that they are being subjected to the promulgation of government interference which I believe amounts to state control. Unless the intent of this bill is more clearly spelled out in relation to producer representation, producer participation, I am not in a position to support it. Unless the producers have some guarantees entrenched within this legislation, I am afraid I cannot support it in its present form.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, in committee we will attempt to move amendments to make provision for producer participation. I hope that the minister will take heed of some of the comments being made from this side of the House because, in all sincerity, I do not think he likes this bill any more than we do. If we are really sincere in adopting a meaningful and realistic marketing approach, then I believe these provisions must be taken into consideration.


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-197, entitled "An Act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products."
I shall say right away that this legislation will exert an absolute control over the entire farm economy, and add that the Liberals have certainly not been elected to bring in a socialist system, but to protect democracy. This government should administer instead of poking its nose in the economic system of the country.
Of course, if citizens did not exist, there would be no government. The raison d'etre of the government is to protect the individuals, not to enslave them. I do not know why the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who is familiar with economics and who studied the principles of freedom and security wishes to impose such legislation that will put agriculture under the yoke. Farmers will no longer have any responsibility. They will be treated as mere things. What is the policy of the government? It has no right to create socialist organizations and to force them unto the Canadian people.
DEBATES	6685
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Today more than ever, to meet the aspirations of the people, efforts are made, with good reason, to raise the level of agricultural and industrial production as well as the volume of services. This is why we must encourage technical progress, the innovating mind, the creation and extension of industries.
For several years, the provincial and federal governments have been asking farmers to increase their production and to modernize their equipment. For that purpose, farm loans were granted. We were told that the Canadian government and people needed an increased production and that farmers should modernize their equipment further. The farmers have fully complied with the requests of the federal and provincial governments.
The farmers are now penalized, because they have a surplus production. All kinds of restrictions are laid down, because there is an excess of production. We did the same thing from 1929 to 1939 when the governments were requesting people to go back to the farm, forcing city people to open and cultivate new farmlands and so increase the national heritage. At that time politicians were supposed to have foresight. After having done all this, today we will oblige these same farmers who brought these lands into cultivation at the price of immense sacrifice and privation to leave them. We are telling them to go back to the city. Policies today are different from those of yore which are no longer acceptable. Your farms are not paying their way as they do not yield 10, 12 or 15 per cent interest for finance companies, so you have to leave them and go back to the city. There you are invited to live on social welfare and the government will rob the workers so that you might continue to subsist.
That is the present situation of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is well aware of the harm done to this industry in the last few years. He knows also that, in many areas, from 50 to 70 per cent of the farmers have left their farms. How is it that farm policy was effective 25 or 30 years ago, while today those same farms cannot support the farmers' families?
a (3:40 p.m.)
The policies of the governments we elected were profitable only to those in finance, to the prejudice of farmers. They served only high finance which dispossessed the farmers and manufacturers. And all present owners are also dispossessed owing to the rise in taxes,
6686	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill awful, exorbitant interest rates paid to high finance which is protected by people like the Minister of Agriculture who is too soft to say to the House and to the Canadian nation that the rates of interest are exorbitant, placing the individual, especially the farmer, in a hopeless condition. He is too soft to act because he is a member of the Liberal party. When he was in the opposition, he said that it was easy; but now that he is seated on the cabinet benches, he does not say so any longer.
The adoption of new methods and the sustained efforts of all those participating in production contribute to this development, but production is not merely handling products. The products and the powers must serve all people, according to each one's material needs and requirements of his intellectual, moral and spiritual life, or religion. That is why the economic activity must be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in order to meet God's designs for mankind.
This is not what we are doing today. We fail to take into account Providence's great designs, and we turn human beings into mere tools, while man is more than that.
While administration for the protection of human beings and their property, their families, is left aside, all manners of corrupt means, approved by the House including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), are used for purposes of destruction.
Man should remain in control of economic development. It should not be left to a small number of individuals wielding overly great economic powers, or to the political community, or to some more powerful nation.
It is conversely fitting that the greatest possible number of men at both national and international levels should be able to participate actively in the control of development. Likewise, initiatives of individuals and associations should be coordinated with government action.
This is not the aim of this socialist and immoral bill now before us which can but divide men and protect high finance.
Development cannot be left to proceed unchecked. We must therefore denounce the misleading doctrines which, through a misconception of freedom, get in the way of essential reforms.
It is a misconception of freedom which inspired Bill C-197. Citizens should remember that it is the right and the duty of the civil power to contribute to the progress of the
[Mr. Latulippe.l
DEBATES	May 7, 1970
human community to which they belong, particularly in the developing countries where this need is urgent.
Those who do not use their resources endanger seriously the commonweal. Those who deprive their fellow citizens of needed material and spiritual means are bad citizens. Individual rights must be safeguarded. Huge economic and social disparities must come to an end. This legislation will not create any difference between material and personal goods, but it will allow the control of all material goods, in particular, those produced by the farmers.
To meet the requirements of justice and equity, we must strive energetically, in the respect of individual rights and the individual spirit of each nation, to put an end as soon as possible to the great economic differences in which are rooted individual and collective discrimination. Nowadays, they exist and often they grow worse. In the same way, in various areas, because of the particular difficulties of production and marketing in the agricultural field, assistance must be given the farmers that they might increase their production, process it and sell it.
Today, farmers have all they need to do this. Formerly, they did not need government assistance to transport, pack and sell their goods.
They know where to sell, store or export their goods. The government has no business there. However, it must help the farmers by giving them purchasing power equal to production, in order that the latter might be consumed. When the purchasing power becomes real, the farmers will sell their products. The farmers do not need the government to pack, transport and sell their products, which doubles the cost of transportation and increases administrative costs.
The government must allow the farmers a fair income otherwise they will remain, as it happens so often, second class citizens. The farmers need a supplementary income.
On the other hand, the young farmers especially, must strive to improve their professional capacity without which no farmer can progress.
Moreover, justice and equity demand that the mobility needed for a progressive economy be supervised so as to spare individuals and their families the unstable or uncertain conditions such as those that exist now.
It is only in that field that the government must step in.
May 7, 1970

As regards workers from other countries or other areas, who contribute to the conomic growth of a country or of a province, great care should be taken not to discriminate against them in any way as far as remuneration or working conditions are concerned.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, all members of our society, especially the public powers, should treat those workers as people and not as production tools. They must make it easier for their families to come to Canada, help them find a decent home and promote their participation in the social life of the country or the area where they settled down. We must however help the farmers as much as possible to find the machinery they need at reasonable prices.
Have the Minister of Agriculture and the present government undertaken to put agriculture back on its feet?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Has the government committed himself to supply farmers, at reasonable prices, with the tools they need to do their job? Has the Minister of Agriculture asked that the 12 per cent tax on building materials be abolished for farmers? This would prove useful to the farming community, the expenses of which would be reduced by that much.
Has the Minister of Agriculture asked that this Parliament, instead of giving $100 million to the western farmers to keep them from producing, distribute those $100 million as a compensated discount for the transportation of feed grain to the eastern provinces, in order to reduce the cost of feed, thus allowing farmers to produce at a lesser cost or, if not, to make at least their industry a paying proposition? The Minister of Agriculture has never mentioned that. He must have thought about it when he was a Creditiste, but he has quite forgotten about it now.
That is where the government should intervene. Instead of paying to prevent the farmers from producing, the government should allocate that money as a compensated discount in order to reduce prices and let farmers produce. It is less expensive to let them produce than to pay them to do nothing, and to prevent the land from producing. The land will not stop producing, for its production is an effect of Providence. There is no problem in that connection and nobody is afraid to be without bread tomorrow. But everybody is afraid to be without money.
The Minister of Agriculture has never made any suggestion to increase the purchasing
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill power in order to allow those who do not have enough to buy farm products. As there is an excess of farm products in western and eastern Canada, the Minister of Agriculture should intervene. If he is a true Canadian, if he really seeks social and economic reforms, if he really wants to see agriculture thrive instead of sinking deeper and deeper into stagnation because of heinous laws and criminal regulations, such as those which are now forced upon us, he should suggest constructive measures. The bill now before us is, indeed, a criminal measure, and this word is lightly applied. It should even be described in harsher terms still.
The purpose of Bill C-197 is to establish further restrictions to production. The governments wants to increase the cost of farm products in order to keep up a crowd of civil servants whose task will be to set rules for our farmers.
In order to control and regulate the production of eggs and poultry, the government is thinking of increasing by 20 per cent and in one stroke the price of eggs. So those who will benefit the most from farm production will not be the farmers but the university graduates, the inspectors and the controllers who will come and say to our farmers: Stop producing this or that, let your land lie fallow for two or three years, there is a surplus of products all over.
Unfortunately, they fail to see that money is what consumers lack to buy the products. It is possible to produce whatever the consumers need but they will not give them an adequate income to buy those products.
Has the Canadian Wheat Board played its part adequately? Have the farm loans been deemed satisfactory by the farmers? Have they not benefited the lenders who got interest rates of 8, 10 or 12 per cent? Indeed, people are always working for the benefit of the capitalists.
All government administrative agencies are conditioned to control the citizens to bring greater profits to the financiers hiding behind the politicians, and especially behind the ministers. For their sake, governments pass legislation depriving the Canadian people of their dignity, their initiative and their productivity.
New departments, new agencies and new regulations are established and new restrictions are imposed on the freedom of the hardworking citizens who are responsible for the production required by the people of Canada as a whole.
B688	COMMONS DEBATES	May 7. 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Before long, all our farmers will have to fall into line at the point of the bayonet. Justice and happiness will come to an end in Canada. Let the foolishness go on, let the dance of the millions go on, with the help of the dollars and cents of our poor farmers, our producers, our small wage earners, our children our students, our parents and our grand-parents. Everything is reserved for our corporations, our institutions, our universities, our governments, our university graduates, but there is less and less concern for the people, for life, for the human being and for the family.
We are no longer able to recognize the value of man. We are now adopting socialistic laws, like the one under study. There is no worse law to be found in Russia or in any of the other Communist countries of the world, because this is a heinous law. And I hold the Minister of Agriculture, as well as all the other socialist Liberals who are getting ready to approve this legislation, responsible for the wrong we are going to do to farmers and everybody in Canada.
Since 1945 Canada, which is at peace with every country, has been doing well; it has increased its productivity and the wealth of its large undertakings; it belongs to every international organization and is known as a great country. Since 1945, I have followed Canada's astonishing progress and spectacular development. I am happy and proud to know that I am a Canadian citizen.
Since 1962, I have been a member of the House of Commons, of the Parliament of Canada; I co-operate the best I can with the government of this country which is becoming more and more prosperous, at least with regard to its gross national product. Even if occasionally we invite international experts to sit on royal commissions, we realize that we are now in a position to govern ourselves.
With the tremendous increase of our production-we have, in 1970, a $34 billion national surplus-we are not wise enough to use ten of these to ensure a guaranteed income to everyone. Even if we did that, there would still be enough for the sharks of finance. They would still have the whole ocean, the whole heritage. What we want is that the government should keep a minimum expense of territory in order to ensure the welfare of Canadians.
Canada which makes exorbitant profits should distribute dividends to all Canadians. But so far it has distributed them only to a few citizens. A great number of Canadians

have to satisfy themselves with the bitter fruit of taxes. In this regard, capitalists are satisfied with dispossessing people. They deprive them of the money they earned, the inheritance they received. The citizens lose all that to pay interest to high finance. This is the reason why farmers are left with nothing and experience stagnation like all the other sectors of the economy.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Only those who benefit from interests on money and the big industrialists succeed in surviving under the present system. It is said that all the sectors of industry are stagnating. This is one of the reasons why the government wants to control it in order to exploit people even more and take away from them the little they have left. They want everything to fall under the control of the government or of an irresponsible board.
So that is how things stand.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has just presented his 1969-70 budget in the House. It is quite evident that advisers of the Department of Finance and other federal departments, public servants, technicians, technocrats, representatives of the different academic disciplines as well as the minister himself are responsible for the depression we are undergoing.
If Canada is an independent country, let us allow our farmers to operate as they see fit. The government should not interfere with that. The government neither produces nor builds anything. It should protect individuals and enact legislation that permits their free fulfillment. The bill under consideration will hamper the development of individuals and will put them under such a yoke that they will never be able to free themselves.
Freedom is so precious to man that we should not for all the world interfere with it. However, the government takes the liberty of impinging on that liberty through the action it is contemplating, which will benefit a few institutions at the expense of the whole population.
Farming is in a shambles. We all know that, and the Minister of Agriculture is aware of it. The whole country is dissatisfied. Farmers are in revolt and others are prepared to follow suit.
In the face of those facts, the government says: We are going to control farming; we are going to exploit you through unfair legislation. Instead of giving a chance to the farmers, the builders of Canada, to survive, we
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
are trying to destroy them by having more and more centralized farmlands. If this bill becomes law, we are going to see the emergence of collective farms in the very near future, because no farmer will have enough capital to keep on farming his land. The farmers will be compelled to go and work on the state-owned farms. Such will be the result of this bill and this is immoral.
I do not intend to cast a shadow on a bright picture by mentioning a fact acknowledged by everyone. For the past 23 years, in fact since the end of World War II, Canada has been very successful and has increased its production and its foreign trade to such an extent that we are justified to wonder how we could possibly have developed in the same time in a large section of our population so much poverty, so much drudgery, so much want and so much insecurity. Indeed, it is a national disgrace and we should take the appropriate steps to eliminate this situation. It is certainly not the bill we are about to pass which will eliminate poverty and insecurity among the farmers as well as among the other classes of society.
The Department of Agriculture should organize a free and prosperous agriculture since agriculture is the foundation on which rests the whole economy.
If agriculture were prosperous all the other classes of society would be prosperous too. When agriculture brings no profit other industries are threatened with recession because the farmer is one of the most important consumers in our economy since he needs all sorts of things. He provides a living for the urban workers and industries, and he provides a great number of people with work. And when agriculture is reduced to a collective farm system, workers of all the other industries will wend their way towards social welfare, and industries towards bankruptcy.
So, why does the Minister of Finance and the other government ministers want to impose on the people a new burden of taxes and deficits by adopting this bill that will increase farming production costs? The Canadian Wheat Board out West has never managed to solve the problem of the producers of that area. The Canadian Dairy Commission has never solved the problem of the dairy producers in Quebec and the council which will be created under the legislation under study will never solve that problem either. The situation will be twice as bad as before. There is a tendency to centralize all powers and the farmers will be subjected to such discretionary legislation and authority.
DEBATES	6689
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I would have more to say, but already many things have been said. However, I cannot see why many hon. members and ministers have introduced such a bill in Parliament. I wonder if they have all their wits about them. I do not know what we are heading for, where we are being led by this government. I say that I do not know. Indeed,
I do, but the people do not.
Many farmers support the bill because they do not understand, because they do not know what freedom is, because previously they nejoyed no security. Regrettably, they want security at the expense of liberty, because the true meaning of the bill was not made clear to the people. They do not know that they will be tied by the neck, that this bill is a yoke under which the individuals and especially the farmers will find themselves forever.
Therefore, we oppose this bill very strongly. We urge the Minister of Agriculture to open his eyes and his ears.
We ask him to give some thought to what he is doing and to examine thoroughly the consequences of this bill. They will be disastrous for the freedom of the citizens.
Therefore, we must fight for freedom, because there is nothing more precious. Freedom is priceless.
We shall vote against this bill. We have already come to a decision as to this. I would like the Progressive Conservative members, who declare themselves the champions of freedom, to rise and above all to say what they think about this bill. I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Let him give his opinion as to this and proclaim the rights and prerogatives of each individual.
A few Progressive Conservative members have spoken up to now but many others among their group have not said a word yet. I would like above all the Leader of the Opposition to give his opinion on that. I would also like to see many Liberal members defend the liberties acquired at the cost of so many sacrifices.
Through this bill we are destroying such liberties, we are putting the axe to individual freedom.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I am introduced to the House by a Credi-
6690	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill tiste, but I accept the proposition. I have been studying certain aspects of this bill and I must say in all frankness that it does cause me a good deal of concern. I am very much aware of the problem the bill purports to tackle. It purports to make provision for marketing aids, plans and structures that are national in scope. The purpose is to overcome difficulties faced under provincial marketing arrangements because frequently it is impossible or very difficult to arrange for orderly marketing within a province in view of the fact a province cannot control what comes in either from some other province or from some other country. The result is that markets in a province can be flooded, and the efforts of a provincial marketing organization can be negated or very seriously damaged.
I think we are all familiar with this problem. Certainly, anyone who has been associated with provincial governments or with farm organizations would be very familiar with this problem. What disturbs me about the bill, however, is that it places Canadian agriculture and the Canadian farmer very much under the control of the government of Canada. The bill attacks the problem but it does so with vengeance. It seems to me that it takes the Canadian farmer out of the frying pan but puts him right into the fire. It purports to answer the pleas for help from farmers in respect of orderly marketing by the government itself, directly and through agencies, taking control of the supply, processing and marketing of any agricultural product other than those products regulated by the Canadian Wheat Board or the Dairy Commission. In other words, the control under this bill is to be taken away from the farmers, the farm organizations and provincial marketing organizations and placed entirely in the hands of the federal government and federal government agencies.
The government is asking for power to exercise full control, either itself or through agencies which come under its control. As members of the House will know, the bill now provides for the appointment of a National Farm Products Marketing Council which would have power to study and recommend in respect of the establishment of forums or agencies to control one or more particular farm products. The council would have the authority to supervise the operation of these agencies. The members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council are to be appointed by the Governor in Council. There is no indication of who is to be

DEBATES	May 7, 1970
represented, if anybody. The Governor in Council is to be given a very free hand in the selection of members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. As I read the bill, it would seem that these members are to be appointed at pleasure and presumably could be removed at the pleasure of the government. It would appear to be really a governmental-departmental agency.
The bill urges, and indeed instructs, that public officials are to be used by the council and I believe also by its agencies to the fullest extent possible in its work. It would seem, therefore, to be very likely that this marketing council will in fact be staffed, so far as advice and information is concerned, by governmental employees. There is nothing wrong with governmental employees so far as that is concerned, but of course they are not a part of farm organizations and do not in any way represent the points of view of farm organizations.
The bill also makes provision for the National Farm Products Marketing Council to hold hearings. As I see it, there is no provision in the bill for any participation by farm organizations and producers of a particular commodity or for a guarantee in respect of participation in the reaching of a decision. Indeed, there would seem to be no provision for consultation except the provision relating to the holding of hearings. As I read the bill, it would not seem to be compulsory that the council should even hold hearings before making recommendations to the Governor in Council with regard to a marketing structure for a particular commodity.
Certainly, there is no requirement for meaningful farm consultation or consent. So far as that is concerned, sir, there is really no assurance of consumer protection. There is a pious declaration that the council and presumably the agencies will take into consideration the consumer interest, but there is no structural provision either to protect the farmer or the consumer. On both counts, the discretion is to be left entirely with the Governor in Council. I really do not believe this is a statement which can be disputed. I am not talking about what the intentions of the minister might be, but rather about the intentions of the government. There is no structure in this bill that would ensure consultation with the farmers or protection for the consumer. The Governor in Council is given the authority to establish an agency to control the supply and marketing of any agricultural product, with the two exceptions mentioned in
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
the bill. This control continues right down the line from growing to processing, packaging and marketing. This is a very far-reaching bill.
It would seem to be very clear that if this bill becomes law the government, through the Governor in Council, would be able to impose its views and its decisions upon Canadian farmers, upon Parliament and upon the country without requiring anybody else's opinion, certainly not that of Parliament. I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) gave assurances to the joint convention of the Farmers Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture on March 24. I do not like to suggest that the minister was not frank at that time. I would prefer to say that he was perhaps mistaken. On that day he said this to that joint convention:
National marketing agencies will not be set until it is demonstrated that there is a wide producer consensus on the needs for them. It will not be the role of government alone to actively work for and organize that consensus. It will require the assistance of the producers themselves through their organizations, such as this one.
We are creating the machinery. It will be up to the producers to use it.
With careful planning, national marketing agencies represent, I feel, an opportunity for Canadian producers to get together for stable, orderly marketing, of their products. That they will work only with your support.
Now, it may very well be the intention of the minister that national marketing agencies will not be set up until it has been demonstrated that there is a wide producer consensus concerning the need for them; that may be the minister's present intention and it may continue to be his intention while he is Minister of Agriculture. However, I do not know this and I do not think he can give us any assurance concerning his future intentions. The point is that, as I read the bill, there is nothing in it to ensure that what he told this joint convention in Alberta will in fact be so. There is nothing in the bill to ensure that these agencies will be set up only after it has been demonstrated there is a consensus among producers regarding the need for them. There is nothing in the bill to require anyone to consult the farmers about anything.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Read the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have read the bill. I presume the minister has, too.


Mr. Danforth:: I doubt it.
22375-6|
DEBATES	6691
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say there is nothing in there-


Mr. Corbin:: Where are your glasses?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I am more fortunate than some. I can read with or without my
glasses.
I would be very happy if it could be demonstrated to the House that this bill requires the council, the Governor in Council or anybody else to consult the farmers before such an agency is established and before the product that they grow is brought under national regulation. I defy the minister to point to any clause of this bill which requires the council or anybody else to ascertain what the views of the farmers are.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I accept that challenge and will point it out right now, if I may.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would be perfectly happy and very relieved if the minister could do that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I ask him if he read clause 8(l)(a) which reads as follows:
A public hearing shall be held by the Council
(a) in connection with an inquiry into the merits of establishing an agency-


Philip Bernard Rynard: That does not mean anything.


Mr. Nowlan:: What about the Dairy Commission?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If that is what the minister considers to be consultation with the farmers, then I say in all sincerity that he has been Minister of Agriculture too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ricard:: He is just trying to fool the farmers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is difficult for me to believe that the Minister of Agriculture would seriously suggest to the House that that provision constitutes consultation with the farmers or requires in any meaningful way their approval of a scheme before it is adopted by the government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is more in clause 31.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: More words.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope the other part to which the minister can point is more significant than the clause to which he just referred.
May 7, 1970

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Eymard G. Corbin: You will be surprised, my friend.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I certainly will be surprised.


Eymard G. Corbin: I addressed myself to another hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I said, I will be pleasantly surprised if the Minister of Agriculture can point to anything in the bill that provides for any meaningful farmer participation in the process. I am not talking about what he may intend to do. We are discussing a bill before Parliament which provides for sweeping control. Its provisions are authoritarian, and it can make any farm product into a public utility. It places the future of virtually every farmer in the country under the control of the federal government, at least any farmer who may be growing anything that enters interprovincial trade. This bill places his future directly in the hands of the government of Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It does not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says it does not. It certainly does. I say also that when these agencies are established they will be established as Crown corporations.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, not Crown corporations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It appears to me, and I suggest it to the minister, that under the established practice they will be pretty independent of parliamentary surveillance as independent corporate units. As I read the bill, these agencies have to operate without any subsidy. I think someone in the government may provide them with up to $100,000 to get started, but after that they are on their own and they levy taxes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They run it themselves.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Cerainly, an agency appointed by a government council runs by itself, with powers, of course, to levy the licence fees, and so on, that may be necessary to cover up their own mistakes so far as operations are concerned.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is a gross misinterpretation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the minister said, the agency runs itself without anybody's approval, except possibly that of the council which the government and the minister appoints.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, the producers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is nothing in here that requires the producers' approval of what these agencies do.


An hon. Member:: It does not even mention them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Read the bill.


Mr. Bigg:: The Boston tea party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no provision for producer control. Mr. Munro of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture accepted a kind of supply management that is entirely different from the structure proposed by the government in this bill. I will quote what Mr. Munro said, and it will not be out of context. I will give the whole quotation to the minister, who is probably familiar with it. Mr. Munro stated:
But farmers want to keep their business in their hands as this process moves forward. They want to determine, for themselves, the choices that are made among the often hard alternatives that face them. They want to remain independent producers working with other farmers.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated on April 9, 1970 in its brief to the government that there should be:
-a positive program of agricultural adjustment-implemented without authoritarian policy and procedures-and which would give farmers opportunities to improve their situation.
I submit that this is exactly what this bill does not do. There is no reason at all to believe that a bill as authoritarian as this, a bill that concentrates so much power in the hands of the minister and of his colleagues in the government, and a bill that gives the farmers of this country so little say in what is going to happen to them, would have any widespread support in the country, in the farming or any other community. It is highly centralized in its control. There is good reason to worry about it.
As I said, the bill is authoritarian. Consider the significance of this bill for the many existing provincially authorized but producer controlled boards. Consider the power that will be exercised through the control of imports which may be delegated to one of these agencies by the Governor in Council. Consider the effect on these provincial boards that such an agency may exercise through control of inter-provincial trade. I do not think it is exaggerating to say that very frequently at least one of these agencies would be able to bring any provincially authorized board to its knees. In any event, if this bill is
May 7. 1970

adopted in its present form, the effect will be that producers in Canada will have less say about marketing in Canada than they have today.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is absolutely wrong.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says that is absolutely wrong. The existing boards will have less influence. In fact, so far as this bill is concerned, they will have no say in connection with the agencies that may control the marketing of produce on a national scale. Certainly, there is nothing in the bill to prevent this from happening. We have only to look at the Canadian Dairy Commission which was established to help an industry. We all recognize that it is exercising far-reaching control, that it virtually has power of life and death over those in the dairy business. We know that thousands and thousands of people have gone out of the dairy business as a result of its regulations, not because of anything parliament decided but because of the particular way in which that commission has exercised the power delegated to it.
If anybody thinks that the minister and the government will go gingerly in the exercise of the power conferred by this bill, that person has only to consider the LIFT program. One can see how, under that program, the quotas established under the Canadian Wheat Board are being used to enforce not voluntary cuts but really what are compulsory cuts in production.
Another defect in this bill is that it contains nothing but very general statements of objectives. The government's own task force warned the government as follows:
It is dangerous to advocate a program of supply control without being specific about the kind of administration, the techniques of control and the initial allocation and transfer of quotas which must be an integral part of such a program. Questions such as the inter-provincial allocation of quotas, transferability of quotas among producers, and many other similar considerations dealt with in detail in the main body of this report have a profound bearing on the success or otherwise of such a program.
But what does the bill really say about the goals to be achieved? What does it say about the use of quotas? What does it say about the allocation of quotas? Will these be allocated on the basis of out-put at the present time or over a period of time? Are they to be allocated in terms of productive capacity or in some other way, and upon what terms are they to
DEBATES	6693
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill be transferable? Obviously, these are very important questions, and they will be left entirely in the hands of a commission or agency, or of the Governor in Council. The farmers themselves will have nothing to say about them. These questions are of enormous importance to Canadian farmers, but there is not the slightest assurance in the bill that they will have any say about them.
The quota system which is adopted and the way in which it is handled are surely basic,, because if the system is handled in a particular way it could perpetuate inefficiency, it could perpetuate vested interests in agriculture, it could have the effect of keeping young people from getting into farming, and certainly it could hurt national productivity. Yet Members of Parliament are asked to delegate to the government this blanket authority, really requiring the government to consult no one unless it is supposed to consult this commission consisting of its own appointees. We cannot assume that the farmers will approve of this.
How much emphasis is to be put on marketing? How much emphasis is to be put on developing markets as opposed to controlling supply? I would think that if the farmers are given an effective voice in establishing and directing these agencies there would be some assurance that a lot of emphasis would be placed on marketing, because farmers will want to expand their production; but there is absolutely no assurance that an agency, run by a group of appointees, perhaps assisted by bureaucrats, would have any interest in doing anything else but in keeping out of trouble.
What about the consumer? So far as the consumer is concerned I suggest that this commission, and these corporations established under the Governor in Council, will be pretty well beyond the effective surveillance of Parliament. They will be inclined to go their own sweet way and Parliament will have a devil of a time getting at them at all, or exercising any influence over them either from the point of view of the farmer or of the consumer.
Surely, here we have another example of the grasping efforts of the government to get more power. It is quite in line with the attacks on the Auditor General. It is quite in line with the establishment of Information Canada. Here, we see the government trying to concentrate great power in a particular field, perhaps delegated to agencies but not agencies which are independent. After all, the CRTC has some independence from the gov-
6694	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill ernment, but here we have a council consisting simply of people appointed at pleasure, and I think the government will really make the decisions. Surely, this House and the people of Canada are getting a bellyfull of the efforts of the government to concentrate excessive power in its own hands.
I do not oppose the principle of the bill. I understand the need for efficient, effective national marketing agencies. I understand the weakness in the present situation. I understand the need for farmers to have stronger and more effective marketing agencies in the face of the competition they have to meet. But, Mr. Speaker, we must curb the power of the government. We must ensure that the farmers have an effective voice in the marketing of their produce. Surely, we have not reached the point in this country where the control of all farm produce-growing it, processing it, packaging it and marketing it-is to be concentrated in the hands of the Governor in Council as represented by the Minister of Agriculture? This is a magnificent concentration of authority and power.
The minister may assure us that he will administer it with beneficence. I do not know that. We are considering legislation, and this legislation is authoritarian. It is dictatorial. Unless it is changed it must be fought, because I have not got that much faith in the benefits of this centralization of power. I have not got that much faith in the benefits of government planning in this centralized and authoritarian way. I have too much respect for Canadian farmers to tie them to the government's apron strings in this way and make them subject to the tender mercies of the government. Granted that there is need for more effective marketing machinery, I say to the minister in all sincerity that as drafted this bill would destroy Canadian farming as we know it. It would destroy the enterprise of Canadian farmers as we know it. Somehow or other, if we cannot get some sense into the minister we must get some sense into the bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I find the debate on Bill C-197 most Interesting. If the minister is so dedicated to protecting the rights of farmers, and making sure that any marketing arrangement is set up only with their consent and advice, why is he so ambiguous and so indefinite in the provisions which the bill proposes? If his only justification for saying that there is ample provision for consultation with the farmers is
.
DEBATES	May 7, 1970
clause 8, the first of which line reads, "A public hearing shall be held by the council", then he is not consistent. In fact, it seems to me that the minister is being less than frank about Bill C-197. I do not question his motives. I believe if he were to administer the bill he would endeavour to see it was properly enforced, but he will not be the Minister of Agriculture forever and not everybody in his department may feel as he does about it. It seems to me that some of his senior officials have had a lot more to do with drafting it than he has. I cannot believe he would ever draft a bill like this himself. I have too much respect for his convictions, as I used to understand them, to feel that he would intentionally be a party to this. I think it would be keeping faith with the farmers, if not with his colleagues in the House, and even members on this side of the House, if some of the things which he must realize are not the way he wants them were changed.
To say a public hearing will guarantee the right of a farmer to participate in any marketing agency set up is ridiculous. It is of little comfort that public hearings can be held prior to the establishment of marketing agencies or plans for those agencies. Public hearings are not one of the checks in our political system and such hearings do not have to be held if the minister and the marketing council do not wish to hold them. Certainly, they cannot represent and do not represent the opinion of the majority of farmers.
If the minister is as determined that farmers be consulted as he says he is, why does he not make specific provision for that in the bill? Why leave it as it stands? Certainly, the provision for consultation by this proposed national marketing agency is inadequate. In fact, at the Joint Convention of the Farmers Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture on March 24 last. The minister of Agriculture stated:
National marketing agencies will not be set until it is demonstrated that there is a wide producer consensus on the needs for them.
If this is his conviction, why does the bill not make that clear? In my opinion, this bill in no way allows for adequate consultation.
What does "producer consensus" mean anyway? The Minister stated, at that same meeting:
We are creating the machinery. It will be up to the producers to use it.
It is true that he is creating the machinery but it will be up to the producers to use it, whether they like it or not. This whole aspect
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
is misleading. When the Minister speaks about "consensus" and "requests of a substantial majority of producers" as a criteria for establishing marketing agencies and the structure of such agencies, he is expressing popular sentiments but not describing the black and white statute power he is asking for in Bill C-197.
This is why I am concerned about this bill.
I wish more people were concerned. I do not see many members of the government in the House and only one member of the Press Gallery-and I have great respect for the person who is faithfully making notes. Agriculture is still one of the vital, basic industries of this country and if we do not pay more attention to the preservation of what has made our agricultural industry the most efficient and most effective agricultural industry in the world, it is going to be something less than it is at the present time.
I am in favour of producer sponsored marketing boards. It is imperative, in the situation where the farmer cannot control and cannot plan or arrange for adequate marketing facilities, that there be marketing boards. But the majority of producers must want them and help determine how they are to be administered, not have them foisted upon them. I am convinced, in spite of what the minister says, that this is the effect of this bill. It is not good enough for the minister to express his intentions here in the House and in other places. The bill has got to substantiate those intentions and it does not, Mr. Speaker.
The producers do not have any provision for proper representation in connection with the setting up of such agencies. I was equally amazed a little while ago when the minister said this is provided in Clause 31 of the bill. There is nothing in that Clause that refers to producers. In fact, the word producers is not used. The bill does indicate, however, a farmer may be put in jail for two years if he does not co-operate with the inspectors. It is at this point where the "producer" is specifically referred to. Clause 34 reads:
(1) An inspector may at any reasonable time enter any place, other than a private dwelling place or any part of a place that is designed to be used and is being used as a permanent or temporary private dwelling place, in which he reasonably believes there is any regulated product produced for, or intended to be marketed in, interprovincial or export trade and may examine any books, records or other documents in such place that on reasonable grounds he believes contain any information relating to the regulated product and make copies thereof of extracts therefrom.
DEBATES	6695
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
This is where the producer is mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and this is what causes members on this side of the House to be afraid of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is our responsibility to speak up on behalf of the farmers. Subclause (3) of clause 34 reads:
(3) The owner or person in charge of any place referred to in subsection (1) and every person found therein shall give an inspector all reasonable assistance in his power to enable the inspector to carry out his duties and functions under this act and shall furnish him with such information with respect to any regulated product found therein as he may reasonably require.
The next clause, 35 (1) reads:
No person shall obstruct or hinder an inspector in the carrying out of his duties and functions under this act.
Clause 36 explains how the agency, under this bill, has the authority to collect any fees or to regulate such fees or levies or charges and the poor producer may be sued for such fees by the agency in any court of competent jurisdiction. Clause 37 reads:
(1) 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 is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
That is where the farmer comes in, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the Minister, and again I express my respect for him, is more interested in implementing the basic policies of the government to which he belongs than he is in presenting the opinions of the western farmer and his problems to the cabinet of which he is a part. This is where the western farmer is being left out. I only wish there was a voice in the cabinet, and I expected there would be when the Minister became part of it, that would speak for the farmer and the particular area of agriculture in the west with which both of us are so familiar. Instead of that, the Minister tries to justify and explain the policies of his government to the people who live on farms and who are the producers of agricultural products in this country. It is one thing to tell the farmer what the minister or the government thinks is good for him and it is another thing to sit down with the farmer and work out answers to problems. It seems to me this is where the hon. minister is falling short of his responsibilities.
6696	COMMONS DEBATES	May 7, 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Let us return to the question of marketing agencies. Generally, the same form of marketing institution is desired by everyone. However, this bill represents a specific type of farm marketing legislation and in my opinion does not have nor ever will have the general support of the farm community. This bill frees the government to, by itself, authoritatively regulate all aspects of food production, distribution and marketing. It invites central and statist administration with an all-pervasive scope over supply and market management. That is what the government is asking for, but that is not what the farmers and agricultural economists have been considering. In my opinion, that is not what the minister has been saying in the House and throughout the country to the various organizations involved with agriculture, and that is why we are concerned about the bill.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated on April 9 of this year, in its annual brief to the government, that there should be a positive program of agricultural adjustment, implemented without authoritarian policies and procedures, which would give farmers opportunities to improve their situation. I wish this bill did just that. It seems to me that Bill C-197 could be used to attack the very process of governing that is being practiced by the present government. Essentially, the present government and the government it took over from worked on the assumption that governments can best solve national problems; but they have refused to put into statute form their national goals or state their conclusions as to how to reach these goals. The range of choices, and they are hard choices, Mr. Speaker, is left to the bureaucracy and the substance of their legislation is little more than catalogues of sentiment or a pathological delegation of power. It is, putting it simply, bureaucratic statism, because the bill contains no philosophy; it outlines no strategy and shows an inclination to leave these problems to the secret structure of government. That is why we are afraid. We have seen what has happened with the Wheat Board and the Dairy Commission.
These bodies, set up originally to serve farmers, are now viewed by them with deep suspicion. In fact, the hon. member for Pallis-er (Mr. Schumacher) recently conducted a poll in his constituency, his being basically a rural constituency, in which he asked the farmers what they thought about the Wheat

Board. The majority of farmers participating in the poll said they were dissatisfied and suspicious of it. Yet the board was established to serve the farmers. Legislative guidelines left the government the freedom of choosing goals and strategies for the Wheat Board and I fear that the same will apply in this case.
Another objection I have is that the bill does not declare government policy. Supply and market management can be a boon or a disaster for agriculture and the national interest. The results depend on the goals to be achieved and the strategies to be employed. These are difficult questions and Parliament has no right, in an open democracy, to delegate their arbitration to the cabinet and the federal bureaucracy that serves it. The government task force on agriculture made this quite clear when it said:
It is dangerous to advocate a program of supply control without being specific about the kind of administration, the techniques of control and the initial part of such a program. Questions such as the inter-provincial allocation of quotas, transferability of quotas among producers, and many other similar considerations dealt with in detail in the main body of this report have a profound bearing on the success or otherwise of such a program.
This bill does not even refer to goals that the minister said the government intends to reach. Neither does it enlarge on the more elaborate strategies to be employed. There is another serious question that the bill in no way answers, the question of income for farmers. Farm income constitutes a grave problem in all Canada today. Owing to the cost-price squeeze, a farmer's income is barely enough to meet his operating expenses, leaving him with nothing on which to live. The bill does not say whether the goal of the legislation is the stabilization of farm income or the increasing of farm income by supply management. This is immensely important. It is very debatable whether supply management can efficiently, effectively, fairly do both. I might point out that the task force speaks about this matter very clearly.
We have attacked Bill C-197 for its irresponsible ambivalence. According to the minister, it can do all things. However, viewing the vivid trend of this government's agricultural policy, as revealed in the Wheat Board and Dairy Commission administration, we ought to be quite certain how this bill will, over a period of time, be interpreted in the closed halls of this government. That is one reason we are opposing it. It seems to me that this bill, Bill C-197, completes the Prime
May 7, 1970

Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) statute power to undertake the policy of "adjustment". We believe that Bill C-197 indicates quite clearly that the degree of power sought by the government is far in excess of that proposed in any reviews of the agricultural industry, and those powers would usurp completely the control now vested in the hands of the primary producers. This could prove dangerous.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that he will consult and work with present agencies, particularly those of provincial governments; yet there is nothing in this legislation which says he must. This legislation will set up agencies which supersede entirely existing agencies, whether sponsored by farm or provincial organizations.
I have not heard the minister talk about this and am concerned.
I wish to make a few remarks about the general agricultural situation, because it seems to me that this bill will set the pattern for what is to take place across the entire agricultural picture in this country. Our primary producers, and primary producers all over the world, are the victims of a revolution which is progressively eliminating small producers and forcing them to live at a lower standard. Skilful propaganda is urging us to abandon the traditional concepts of farming and to adopt the idea that there must be a progressive centralization of farming and scientific control. The truth is that behind such programs for progressive centralizing of farm production lies the long term objective of eliminating the individual, primary producer. I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. If I were allowed two or three minutes extra, I could finish my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a disposition to call it five o'clock. Accordingly, it now being five o'clock, the House will proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today Order Paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.



PRIVILEGE


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In rising, on such question, a member must rise at the first
Wheat Sales to Peru
opportunity. I rise now because it has just been brought to my attention that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board when asked in the House earlier in the day, during the question period, whether he would make an announcement about the sale of Canadian wheat to a foreign country said, "No". It has just been brought to my attention that, shortly before five o'clock, the minister made an announcement in his office. I was told that the sale was announced with a great deal of pomp and ceremony. In fact, the press gallery was treated to champagne; they drank a toast to the future of the grain trade.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I have just received a copy of the release. It is timed 4.30 p.m. and it relates to the sale of 7.4 million bushels of wheat to Peru-something which we in Canada very much welcome. My question of privilege is this. The minister was asked a pointed question. He was asked whether an announcement would be made today, and he replied "No". I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that he deliberately deceived the members of this House of Commons. The House of Commons is so named because it represents the common people. A mark against democracy was scored today by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board when he deliberately deceived the representatives of the commoners. The minister had no reason deliberately to deceive the Commons but he did so just the same, purely, I say, for reasons of prestige, for his own personal advantage-toasting the sale of 7.4 million bushels of wheat in champagne. I am sorry the minister is not here.
The whole pomp and ceremony of the occasion meant he knew at two o'clock this afternoon that the sale had been made. He could have answered that question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In fact, I am informed that this purchase of 7.4 million bushels was announced in Peru this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yet the minister deliberately answered "No" to the questions put to him by the representatives of the people. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this cannot go on. Democracy cannot survive in the face of the complete neglect of this chamber. The minister should be required to answer for his disre-
6S98

May 7, 1970
Wheat Sales to Peru
gard of the Chair and of ourselves as representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege which has been brought to the attention of the House. I cannot speak with authority in this regard, but contrary to what the hon. member has said, I believe the minister did not reply "No". But whatever he did reply will-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He did, so. Bring on your blues; let's see how you changed it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was about to say, before the excited member for Crowfoot interrupted me, that we shall have a record of these proceedings, a record of what he did say.
I would bring two aspects of the matter before the attention of the Chair. First, it is a common practice that an hon. member of this House who wants to bring an accusation of this kind against another hon. member, whether a minister or otherwise, should give him notice of his intention to do so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, no. A question of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity. "Give him notice". What kind of hogwash are you suggesting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could be heard-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you going to tell us the truth? That is what we want-the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot with a good deal of patience, even some indulgence. I must say I am prepared to concede that he may have a very legitimate grievance, but I have the impression that we have been faced with a situation of this kind before, and I am sure the Speaker has ruled on occasions like this-


An hon. Member:: This is the most blatant one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That, of course, is a matter of interpretation. I do not see we have a question of privilege here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Come, come. Where have you been?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
[Mr. Horner.l


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Throw me out if you like. He deliberately lied. We want the truth.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member for Crowfoot said that the minister deliberately deceived the House. He said the minister had lied. The Chair will recognize that this is a breach of the privileges of this House. I will bring it to the aitention of my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, that this accusation has been made. I say to the hon. member that he should have brought it to the attention of the minister that he would be making a statement to that effect in the House, but he failed to do so.


Mr. Peters:: He was out drinking
champagne.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I suggest that the hon. member's question of privilege should be noted and that an opportunity should be provided for my colleague to come in and deal with it. He could have dealt with it now had he been given notice, but none was given and I therefore suggest that your ruling be reserved.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: In
support of the question of privilege which has been raised, may I urge that the circumstances should be considered very carefully. When we ask questions in the House regarding sales made by the Canadian Wheat Board, or prices in connection with these transactions, we are repeatedly told that such information cannot be divulged. In these cases we must accept the word of the minister involved-we must accept his word that it is truly the case and that if this information were given to the House it would endanger the operations of the Wheat Board and its selling mechanisms.
I believe the question of privilege which is before you was very properly raised. If the minister had in his possession the information which was asked for, and was able to give it without endangering the day to day operations of the Wheat Board, that information should have been given to this House. If we fail to proceed on this basis, how can we have any confidence that the minister's answers can always be taken at their face value and that we can always accept them with confidence? I commend the hon. member for raising this question of privilege and I ask that Your Honour give it the careful consideration which it deserves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not wish to deprive the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. May 7, 1970

Mazankowski) of the opportunity to speak, but maybe after he has heard what I have to say he will understand the position which the Chair is taking.
In view of the observations which have been made-and some of them have been very strong-perhaps the best advice I could follow would be the advice offered by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and by the President of the Privy Council, that is, to defer the matter until tomorrow at which time the minister himself will be in the House. I think this would be suitable course of action.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to rise on this particular question of privilege and apologize if in any way I have embarrassed Your Honour or the position of the Chair. I did not intend to do so. In my view, we have seen the degradation of the House of Commons question period. The question period has become, to quote the Prime Minister, no more than a political sparring arena. But questions are put and answers are wanted. What happened today? An announcement was made in Peru this morning. The minister knew that a further announcement would be made. He arranged for it to take place at four o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a motion to make, and I intend to make it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may want to put a motion-he raised the question of privilege-but a motion having been put, I take it a ruling will have to be made on whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. What I wish to caution him against, is getting again into a debate. It is difficult for the Chair to allow one hon. member to state a case and then to draw the line when another hon. member wishes to do so. If the hon. member wishes to pursue this present line of argument we shall get back to the situation in which we found ourselves earlier and I want to avoid that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I say, I apologize to you if I have caused the Chair any embarrassment. But I think this is a very serious matter, in view of the situation in which the House has been placed. I asked a question on orders of the day which, to some extent, was dealt with. I asked whether or not the announcement of a sale could be expected soon. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) pointedly asked the question whether an announcement would be made today, and the
Wheat Sales to Peru
minister replied, no. So on that ground, and also on the ground that the House Leader for the government said I should have first consulted the minister before raising a question of privilege-
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not put words in my mouth. I said that any hon. member who would have liked to have had the matter dealt with should have given the minister notice of his intention to raise the matter, that is all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the ground that the House Leader for the government has stated that the question of privilege should have been raised with the minister-and if there is any strength to that argument I know the President of the Privy Council will support me-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville:
That the House do now adjourn.
I might add it should adjourn until this whole question has been cleared up, and it can be cleared up at eight o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have consulted the officers on this matter and there is a procedural irregularity here. The hon. member originally raised the matter on a question of privilege and thus secured the floor. He is now proposing to move a motion to adjourn, and it seems to me that there are two separate questions to be decided. If the hon. member gets the floor in the normal course of events, he would have to do so following the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), whom I have recognized. Then in the normal course of events he would be able to move the adjournment of the House, as indeed could any hon. member. As I say, there does seem to be an irregularity in the present procedure.
In any event, I wonder whether the House is disposed to agree to what 1 thought was the reasonable suggestion that was made earlier, namely that this matter be deferred until tomorrow?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Until eight o'clock tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it is important that the minister be present to deal with the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-

May 7, 1970
Wheat Sales to Peru


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether it would not be more satisfactory and meet all points of view if the deferral could be until eight o'clock tonight. This would give an opportunity for both sides to be here and for the record to be consulted. I think we all agree with the basic decision that Your Honour has made, namely that you should not be asked to decide now whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. But I think the matter is serious enough that the minister himself should be here to speak to it, and the matter ought to be cleared up not later than at eight o'clock this evening.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The only shortcoming in the hon. member's suggestion is that the record, of which the House can take cognizance, will not be available.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We can get the blues.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind hon. members that the blues have no status whatever.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do you want to change them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, I do not. The fact of the matter is that it is the long accepted tradition of this House that they may not be the subject matter of debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would point out that the situation is difficult, I might even say delicate, enough without these interjections. I would appreciate the co-operation of the House in this matter. I am trying to be as fair as possible. The consideration that I had in mind in wanting to defer the matter until tomorrow is that I wanted to be sure that the minister was here. I had no knowledge whether he would be here tonight or not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He should be here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to co-operate with the House on this matter but I thought that the fair course would be to defer it until tomorrow, when it can be raised at the first possible opportunity.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the President of the Privy Concil, I believe His Honour the Speaker has the authority to consult Hansard in the office of the Editor and ascertain what is the record of the proceedings for today. If it is true that the minister can be here tonight-as a matter of fact, he ought to be here-then it seems to me it would be a wiser decision for us to have this matter dealt with at eight o'clock. If at that point we find we have to defer it again until tomorrow morning, then we could follow that course of action. But I urge that we defer the matter only until eight o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to bring this matter to the attention of my colleague if he is available, but I know of no authority for the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Speaker can consult the blues. The official record of the House is Hansard, and this is a well established principle. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that your initial ruling was a sound one. However, what I will do is bring this to the attention of my colleague, and he, of course, will have to make a decision.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the motion proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was ruled out of order, perhaps with the consent of the House I might now move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), that the House adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately the hon. member does not have the floor to move this motion.


An hon. Member:: He does now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I thought the hon. member had risen to contribute to our thoughts on this question of privilege. Again, the ruling that I made with respect to the motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot would apply to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). In any event, I suggest that we review this situation at eight o'clock when hopefully the participants will be here. In any event, I do not see that I have any other option. Therefore, the House will review the matter at eight o'clock.
The hon. member for Assiniboia.
May 7, 1970



S701 PRIVATE BILLS AGRICULTURE MEASURE TO INCORPORATE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Albert B. Douglas: that Bill S-22, to incorporate National Farmers Union, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill, S-22, in the House of Commons. In doing so I should like to give the House a little background to the matter.
As members may know, most companies in Canada now become incorporated under the Canada Corporation Act. However, because that act does not cover the situation where the incorporation involves an amalgamation of companies already incorporated in one or more provinces, as is the case with the National Farmers Union, it is necessary to proceed by way of a private bill.
Certain individuals, named in clause 1 of this bill, plus some existing farm organizations, have expressed a desire for a national farmers organization, to be known as the National Farmers Union, and they have prepared this bill which is now known as Bill S-22, the legislation having been first introduced in the other place. It was investigated by a committee there and was given third reading with no amendments.
The objects of the proposed National Farmers Union are set out in clause 3 of the Bill and are as follows:
- (a) to promote the betterment of farmers in the attainment of their economic and social goals;
(b)	to conduct projects for the benefit of farmers in the development of markets for and marketing of farm products;
(c)	to achieve the reduction of costs and other measures designed to increase the economic benefits of farming;
(d)	to conduct educational and research projects for the benefit of farmers;
(e)	to promote and secure legislation and other forms of government action for the benefit of farmers;
(f)	to promote a higher standard of community life in agriculture; and
(g)	to promote services for its members consistent with its objects and work jointly with any other persons or organizations for the attainment of its objects.
I believe hon. members will agree that these objectives are desirable and that the
Private Bills
House should give them its blessing by giving speedy and favourable consideration to this Bill.
Farmers in Canada have always had great difficulty in organizing themselves in an effective way. It is important in our highly organized society that all segments be equally well equipped to protect their own interests; otherwise, the weak and the unorganized tend to be left behind in the economic race. Therefore, I believe we should encourage the National Farmers Union by accommodating its desire to be incorporated on a national basis. There have been provincial farmers union groups for many years, which in turn have had a type of loose arrangement with each other, which apparently was not as successful as the members would have wished. This National Farmers Union is something that was overwhelmingly approved by a nation-wide convention last summer in Winnipeg.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Other questions regarding the transfer of assets, the giving of the required notice and other related matters were gone into at some length on March 11, 1970, when some of the persons named in the bill, and their counsel, appeared before a committee of the other place. If this House agrees to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, these persons will be glad to appear before that committee to answer any questions that hon. members may wish to direct to them. So, again I urge hon. members, in view of the very worthy objectives of the National Farmers Union, to expedite this bill by giving it second reading and referring it to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words concerning Bill S-22.1 realize there is a great deal of need for farmers across the nation being organized so that they might have power in the market place and so that they, too, may be able to exercise some degree of power in respect of the marketing of their products. I am slightly amazed, however, that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) is the sponsor of this bill. I know that lawyers on occasion must present bills and act as consultants. I know, too, that everybody is entitled to a defence and a fair hearing. I suppose any and every organization across Canada is entitled to have somebody

May 7, 1970
Private Bills
present a bill on their behalf to incorporate something, as is the case in respect of Bill S-22.
I must say, however, that I believe the National Farmers Union to be a divisive organization among farmers. It may seem strange that I would say this organization divides and not unites. The very title of the bill states that this organization is a national farmers union and after reading the title one would be inclined to believe that this organization would tend to unite farmers. The fact is that this organization really is dividing the farmers. Members of the National Farmers Union go across the country fighting with other farm organizations. For some time there has been a strong farm organization in Alberta. In fact, if one were to make a comparison at the provincial level in respect of membership one would easily see that the Alberta farmers organization has had a greater membership than the Saskatchewan Farmers Union which, in essence, is the union that is the foundation for the National Farmers Union.
The National Farmers Union, which by means of this bill would be incorporated nationally, has had representatives in Alberta vigorously competing against the organization which the farmers in Alberta have accepted as their voice. The Alberta Farmers Union is amalgamated with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and has given Alberta one strong farm voice. The new organization is called "Unifarm". The national farm organization has been campaigning against Unifarm. So, it is actually dividing rather than uniting the farmers. I say we should examine the situation before we incorporate such a farm body. Let us examine the purpose of a national farm organization. Is it to gather together farmers from all across Canada, in all facets of agriculture, so that they may lobby more effectively in Ottawa? Let us suppose that such a national organization wishes to lobby at the provincial government level. Let us also ask ourselves whether a national farm organization could lobby better at the provincial level than could a provincial farm organization.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that in my estimation a body which speaks for the farmers of a particular province, whether it be Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta or any province in Canada, can lobby more effectively with a provincial government if it is a provincial organization. Why should premiers or minis-

ters of agriculture be interested or concerned about the voice of a national organization which may or may not purport to help certain segments of the industry within a particular province? Why should they listen to that organization when they can and may well listen to the voice of a provincial organization within the particular province? If members would think about this for a moment, I believe they would realize that a provincial farm body could lobby more effectively before a provincial government than could a national farm body.
In considering this bill to incorporate the National Farmers Union, I say that we must concern ourselves with the question of whether a national farm body can lobby more effectively on behalf of the farmers at the national level than can a group of provincial farm organizations. It is a coincidence that Bill S-22 is before us at the same time that Bill C-197 is before us. One may ask how I draw the parallel and where the concern is. Bill C-197 is new federal legislation to introduce into Canada-and I might say whether Canadians want it or not-a national marketing council. This marketing council will have power to establish marketing agencies which will have power to control and handle one commodity. Each agency will handle production, transportation, selling, packaging and the pricing of that commodity. I should like members of the House to consider this aspect. We have before us now legislation in respect of the setting up of marketing agencies within provincial boundaries. If hon. members have followed my argument up until now they will have reached the conclusion that a provincial farmers union can lobby more effectively at the provincial level.
Now, we are to set up by Bill C-197 marketing agencies which in 99 out of 100 cases will in essence have control over production, transportation, packaging, pricing and selling of a commodity within a provincial boundary. So, it would appear to me that a provincial farmers union, in the years ahead, might well have more power and more influence and might well have more say at the market level in respect of the produce of the farms than would a national farm body. If a national farm boby wants to become a political party or a national association, that is one thing. But if it wants to be concerned with the plight of the farmers and the marketing of the farmers' products, I say to this House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that a provincial farmers union in the years ahead, in the 1970's, may
May 7, 1970

bring about more actual, concrete good tor the farmers than such a national union.
9 (5:30 p.m.)
Let us consider the concept of the National Farmers Union organizing on a national scale to defend all farmers' causes. It is like motherhood-everybody is for it. As a farmer from western Canada I should, perhaps, automatically support it because farmers have to unite; they have to organize and defend themselves. No one else will do that for them;
I agree with this. However, we must realize that the problems of the 1960's may well become the frustrations of the 1970's, in light of the fact that under Bill C-197 marketing agencies and a marketing council will be set up to deal in particular with commodities. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that in the years ahead commodity organizations and farm commodity groups may be far more important.
I see the hon. member for Assiniboia is nodding his head in agreement with what I am saying. I am pleased to see that, because I wondered why the hon. member should sponsor the bill. However, I do not hold it against him because, as I said previously, lawyers have to accept both bad and good cases and, I suppose, someone has to sponsor a bill to incorporate the National Farmers Union. Why it fell upon the hon. member to do so, I am not sure; but I see he is nodding his head in agreement with what I have said, that because of the marketing legislation the emphasis will be placed on the commodity groups, not on an across-the-board National Farmers Union.
How can a wheat farmer who is president of the National Farmers Union defend the potato industry in Prince Edward Island? I ask that question, Mr. Speaker, and my answer to it is: Not very well. How can the president of the National Farmers Union who is a Saskatchewan wheat farmer defend vegetable producers in Brooks, an area with which both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and I are familiar. The answer to that question is also: Not very well.
So while I know that everyone should support a farmers' union, and everyone agrees with the concept that farmers should unite and organize-it is like upholding motherhood-I do not support this piece of legislation and I do not support the National Farmers Union because I think it is an organization of the past. It is being incorporated too late. Perhaps 35 years ago, before the formation of
Private Bills
the Wheat Board, the incorporation of this organization would have been justified. But perhaps not even then would it have been justified.
Farmers must organize into commodity groups. Although I do not approve of, and will not support Bill C-197, on which I will speak later provided we clear away some of the other problems confronting this House, I am sufficiently realistic to know that the Minister of Agriculture, rightly or wrongly, will push through Bill C-197 which may well become the law of the land. I will certainly move an amendment to it and I hope it will be accepted because I know it expresses a principle which the Minister of Agriculture espoused when he used to sit to my left.
In any case, I am sufficiently realistic to accept the fact that Bill C-197 may well become the law of the land. If it is to become the law of the land, then farmers all across the country had better organize their commodity groups and become concerned with the marketing, handling, pricing, transportation and packaging of the commodities which they produce.
The National Farmers Union will be the crying receptacle of all farmers in all plights. However, it will deal with no particular commodity nor will it be able to lend support to the producers of any one commodity. So I say to the sponsor of the bill and to the National Farmers Union that they are 30 years too late and that in the years ahead the whole emphasis will be on commodity unions within provincial farm organizations, because the agencies set up under the marketing council will tend to be within provincial boundaries and therefore a particular case for a commodity can be better argued within that provincial boundary and a better lobby can be organized by farmers with a strong provincial organization.
I have expressed some of the thoughts that have passed through my mind in reading Bill S-22, to incorporate the National Farmers Union. I might say openly and without intending to offend that I am surprised the hon. member for Assiniboia is sponsoring this bill. This is a piece of legislation which would be more appropriately sponsored by the party to my left which has sponsored farmers unions in the past and is more inclined to agree with them. But again I have to admit that there is not very much difference between the government party and the party

May 7, 1970
Private Bills
to my left, so perhaps I should not be surprised that the hon. member for Assiniboia is supporting the bill.


Mr. Nystrom:: That's a lot of bull.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone objects to my
remarks. I have suspected the intentions of the government for some time. That is one more nail which they themselves are driving in the coffin. That is one more nail in the coffin on the road to Socialism toward which the Liberal Party is moving. It seems to me that some of my friends to my left even object when I accuse them of believing in Socialism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We believe in it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know that the Premier of Manitoba, who although he may be an elected member of the House of that province is a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party, also finds it better not to agree with Socialism. However, I did not think the same would be evident in this House among the members of the party to my left. I thought they truly espoused Socialism. I did not suspect they adopted the new look of the Schreyer government in Manitoba. I did not know they had become Social Democrats rather than pure Socialists. I think that most politicians should believe in what they say. The members of the party to my left have espoused Socialism during the 12 years in which I have been here, so I suppose they must believe in it.
It seems to me that this bill gives the National Farmers Union far too much power and this emphasis is misplaced when one considers that the problems of the 1960's may become the frustrations of the 1970's, particularly with respect to the agricultural community if Bill C-197 passes and if farmers are allowed to organize under the provisions of Bill S-22 at the national level, when the emphasis should really be on the formation of provincial commodity groups.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think that Bill S-22 should not be passed by this House because it is poor legislation. Farmers should be given time to consider all the aspects of Bill S-22. They should be given time in which to be encouraged to join commodity groups and strong provincial farm unions. I do not believe that Bill S-22 should pass tonight, particularly prior to the passage of Bill C-197, because Bill C-197 will also affect the role of a farmers union. Farmers

need more time in which to consider the powers that the National Farmers Union is seeking through this bill.
While I do not condemn the farmers for joining the National Farmers Union-they are grasping at every straw they can-I say to this House that the National Farmers Union is not the answer. Farmers have to organize strongly provincially, and strongly commodity-wise. This is the way by which their case can be better argued with legislatures and better presented through the marketing agencies that have been developed.
There is no question that in today's society all power rests with the chain stores. Somebody once told me there are 27 major chain stores in Canada which really control the pricing, packaging and selling of farm produce. For that matter, they also control the transportation of agricultural commodities. These commodity groups, these chain stores in many cases operate under provincial legislation; their operations take place within the boundaries of a province. Therefore, I believe that farmers must become strong at the commodity level and at the provincial level in order to safeguard their rights of production, their rights of marketing, their rights of pricing and of selling their produce.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


[Stage Direction]
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raise tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom)-The Canadian economy-Effect on employment of anti-inflation; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-National Defence-U.S. B-52 flights over Saskatchewan and Alberta-Complaints by flying clubs; the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Agriculture- Use of 2-4-5T herbicide.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia) that Bill
May 7. 1970
[Stage Direction]
S-22, to incorporate National Farmers Union, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take a great deal of time on this bill but I do want to give it my full support. As a past president of the National Farmers Union I spent considerable time in various provinces promoting the organizing of farmers so that the National Farmers Union could effectively speak on their behalf. This is really what this bill permits farmers to do-to speak on their own behalf, and nothing more.
Mention has been made of the tremendous powers that this bill will give to the organization concerned. What the bill does is give the National Farmers Union the right and the status to operate on a national basis. At this point in time it is idle to speculate what type of organization will represent farmers in the future. It is wrong to say that the National Farmers Union is an organization of the past rather than of the future. This type of organization could hardly have been possible 30 years ago because communications at that time did not permit of the concept of farmers across the country gathering at national conventions to decide their future and to decide the course of action they would pursue. We have moved into an era where we have transportation in terms of aircraft and communication in terms of radio, television and telephone which permit the concept of a national farmers organization through which farmers across the country can meet annually, or at such other times as they may choose, to set out the policy to be followed by their organization.
With present day transportation, fresh vegetables can move from California to Montreal, Toronto or Saskatchewan markets overnight and arrive almost as fresh as when they left. With present-day transportation, hogs are moved back and forth across the country with the result that prices for them are established almost simultaneously in all areas. With modern transportation, the price of potatoes in P.E.I. is relevant to the price of potatoes in Alberta or Manitoba.
If farmers are to deal effectively with the circumstances that face them in the 1970's their organizations must be geared to meet conditions on a national level. This is why Bill C-197 takes the same basic approach. Farmers are in desperate straits, and I do not know why a member of this House would
Private Bills
stand up and try to deny them the right to take action such as is proposed in this bill, iwhich only gives them the right to do what other organizations are already doing, be those other organizations Imperial Oil, the labour unions or the medical profession. All this bill says to farmers is that if they have the willingness and if they will put up the money, they can do the same things as these other organizations.
I personally know many of the men and women whose names are mentioned in this bill, who devote their time, efforts and money to achieve the betterment of farmers. With respect to those who wish to question the motives of this organization, I leave it to them to substantiate the questions they raise. That they can do on the hustings. I support this bill with all the earnestness that I can.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, the name National Farmers Union is somewhat misleading, if hon. members think that this represents a consensus of the farmers of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Nobody says it does.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am making clear that it does not. The reason is quite plain. It has been debated for years, certainly ever since I had anything to do with farming, and I was born on a farm. I am sure that the sponsor of the bill and both hon. gentlemen who followed him will agree that it is most difficult by interpretation or by definition to say what is a farmer, let alone to say what is an average farmer, what is a family farmer or what is any particular type of farmer. Within farm unions from time to time there have been long and heated arguments about whether their programs and objectives represent the average farmer or a proper percentage of farmers.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Even if you had the consensus of a majority of the farm unions of Alberta you would only be representing a percentage of one particular group of people, those who think that the farm union of Alberta, now called Unifarm, represents in the democratic sense the majority of farmers. As legislators we have great difficulty. Unless we look into the question very carefully, with the best intentions we might pass legislation thinking it was in accordance with the wishes of the average farmer. By taking a poll which shows a 68 per cent vote of the farm union of Alberta, if

May 7. 1970
Private Bills
you did not know any better you could assume you were legislating for 68 per cent of the farmers of Alberta. But this would be a false assumption. Farmers themselves find it difficult to reach a consensus within their own union, let alone when there are three or four unions operating in the same territory with a duplication of effort.
I am not against the idea of a national farm union for specific purposes, the same kind of purpose for which I am willing to support certain aspects of Bill C-197; that is, for the orderly marketing of agricultural products of all kinds throughout the Dominion of Canada and for export trade and interprovincial trade. I think we probably need a national farm union representing as many farmers in Canada as are willing to turn out and take an interest in their own affairs, and I would be willing to back such a movement in principle. I am merely outlining some of the difficulties we will face unless we see very clearly what we are about to do.
In Alberta we have at the present time a move toward union. We have Unifarm, which combines the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and what was previously known as the Farm Union of Alberta, both pursuing identical goals. They have now united under one leadership called Unifarm. At most of the farm meetings I have attended I have noticed this difficulty about consensus-the difficulty of interpretation of whom the farmer is, what type of people we are trying to support, and so forth.
There is a great difference between a man starting up on a homestead with no assets whatsoever in the way of sophisticated machinery and very little working capital, and a well organized farmer with a herd of 50 dairy cattle, 1,000 acres of wheat or 300 or 400 head of cattle. Who is to say that Canada Packers is not a farm if they should buy a feedlot and fatten cattle, or if they should go into the vertical integration of raising hogs and so have control of the hog raising industry all the way from the feedlot through the packing industry into the Safeway stores, where they are joint owners of the means of distribution.
I do not underestimate the difficulties that farmers face in trying to unionize in an efficient manner. Their difficulty is not only to get a consensus in Parliament but also within their own unions. The debates within the unions are long and heated. Although their objects are identical from the point of view of the outsider, the subtle differences which

divide them are difficult to iron out. I assume that in the end the ideal would be one strong farm union from one end of Canada to the other, whether or not the name suggested in this legislation is used, which would represent all types of farming in all phases of agriculture.
We all know, however, that in any consensus there will be a pressure group within the union itself. Any farm union, whether it be Unifarm or the one we are asking for in this legislation, has to decide whom it represents. Then the farmer gets into the same trouble as a labourer when he decides whether to join a trade union. The advantages of the closed shop are many, but in return he sacrifices his sovereignty and has very little bargaining power as an individual.
Within the farm union movement itself there is a contradiction. It is democratic in so far as you take a vote and expect everybody to go along with the consensus, but you run into difficulty.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Jack, let the bill go through. Sit down.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Unless you get consensus in a meaningful way, there is difficulty. Farmers who belong to other farm unions, even if they did not agree with the one proposed would from self-interest join a national farm union, but obviously they have plain and simple reasons in their own minds for not joining-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: 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.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, I was not here earlier today when I understand some measure of disagreement arose around five o'clock. A question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). My understanding is
May 7, 1970

that the minister seeks the floor at this time to speak to the question which Mr. Deputy Speaker allowed to be stood until this moment.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not myself in the chamber-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were not yourself. Ha!


Otto Emil Lang: I was not in the chamber this afternoon-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were not yourself, that is right.


Otto Emil Lang: -when the issue was raised. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) made certain allegations in language which itself may not be parliamentary. The issue he raised was a question of deliberately misleading the House. He referred to questions which earlier in the day had been put to me. He himself had put a question to me which had received a standard reply.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is substandard, and above standard.


Otto Emil Lang: I believe he may have been referring to the questions and answers which passed between myself and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). The hon. member for Vegreville had asked: "Can the minister tell us when we may expect a statement from him concerning the results of the talks which are going on with other countries pertinent to the marketing of wheat and other grain products?" Subsequently he asked this supplementary question: "I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to make a statement this afternoon." To that I replied: "No, Mr. Speaker".
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I had in the mind, in the context of the question and the supplementary, that the hon. member for Vegreville was referring to a statement in the House in the form of Motions which has on occasion been made-


Thomas Miller Bell: But that was all over.


Mr. Korchinski:: If you are that slow, you should not be a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we might allow the minister the opportunity to make a statement.
Wheat Sales to Peru


Otto Emil Lang: -in regard to wheat sales, as these statements have on occasion been made in the past. I may say that it is not my intention to make such statements on Motions in ordinary cases, in relation to wheat sales. Indeed, if I did that I would be popping up virtually every day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us about wheat acreage reduction now.


Otto Emil Lang: For instance, in addition to this sale in the past week, upon which I have a report, there is a sale of over one million bushels to Japan and some three million bushels to various other destinations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You were not asked that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we will not enter into debate on the substantive question raised by the hon. member. The only matter before the House is the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to make clear my thinking on the matter when I replied to the question.


An hon. Member:: You were not thinking. Come to the point.


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, in my view it is a matter of judgment when a statement like this should be made in the House. Some confusion has risen, I am sure, in the mind of the hon. member for Crowfoot as a result of the fact that later in the day a govemment-to-government agreement was signed by myself on behalf of the government of Canada and the ambassador of Peru on behalf of the government of Peru in connection with the sale of wheat by the Wheat Board. The government-to-government agreement was a necessary completing step in the agreement because of the government's involvement in the guaranteeing of credit and in the support of the interest rate which is payable on the extended credit in connection with that sale.
Following that sale a press release indicating the signing was issued here and, as is the custom, at the same time from the Wheat Board in Winnipeg. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that while I have given that expla-

May 7, 1970
Wheat Sales to Peru
nation of my interpretation of the question by the hon. member for Vegreville and my reply in relation to a statement on Motions in the House, I regret that I have caused some misunderstanding or confusion to hon. members as a result of the nature of the reply in that exchange.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Big joke!


Otto Emil Lang: Having said that in relation to the issue raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, I should like to indicate that I, too, would like to raise a question of privilege in connection with his remarks and I will do so now or perhaps, if it is better, in a moment. If I may proceed now, I will simply say that I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention the words which the hon. member for Crowfoot used in indicating a deliberate intention on my part to mislead the House, an intention which I firmly, of course, refute. But in any case, they constituted language which is non-parliamentary and which I would like, therefore, to have withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Crowfoot submitted his case earlier today. Unfortunately, I was not in the House at the time and did not have the opportunity of hearing his presentation to the House. My understanding is that a question was asked of the minister and a reply was given by the minister. The suggestion is made by the hon. member, and perhaps by hon. members who have spoken in his support, that a certain interpretation was placed on the question. The minister replied in the negative, in the sense that he apparently indicated to the House that a statement would not be made later in the day. The minister says that he meant this in the sense that he would not be making a statement in the House.
Obviously, there has been some misunderstanding between the minister and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Crowfoot, who raised the question, in relation to both matters. There is no question whatever that the reply given to the questions by the minister was the kind of reply which could give rise to misunderstanding on the part of hon. members, and I am sure that not a single hon. member in the House would say that it could not give rise to a misunderstanding.
This having been said, I must now say that the House, according to our precedents, has to accept the views expressed by the hon.

member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Crowfoot that this was their interpretation of the question asked. The hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Crowfoot were asking whether a statement would be made at all. The minister thought that the inquiry was whether a statement would be made in the House. We have to accept the statements, of course, of the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for Vegreville and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang).
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is, I think, basic to our discussions that we recognize the fundamental integrity of each member of the House. Otherwise I do not see how debates could be conducted with order and dignity. Having said this, I do not think the question can be entertained as a matter of privilege or that the matter should be pursued further.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With due deference to Your Honour's observations-and I do not wish to pursue the matter any further than is absolutely necessary-I believe the minister toward the end of his remarks raised a question of privilege of some kind in regard to something I had said with regard to his intentions. Since Your Honour was not here earlier, perhaps you would like to hear an explanation of my use of those particular words.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether that would be helpful at all. As the hon. member says, I was not here. I have the impression we would get involved in a further question of privilege. The minister said certain words had been used which should not have been used. I was not here; perhaps I should be given the opportunity to study the record. It may well be, as I have said, that the hon. member for Crowfoot felt justified in using words which were perhaps stronger than are normally used in the House, because he misunderstood the statement of the minister. The minister has made his answer. He said he regrets personally if there has been a misunderstanding. Obviously, the hon. member for Crowfoot misunderstood the minister, and obviously the hon. member for Vegreville misunderstood the minister in the same way as the minister misunderstood the members.


Thomas Miller Bell: Oh no, he did not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) says no. Perhaps I ought not to have made that suggestion. In
May 7, 1970

any event, I cannot really see what purpose there could be in engaging in a protracted discussion on a question of privilege in connection with which there is no motion before the House. If a motion were made, the matter could be pursued. We could have a debate; we could have a vote. The matter could go to the committee on privileges. We could spend this evening, tomorrow and many more days discussing the question of privilege, but I do not know in what way the business of the country, the prestige of the Commons or the dignity of this chamber could be advanced by a debate of that kind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in order to clarify this whole question. I move-I want to speak to the question of privilege raised by the minister with regard to the words I used-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot move a motion on the basis of another hon. member's question of privilege. I have ruled on his questions. There is no prima facie case of privilege, so obviously he cannot move a motion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As Your Honour has recognized, you were not here to listen to the original question of privilege I raised at the earliest convenience to me, which happened to be at two minutes past five. I got hold of a news release which had been made by the minister at half past four. The occupant of the chair at the time weighed the evidence and said a decision would be made at eight o'clock. You have heard the minister, Mr. Speaker, and the minister has rightly presented his case. With all deference to you and to your office, I should like to think that before reaching any determination whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, Your Honour would at least allow the other side of this issue to be raised in order that it might be judged.


Mr. Speaker:: We have ample time. We have until ten o'clock tonight and we have all day tomorrow. We can spend all the time hon. members want to spend on this. This is the stuff debates are made of. This is what Speakers like to hear and rule upon. I have no objection.
The hon. member will realize, though, that I have had an opportunity to reflect on this matter and to look at the Hansard "blues" of the debate which took place in the House. I appreciate that the hon. member for Crowfoot has a point. The Chair is placed in a some-
Wheat Sales to Peru
what embarrassing position in having to rule on a question of this kind without having heard the hon. member's own words, though I did take special notice of his argument when I consulted the record between six and eight o'clock. However, as I have said, there is time and I will certainly allow the hon. member to make his point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to thank Your Honour very much for allowing me time in which to put forward what I believe to be a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I wish to make this very clear. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked whether it was the intention of the government to make a statement today with regard to wheat sales, or wheat sales which may have been made. The minister said no. Now, in his defence, the minister says he did not intend to make a statement on Motions. Mr. Speaker, the question I have just referred to was put to him after the normal procedure on Motions had been concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So the minister was never asked whether he intended to make a statement on Motions today. The hon. member asked whether a sale would be announced today by the minister. The minister understood the intent of the question; he is well learned in the art of law, and I may add he is well learned in the art of deceptive words.
I wish to found my case of privilege on these facts, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. member for Vegreville asked his question, I myself asked the minister whether, in light of the fact that representatives from India and other countries had been negotiating recently in Winnipeg in connection with wheat contracts, we could expect an announcement soon which would create optimism in the industry-whether an announcement would be made today or tomorrow. The minister replied to the effect that it was not the standard procedure for him to comment on negotiations prior to their completion. I want to emphasize those words "prior to their completion".
When I spoke before the House rose, I said the minister had deliberately deceived the House, because this agreement had already been completed. The minister knew full well what I was getting at and what the hon.

May 7, 1970
Wheat Sales to Peru
member lor Vegreville was getting at. He now admits he may well have misled the House. But it is not good enough to say later, "I misled the House." The point is whether he knew, at the time, that he was misleading the House. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the time those questions were asked the sale had been completed. In fact, Peru announced the purchase of 7.4 million bushels of wheat from Canada this morning. I understand that Peruvian time is one hour ahead of Canadian time, so it could only have been one o'clock here at the latest. The hon. member for Vegreville put his question to the minister later than I did, maybe at 2.45 p.m. So the minister knew that the sale had been completed.
I came upon a copy of a news release prepared for release at 4.30. It got to me at five o'clock and I raised the matter immediately. It is common knowledge that ministers prepare news releases; this is expected of all ministries. When did the minister prepare this particular news release? News releases are often prepared two hours ahead of time. This would take us back to 2.30 p.m.
I do not intend to go into the question which arises from the pomp and ceremony surrounding the announcement, the calling in of the press, the serving of champagne in connection with this great news release at 4.30. I am not going to go into the detail of the preparation that was required to bring in the newspapermen to report this huge sale. It is understandable to you, sir, and to the House that certain preparatory work must have gone into the announcement of this wheat sale.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Your Honour talked about delaying the House of Commons today and tomorrow. Wars were fought so that the commoners, the people, shall be heard and shall be able to ask questions of the executive. The king and his ward heelers used to look after the country and answered to nobody, but the whole concept of responsible government is that the commoners shall elect common people to represent them in the House of Commons. These members shall ask questions of the executive, who shall truthfully answer them.
I submit that I have a prima facie case of privilege. When I posed the first question this afternoon the minister knew that a wheat sale had been made and would be announced today. He knew that at 2.30 or after two o'clock. My prima facie case of privilege is

that he deliberately did not disclose the wheat sales to the House of Commons. The hon. member for Vegreville specifically put the direct question to the minister, "Will a statement be made today announcing a wheat sale?" He was not referring to a statement on Motions because the time for Motions had already passed. The minister knew at that time that he was going to make a statement. He knew that champagne and all the rest of it had been laid on in his office.
I submit I have a prima facie case of privilege. We are not dealing here with sex. Wheat is a political subject in Canada, not sexual. Profumo lied to the House of Commons, and he resigned. I am not saying that this matter raises an issue that can be likened to that over which the British minister of defence resigned. Nevertheless, it does raise a prima facie case of privilege, and this House and democracy will be badly served if it is not accepted as such. I rest my case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made an additional contribution. Having heard his statement I am wondering what kind of procedure we are going to follow, a member making two or three statements and the minister in turn making two or three statements.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he makes another, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: There has to be an end to it somewhere. In fairness, I will again hear the minister and I will make my ruling. I suggest to hon. members that at this point I should hear the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in order to clear up the question as to who said what, I am prepared to put a motion before the House and the House can then decide whether or not a prima facie case has been made out.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not, of course, what the precedents say. It is a decision for the Chair. As the hon. member knows, I have to go by practice and precedents and the Chair has to make a decision whether there is a prima facie case. If there is then the hon. member for Crowfoot can put his motion, but not before. As the hon. member for Crowfoot
May 7, 1970

knows, in recent months we have not perhaps had many questions of privilege, though in previous years those of us who were here became experts on the matter of privilege and have gone over the procedure on many occasions.
If we are to bring the matter to a head, my suggestion to the hon. member is that I allow the minister to have the floor. I see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is seeking to be recognized. Perhaps it would be wiser to allow him to speak.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a suggestion that I thought might be helpful. If the minister will admit to the House that he misled the House, then that might end the whole thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that that suggestion is particularly helpful, but in any event I will invite the minister to make a comment.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in his last remarks the hon. member for Crowfoot dealt more with his question in the House than the one with which we dealt earlier. I may say, with regard to the earlier question, that in terms of timing I had in mind the possibility that the House may from time to time revert to Motions for the purpose of statements-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: You cannot get away with that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Be a gentleman.


James Aloysius McGrath: Admit you lied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: However, from time to time this may not occur as a result of the attitude taken by hon. members opposite. However, this is certainly a possibility.
Let me first deal with the issue raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot with regard to his question. He had asked me whether I could comment on whether or not India and other countries whose representatives have been in Winnipeg negotiating contracts for the purchase of wheat had concluded any major purchases. He referred to "India and other countries whose representatives have been in Winnipeg". Now, there have been rumours about these matters, as there have been rumours about many other matters, some of substance and some of no substance. My reply to the hon. member was the very standard reply that is given in such cases.
Wheat Sales to Peru


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You mean, substandard reply, by anybody's moral code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are certainly not making much headway. I wonder whether the minister would make his statement as quickly as possible.


Otto Emil Lang: I should certainly like to, Mr. Speaker. My reply was the very standard one: "The hon. member may be aware that it is not the custom to comment on negotiations prior to their completion".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They were completed.


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member will permit me, the question was specifically related to "India and other countries whose representatives have been in Winnipeg negotiating contracts", and in relation to which, as I say, there had been a series of rumours. There was no reference made to "other contracts". The one in relation to Peru-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: "Other countries".


Mr. Speaker:: Can we have order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to hear the minister when there are continual interruptions.


Otto Emil Lang: The negotiations for the Peruvian contract took place, in fact, by and large in Peru itself, where there was some time ago a mission, and with a member of the Canadian Wheat Board present. There were many things to be completed before the deal was in fact finalized. The last step in the completion was, as I indicated before, government agreement.
I was, of course, aware at the time I spoke in the House this afternoon that it was expected that the ambassador and I would meet at four o'clock for this completing act in the negotiations. I may also say there are other negotiations among those rumoured which are at various stages of completion, and about which as well I would not make any comment or statement at this time prior to their completion. As to what the Peruvian officials said, there had been a rumour about a sale after the Wheat Board negotiators had gone to Peru, so comment about the matter from time to time has not in fact been a surprise. In short, I think it is perfectly clear on the record that I was in no way misleading the House-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were, and you admitted it five minutes ago.

May 7. 1970
Wheat Sales to Peru


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate this is the kind of situation in which it is not easy, perhaps, for hon. members to hold their tempers. I fully understand how difficult it is for hon. members to co-operate as they always want to with the Chair. I am wondering whether the minister has now completed his statement. If he has, I would have to reach the conclusion that I reached earlier.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I appreciate the position taken by the hon. member for Crowfoot. There was certainly cause for misunderstanding in the statement made by the minister. Unfortunately, it was the interpretation which was placed by the hon. member for Crowfoot on the statement made by the minister which led to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. But-


Stanley James Korchinski: Before you make a ruling, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have heard hon. members and I am now in a position to say, having given the matter serious thought and basing my ruling on a well-known precedent which has been quoted from time to time, that this kind of misunderstanding or misinterpretation cannot be the basis of a question of privilege. I must rule that there is no prima facie case and that no motion can be put to the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on a new question of privilege, it has been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Crowfoot used words this afternoon which suggested that I had deliberately misled the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: That language I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood that the minister raised this point earlier. My impression is that this was part of the original question of privilege. This indeed was part of the substance of the question raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. That was why I reached the conclusion there was no prima facie case, and I did think that this would resolve both issues. I remind the minister and hon. members that we cannot accuse another member either of lying or of making wilful misrepresentations. We know it is possible, according to the rules, to say that a

member has misled the House, but it cannot be said that he has wilfully misled the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In this case this is part of the essence of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, and I have ruled there is no prima facie case. I would think this should settle the question. I realize that some hon. members feel very strongly about this matter and that it is perhaps a decision which will not necessarily bring joy to their hearts, but I think on the basis of the precedents this is the only ruling I can bring down at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I accept your ruling, but if there is any doubt about what I said I want to say again that I believe the minister deliberately deceived the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know what the hon. member said and my suggestion is it was part of the-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will say it again tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot certainly is not making things easier for us. Perhaps that is not necessarily the purpose of hon. members in the House. I am sure nobody is here on either side of the House to make things easier for the Chair, but perhaps the Chair is entitled to some co-operation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -and some understanding from hon. members. I have no complaint in this regard. I have always been well treated by hon. members in this regard, including the hon. member for Crowfoot. May I suggest, the ruling having been made, that we should revert to the debate which was interrupted. I understand the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) had the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Stick around, Otto; I will say it later-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope there will be order in the House. The hon. member for Red Deer.


An hon. Member:: There goes Fibber
McGee.
May 7, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	6713
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I was previously convinced that Bill C-197 is a bad bill and I just want to say that after listening to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the various arguments advanced on either side, as well as experiencing the attitude of the government in respect of the functioning of this House, I am even more convinced that we do not want this bill.
Certainly we cannot trust such power as this bill assumes for the government and an agency to be appointed by it, if democracy is to have any meaning at all to the people of Canada. This bill indicates quite clearly that the degree of power the government is seeking, as it relates to a government-appointed agency without necessary reference to the producers and the primary industry of agriculture or their organizations or the provincial governments, is far in excess of that which the agricultural industry and their representatives proposed. It could usurp completely the control that now rests in the hands of the primary producers and the provincial governments.
I have said that the drive to centralize primary production and to centralize the controls over primary production in respect of agriculture is not the result of inevitable trends but is the result of a conscious effort to create a completely centrally-placed society. Call it what you will, this is a tragedy for the agricultural industry and for the farmers of Canada, because I believe genuine farmers the world over throughout history have been noted for their sturdy independence. Surely this is a characteristic of the Canadian farmer.
As a section of society, farmers have always manifested the highest principles of citizenship. When heavy taxation played its deadly role in helping to destroy the 22375-7
independence of the Roman peasantry, one of the great positive influences in the Roman Empire was eroded. The peasant farmers destroyed the plans of the totalitarians. Even the Soviets, as they planned their economy under Stalin, were forced to liquidate millions of kulaks who refused to co-operate with their totalitarian style or plan.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a tragedy that in the name of efficiency and on the excuse that the farmers need help this type of legislation should be proposed. I suggest that the basic question which the basic producer must ask himself is this: If a farmer was economic ten years ago and if he has substantially increased his production in this period, why is he now said to be uneconomic? The answer, of course, is not simply that in some cases the prices of his products have fallen but that his financial costs have increased. The progressive increases in costs have offset the increased production and the tremendous efficiency which the agricultural industry in Canada has achieved.
Now, if all the costs are increasing-and no less an authority than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has said so-we are in serious trouble in Canada. We are in even more serious trouble because of the control over planning, production and distribution which is to lie authorized by Bill C-197, regardless of the platitudinous arguments we have heard contrarywise. The statute itself is very clear. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the argument that we are growing too much wheat, and that too many people are engaged in farming, is a fallacy. The problem the Canadian farmer has is that he must face the competition of the European economic community-from the Argentine where the cost of production is less, from the heavily subsidized agricultural industry in the United States and from the low-cost production of that agricultural country, Australia.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The farmer is in difficulty. Farmers in the Common Market countries have problems; we recognize that. But in spite of a reduction in the number of farmers, the main problem there is still huge surpluses. Common Market agricultural regulations require that food be destroyed to keep prices stable. Is this what we want here? Is this what has been discussed at the meeting held in Ottawa this week? Common Market agricultural regulations also provide for subsidization of their farmers. If these subsidies can be paid to
May 7, 1970
6714	COMMONS
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill destroy food, why can they not be paid for price reduction, thus stimulating the demand? This is what the farmer of Canada is asking.
The expert planners use the situation to keep advocating a still further reduction in the number of farmers in production, and that is the only information we have out of the meeting that was held here this week. I wish to come back to the simple point that the farmers of Canada are in a very serious predicament, and they will not be brought out of this by this kind of legislation. They will just be moved further into the morass.
The president of the Alberta wheat pool said a few days ago:
The relative position which Canadian farmers occupy in the world economic struggle has depreciated in the past year and in the past decade.
That is almost the understatement of the year because the economic struggle facing the Canadian farmer is not just on the world scene but is right here at home. It is almost inevitable that Canada must decide soon whether or not this country is going to maintain a viable agricultural industry. I maintain that it is not the bureaucrats, who will have the power under this legislation to completely control production, who have the answers. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to work out with the farmers and their organizations the answers to these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: If marketing agencies are necessary, then it should be the producers who are involved, not only in the setting up and in the participation but actually in the determination of what policies are to be followed. How will Canadian farmers survive when the federal Department of Agriculture has taken over every area of responsibility from production to marketing? This is the most dangerous bill that we have ever had in this House in relation to the agricultural industry, and yet it is excused with platitu-tudes as being something that the farm organizations have asked for themselves. They asked for help, but they did not ask for this kind of legislation.
If we establish a National Farm Products Marketing Council which will authorize the government to set up national marketing agencies for any or all farm products without consultation with the farmers, without requiring consultation with the farm organizations 

or the provincial departments of agriculture, which way will we be heading? This bill goes far in excess of that proposed by representatives of the agricultural industry. It could completely usurp the authority which is now vested in the hands of the primary producers and the provincial departments of agriculture.
In summary, we on this side of the House are opposing this bill for some very real reasons. With the exception of western wheat and fluid milk, the cabinet will be able to place any farm product under a national marketing agency without reference to Parliament, to provincial governments or even to the farmers themselves. I can hear the Minister of Agriculture saying, "Oh, yes; it says in the bill that first there must be a public hearing". But what does a public hearing do in the way of a check or a control, or in representing the opinion of the farmers or ensuring their participation?
Such an agency would have the power to determine the quantity, price, time and place at which any product or any variety, class or grade of product would be marketed in domestic or export trade. The agency could require farmers to obtain licences to grow, produce or market agricultural commodities. I do not like to refer to agricultural policies that are used by certain countries in eastern Europe, but this is so similar to those policies that it causes one to shudder. Furthermore, these same countries today are discovering that they cannot reach their maximum production under that kind of policy. They have had to go back to encouraging the individual to supplement his production on his little plot of land.
Such a marketing agency would have the power to collect charges to cover the cost of the marketing agency's operations, determining what the farmer would get in an initial, interim or final payment. Grain farmers this year know that these charges eliminated their final payment altogether. The bill states that inspectors could be appointed with broad powers to search for regulated commodities and to examine the farmers' books and documents-yes, and even put farmers in jail if it is thought they do not co-operate as they should. It could assume the responsibility for farm operations from production through selling, pricing, packaging, transportation and storage.
I do not believe the federal government should have the power which this bill would give them to appoint the various agencies that they may think are necessary, because it
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
gives them power for complete decision-making in the agricultural industry and it could reduce that industry to nothing more than a public utility. So I appeal to all members of the House, to the farmers and to all those who know agriculture to recognize this bill for what it is, because I am convinced it is a bad bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-197 which is a bill purporting to establish a National Farm Products Marketing Council with authority to establish marketing agencies thereunder. A strange situation is developing in Canada. On the one hand we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and on the other we have a Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang). I wish the phrase "without portfolio" meant "without power."
The point I am making is that the whole of agriculture is now divided under two ministries. The farmers of western Canada are looking to one or the other minister for guidance, for legislative help and for assistance in the marketing of their products. They are searching for leadership. As I travelled across Canada I was struck by how much western Canada needs leadership in this field, yet we in Canada have two ministries, two vast departments supposedly trying to help the farmer market his products.
This dual situation reminds me of the cross-eyed rooster and the hens. Farmers are like hens in the barnyard which do not know at which hen the cross-eyed rooster is looking. If you will bear with me for a moment, I would like to read part of a poem from "The Tales of the Pioneer" written by that well-known pioneer of Alberta, Ferg James. This is what he said about the cross-eyed rooster. We have two ministers, and the farmers are wondering at which of them they are looking. They are like a hen in the barnyard, wondering which minister and which piece of legislation will really help them.
The Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board brought down a piece of legislation called operation LIFT which was very well received by the farmers. Some people called it WARP, others called it LIFT which means Lower Income For Tomorrow, and the common opinion in western Canada is that it is FLOP. They have pretty well disregarded that ministry, but they are still looking to it for wheat sales. We have seen some evidence today of the way in which the minister has shown leadership in that regard.
22375-7J
DEBATES	6715
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister laid an egg today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says that the minister laid an egg today. Now we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) bringing forth this great piece of legislation which I am going to deal with it at length. But let us consider the plight of the farmer today and the cross-eyed rooster.
I'm having lots of troubles,
And I think I'll quit the farm.
It's not just like it used to be,
It's losing all its charm.
The hens have slacked off laying,
And the cows are going dry,
And the poor old cross-eyed rooster Is just about to die.
I sent away and got him;
He's a cross-bred as you know,
And according to the catalogue Should make production grow,
But when I turned him with the hens They wondered what was cooking,
For they just couldn't figure out At which one he was looking.
Then two old biddies started out,
With him in hot pursuit,
And side by side they raced along Were keeping pretty mute.
The one old hen just turned her head
And with a muffled oath
Said "We had better spread apart,
Or he will miss us both!''
Now he is chasing all day long;
He can't make up his mind,
And instead of being cross-eyed.
Would be better being blind.
He's getting thinner every day,
And always out of breath,
And I know within a fortnight He will run himself to death.
The poem goes on but, Mr. Speaker, I think you and the House have the gist of it.


Some hon. Members:: More!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is kind of nice. I like to think that if I overstay my time with this speech they will still holler for more, because I am going to give them more in a few minutes. I would like to project this picture, as I see it, of these two ministers sitting here with the farmers not seeing any leadership in either of them-these two ministers in charge of a vital matter like wheat sales and deliberately deceiving the House of Commons as they did today. There is no question in my mind that they will not give leadership with that sort of foray into deception. Let us look at this bill and see if the Minister of Agriculture has anything better in mind.
May 7. 1970
6716	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [Translation]


Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Trois-Rivieres on a question of privilege


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you because, if I understood correctly, the member said: "Two ministers deliberately deceiving the House." In my opinion, this remark is against the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I should ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to let the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) continue his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: People who take exception to the words should rise if the words really hurt them. If the words do not hurt them, then they do not have to rise. Let us see what the minister really means in Bill C-197. It will establish a marketing council and agencies. What will it really do? Let us note what the minister said as recorded at page 5869 of Hansard:
This council will be a very important body. Operating under this legislation it will provide guidance and advice-
Well, somebody is going to provide advice and leadership to the agricultural industry, and that is nice.
-guidance and advice in the first instance as to whether or not a scheme should be considered.
In other words such a decision will be made by the council, and not by the producers affected.
Xt will basically determine the nature of schemes which are to be considered under this legislation-
The council will determine the nature of the schemes. Mr. Speaker, in the 1968 general election we heard a great deal of talk about participatory democracy. Where is it today, when a council like this will be appointed by the government and the council will determine the nature of schemes, not the producers affected? Hon. members opposite seem awfully silent tonight. In his speech the minister also referred to-
-placing the federal government in a position to respond to and to create national marketing agencies

The federal government will create the agencies, not the council. Let us look at how the council will be appointed. Western Canada is presently concerned about the Wheat Board, which could be held up as an
IMr. Homer.]

example of a national marketing board. Suggestions have been made that there should be provincial representation on the Wheat Board and that it should also contain direct farmer representation. Does this legislation reflect such suggestions? Does it take into consideration the feeling of the producers concerned? No, it does not.
The bill clearly states that the national council will be appointed by the Governor in Council. Let us say that it is comprised of 12 members. Normally one would expect such a body could choose its own chairman. But that is not good enough in this case. The bill specifically says that the chairman shall be chosen by the Governor in Council. One might think that in the chairman's absence the members would be capable of appointing a vice-chairman, but the bill also rules that out by saying that the vice-chairman shall be appointed by the Governor in Council.
What kind of hollow, shallow promise was this about participatory democracy? What about the just society, with this two-headed monster giving leadership to the agricultural industry? I have quoted the minister's own words and in those words he is not hiding anything; he is putting the situation so bluntly that farmers cannot really believe it. They are saying that it cannot really be that way. But it is spelled out clearly in the minister's own words that the government will create national marketing agencies. Does the bill say that the members of the council will hold office on good behaviour? This is a terminology common to such boards. In other words, if people are not doing a good job they can be released at any time at the wish of the Governor in Council. But this bill does not mention good behaviour; it says they will be appointed and hold office at the pleasure of the Governor in Council. What is the difference between the two phrases?


An hon. Member:: A good party man.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is basically right. Will the council try to please the agricultural industry, or the government of the day? Its members will hold office at the pleasure of the government of the day. They are not appointed for a term of, say, ten years; they are appointed at pleasure. They can hold office for 10, 20 or 30 years. They do not have to do a good job for the agricultural industry-just for the government of the day. We have seen some of the deceptions of the government of this day. Surely we cannot put our faith in the fact that the government will appoint people at its
May 7, 1970

pleasure and those people will become concerned for the plight of the farmers. As I see it, they will be concerned with the government's political position throughout the agricultural industry. If the government feels I am misinterpreting that phrase, why do they not change the bill and accept the terminology "good behaviour" rather than "at pleasure".
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Let us go a little further. Now that we have a marketing council set up with a chairman chosen by the government, to work for the government and not for the agricultural industry or the farmers involved, what is its purpose? At page 5870 of Hansard of April 14, 1970, the minister said: "The Governor in Council could approve a specific marketing plan". He did not say the producers of a given commodity could approve it.
I notice the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) in the House. He is well aware of the problems with regard to the poultry industry and how the poultry producers chose an agency. But in the case at hand, Mr. Speaker, it is the Governor in Council who shall approve and appoint-I emphasize the word "appoint"-an agency which would be authorized to administer the plan. The plan is not developed by the farmers producing the commodity; it is developed by the council, and the council is appointed by the government. What kind of participatory democracy are we involved in today? State farming! This bill is hypocrisy at its best.
Let us go a little further. On the one hand the agency established under this bill could be granted limited powers, says the minister, and then he says as reported at page 5870 of Hansard:
*-as necessary to achieve a minimum co-ordination or promotional function. On the other hand, a range of powers could be granted as appropriate to carrying out a more comprehensive marketing function-
What does all that verbiage mean, Mr. Speaker? We have the council appointed by the Governor in Council and at the pleasure of the Governor in Council. Now we have the agency appointed by the marketing council. Let me emphasize that the government is moving right down to the very basic production of agriculture in this country. The minister says, "as appropriate to carrying out a more comprehensive marketing function." How do we interpret that, Mr. Speaker? We have heard the minister say that a statement made this afternoon really did not mean a
DEBATES	6717
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill statement to the press, it meant some other kind of statement. What can we interpret from these words, "comprehensive marketing function"?


Mr. Smerchanski:: Read on further, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me read on a little further:
-including such things as selling, pricing, assembling, packing, processing, transporting and the storing of designated products involved in interprovincial and export trade.
That encompasses everything, Mr. Speaker.
I read it to satisfy the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Smerchanski). I did not want to scare the people in this chamber into thinking that this marketing function or the power that the government was going to give this body would involve the whole sphere of agriculture, but there it is. The hon. member wanted to hear it, and I hope he now votes against this legislation, as he should.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to move an amendment to this legislation and I should like to think that the hon. member for Provencher, being an individual who believes in free enterprise as I know from personal contact with him, will vote for it. There is no question that this bill covers the whole waterfront of the agricultural industry. I have before me a newspaper clipping from the Leader Post of April 21, 1970, page 35. The Minister of Agriculture, who is the member for Medicine Hat, and the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board-I was going to say "in charge of nothing" but he is in charge of something, to my regret, and in any case there he sits-were at a meeting in Moose Jaw and, quoting from the newspaper, a farmer asked them whether they favoured free enterprise because LIFT looked to him like the beginning of strict policing of agriculture.
If LIFT looked to him like the beginning of strict policing of agriculture-I would like to use an adjective which might be unparliamentary, so I will not-what does Bill C-197 look like to him. The article continues:
It looks like the start of a dictatorship, and we don't want that, he said.
Mr. Lang and Mr. Olson said they favoured free enterprise and that LIFT would help get things back in balance-
The point of this whole newspaper clipping is that Mr. Lang and Mr. Olson favour free enterprise. But we have seen the way they deceive people.
Mr. Lang and Mr. Olson said they favoured free enterprise and that LIFT would help get things back in balance so that farmers could continue to make their own decisions.
May 7, 1970
6718	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
This is the key to the whole thing, and I cannot emphasize those words too much, Mr. Speaker. I have already dealt with the fact that these people are appointed at the pleasure of the government. The council appoints the agency, or may appoint the agencies but there is nothing spelling it out. The Minister of Agriculture says a public meeting should be held. They held public meetings when they discontinued the railway, but they still discontinued it after the public meetings. There is nothing in the bill which specifically spells out that producers shall have a voice in the marketing, processing, selling, packaging, transportation and pricing of their commodities. How could the minister have the unmitigated gall to stand in front of the farmers at Moose Jaw and say he was going to put things back in balance so that farmers could continue to make their own decisions? Where in this bill has the farmer the right to make any decision whatsoever? There is nothing in the bill that gives farmers such a chance.
The Globe and Mail of March 18, 1970, has a headline, "Olson Seeks Wide Cabinet Powers in Marketing of Farm Products". The other article was dated April 21, a month and three days later, when he said he was putting things in balance so that the farmers could make their own decisions. What decisions are the farmers going to make? Let us see what the bill really does. This legislation goes so far that it provides for the appointment of inspectors. This is something which we see increasingly these days. Under his white paper the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will have a whole team of inspectors inspecting everybody. The Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board-I was going to say "without honour" but I mean the hon. Minister without Portfolio-says that the farmers are going to have a choice. But what does the bill say? He is going to set up a group of inspectors under operation LIFT to measure acreages in summerfallow.
We are told highfalutin' means are going to be used. They are going to fly over the farms and take photographs, then measure the photographs to discover how many acres are in summerfallow and what the increase is from last year; but they did not photograph what was in summerfallow last year. They will have a fly-past. I do not know how they will do it. In any case, the minister will have his inspectors, the Minister of Finance will have inspectors and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) will have inspectors.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) has them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Judging by some of the legislation to come before the House, even my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will retain inspectors. We shall see inspectors, inspectors, inspectors across the whole spectrum of our society. Yet the ministers constituting the two-headed monster leading our agricultural industry today say they believe in free enterprise. Surely even the hon. member for Provencher will agree that this bill will militate against the interests of agriculture.
What will this bill provide? The legislation will provide for the appointment of inspectors who will have broad powers to search: they may examine any books, records or documents in the possession of a farmer who does not comply with the regulations of the marketing agency. I have already dealt with that. Furthermore, any farmer who does not comply with the regulations emanating from the marketing agency is liable to two years in jail. That means he will be out of production for two years. Operation LIFT will take the farmer out of production for one year, but this cross-eyed rooster now guiding agriculture will see to it that the farmer is taken out of production for two years.


Mr. Baldwin:: He will not receive his $6 per
acre.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why not jail a farmer for 20 years, because if the government wants to take him out of production, it should do so. This and similar pieces of legislation are putting the small farmer out of business. At least farmers across the border are allowed to vote when any marketing legislation is brought in; that is, they can vote on whether they want an agency in the first place. The minister has been saying across the country, "Of course this will be done" but he has not said it in the House. He says an agency can be appointed and the detailed administrative functions of the agency can be worked out. Without question it is a basic principle in any participatory democracy espousing free enterprise that producers have a voice in whether they want a marketing agency or not.


An hon. Member:: The roosters?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, the producers. They have to decide. What will the agency do? Let us
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
look at page 11 of the bill. Clause 18(1) (a)(ii) provides:
(ii) any such product or products to the extent that it is or they are grown or produced in any region of Canada designated in the proclamation, or in any such region and anywhere in Canada outside that region for shipment into that region in interprovincial trade and not for export.
That means, although it is couched in verbiage designed by lawyers not any better than the former dean of law of the University of Saskatchewan, that if I am producing product "X" and I want to sell that product in another region of Canada in which the marketing agency has been established under this legislation, I must first seek permission to market my product in that part of Canada and the authority must come from the agency. In other words, the legislation is creating across our country barriers to trade, as if enough barriers were not already dividing us. This bill will not unify us; it will divide us, particularly since these divisions will be created at the pleasure of the Governor in Council and not at the pleasure of the producers.
This bill gives far too much power to the government, and the producers will not have enough say in their own affairs. For that reason I move the following reasoned amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Pal-liser (Mr. Schumacher):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted:
this House will not proceed upon a measure to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products where the establishment of such agencies is in the discretion of the government and the appointment of members to such agencies is in the gift and at the pleasure of the government and where the recommendation of the Governor General by failing to provide for the necessary appropriation of public revenue, precludes amendment of the measure to provide that the establishment of an agency and the selection of the members thereof shall be by the decision of the majority of the farm producers concerned and determined by the democratic process of plebiscite and election.
I move that amendment hoping that free enterprisers, as well as the hon. member for Provencher, will support it. The Minister of Agriculture used to be a free enterpriser before he was mixed up with this Socialist government. I hope he will accept the amendment because some hon. members of the House are disturbed at what is going on in this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the House making a decision on the gist of this kind of amendment. I ask Your Honour
DEBATES	6719
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill to consider that this is what is usually referred to as a negative amendment. The wording in the first line is, "this House will not proceed upon a measure to authorize," and so on. It seems to me, without having studied the matter at sufficient length, that a negation of the main motion before the House would have exactly the same result as adopting this amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a reasoned amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course, I have no great concern about it. Every hon. member has the right to vote either positively or negatively on motions properly put before this House. There is a provision, of course, and a well-established practice-I could give the citations but Your Honour knows them well-to the effect that a motion is out of order if supporting it would have the effect of negativing the main motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, after having fooled around with the LIFT program, the minister has negativism on the brain.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: That is really funny.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is not the kind of amendment which has the same effect as voting against the bill itself. The motion before us is for the second reading of a bill to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products. Members of this party might well support a measure of that kind in principle but be unwilling to do so when it is associated with powers of dictatorship of the kind the government is seeking.
We might be disposed to accept the establishment of marketing agencies but to express the most extreme reservations when their establishment goes hand in hand with measures of dictation which are repugnant to us as a party and repugnant, certainly, to all Canadian farmers. We say that this amendment, which does not oppose the principle of the bill, falls within the terms of the citation to be found in May's seventeenth edition at page 527, on the subject of reasoned amendments:
It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the Introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
We are saying we may be quite happy with the principle of establishing agencies, but are unwilling to accept the proposals set out by
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill the government for doing so. This is not the kind of thing one can deal with in committee. The minister is, of course, doing his duty when he makes his objection, but he knows very well that this amendment does not have the effect of negativing the bill; rather, it is a reasoned amendment coming squarely within the rules which govern such amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have listened to the case put forward by the minister and by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). My initial impression is that the amendment does fall within the purview of what we understand as being a reasoned amendment. It opposes the further progress of the bill; it seems to be relevant to the bill. For this reason I am prepared to allow it, although it is a lengthy amendment and it is difficult to make a quick judgment; there is always the possibility of error.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And it kills the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are wrong, again.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I accept the decision of the Speaker, which is more than you do.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, my first words
tonight must be words of congratulation to my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) who preceded me in this debate. It will be very difficult to follow him.


Some hon. Members:: Don't try.


Richard Russell Southam: I can follow him in thought, but I do not believe I shall be able to follow his inimitable manner in translating into words the frustration we all feel on this side of the House. However, today we are debating Bill C-197, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national agencies for farm products.
As the debate has continued and I have had an opportunity to study the bill and to refer to what has been said by members on this side of the House, I have reached the conclusion that Bill C-197 in its present form is one of the most ingenious pieces of political deception ever to have been foisted on our unsuspecting agricultural industry.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill is enacted in its present form, it will make the so-called "great leap forward"-the Russian five-year plan, which turned out to be the great leap backward-look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic. The Minister of Agriculture

May 7, 1970
(Mr. Olson) who is sponsoring this legislation might just as well resign right now, or he will be forced to do so at a later date unless he takes steps at once to change the whole principle underlying this bill. In other words, if he accepts the principle outlined in the amendment just put forward by my hon. friend from Crowfoot, there may be some hope for the minister's survival; otherwise I suspect he will suffer dire consequences.
It is true that farmers and farm organizations have had considerable experience in production control and the operation of marketing agencies within provincial boundaries. These experiments have met with varying degrees of success. It is agreed that agriculture should come within the general sphere of federal agencies in cases where this is necessary and practicable, but only under a system which ensures that the farmer will have the final say in his own destiny by exercising control over decisions related both to production and to marketing. In a free democratic society, this is no more than justice and, basically speaking, it is the principle adhered to in other segments of our economy. The bill pretends to have this result, but in fact the very opposite would happen if it were passed in its present form.
It is interesting to note that the minister and the government seem awfully anxious to get this legislation into the House, have it given second reading without too much discussion and then push it into committee just as Parliament is about to recess for the summer, using the old propaganda device that it must be passed quickly because it is so important to agriculture and that if it is held up, the opposition is to blame. Well, the tactic will not work this time, because some very responsible people and organizations have already called a halt in connection with this iniquitous bill and want to see where we are going. Ministers of agriculture in several provinces have taken this stand, and only two weeks ago a telegram was directed to the Minister of Agriculture by members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange speaking for themselves and other agricultural businesses.
They said they were deeply concerned by the implications of Bill C-197 and did not believe that producers, consumers, trade groups or members of the House of Commons could give considered thought to it without having received the report of the agricultural task force as essential background material. The telegram went on to say:
We urgently request that final consideration of this bill be withheld until the House, the Standing

May 7. 1970	COMMONS
Committee on Agriculture and the public have been given an opportunity to study the task force report and all relevant proposals.
This is a reasonable suggestion. My advice to the minister and to members of the government is that they call a halt to this legislation on the basis of the advice they are getting, or at least accept the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Crowfoot in order to remove the concern felt by a great many of those who have had a chance to consider the implications of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend several of the previous speakers in this debate on the stand they have taken with regard to this questionable legislation. I have already mentioned my hon. friend from Crowfoot. I wish also to mention the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). In his speech the other night the latter referred to the bill before us as being the most dangerous, dictatorial, damaging and destructive piece of legislation ever brought in by a Minister of Agriculture. He described it as one which particularly attacks western agriculture. I sincerely agree with these statements. At the present time, western farmers are struggling for their very existence. They are faced with want in a land of plenty. Last month's labour review figures indicated that some 7,000 workers were forced to leave the province of Saskatchewan to look for work. What a terrible loss of human resources, Mr. Speaker, apart from the economic aspects of the situation.
A further blow to the small farmer was the government's recent application of the LIFT program, or what has commonly been referred to as the farmers' income reduction plan. Here again is an example of government legislation, ill-conceived, hastily prepared and hurriedly applied to an industry which did not know what was happening to it. Oh yes, the minister tells us he had the agreement of the industry, but it is passing strange that hardly a soul in western Canada wants to admit he had any part in operation LIFT whatsoever.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In speaking to this bill, I want to warn farmers in all parts of Canada to study the bill in all its ramifications, to benefit from their sad experience with the present government by seeing to it that they personally and their farm organizations collectively call a halt to 22375-8
DEBATES	6721
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill the quick implementation of this proposed legislation, at least in its present form; and to make sure that sufficient time be made available for them to appear before the Standing Committee on agriculture as well as to have a thorough debate on the important issues among their various farm groups.
Rather than continue in generalities, let us look at some of the specifics of this bill. A study of Bill C-197 indicates quite clearly that the degree of power sought by the government goes far in excess of that proposed by representatives of the agricultural industry, and could usurp completely the control now vested in the hands of primary producers and provincial governments. In its present form, this legislation grants to a council and marketing agency, whose total membership are government appointees, absolute power to establish agencies, to license and allocate quota production and to control pricing, processing, marketing, storing, distribution and packaging of any farm product or products by government decree without any reference to Parliament. Just think of that, Mr. Speaker! The bill goes on to provide for supply management or controlled production at the discretion of a government bureau whose power, as stated in the bill, goes so far as to "do all such other things as are necessary or incidental to the exercise of any of its powers or the carrying out of any of its functions under this act".
The House has just heard the discourse of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) who emphasized and re-emphasized in better words than I could the worries and concerns of individual farmers and of agriculture in general. This government bureau can impose such licence fees, levies or charges on farmers as are necessary to finance the agency or agencies on a self-sustaining basis without appropriations from Parliament. In other words, I presume this board of bureaucrats will be appointed by the government and will completely dominate the farm industry segment it is set up to supervise; but the farmer will be called on to pay the whole shot, including the salaries involved. To go further into the offensive part of this legislation, the bill states that any person who violates any provisions of the act or regulations is either guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
It is my opinion that under the powers granted under Bill C-197 the government
May 7, 1970
6722	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
could entrust to an appointed bureau the complete decision-making process in the entire agricultural and allied agri-industry of Canada, reducing it to the category of another public utility. Just think of this concept as applied to our normal life on a farm! Farming has always been a special way of life where those engaged in it lived, moved and had their being in a special environment where they were free to work, rest, play, commune with nature and make their own decisions without regimentation. The mould into which farmers would be forced should the present provisions in this bill be applied to them is the very antithesis of this state.
I am not an expert on the constitution, but I have some very grave doubts about some of the proposals in this bill, which I fear would run afoul of provincial jurisdictions. Some say the bill in its present form could contravene the Bill of Rights. It appears from reading the bill that under clause 2 the federal government is developing power to coerce the provinces. Let me quote from clause 2, subclause (e)(vi), which provides as follows:
(vi) the imposition and collection by the appropriate agency of levies or charges from persons engaged in the growing or production of the regulated product for, or in the marketing thereof in, interprovincial or export trade and for such purposes classifying those persons into groups and specifying the levies or charges, if any, proposed in respect of the members of each such group-
The bill goes on to state in clause 31, which deals with agreements:
With the approval of the Governor in Council, the minister may, on behalf of the government of Canada, enter into an agreement with any province providing for the performance by an agency on behalf of the province, of functions relating to intraprovincial trade in a regulated product or products in relation to which the agency may exercise its powers and for such other matters relating thereto as may be agreed upon by the Minister and the government of the province.
These provisions give the federal government the economic power, whether consciously or unconsciously employed, to coerce almost all existing provincial marketing boards to fall in line with federal structures or force unorganized producers in provinces to establish marketing boards subservient to federal criteria. Since the plan can be established for a group, a national agency could be established without the unanimous or even majority support of the provinces. Further, this plan could destroy the extraprovincial market or invade the provincial market of a renegade sector of the industry. I think my colleague for Crowfoot emphasized that par-
ticular point. Unorganized or independent sectors would be forced to comply; they could not resist an effective federal supply management plan.
Here it seems that constitutionally the federal government could arrange with a particular province delegations of powers that are clearly detrimental to other provinces, without the consent of those other provinces. Where does this leave the often referred to principles of the Fulton-Favreau formula? I could go on at greater length, but I think I have made my point as to why I have grave doubts about this legislation in its present state.
In conclusion, I would like to refer to the fact that the National Farmers Union, who have often been referred to as leaning too far to the left, are greatly concerned about this bill and its implications. It is also interesting to note that in the April issue of "The Canada Poultryman" my friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), a member of the government benches who has had considerable experience in marketing boards, is quoted as saying:
It was my hope that some positive recognition would be given to the fact that the act is intended to provide a means for proper production planning and marketing of primary products in the first instance and would therefore stipulate a majority of producers should be charged with the responsibility of administering the act by election to the governing council.
The hon. member I have just quoted went on to say in the article that he was also disturbed about clause 13 of the bill. This warning, coming from a member of the government ranks, should indicate that the official opposition is on the right track when we advocate that a very serious look be taken at this questionable piece of legislation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-197 which many had thought would be the Magna Carta for agriculture and for the marketing of agricultural products for which the industry had been waiting for many long, frustrated years. We on this side of the House were concerned at the introduction of the bill at this time when the task force had not brought in firm recommendations. We wonder about the minister proceeding at this point with such a massive proposal, one that affects every facet of Canadian agriculture.
The principle of the bill, which is that of orderly marketing, finds favour on both sides of the House. Only when you read the clauses
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
of the bill do you begin to realize that instead of being the Magna Carta for agriculture the bill will be, if passed in its present form, a sentence of state control over agriculture of a sort seldom, if ever, seen in a free, democratic country. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House feel compelled to rise in our places and give the views of those who will be affected by the provisions of the bill.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The people who will be affected are not just those engaged in farming or in growing the product. They will include everyone who is in any way affected by a farm product from the seed to the sale. It is only necessary to look at the bill very quickly, as some members have done here today, in order to understand the reason we take such strong objection to it. We do not mind some form of supply management or supply marketing. We do not mind having orderly direction given to some of the chaotic marketing practices in this country, but we absolutely oppose the power which the government is delegating to the cabinet. The phrase used in the bill is "the Governor in Council". We all know what that means: it means the cabinet. We absolutely oppose a measure in which the government would be delegating to the cabinet the rights, responsibilities and challenges in respect of agriculture, with no producer participation. That is the fundamental flaw in this bid.
If anyone challenges my comment in respect of cabinet control, all he need do is quickly read some of the clauses in the bill. Clause 3 is the clause setting up the council. It says that there shall be not less than three and not more than nine members appointed by the Governor in Council, as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has said. It goes on to say that those three or nine members may not appoint the chairman or vice-chairman. I shall not quibble about that. The interesting thing is that in subclause (4) of clause 3 it states that if anyone is absent, the cabinet can appoint a substitute to take over. That perhaps is not too important either. Basically, however, it is the cabinet that appoints the council. Then we come to the agencies the council will set up. This is set out in clause 19. Again there is a complete vacuum in respect of the word "producer". In clause 19 it is the Governor in Council that appoints the members of the agency. Again it sets out that the agencies and the chairman shall be appointed by the cabinet and that the vice-chairman shall be appointed by the cabinet.
DEBATES	6723
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
If for any reason a member of an agency cannot attend a meeting, the cabinet can appoint a replacement, I suppose on a temporary basis. I hope at some time the minister will explain subclause (4) of clause 19. This is the subclause which concerns the setting up of this temporarily appointed member. This is the first occasion on which I have seen such a provision in a bill. This could have serious implications, I suppose, if we were to consider an extreme example-and I suppose this bill is extreme. The minister could say to his colleagues, "Let us make sure that some of these people are absent so that we can slip in some substitutes in order to pass the order of the day". I hope the minister will explain the necessity for this clause. Basically, it is the cabinet which appoints the council and the agencies to deal with the farm products. In clause 18 it is also the cabinet which decides what farm product is to be proclaimed.
So the words "participatory democracy" ring very hollow indeed when we consider this bill which affects the bread and butter not only of the farmers of this land but all Canadians who eat the produce of the farm. Producer participation is completely absent here. The minister seems to take great pleasure in saying that there is producer participation. This afternoon at one time in the debate he pointed out in respect of clause 8 that there will be a public hearing and that this is producer participation. Good gracious, there are many ways in which to have public hearings in this country. Many Canadians today are affected by the CPR and CNR rail line abandonments and the CPR and CNR passenger service discontinuance. They have public hearings. I should like to see a member or the minister appear before the Canadian Transport Commission and fight the power and prestige of the CNR or the CPR in an effort to prevent rail line discontinuance or passenger service discontinuance. I do not think they would be very successful, but there is a public hearing.
We had the CRTC public hearings at the Skyline Hotel a couple of weeks ago in respect of that commission's proposals concerning Canadian content. The organized broadcasting industry could present its proposals and alternatives, but the average citizen would have found it pretty difficult to make any real point. There have been hearings in one form or another in respect of the white paper. However, the best test of the laws of efficacy and efficiency as well as con-
May 7, 1970
6724	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill structive proposals in respect of public hearings is the committees system of this House. I dare the minister to stand up some time during this debate and tell us how many committee reports of this House have been implemented by the government, even those which have had the unanimous consent or practically the unanimous consent of all members regardless of party line. But, Mr. Speaker, a committee meeting is in effect a public hearing.
Perhaps by the end of this session, and certainly by the end of this Parliament, the role of committees will have to be defined so that the people who wish to present briefs will finally know whether there is any purpose in appearing before committees, and so that members will know whether or not it is a waste of time to spend hours and hours listening to witnesses, briefs, proposals and recommendations which are then shunted aside by the government. I do not blame the government completely, because there is a fundamental flaw in our system. When you have cabinet responsibility you cannot have committee responsibility. I do not know of a single example so far of a committee recommendation which has superseded a government proposal. It seems to me at first blush that this fundamental flaw in respect of the cabinet and the responsibility which flows therefrom under the parliamentary system should have been faced up to at the time of the stimulation engendered in respect of the just society during the election campaign of 1968. We should start to define the policies which governments should follow.
I digressed, Mr. Speaker, because members of this House are sick to the teeth with public hearings and with having 14 committee meetings meeting on each Tuesday and Thursday. These are great public hearings at which information flows back and forth. But what comes from them? Members become frustrated and depressed about having put in time on these committees. But these are public hearings. The minister this afternoon suggested that perhaps this would be a way in which the producers could participate. Of course they can participate with their tongues and their ears, but can they participate in the decisions? There is not a single comma, clause or anything in this bill that would indicate that the producer is to be given any voice of his own. Of course, the minister may point out that some of the members of the council can be representatives of producer groups. I do not think he will appoint all public service 
or fishermen from Newfoundland to deal with wheat in the west. But that is not producer participation in decisions concerning the producers who have had representative groups participating and mingling with the appointees of the minister.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This thesis makes a sham and a mockery of the word "participation" and the words "producer participation". In fact, clause 8 does not contain one word about producers, and a quick look at the bill tonight-which I read in great detail many days ago before coming into the House-shows that the word "producer" does not appear anywhere in the bill other than in clause 6 (2)(b), which is a most interesting clause. It reads as follows:
In carrying out its duties the council shall (b) have regard to the interests of consumers of farm products-
Then mention is made of those engaged in the marketing of the products and only in the third place are the interests of producers of farm products mentioned. This is the only time that producers are mentioned in this bill. First priority is given to consumers and then to distributors.
How can a bill that is supposed to be the Magna Carta and the new broom to help the marketing of farm products represent fairly and justly the interests of the agricultural industry when in the same clause the interests of consumers and distributors are mentioned? If the bill is to mean anything, this fundamental flaw in clause 6 (2)(b) should be corrected.
It is inevitable, and it is the law of life and an admission of reality, that the consumer wants to get his goods at the cheapest price while the producer wants to sell his goods for the highest price. How is the council in all its wisdom-even though there is not one producer group represented, as set out in the bill in any formal way-to balance off the interests of these two fundamentally opposed groups? I as a consumer want to buy my bread, milk cheese and potatoes for peanuts, if I can. On the other hand, the farmer wants to buy his machinery for peanuts, if he can. Yet in Bill C-197, clause 6 (2Kb), these fundamentally irreconcilable interests are balanced. I do not see how the minister or the council can pretend that anything will come of this in the interests of the producers, if this clause means what it says. Yet this is the only place in the bill where producers are mentioned.
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
This bill, if not amended, will give absolute control to the cabinet over any agricultural product from seed to sale. All of us in this House, even those across the way who think farmers putting the seed in the land will be the only ones affected by this bill, had better take another look at it because it will affect a product from its planting through its growth right down to its distribution and marketing. The control goes so far as to allow the cabinet, without producer participation, to give licences to those who shall participate in the whole operation and grow the produce. If you get the licence to grow the product, you are then faced with a quota limiting how much you can grow and ultimately how much you get for it.
There may be a case in some Socialist or state-controlled societies for giving this type of control to the cabinet or to Parliament. I doubt if there is, but at least in Parliament the people affected have a voice and their viewpoints can be expressed. There can then be a cross-examination on the policies put forward. But if this act goes through unamended, the council, through the cabinet and the cabinet appointees, will have complete control over agricultural products from seed to sale, complete control over beef, hogs or whales-if whales were an agricultural product-with no say being given to elected members and no say being given to the producers who grow the goods.
We on this side are in favour of co-ordination, but we are not in favour of complete cabinet control. We on this side are in favour of direction in agricultural policies, but we are not in favour of a dictatorship over agricultural policies. We on this side are in favour of regulations and of a regulated agricultural industry, but we oppose and will oppose to our last breath regimentation of that industry.
If the government wishes to control farm products tonight, how do we know that tomorrow they will not want to do the same with primary products? Is that the intent of the minister and his government? Will they be moving into lumber now? They are partly into fish marketing, since they require quotas and licences for boats. I could go into that subject at length. Once the government moves into the primary industries it will want to move into the manufacturing industries and establish licences to control who can manufacture what and how much.
That is the thesis and principle behind the bill as presently drafted and proposed by the
DEBATES	6725
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion minister. Once the government moves into the manufacturing industry, what will stop them from controlling the professions and starting to give out licences? They will not let the Bar Society or the Medical Society administer their own groups. There might be good reason for making some changes there, but is the minister supporting this thesis and principle? I know there are some in this House who want such changes. I hope the minister will join his true friends to my left. I for one am absolutely opposed to a bill that gives the cabinet complete control over the agricultural industry and thereby logically suggests an extension of its power.
My time is almost up. I say that if this bill goes through, then the just society will fast become a controlled society. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I asked the following question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen):
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?
The minister, after I asked him whether or not he could make a statement on Motions, said that he would not. It appears to me that the minister did not really consider this problem to be very severe. For that reason I will spend four or five minutes tonight trying to outline some of the reasons why I think the government, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the minister must give this new problem top priority.
First of all, 40 per cent of the unemployed of Canada are under the age of 25. This does not include university students who are coming out of universities now, nor does it include technical school students or even some of the high school students coming out of school in June. Here I am talking about the regular people who are on the labour market all year round. Many are unskilled. Many
6726	COMMONS DEBATES	May 7, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion need new training. They need new outlets to be opened for them. Others have skills but because of the government's policies on inflation they find themselves out of work. Some are even university graduates. For example, teachers in Saskatchewan and in other provinces cannot find work because of the general economic picture throughout the country.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I have only a few minutes tonight, and in order to emphasize the point, Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to try to put you in the shoes of one of these young people who may be unemployed. This man may have a family. He may be married and have two or three children. He may not have a particular skill. For one reason or another he may have dropped out of school in the hope that society would offer him something, that society had a role for him to play. Society does promise young people great things through magazines, newspapers and television. We raise the expectations of young people. We say we are offering them a chance, an alternative in Canada. But when these young people get out in the world, in many instances the door is slammed in their face. As a result, 40 per cent of the unemployed in Canada today are under the age of 25 years.
The whole picture of youth unemployment means many things. First of all it means that there will be more frustration in our young society. There will be an alienation from the government, from the country and the society in which we live. Unemployment places many young people in the vicious circle of poverty. That means many things psychologically and sociologically. It means that many of these young people will drop out of society and into some of the youth cults that we have today in all big cities. It creates unrest and the whole phenomenon of protest.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have some members getting up in this House and asking why is there protest, and why are demonstrations going on in Canada and in the United States? In some of these demonstrations at times there is violence because the young people are frustrated, because they do not know where they are going or what opportunities they have. I do not condone violence; I do not think any of us do. But I try to understand why violence occurs, why these young people are unhappy, why they are looking for something, and what alternatives they want. I think this is very important. I think society, Canada and the government must really con-
[Mr. Nystrom.l
sider why many young people are alienated from society. The fact that 40 per cent of our unemployed are under age 25 is one very good reason why there is a lot of frustration and alienation in the youth community.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when justifying his policies, said that unemployment is just one of the unfortunate consequences of the fight against inflation. Are these young people, who just happen to be unemployed, the unfortunate consequences that the Prime Minister talked about? Are we going to put these young people in positions where they do not have chances and opportunities? I suggest we should not, because if we do we are not only destroying their lives but we are adding new problems to those we already have in our society and in Canada. This is something that is highly unfair. For this reason I think the minister should make a statement on what plans members of the government have to tackle this problem. What retraining are they offering these young people? What general types of plans do they have? It is time we stopped ignoring this problem and stopped treating these young people with contempt.
I know that many people on both sides of this House look at young people in the way that President Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew do. Recently the U.S. Vice-President said that these people causing trouble on campuses are just a bunch of bums. That is one of the reasons why President Nixon's youth adviser resigned today. He said he was resigning because the President does not want to try to understand young people. Let us avoid falling into that trap in Canada. We can avoid this if we reorient our policies and set out priorities for government, and in turn for our whole society.
With that I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary who is answering tonight on behalf of the minister: I ask that he have a real good talk with the minister, who is not here tonight, and try to emphasize the importance of this problem which could become very acute.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member we say that we share his concern for the youth of this country who are unemployed, and I am sure that the minister and the Department of Manpower and Immigration also are deeply concerned with this problem. The problems of today's disadvantaged or unemployed youth are vastly more complex than the mere fact
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
of being without a job. The manpower counsellors in the Canada Manpower centres, who are available to all Canadian youth who wish to seek their help, know that the problems of young people are complex. The dimension of the problems in this sector of the labour force has warranted the establishment of special programs to assist young people entering the labour force.
Over and above the services normally provided to students through counsellors working in Canada Manpower centres at 55 universities or other post-secondary institutions the department also plays an important role in providing consultative services to other government departments and outside agencies, to vocational counsellors in school and in providing labour market information and career information to young people.
The hon. member spoke of the unemployed who are under 25 years of age. I should say that the average age of persons referred to training under the Canada Manpower training program is slightly more than 26 years. By inference, this means that a large number of persons under 25 years of age are in training, preparing themselves to find and hold jobs or undertake better jobs than they had before receiving training. For example, 8| per cent of the approximately 300,000 persons referred to training in 1968-69 were 19 years of age or under. That means about 25,000 teenagers were helped by the Canada Manpower training program. Another 34.7 per cent, or 103,000 trainees, were in the 20 to 24 years of age bracket.
One of the pilot projects undertaken by the department is the youth employment service in Toronto, for which the department provides a counselling capability. Under the YES project, which was undertaken in co-operation with the Toronto Rotary Club, disadvantaged youth are interviewed and counselled to take their place on the labour market. A similar pilot project is under way in Montreal. As the department learns more about these attempts at reaching out to the youth of the country, better organized programs can be considered within the department's resources.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but the Parliamentary Secretary's time has expired. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).
DEBATES	6727
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion NATIONAL DEFENCE-U.S. B-52 FLIGHTS OVER



SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA-COMPLAINTS BY FLYING CLUBS

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on April 21, I asked this question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux):
Has the Department of National Defence requested or put into effect a change in the route or direction of Strategic Air Command B-52 flights over Saskatchewan and Alberta as a result of many protests, particularly those by flying clubs in Saskatchewan and Alberta?
The minister answered with respect to the latter part of the question:
The answer to that question is no, but I understand that the United States authorities have agreed to suspend weekend activities in order to accommodate the flying clubs.
I then directed a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), asking:
Has the Department of Transport given consideration to the representations made by flying clubs in Saskatchewan on this matter?
The Minister of Transport answered:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the matter comes under the direct responsibility of the Minister of National Defence.
In his reply the Minister of Transport was in error. I shall deal with that in a moment, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the announcement of these training flights the Minister of National Defence courteously informed me, along with a number of other members, that these flights were about to commence and that part of the route would be over our constituencies. In explaining some of the details he stated that no weapon would be carried on the aircraft. Dealing with the low-level portion of the route he also said:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The low-level portion of the route is located over sparsely populated areas at an altitude of 1,000 to 2,000 feet above the ground depending on local terrain. The Department of Transport has reviewed the proposed route and agrees with it from the technical and operational view-point. Utilization of the route will be on the continuous basis from April 2, 1970 to September 23, 1970.
Later, in the press release that was issued by the Department of National Defence, the description of the low-level route varied somewhat from that described in the minister's letter. The press release said that the aircraft will enter Canada south of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, at a high altitude and start
May 7, 1970
6728	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
descending north of Prince Albert to a height varying from 800 to 1,000 feet above the ground.
I wrote to the Minister of National Defence protesting these flights. I said:
At this time X wish to make known to you my unhappiness and disagreement with the policy involved in this announcement. I would presume that these arrangements have been made under the auspices ol NORAD. You will be familiar, of course, with the opposition of the New Democratic Party to the present NORAD arrangement. Furthermore, my understanding is that Canada has no control over the disposition of the pilots after they have completed their training. Presumably some of the pilots will be despatched to Viet Nam to take part in the conflict there. I am opposed to any association on the part of Canada in situations which contribute to the continuation or prolongation of the Viet Nam conflict or the participation of the United States in that war.
I believe I should draw to your attention that you can expect very valid complaints from many people that these training flights as indicated on the map supplied to me, will direct planes to fly over the city of Regina which, in my view, is completely unnecessary.
The minister answered in a letter dated March 20, explaining that with respect to aircraft flying at a level of between 800 and 1,000 feet above ground level the perceived noise level of a B-52 overhead is 30 to 40 decibels, with the level increasing to 100 decibels when the aircraft is 60 degrees past the observer. The minister went on to make comparisons, saying that the noise level of a heavy truck at highway speeds is 100 decibels as it passes an observer at a distance of 50 feet. Similar observations are made with respect to jackhammers and other such objects.
Later there was a protest from the Shell-brook-Leask Flying Club about these flights. They said that they interfered with their operations. They noted in the first place that low altitudes are proposed over populated areas and said as follows:
The low-level flying extends from Clarke Lake north to Marcelin-Blaine Lake and proceeds westerly passing just south of North Battleford and then into Alberta. The proposed altitude is calculated to be between 800-1,800 feet above ground level.
This crosses two VFR student-training flight routes between Prince Albert, North Battleford, and Saskatoon for solo cross-country.
This crosses several private landing strips-
This crosses populated areas ... Debden, Mont Nebo, Leask, Marcelin, Blaine lake, Krydor, Haf-ford-
They say that to the best of their knowledge air-to-air communication between military and general aviation aircraft is impossible due to differences in radio frequencies. [Mr. Burton.}
There is an erratic scheduling of sorties and there is interference with their entire summer flying schedule of light aircraft.
I urge the government to take the necessary steps to discontinue these training flights, in the first place because they involve training for military purposes of foreign military personnel over Canadian soil. It is a type of military training that is completely unnecessary, and it takes place over Canadian soil. It also involves us in a further step in terms of our implied involvement in the Viet Nam conflict.
Second, I suggest that the high altitude flights over Regina at between 30,000 and 35,000 feet can interfere with Air Canada and other long-distance flights which overfly the city of Regina. Third, as I have already indicated, they constitute a distinct interference with the operations of light aircraft and the low-level operations of the flying routes which extend from somewhere near the Prince Albert National Park south to near Saskatoon, west to North Battleford, and west-southwest in the province of Alberta before the end of the low-level portion of the route is completed. Thus, I urge the government to reconsider its stand on this matter and see that these flights are discontinued at once.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I find myself at a slight disadvantage because I could not possibly guess from the question asked by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) on April 21 what the exact subject of his complaint would be tonight. I am therefore somewhat ill-prepared to answer the questions he has put. I will be getting in touch with him at a later date to allay some of his fears, particularly his fear that these training flights are in any way connected with the involvement of the United States in Viet Nam: the type of training given, as I understand it, is of a completely different technique.
I can, however, give some reply which may reassure him on one point. To the best of my knowledge the Department of National Defence has received only one complaint from a flying club-this was from the Shell-brook Flying Club in Saskatchewan. As a result of this complaint the Department of Transport issued further and more detailed explanatory instructions on the way in which private pilots' associations could obtain detailed knowledge of flight timings. I am told
May 7, 1970	COMMONS
that an official of the Shellbrook Flying Club expressed satisfaction with these arrangements.
There is a little to add on this subject. I should like to emphasize that these SAC training flights were only approved after arrangements had been worked out with the governments of both Saskatchewan and Alberta. As hon. members know, flying is carried out on Mondays to Fridays. All commercial airlines and private pilots have received notification from the Department of Transport of the training route. I hope this reply is satisfactory. As I say, I shall be in touch with the hon. member later as to points I have not covered in the short time at my disposal.



AGRICULTURE-USE OF 2-4-5T HERBICIDE

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) with regard to the use in agriculture of the chemical 2-4-5T. I did so because the dangers inherent in the use of this chemical are very serious. The minister in his reply said:
It may be 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 food and, indeed, if there should be, the Food and Drug Directorate would withhold that food. In other words, there is a nil tolerance.
I take the expression "nil tolerance" to mean that the human body cannot tolerate any fraction of this particular chemical. The minister was saying that if there should be any residue of this chemical found in food, the Food and Drug Directorate would withhold it because human beings cannot tolerate this particular chemical. DDT has a lifetime residual effect of 15 years; it can persist in natural surroundings such as foliage for that long. Do we intend to wait until the effects of this chemical show up in some of our food and then, because there is a nil tolerance, have that food destroyed as unfit for human consumption? Are we going to wait until we are where we are now, with the fishermen standing unemployed at some of our important lakes and rivers? Are we going to wait around until eventually we find our farmers in the same position? There is an even more disastrous effect. I should like to refer to a CBC news report broadcast on May 5 as follows:
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The United States Department of Agriculture yesterday announced that the herbicide 2-4-5T has been banned for certain uses because of its potential to cause birth defects in humans.
DEBATES	6729
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
According to another news broadcast on the CBC on May 4, when this defoliant was used in Viet Nam, no doubt with scant notice to recommended rates of application, birth abnormalities did appear and this resulted in the banning of the chemical in the U.S. as well as by the military in Viet Nam. Yet we still permit this chemical to be used in certain areas, on lawns and around homes, despite the fact we know it is dangerous. If there was no other chemical that could be used for this purpose, the situation would be bad enough. But in all likelihood other chemicals could be found to do a similar job, and to do it effectively.
Therefore, I fail to see any justification for the continuing use of this chemical. For what moral or logical reason do we permit the chemical to be used, in view of the fact that the Food and Drug Directorate has advised the Department of Agriculture that it is dangerous to human life and health and, perhaps even worse than that, dangerous to unborn children? Think how horrible it would be for a mother who nurses a child that is bom with deformities caused by the use of such a chemical.
In a report by Peter Calami of Southam News Services dealing with experiments on rats, it is stated that use of this chemical made the rats look "doggish". The report states that rats born with malformations looked more like pups than rats. That statement is attributed to Dr. Alec Morrison, deputy directer general of the Food and Drug Directorate. According to the same report, about 43,000 acres in western Canada were sprayed with the herbicide last year, mostly to control hemp nettles in wheat, oats and barley. I suggest that with a minimum of effort the Department of Agriculture could find other chemicals that would do this job. I submit the department should not license chemical companies, which I will not name in my speech because I do not want to single out certain companies, to continue to manufacture and to distribute this very dangerous chemical.
This is the reason I have taken time tonight on the late show. I wanted to bring some of these facts to light in the hope of persuading the Department of Agriculture to take the action they should take to protect human health and well-being in Canada.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as
May 7, 1970
6730	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ray hon. friend, I realize the problem is very serious not only in Canada but in almost all countries of the world. In fact, last fall, at a meeting of the F.A.O. in Rome where 121 countries were represented, it was acknowledged that there is a risk in using herbicides, fungicides and other products discovered by man in his fight against some natural calamities.
Intensive research is now going on and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) will remember that on April 21, the Minister of Agriculture answered him that 2-4-5T and other herbicides and fungicides are presently submitted to extensive research.

Since then, a report has revealed that scientifically speaking, new products have been discovered at the Department of Agriculture, so that it is now possible to help not only Canada but other countries, the United States for instance. Last week, the minister asked for the report. He will probably table it in the House soon and I believe this should allay the fears of the hon. member.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, May 8, 1970