1970-05-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in my statement of March 19 to the House of Commons on the subject of foreign ownership in the Canadian uranium industry, reference was made to the fact that foreign enterprises then engaged in uranium exploration would be given a certain period of time to establish the commercial viability of their properties and thereby qualify for the same ownership controls which will be applicable for present producers.
The detailed regulations required to implement the policy statement are now being drafted and will be promulgated at the earliest possible date following consultation with interested parties. However, in view of the scheduling of exploration programs during 1970 and the not unnatural concern expressed by exploration companies over the uncertainties raised by the policy statement, I wish to take this opportunity to give further elaboration on the policy as it will apply to exploration activity.
First of all, a company shall be deemed to have been actively engaged in uranium exploration on March 2, 1970 if it held, prior to that date, valid provincial or territorial authority to mineral rights or an undivided interest therein and, in addition, can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Atomic Energy Control Board that it was engaged in a uranium exploration program on the property to which the mineral rights apply.
Having established this fact, the companies involved will then have six years-until March 2, 1976-to submit documentation to the Control Board which will prove to the satisfaction of the board that they have a commercially viable deposit or deposits of uranium ore on the mineral rights under
exploration on March 2, 1970. In recognition of the presently depressed uranium market and the four to five years needed to place a mine in operation, the government will not require actual production or the existence of a sales contract within the six-year period.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Companies which can meet these two criteria will, for the purposes of foreign ownership regulations, be treated in the same manner as that applicable to present producers. Present foreign owners of such companies will be permitted to retain holdings existing on March 2, 1970 but any sales of such holdings must be to Canadian residents until the total foreign ownership is reduced to 33 per cent. At that point sales between non-residents will be permitted but in such a way that the 33 per cent aggregate foreign ownership level is not exceeded and that no greater than 10 per cent of the ownership of the property is held by one foreign investor or group of associated foreign investors. It will be noted that inherent in this statement is the fact that the government has decided not to differentiate between companies with less or greater than 50 per cent non-resident holdings on March 2, 1970. This would apply, of course, to present producers and the exploration companies qualifying as a result of this statement.
Finally, I would like to note that the regulations we are now preparing will stipulate that persons carrying on exploration programs by way of joint venture agreements and holding thereunder undivided interests will be allowed to proceed subject to the same criteria on ownership of such interests as are applicable to share ownership.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the statement we have heard today is another example of the government jumping in, making hasty public statements as to its intentions, and then leaving the industry and mining groups in a state of confusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Harvey Aiken: This is the second pre-regulation statement we have been given on the subject of the ownership of the uranium
6568	COMMONS
Foreign Ownership of Canadian Uranium industry. The first was made in a hasty manner as was perhaps necessary at the time-surrounding circumstances were such as to encourage it. But development and exploration in Canada were likely to be depressed. Today the minister is saying: we intend to make regulations very soon but we are still trying to figure them out; we are going to make another statement to try to clear up some of the things that are in doubt.
I welcome the fact that there is some assurance in the statement on the question of ownership so that exploration and development may continue. Nevertheless, I say this is an unnecessary and careless way of dealing with legislation and regulations which affect major industries. When the regulations are made, then the people concerned will know exactly what is required-and when they are written out in detail their effect may be totally different than now appears. In any case, while being extremely critical about the procedure the government has used in jumping from one situation to another, trying to clear up one mistake and perhaps making another, I welcome the fact that some vague light has been cast on what the government intends to do.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, no one who is concerned about the question of foreign ownership in Canada and, particularly, foreign ownership of an industry like uranium will get any consolation from the statement just made by the minister.
My party, which is particularly concerned about foreign ownership of Canada's economy, says to the minister that his statement contains nothing which guarrantees that the situation in the uranium industry will be changed. The statement makes clear that foreign-owned companies will continue to own the companies they presently own; there is to be no attempt to change this situation until and unless they seek to sell their interests or any part thereof. So a foreign-owned company which is now engaged in exploration for uranium can continue to own its property forever as far as these regulations are concerned without any change at all. This means there is no guarantee with respect to Canadian ownership of the uranium industry. As a matter of fact, recent reports have indicated that Gulf Oil is sitting on a very large uranimum deposit, and that other foreign-owned companies are carrying on exploration.
When the Denison matter first blew up, the Prime Minister made the statement outside

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
the House that the reason the sale of Denison to Hudson Bay had to be stopped was that Canadian ownership in the uranium industry would otherwise be reduced to about 10 per cent. I venture to suggest that this will happen anyway under the policy the government is pursuing, and that as Gulf Oil, Rio Algom and some Japanese interests continue their uranium exploration and exploitation, the proportion of the industry in Canada owned by Canadians will continually decrease and eventually almost disappear.
I emphasize that there is absolutely nothing in the statement to guarantee any extension of Canadian ownership and control of the uranium industry. All the statement guarantees is that if foreign-owned companies in six years from now attempt to sell any part of their interests, they must sell it to Canadians and cannot sell it to another foreign interest. I submit that that is no guarantee at all, that it merely emphasizes the fact that this government is wedded to a continentalist policy and is essentially unconcerned about foreign control of our economy, even in such an industry as the uranium industry.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we Creditistes deplore the fact that the minister who has spoken today as well as his colleagues have for a while omitted to send us ahead of time French copies of the statements made in the House. And moreover today we have received nothing whatever from the minister.
We well understand from his statement and from the comments by other members of the opposition that he had nothing to announce. This is so true that he has submitted no document whatever in this case.
Mr. Speaker, we would ask you in future to see that the ministers pay attention to us as they used to and that they submit their statements in French some time ahead so that we may review them.



WHEAT-COMMUNIQUE FOLLOWING MEETING OF EXPORTING COUNTRIES

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House to return to motions?
May 5, 1S70	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the ministerial meeting concerning wheat has concluded and I should like to bring to the attention of the House the communique which was issued:
1.	Ministers and senior officials representing the five major wheat exporters, Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EEC and the United States, met in Ottawa on May 4 and 5 to discuss problems in the international wheat market, particularly those brought about by surplus production. The meeting reviewed the current market situation and noted that supplies available in the major exporting countries will be surplus to the anticipated requirements for the 1970-71 crop year, and that a solution to the problem of over-production was necessary if a healthy and stable international wheat market were to be achieved in the interest of both consumers and producers. Ministers noted that in some countries it is difficult to consider the wheat situation in isolation from the livestock feed market.
2.	Ministers recognized that the major exporters had a common responsibility to regulate their production in a manner which will bring supplies into balance with opportunities in the international wheat market. Ministers considered that importing countries, particularly developed countries, also had responsibilities in this regard and they agreed to use every opportunity to encourage these countries to accept disciplines in their own production policies in the interest of expanding the international wheat market.
3.	Ministers took note of the major contributions made by Canada to resolving the oversupply problem by the withdrawal of very substantial acreage from production in 1970. It was also noted that the United States had, for a number of years, operated a program of wheat acreage reduction, that Australia had recently established quotas substantially reducing wheat deliveries and that in Argentina production had declined in recent years due to climatic factors. The ministers further noted that the EEC had under consideration proposals aimed at a different price relationship between wheat and coarse grains and also at a substantial reduction of land and manpower in agriculture over the next few years.
4.	Ministers noted that the urgent need to bring production into a better relationship with demand. They agreed that governments would have to keep production policies under continuing review so that timely and appropriate measures could be taken in the interest of achieving a healthy international market for wheat.
5.	Ministers noted that different techniques were used by different wheat producing countries to maintain producer incomes. Ministers agreed that governments should exercise care in implementing new or existing programs of income support to avoid measures which could have the effect of stimulating uneconomic production.
6.	Finally, ministers agreed that their governments would keep under continuing review the
DEBATES	6569
Wheat-Communique Following Meeting production policies of both exporters and importers and to this end they agreed to consult closely and anticipated meeting again in about six months.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, although we are pleased that the wheat exporting countries have finally been able to get together to discuss the problem of surplus production we note from the communique that no firm commitments have been made by other countries to follow the same course upon which Canada has embarked in drastically reducing wheat acreage. We would have hoped that the Canadian ministers and their officials would press upon the other nations the necessity of a multilateral agreement so that no one country would have to carry the load itself. We are sorry the minister did not take this occasion to assure the House and the country that these things will be done and that Canada can hope to resume the production necessary to maintain a viable farm economy.
While at the meeting the exporters agreed there should be no uneconomic production, the fact is that we see this happening every day of the week in other countries. I need only point out to the minister the arrangements under which the European Economic Community subsidizes the export of grain from France and other countries within the community to the detriment of countries like Canada where there is no such assistance. I believe this is the only country on the face of the earth where the farmers are expected to meet competition without any assistance from the government. It seems to me we are placing our farmers in an untenable position by agreeing that there be some sort of supply-management system that will only apply to ourselves and will leave the exporting countries of Europe and other areas pretty well on their own to make whatever arrangements they like.
I am disappointed that the communique could not have been such as to give some hope to our farmers that in the future Canada will be able to export in a market that is not heavily subsidized by the governments of other exporting countries.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it would have been a better day if there had been better news. The communique simply says that the result of the discussions is that the other exporting nations have not agreed to go along with substantial acreage reductions. Of course this was probably not a great surprise to the minister since he has available to him the advice and knowledge of
6570	COMMONS
Wheat-Communique Following Meeting people in his department who can tell him what the attitude of the other producing nations is.
With the European Economic Community doing as it did last year, when it spent $600 million to support its wheat farmers and dispose of the 770 million bushels they produced, it is scarcely likely that it would change its mind at a nod from Canada. If the Economic Community was ready to spend that kind of money last year then certainly it is prepared to stay in the wheat market. The other exporters have stated their position, as mentioned by the minister in his statement, and we in Canada will bear the brunt of the major reduction which is being undertaken in this country. The minister knows very well that if he were to go to Saskatchewan at present he would find that province in a state of economic shock resulting from the slowdown in earnings and income.
No invitation was issued to the U.S.S.R. which, next to China, is certainly the major wheat producing nation in the world. The importers were not present, and it would scarcely be likely that the small group that was called together could agree on a policy which would direct the wheat production of the world. What we are really talking about here is the total production in the world. It is indeed too optimistic to expect that Canada as one nation can affect the total wheat production for the benefit of the farmers on the prairies, and will prove to be a risky venture for Canada.
By way of offering some advice to the minister, I point out that what we should strive to do is to reconvene a meeting of those countries responsible for the International Grains Arrangement and get back to a real international wheat agreement in which all countries participate and which will bring some order into the market. Partial approaches such as are being taken within Canada and by calling together a very few of the nations involved to seek agreement to a major reduction are doomed to failure from the start.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to be unkind. I must say, however, that I was not at all pleased a moment ago to think that I had to comment on the minister's statement when I had received the English version only upon entering the House and when the French version has just now been given to me. I understand that, on occasion, an oversight may occur, and that
[Mr. Gleave.i
DEBATES	May 5, 1970
is excusable. But when a party spokesman must comment on a minister's statement, I believe he should be given a copy of the settlement at least a few minutes before he rises to speak.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the same question keeps cropping up on the agenda and that the problems of the farmers have become the nightmares of governments. It is a fact that the dairy industry is a nightmare for the government. Governments are also faced with a nightmare when it comes to wheat production. If such nightmares resulted from inefficiency, unemployment or the laziness of the farmers, it could be said that there is a very serious problem created by their apathy. However, since it is a problem of distributing the fruit of the labour of farmers of eastern or western Canada, it must be recognized that there is a surplus of production over consumption. Efforts are made to try to find some way to balance production and demand so as to achieve the proper ratio between exports and imports.
It has been often reported in newspapers that in several countries in the world, many people are hungry and subject to nightmares precisely because they are unable to till the land to make it produce the food they need.
We should therefore endeavor to diversify our production so as not to be stuck with too great a surplus. However, as we all live on the same planet, we should try to produce according to the needs of human beings. Indeed, we must always tend to produce to meet the needs, and not to help dealers make more and more money.
It is only fair to make a profit when reselling any merchandise, but the main objective of trade within a well organized community which is concerned about establishing a just society is to ensure that each and everyone has enough to meet his essential needs. It matters little whether others have more, but it is imperative that all be guaranteed the basic necessities.
Mr. Speaker, such are the observations I wanted to make at this stage. Since the Standing Committee on Agriculture happens to be studying a problem related to grains, I hope that as their work progresses they will realize that, even in Canada, it would be possible in a good many regions to use more products from eastern Canada, which would enable us to absorb part of the wheat production through trade.
May 5, 1970	COMMONS



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising from the reported statement of the Secretary General of the United Nations today that an international conference to cope with the old war in South Viet Nam and the new war in Cambodia is an indispensable step of the utmost urgency. Is it the policy of the government to support this initiative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, or does the policy of the government of Canada remain the statement that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made on Friday last expressing a very considerable degree of scepticism about the utility of an international conference on this subject?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador in New York has seen the Secretary General of the United Nations on the minister's instructions, as reported by the minister. They did discuss the general question of Viet Nam and of Cambodia in particular.
I am not aware of the substance of the decisions taken by the Secretary General. I do not know if the quotation by the Leader of the Opposition is a complete summary of his proposals. I, of course, would have to study them to see whether they are the kind of initiatives that we will go along with completely or in part.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a complete summary. I assumed that since the government has an ambassador at the United Nations it would be fully informed even if I were not, but since the Prime Minister has not been informed by the ambassador as to details with regard to this proposal there is obviously no point in pursuing the inquiry at this moment.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
DEBATES	6571
Inquiries of the Ministry Development. Is it his intention to continue to employ Mr. Wuttunee of Saskatchewan as an Indian to try to sell the federal Indian policy to the native people despite the fact that Mr. Wuttunee has been disowned by the band chiefs and Councillors of ten reserves in the Battleford area?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in reply, I should like to say to the hon. member that Mr. Wuttunee has been hired for a period of three days, because he is a lawyer and we intended to ask him his opinion on some particular points connected with the review of the Indian Act. Perhaps Mr. Wuttunee is one of the very many Indians who support the government policy and, if his services are required in the future, we will hire him again. Anyway, we hired him only for three days, in the past, and it is not true to say that his name is on the public service payroll. In any event, for the time being, we do not foresee when we will hire him again.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that Mr. Wuttunee is seeking to set up another Indian organization and, if so, is his department giving Mr. Wuttunee any support in that undertaking?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Wuttunee, like Mr. Frank Calder, the Indian NDP member in the British Columbia Parliament, supports the policy of the government in this regard. I cannot prevent him from informing the Indians about that in order to convince them that we are choosing the right way.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question because the minister did not answer the one I put to him.


An hon. Member:: This is the answer.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is an answer but not to my question.
I asked the minister whether his department supported, financially or otherwise, Mr. Wuttunee's efforts with a view to developing a new organization.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Indian associations are formed by the Indians themselves. We recognize those based on the resolutions
6572	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry of their bands. The same policy applies to any Indian association which exists or which might be created in Canada.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Can he say whether it is correct that M. Wuttunee was hired to advise the government on means of having the Indian people accept the government's policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, according to my information, Mr. Wuttunee has been hired by my department in order to give legal advice on the new legislation which we would like to introduce and which will be entitled "Indian Lands Act" since he may be one of the best qualified persons to advise the department, in view of the fact that he is an Indian himself and a very good lawyer.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to report on what sort of legal advice he was seeking from Mr. Wuttunee pertaining to this white paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for rather detailed information.
I would not think the question is in order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister stated in an interview on the French network over the weekend-and I quote his words from the transcript: "the government has rejected wage and price controls because such a policy would be unfair to workers who have been waiting five years for a raise" applying that specifically to those who work for minimum wages in industries which come under federal jurisdiction, has the government now decided to raise the wages of these workers in the very near future inasmuch as the cost of living has risen by 20 per cent since the last raise five years ago and they have been living 20 per cent below the poverty level-

DEBATES	May 5. 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now making a speech. Is he coming to the question?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I fooled you that time because I have already asked my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member fooled me, too, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question a little more plainly to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he said it is unfair to workers who have been waiting five years for a raise, and as those who work for minimum wages in industries that come under federal jurisdiction-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have not yet recognized the question. Perhaps I am again in error.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. Is the government planning in the immediate future to increase the wages of those who work for minimum wages in industries under federal jurisdiction, as it is five years since they have had a raise and the cost of living has gone up 20 per cent in the meantime?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a question now. I did recognize it this time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we want the
answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy in this respect will be announced in due course.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As that is the sort of answer I have been getting every time I have asked this question during the past two years, does the Prime Minister not realize how completely phony his answer makes his so-called just society? When is he going to stop being the joker of the just society and do something honest for the people of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
May 5, 1970



AIR CANADA


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I know I have greater hope of obtaining an answer to a question directed to the Minister of Transport than to one directed to the Prime Minister. Have the administrative employees of Air Canada, which 1 regard as one of the finest, if not the finest, air service in the world, received any communication to the effect that some 3,000 of them are having their records reviewed, that there will be a phasing out of that number and that in reappointments to fill some of the vacancies youth rather than length of service and experience will be the prime consideration, as recommended by the McKinsey report?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather complicated question. I will do my best to answer it and I hope to give some additional information later. There is some reorganization going on within Air Canada. As I have said on earlier occasions, I have not received the details of it because it is a corporate matter, but I will make some inquiries for the right hon. gentleman. I am sure that my views to Air Canada will be that people with long service ought to be given more consideration than in the circumstances referred to by the right hon. member. But I doubt very much if what he has outlined is really the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my information comes from the employees, and they are the ones who are particularly affected. Regardless of whether a United States company comes to Canada and tells us how to run Air Canada, do we have the minister's assurance that regardless of what the McKinsey recommendations are those who have served well and honourably will not be discriminated against even if they are over 55 years old?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am getting close enough to 55 myself that I have a particular concern for that age group. I will see what I can do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would remove his blinkers and look in the direction of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AUTHORITY FOR PROHIBITING EXPLORATION IN STRAIT OF GEORGIA

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that a British Columbia cabinet minister has challenged the authority of the federal Minister of Fisheries to prohibit oil exploration in Georgia Strait in British Columbia and has alleged that there is no statutory authority from the House of Commons, can the minister assure the House that he is determined to continue the closure? Also, will he give information as to what authority he was acting under in issuing the closure order?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisier of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it has always been a requirement under the Fisheries Act that the use of explosives in water requires a prior permit. All outstanding permits have been cancelled and therefore it is not possible to continue seismic work in the Strait of Georgia area. That is the ruling to which the hon. member refers.



REVIEW OF DRILLING PERMITS OFF EAST COAST

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it the government's intention to review the oil drilling permits that have been issued to companies to drill for oil off the east coast of Canada, especially in light of the amendments to the Fisheries Act now before the House?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the question of permits for seismographic work and for further exploration and drilling comes under the aegis of my department. The officials of the department are highly expert in determining what is safe and ecologically sound, and permits have been issued on that basis and will continue to be issued on that basis subject to the strictest interpretation of the rules and to the work being done being supervised by the officials of my department.
6574	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the permits which have already been issued be reviewed in light of amendments now proposed to the Fisheries Act to prevent pollution, and also the Canada Water Bill now before the House?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Canada Water Bill goes, there are no clauses or regulations in the bill which affect the question of offshore drilling. That comes under other statutory authority, and so it would have no effect. The new Fisheries Act of course envisages no specific controls over drilling. I do not believe it will do so specifically, but certainly the Minister of Fisheries under the act does have specific authority which from time to time he may see fit to exercise. But that does not involve our department's review of its total policy in respect of the issue of offshore licences.



POLLUTION


Mr. Paul Si. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he inform the House of the results of testing for mercury pollution in Howe Sound? What species have been affected and when does the minister expect the fishery to reopen there?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the results are mixed. Salmon and herring are all right so far as mercury is concerned, but some of the local stocks of shellfish contain pretty high levels of mercury. Therefore, the upper end of Howe Sound will remain closed for commercial fishing for these species.



LOCATION OF SOURCES OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether his department or any other department is undertaking a crash program to locate and clean up the mercury pollution sources across the nation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had several meetings with both the pulp and paper industry and with that segment of the chemical industry using mercury in the production of soda ash and chlorine specifically, with that aim in view.

DEBATES	May 5, 1970



AIR CANADA


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport that is related to an earlier question. Do the changes which are going on at present in the reorganization of Air Canada include the removal of the Mari-times regional office of Air Canada from Halifax to Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in conversation by phone with officials of Air Canada. I have asked them to send me a detailed report of the reorganization. I have also talked to my colleague the President of the Privy Council with a view to having the Air Canada report referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at the earliest possible time. At that stage these questions can all be answered by people more competent to do so than I. This will be done as soon as the report on the reorganization is received from Air Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: Are we going to lose it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If hot air were music, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend would be a brass band. I was about to say that I will be prepared to provide him with a full report on the reorganization as soon as it is received.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon.
member resume his seat? I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. We have to get on to another subject. I notice quite a few members are anxious to ask questions. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East asked the same specific question the other day and received a general answer. The specific question has not been answered. Does the minister mean that the decision of Air Canada, which surely the minister must have discussed when he referred this matter to Air Canada, is to obliterate the eastern regional office in favour of centralization somewhere else?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I asked Air Canada. They replied that
May 5, 1970

there is a complex reorganization under way. It is not something that can be answered within the framework of a normal verbal answer in the House. I have said I will make the report available to the House when it is received.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL VICEPRESIDENTS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the biggest trumpeter on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has the floor.


Donald MacInnis: I ask the minister if the reorganization within Air Canada makes it necessary for Air Canada to appoint 22 vice-presidents where 6 have heretofore served?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
answer that. The annual report will be referred and the hon. member will have an opportunity before the committee to ask all the questions he wishes.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated to hon. members a moment ago that a number of supplementaries have been asked on the subject of Air Canada. Other hon. members should be given a chance to ask questions on other subjects. If we have time I certainly will not fail to return to the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because of answers provided in this House by the Minister of Transport in respect of Air Canada. A number of questions, including the one regarding the transfer of the regional office, have been asked of this same minister. I have asked questions with respect to an agreement worked out between Eastern Provincial Airways and Air Canada. It is in the written record that the minister informed me he knew nothing of this arrangement; yet the minister and other members of the House were aware that at that time Eastern Provincial Airways was wining and dining Members of Parliament in Ottawa. The minister knew about that and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: -his answer to me at that time was a downright lie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that he cannot accuse another member, whether or not he is a minister, of telling a lie in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member used words which went beyond his thoughts and I ask his co-operation in this regard.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I can turn to precedents which show that a Prime Minister lied in the House. I have no intention of withdrawing something I can prove by the written record.


Some hon. Members:: Throw him out!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has to withdraw. I again ask the co-operation of the hon. member. He cannot accuse another member of lying.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I may not be able to accuse him so for the moment I will say that I withdraw that particular statement. But I will take the first opportunity to put his contradictions on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. I say this sincerely.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I assure Your Honour it is on a different topic. With reference to the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which the minister stated he intends to propose to the House, can he say whether the terms of the bill will parallel the terms of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill to the extent of providing a pollution control area extending 100 miles seaward on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the drafting of this measure is not completed. I think I can assure the hon. member this will not be part of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.
6576	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House when he expects the drafting of this legislation to be completed and the bill introduced for first reading? Will it be ready in time to look at it while we are still dealing with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That may be impossible, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the outcome of the debate on the Arctic pollution bill may have an effect on the actual drafting of the Canada Shipping Act amendments. However, if there is no likelihood of that happening as that particular debate proceeds, I believe we could have the first reading within two weeks.



MANITOBA-SPECIAL WHEAT QUOTAS FOR FARMERS WITH FLOODED STORAGE FACILITIES

Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Portage):: In
order to save grain that has not yet been damaged, has the minister's department made a decision to grant special quotas to farmers in Manitoba whose storage bins for grain have been flooded?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a report from the Canadian Wheat Board on this subject. I thank the hon. member for bringing it to my attention. I will certainly discuss with the Wheat Board the possibility of moving in this direction.



MANITOBA-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THOSE AFFECTED

George Robson Muir: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the very extensive damage to homes, businesses and other property caused by the serious flooding in Carman and other areas of southern Manitoba, is the Prime Minister giving consideration to providing assistance to those affected in order to relieve the heavy financial losses incurred in what has been described as the worst flooding in the history of that area?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is reiterating. Possibly I did not understand the question. I have the impression the hon. member's question is the same as the one asked previously. In any event, perhaps the Prime Minister might reply to the question.

DEBATES	May 5, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can merely state that we are awaiting an assessment and appraisal of the damages. If the situation is similar to those in the past where we have helped provincial governments meet the cost of these damages, we will of course be prepared to do so at this time. I cannot answer specifically until I know the extent and nature of the damage.



WHEAT-SUPPLY OF REQUIRED GRADES FOR SHIPMENT TO CHINA

['Order. The hon. member can obtain this information in many ways, one of which is by putting the question on the Order Paper. Orders of the day.']
Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of reports that ships have been delayed on the west coast waiting for wheat to be transported under the contract with China because the required grades and kinds of grain are not available, although there was ample room, can the minister tell the House if the situation has been corrected?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the situation arose when a very large ship presented itself for those grades several weeks ahead of schedule. With the block system in effect the situation can and is being rectified very quickly.



Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to direct a very important question to the Minister of Agriculture before the oral question period expires.
In view of the widespread discontent of industrial milk producers and in view of the present demonstrations in Quebec, mainly in my own constituency, at Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere, in protest against the government dairy policy, would the minister consider amending or recommending that amendments be made to the dairy policy announced on March 23 so as to adapt it more closely to the needs of dairy producers in order that they be more satisfied and their income less penalized?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: We intend to hold further discussions with
May 5, 1970
officials of the government of Quebec as well as with representatives of the dairy industry there in the hope of getting a better understanding of the reasons for the changes which were made and seeing that the financial burdens of the surpluses are shared more equitably among those who have produced them.


REPORTED IMPORTATION OF NEW ZEALAND MILK-FORM OF PRODUCT
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the milk which is reportedly being flown into Canada from New Zealand entering this country in fluid form or in reconstituted form?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall have to take note of that question and look into it.


DAIRY POLICY-MEETINGS BETWEEN FEDERAL OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF MILK PRODUCERS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether, since the new dairy policy has been announced, formal meetings have taken place between leading officials of his department, representatives of the Canadian Dairy Commission, members of the milk producers' unions and of the CFU of the province of Quebec concerning the problems created in Quebec by this policy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure there have been any formal meetings since April 1 when the amendments to the policy went into effect, but certainly prior to that date there were many meetings and the policy which is now in effect was discussed on several occasions.


DAIRY POLICY-MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND QUEBEC EASTERN TOWNSHIPS MILK PRODUCERS
André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, which follows the one I put earlier to the Minister of Agriculture.
After the huge demonstration that 3,000 people held in Sherbrooke on Friday, April 17, the Eastern Townships' dairy producers decided unanimously to invite the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister to come and explain the dairy policy to them. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has received such an invitation and, if so, did he answer it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I received an invitation, but I will inquire. If I did, I shall give it serious consideration.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he proposes to make any statement in the near future with regard to speculative opinion that the upward limit on the Canadian dollar in relation to the United States dollar might be increased?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: am very pleased at the strength of the Canadian dollar. However, I should like to remove any speculative opinion with regard to the government considering revaluation of the Canadian dollar.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to address a question to the Postmaster General, whose return to our midst brings joy unbounded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Can he advise the House whether the mail is moving normally or, should I say, with reasonable expedition, today in Vancouver, Montreal and Quebec City? Further, can he tell us how many drivers have been hired in Montreal and, of this group, how many are former employees of G. Lapalme?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: We shall be hiring approximately 250 drivers in Montreal to carry out all the work which was formerly performed by 457. So far we have hired about 210; there are about another 40 openings in Montreal. Mail is moving satisfactorily in Montreal at the present time. Yesterday we were able to lift the embargo on

May 5, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry parcels. The effect of lifting that embargo will not, of course, be felt for another two or three days.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he assure the House that adequate numbers of our armed forces are specially trained in the controlling of protest groups so that no incidents of the kind which occurred at Kent University, Ohio, yesterday could take place here in the event that our troops were called upon to render aid to the civil power in Canada?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I believe the procedures which regulate the use of troops in Canada are extremely strict. It is manifest, of course, that the troops are always under the authority of the civil power. But we must make sure that in any instance the regular officers would also represent the ultimate authority for the troops.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: In view of the anxiety in the petroleum and mining industries may I direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following his statement today I should like to ask the minister whether the rules and regulations which were outlined today in relation to the uranium industry will apply in any way to persons or corporations engaged in the development of the petroleum and mining industries in this country apart from uranium.


John James Greene: There have been no restrictions as to ownership, foreign or otherwise, in any phase of the mining or oil industries except as to uranium. However, as I think has been announced by the government, there is a review in process with respect to foreign ownership of Canadian industry in general. To date, though, it should be quite clear there are no rules which in any way inhibit ownership or limit the possibility of foreign ownership in any area except uranium. The announcement today referred to uranium. Our previous announcements

referred only to uranium, and the regulations which are to be prepared for discussion with the industry and the provinces apply only to uranium.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Since many of these corporations engaged in petroleum production and other mining activities are inter-related and have interests in uranium as well as in other minerals and petroleum, will these regulations and rules announced today apply to such corporations as I have mentioned and to the ownership by them of uranium as well as other minerals and petroleum?


John James Greene: They will apply to those corporations in respect of that aspect of their work which concerns uranium but not in any way with respect to their work on oil or petroleum or other substances. And, of course, today's announcement indicated that in connection with properties on which they are already working, or were working as of March 2, they will be treated in the same way as existing mining companies and thus their rights will be preserved over those properties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are just three or four minutes left; perhaps we might continue with this subject tomorrow.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the government protested to Czechoslovakia the severe travel restrictions imposed by that country and in particular the prohibitive airline ticket tax recently announced just as Air Canada's schedule is being developed into Prague?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No formal protest has been
lodged yet but we are looking into it and we shall take whatever decision is necessary or possible within the next couple of days.


URANIUM
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that a
May 5, 1970

number of small Canadian mining firms engaged in exploration for uranium are presently experiencing serious financial difficulties as a result of recent statements affecting that industry, does the government have any plans to remedy this situation by offering special incentives to Canadian-owned mining firms or adapting other measures?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how any government announcement could have had any harmful effect on the exploration or mining activities of Canadian firms. The whole purpose, of course, of the initiative taken by the government in this area is to maintain a high degree of uranium ownership in Canadian hands or Canadian corporate hands.


Norman Augustine Cafik: A supplementary question.


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


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Ontario is rising on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: My point of order results from the answer given to my question by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I raise the question now because the answer given may have implied that I did not know what I was talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the implication is that Canadian firms in the mining industry are not in any way affected by this particular ruling or these statements. I feel that many Canadian firms, not only in that field but in others, often borrow amounts of capital from the United States and are thus affected-


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


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Saturday and Sunday last, the new members of the provincial wing of the Ralliement cre-
Inquiries of the Ministry ditiste and all the candidates at the election of April 29 met in Quebec City. Naturally, the CBC did not refer to the event. Last night, following a meeting of Mr. Rene Levesque's separatists, there he was on the CBC network. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether the government is about to take a decision about that corporation which costs $191 million not only to Mr. Rene Levesque but also to all Canadian taxpayers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the facts are as stated by the hon. member-and I have no reason to doubt that-I feel that this is a rather shocking situation. I will get in touch with the Secretary of State, so that he may ask the CBC for a report on its activities. Then the House of Commons will be able to decide what should be done about it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister please inform the House whether the airport at Namao, Alberta, is being phased out and sold to the government of Alberta so as to allow the province to build a proposed university on the same site?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question should be placed on the Order Paper, or debated at the time of adjournment if the hon. member wants the matter given precedence.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, all that is required is a yes or no answer.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Further to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby as to whether or not Canada had made official representation to United States authorities with regard to U.S. involvement in Cambodia, and the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that
$580	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry representatives of the United States government were in the gallery, could I ask the Prime Minister whether or not this is the Canadian government's method of conveying information to governments of other nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Leroy Skoberg: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw is rising on a point of order.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, this is not a facetious question. I suggest that it is disgusting, degrading and revolting to have an answer given by a minister that suggests that Canada should make official representation simply by quoting something said in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's point of order very much resembles the one raised by the hon. member for Ontario.
I would not think it is acceptable as a point of order; rather, it is a point for debate.


John Leroy Skoberg: Then, I rise on a question of privilege. As an elected member of the House of Commons and a representative of Canadians, I suggest I should know whether or not the government of the day is making official representations to other nations of the world through the House of Commons or through other forms of communication that are available. I have received inquiries about this, and as a member of the House it is my privilege to seek an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can obtain this information in many ways, one of which is by putting the question on the Order Paper. Orders of the day.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beauharnois on a question of privilege.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I have placed on the order paper a question bearing No. 1,811. I feel that the text does not correspond to the one I gave the officials responsible for preparing the order paper. Therefore, I conclude that my French version

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
was translated into English for the English order paper, then retranslated into French for the French order paper, or else my text was interpreted and I am not prepared to accept that. I wish to draw this error to the attention of the Chair and of the House, and I hope this will not happen again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair shall look into the matter raised by the hon. member.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-163, to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lundrigan (p. 4726).
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a few remarks to the House in relation to Bill C-163, by which the government intends to establish a Standards Council of Canada as outlined in the bill.
First of all, I should like to make a few remarks about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). At the outset, may I say I think it is a very good amendment in that it has given the trade and the people interested in this legislation the opportunity to study the bill, to look into its ramifications and the very great powers that are incorporated in the bill.
The question of a Standards Council of Canada first came to my attention in this House in December 1968. At that time the House was debating a supply motion and the minister was introducing his departmental estimates. Included in his estimates was an item amounting to $80,000 for the purpose of establishing a Standards Council of Canada. I put forth the argument that the minister should not be asking for $80,000 for this purpose until he had outlined to the members the reasons for asking for this amount. Finally, the minister agreed-and I thank him for this-to my suggestion that he first bring in the legislation, tell the House what it was all about, and that if we approved the legislation
May 5, 1970	COMMONS
and all that it embraced the House would then consider allotting him this money to set up the council.
Then, the matter seemed to be dropped until December 1 when the House gave the bill first reading. Since then it has been discussed on two or three occasions. In the interval since the introduction of the bill many industries, manufacturers and other people interested in it have raised many objections to this type of legislation. No later than today there arrived on my desk a copy of a letter from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I think all members of this House respect very highly this organization. The chairman of the executive, Mr. Donald N. Byers, sent to me a copy of a letter which he wrote to the minister. In this letter he said some very important things:
Our Executive Council thinks that the Federal Government will merely create duplication of effort and spend unnecessarily, if it forms a new corporation. There is also the distinct possibility of creating confusion regarding standards to be observed by Canadian industry.
Why would any government want to introduce in this House legislation as confusing as this is, knowing full well that industry, represented by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, does not wish this legislation? The letter continues:
The danger of confusion for industry lies in the fact that the Standards Council will make use of existing organizations which will continue to maintain their own freedom in determining priorities and policies in writing standards: and yet in item 2 Clause E of the Bill, the proposed Standards Council will review new standards and revisions of existing standards and approve those standards as national standards where appropriate. Therefore, whose standards does industry follow-the Canadian Standards Association or the Standards Council of Canada?
Industry is confused, perplexed and frustrated. Why would we want to proceed with this type of legislation or even send it to the committee for further study?


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, may I make a very simple observation? The Canadian Standards Council-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether the minister can make an observation. He can ask a question at this time but no more.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
member aware of the fact that under the legislation now before the House the Canadian Standards Council will not be writing standards.
DEBATES	6581
Standards Council of Canada


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will not be writing what?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Standards.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Well then, I cannot understand why the executive council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce would ask whether they are to follow the standards of the Canadian Standards Association or of the Standards Council of Canada. This is what the Chamber of Commerce asks.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Neither can I.


Alfred Dryden Hales: This brings me to the second point involving why we need this Standards Council now in this period of government austerity. Why should we set up another bureaucracy or empire that will build and build, as has been the case in respect of the Department of Industry. Members of this House know all about that. Yet here we are embarking upon another program which I believe the minister said would cost in the neighbourhood of $190,000 just to launch. We can be sure it will grow like Topsy and become another empire which is not needed at this time. I made it my business to ask a few people what they thought about this proposed legislation. I should like to read a few brief sentences from some of the letters I have received. The author of one letter apparently has been in discussion with some manufacturers in the province of Quebec. This letter raises a rather important point about which I had not thought. It reads:
In discussion of this point with representatives of the province of Quebec, they have indicated that while they are prepared to continue to co-operate with the Canadian Standards Association-
That is the present independent one.
-they would not be willing to continue this arrangement if many of the activities of the Canadian Standards Association were taken over by a Federally dominated Standards Council of Canada.
I had not thought about this, but apparently this gentleman has been advised that the Quebec manufacturers are not too happy about joining in this sort of an arrangement. Here is another letter, which reads:
We feel that a standards branch is indeed another Government control over our operation. A great percentage of our administration time is now spent for Government requirements which indeed have benefits for our country and its people but still affects overhead.
That is from a manufacturer of textile products in my area. The letter continues:
We are not convinced that Government intervention will raise production standards.
May 5, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: think the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan) in presenting his amendment provided a very valuable and useful service because his amendment to give the bill a six months hoist has served to focus the attention of the country on the legislation perhaps in a very dramatic way. Certainly if the hon. member had not moved his amendment, the bill could have gone through all stages in the House without receiving the attention which, in my view, it so justly deserves.
I want to endorse, and indeed to reiterate, the sentiments of my colleague who has just taken his seat because I, too, am a little confused as to the reason the government brought in this legislation at this time. Perhaps the minister, in his usual affable and friendly manner, will enlighten us as to exactly what the thinking and strategy is behind his legislation. Certainly, he would be the last minister in the government whom we would expect to espouse the "Big Brother" theory of government which, in my view, this bill represents. This bill suggests that only the government is capable of providing an adequate system of standards in the country. That is the inference I take from the bill and that is indeed the only conclusion to which we can come for introducing the bill in the first instance. We have in this country, and have had for a number of years, the Canadian Standards Association. This body has been providing this service and, I think, even the minister would be prepared to concede it has carried out a very successful and useful function. It has been carrying out this function in a peculiarly Canadian way, without domination by government but with its participation. Indeed, there has been participation by industry and by all levels of government.
The Canadian Standards Association is a non-profit organization that has no shareholders. It enjoys the privileges of a federal charter. It has more than 3,000 members, comprised of government, industry and consumer groups. The standards are drafted by committees which only arrive at a consensus after long and careful study, and it is generally
DEBATES	6583
Standards Council of Canada agreed by all across the country that the CSA has more than fulfilled its purpose.
So, we come back to the question: why does the government find it necessary to interfere at this time? What will be the position of the provinces and the municipalities which up to this point have participated in, and have formed a useful part of, the Canadian Standards Association if the government has its way and if it successfully gets Bill C-163 through Parliament? Has there been agreement with the provinces and municipalities? Have these governments indicated their dissatisfaction with the present arrangement? This may be true.
This is an area in which the minister hopefully will take the House into his confidence and enlighten us, because certainly we want to know why this legislation is necessary. Does the minister feel that this type of government action is necessary to prepare ourselves for Britain's ultimate entry into the Common Market and to deal with the governmental standards organizations of Europe? Perhaps that might be the reason. If so, I think it can be usefully argued that the Canadian Standards Association can, for purposes of our dealings with the Common Market countries or other countries in the world, function in the same way as a government body because, as I said, up to this date the government of Canada has participated fully in this organization.
e (3:40 p.m.)
The minister said the following in his press
release:
The Council would be based on the principle of co-operation between all interested groups-manufacturers, commercial interests, service industries, government, consumers. It would speak for all Canadians. The Council will be independent of government in its policies and operation but it will be accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds.
That is government jargon. It is just the government's way of saying, "We are going to control the standards of this country and this is our way of doing so." I ask, has it been necessary? Have there been complaints from the groups mentioned in the press release which make it necessary for the government to take this action? If there have been, then I suggest the minister certainly has a responsibility to tell us, because all of the reasons outlined in the minister's press release of March 12, 1970 can be cited in support of the argument that the government should withdraw this legislation and continue to co-operate with the Canadian Standards Association.
May 5, 1970

Standards Council of Canada
I hope that when he closes this debate the minister will tell us precisely what has influenced his thinking because we have been inundated with briefs, letters and verbal representations from all across the country expressing concern at the government's interference in this legitimate Canadian enterprise.
I And it difficult to quarrel with the many concerns that have been expressed. As the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) just indicated, I too find it difficult to understand why it should be necessary for us to undertake this added financial burden during a period of austerity, why it should be necessary to add to the already substantial bureaucratic machine that has been built up since the government took power.
The Canadian Standards Association is a useful Canadian enterprise, formed in a uniquely Canadian way, and fulfilling a very useful function in our society. The minister would be well advised to take a long, hard look at this before he decides to interfere in this legitimate Canadian enterprise.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate for a short period of time. I do not wish to reiterate the points that have been made by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), but that is not to say that they are not extremely important. I believe that the minister and the government should be interested in acting in such a manner as to accommodate the valid objections and desires of industry, and of others who are interested in the subject matter of Bill C-163. After all, the establishment of standards, both of measurement, of quality and of other things, is an extremely important matter in trade and industry. Up to now, it has been done on a voluntary basis. I have no very strong objection to the establishment of an official board if it also has new duties to perform, provided that the voluntary organizations that have been doing this work are reasonably accommodated.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I hope that when he closes this debate the minister will have something to say to indicate that the government is not rigid in its position, that it will consider sympathetically the valid and conscientious suggestions put forward whether by other parties in the committee, by industry, and by those specially concerned with this question. If the minister sees fit to do that, I am sure it will expedite this debate, and also greatly expedite consideration of the bill and its passage through the committee. If

the minister indicates this kind of constructive attitude he will be doing Canadian industry and Canadian consumers a service. I am not suggesting that the minister is digging in his heels, but to dig in his heels on some particular principle I think would not be in the interests of Canadians generally.
One of the duties of the proposed council will be, and I quote, to:
-review the need for and make recommendations with respect to the use of, or conversion to, the international system of units, known as the metric system, in Canadian industry, trade and commerce.
Although this idea is expressed in but a small sentence, it will be one of the most important duties of the new council if the bill is passed. We in Canada are in a very special position with regard to the usage of, and conversion to, the metric system. Most of the world has already converted to the metric system. Its advantages are obvious, but the conversion should be a carefully considered procedure. I believe that the conversion should be done gradually, perhaps in certain segments at a time. There may indeed be segments in which the metric system need not be introduced at all.
On the other hand, there are parts of our industry and commerce in which the metric system has already been introduced. The pharmaceutical industry is one. For years the metric system has been used in science, and in some other fields. But we in Canada are in a peculiarly difficult situation. We belong to the English speaking world which uses the English system of weights and measures in most cases, or some modification of it. I believe that Britain herself and Australia are in the first stages of conversion to the metric system. However, in Canada we are next door neighbours to the great United States, a country which is still using the foot-pound system, and either we will have to act in concert with the United States in the change-over, or at least act in a way which will disturb our trade relations with the United States as little as possible while at the same time making us more competitive in other world markets where the metric system is already in use.
The more one thinks about the many complications of the change-over the more one is impressed with the vast number of fields of activity in which it would be an advantage to use the metric system, and the longer we delay the transfer the more difficult it will become. For example, the problem of converting building products to the metric system
May 5, 1970

may be a horrendous one because all our building has been geared to the English standard of measurement. The products of building material factories, saw mills and like industries, the thicknesses of metals and specifications for steel, will have to be considered. These measurements will have to be converted carefully to metric measurements, and in many cases the process will be slow.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The field in which the metric system will bring tremendous and enormous advantages is the field of education. But more important than that, the metric system of measurements will prove superior to any other system used for the housewife who is purchasing anything in the market place. It will be much easier to make comparisons between different sizes of containers and so on. You do not have to be a first class mental mathematician to figure out whether it is better to buy two small items, or one large item for a given price. Comparisons will be easily made and this will be of tremendous advantage. Introducing this system will also enable the number of different sizes of tins used for canned foods and like products to be reduced. That will produce economies in the processing industry as well as in other industries making these containers.
In the field of engineering, it is vitally important for measurements to conform to a uniform standard. Pipes, nuts and bolts, the number of threads to a unit of length on a screw, and so on must all conform to one standard. At present the specifications for items like these, produced here are different from the specifications pertaining to those items produced in countries adhering to the metric system. This has created complications, especially in the export and import of items like automobiles that require special wrenches and tools. Sometimes when an automobile has been made in a country adhering to the metric system you find that the standard nuts and bolts made over here will not quite fit it. The universal introduction of the metric system in the field of engineering will simplify international trade to a great degree. I look forward with pleasure to the day when modern countries, especially advanced countries like Canada, United States and Great Britain, will utilize the metric system, thus facilitating the exchange of trade in many ways, especially in those matters involving engineering, building materials, structural steel and that sort of thing.

Standards Council of Canada
However, I think we should proceed with great caution to make sure that a minimum of friction is created as we change from the present system to the metric system. The process should be long and gradual, but should be persisted in until it is finally accomplished. The speed of changeover should not be such as would produce great dislocations for trade and industry. Of course, there are many segments of our commerce in which it would not be advisable ever to introduce the metric system. The metric system was not applied to the measurements of time in France, because it was not feasible to do so. I think practically all countries in the world now use the double 12-hour system.
There are other segments of society in which this system may never be applied. One that comes to my mind is that involving land and land measurements. Although I do not pretend to be an authority in this field, I see little need for changing our whole grid of surveys of farmland so that it conforms to the metric system, because nothing useful would come out of that. The farmers of Canada have enough difficulties already without having to struggle with decimal points in trying to figure how many hectares equal a section.
In summing up, may I say that the duty which it is contemplated will rest on the council to be set up will be most important. The duty to do these things, although not its most important duty, will be very important. If it acts wisely, with persistence on the one hand and patience on the other, I think it will have an opportunity to do a great service to Canada and to create a climate which will facilitate the trade and commerce of the country. I take special pleasure in the government's proceeding along this particular line because I myself have had a private member's bill, as have other hon. members, on the Order Paper for some years on the subject of Canada's proceeding with the consideration at least of the process by which it might change over to the metric system.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: 

G587 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
The Standards Council of Canada can also give assistance to such fine and able people as those associated with the CSA. This is my interpretation of the bill. That is why I am somewhat disturbed about the apparent impasse that seems to exist in the relations between the government and the CSA. I have heard that the initial meetings were most amicable. The objectives seem to be identical. However, for some reason this relationship has fallen apart. As I mentioned, I have immense respect for the people of CSA and the organization itself, as well as the work they have done. I also have immense respect for our Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister in charge of that department is highly regarded on both sides of this House and across the country. The officials of that department are examples of how a first rate government department can operate.
When I return to the business community, for visits only I am afraid, and I am able to talk to the businessmen about something other than the white paper on tax reform, it gives me a great degree of satisfaction to hear about their dealings with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is virtually praise all the way. I do not hear the same praise for all government departments; some departments do have problems. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a first rate record of working co-operatively with the business people.
As Canadians we must have high standards. We set high personal standards for ourselves, although we do not always live up to them. Sometimes we are pretty self-righteous. Consumers are demanding these standards. As far as my experience is concerned, the CSA never really got down to the consumer level, the housewife level. At a time when we are trying to develop even further as a trading nation, it is most important that people know that Canadian standards are good standards, ones on which they can depend. The Standards Council of Canada seal, if there is to be such a seal, must mean as much outside of Canada as the CSA seal of approval means within Canada. There are countries which have reputations for good standards and good products and other countries which do not.
I think that the Standards Council of Canada can help raise the standards. I do not think they can do this alone. They will require the help of the voluntary groups, the men of good will who know their business. This Council will assist private initiative in
Standards Council of Canada this country; rather than opposing, it will assist, co-ordinate and initiate. The Council will offer leadership, guidance and the financing which is very important.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) regarding the metric system. This is an ideal example of how standards can be used to great effect. It is a joy to deal with European businessmen. When sitting around a table of drawings and blueprints, although you are not able to converse in the same language, everything is much simpler because you are working in the metric system. Just moving decimal points around is really great. I think the metric system has many possibilities with respect to engineering, and the hon. member for Malpeque mentioned the construction industry.
The metric system is very useful in systems building. I had occasion a year or so ago to meet with some people from England who were engaged in the systems building business. They are now functioning in Canada in co-operation with a Canadian company. As a matter of interest, they got into this field by building the first Mulberry Harbours for the Normandy landing in World War II. Also, they built 70 per cent of the council housing in London. They have always used the metric system. To convert to the inch-pound system for the American and Canadian markets has been a horrendous experience. The metric system is much simpler.
If we really want to do something for our youth, why not adopt the simple metric system? Of course, we cannot switch over quickly. This is an immense task. Continuous studies of the metric system are being conducted by the Congress of the United States. Even the studies by the Ford Motor Company are immense. It may be an exaggeration, but it has been said that the time spent on a child's education could be cut by 40 percent if he were taught the simple metric system. Trying to figure out pounds, shillings and pence as opposed to dollars and cents is perhaps the simplest example. It would also be interesting if we could work out the time and dates in the metric system. I thought of this not when thinking about the metric system but when thinking about how complicated our system of times and dates is. If we could only get in on to something like the metric system it would result in simplification, but this would involve altering the solar system and I
6588	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada do not think even this government could do that. While we think we have God on our side, I think he is still in control.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I must say I had a notice of motion on the subject of the metric system suggesting that we should at least, as a government, offer leadership by printing all our requests, our purchase orders, our standards and so on in the traditional system with the metric equivalent in parenthesis alongside so that we might slowly get used to comparing the two. It is a matter of comparison. When we say $2.50 and an Englishman says three pounds, two shillings and twopence; he knows what he means without figuring anything out. It is a familiarity which one develops. If we could start developing this kind of familiarity at the earliest possible stage, the transformation would be simple; it would be cheap and we could get along with it. We might even get to be a bi-measurement people as well as a bicultural and bi-lingual people.
There is another area. I do not say it has been overlooked but it is one which I have not heard discussed this afternoon. It concerns the importance of our relationships with the ISO. and other international standards bodies.
I am sure it has not been overlooked. I think, probably, I was absent when it was discussed.
I think this function of the SCC. will be of prime importance. Referring to my earlier remarks about a shrinking world, and how we are doing business in all parts of the world, I think it is terribly important that we should have close working relationships. I have been impressed with the Europeans in this respect. There is one firm in particular I can think of which deals with polyvinylchloride pipe. This is a very small facet of the whole economy but it is terribly important; it may sound highly technical to you, Mr. Speaker, but it is bread and butter to me. In any event, everybody who is involved in this field of work knows everybody else engaged in it personally; they know what they are talking about, they know what the standards are, and the standards are being continually upgraded because Jim Pepper in London knows Herr Schmidt in Switzerland, and Schmidt has developed a darned good system. They upgrade the standard all along. The British have their own, the French have their own and the Americans have their own and each one works a little differently.
I do not think there is any standard to fall into here. But we have to develop one which

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
suits our particular needs and I think the co-ordination of our efforts is important. It is not only the CSA. I sat endlessly on Canadian government specification board meetings, again in the private sector working closely with government, to develop standards applicable to government and useful to government. This was work which government could not possibly have done on its own. I am going back 15 or 20 years, when I come to think of it. We were travelling to Ottawa and sitting in meetings at the National Research Council for hours and hours on end, day after day, stretching over months and months with no compensation, to help develop a government standard that we knew a little about and a few other people knew a little about. We pooled our knowledge to develop a good standard. There was nothing in it for us. Ultimately we got an opportunity to quote on some government business. My experience in quoting on government business is this: quoting on it is O.K., it is when you get it that you are in trouble.
An hon. Member:: Who is going to pay for
it?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I hope the private sector will still contribute in this way and that the standards council will be the co-ordinating body.
I cannot help thinking of the National Building Code. I do not know quite where it will fit in. It seems that one of our failures in this field has been our failure to get the municipalities to accept the National Building Code in its entirety, because there are variations. There is not the co-operation which is necessary and the building code applies in too few important areas.
I believe that since the institution of these hearings the CSA has tried to expand its facilities and broaden its entire approach. I think this is fine. This is possibly what the intent is. If this is what the SCC does, it will be great. It saves the government from getting into something else. A fine organization that is working well can broaden its scope with the encouragement of the government. But I think it has been limited. I think the work of the CSA has been broad and productive, but I think there have been areas which have been missed. I think we shall make certain that there are fewer of these gaps in the future because we shall have a co-ordinating group.
As I understand it, this is not to be a huge group or a terribly expensive group. As a
May 5, 1970

matter of fact, the meetings which the government and the CSA call for in the initial stages imply a very small co-ordinating group. I do not say it will be the Canada Council of Standards, but just as one would not have the Canada Council go out and put on a piccolo concert I do not think you will find the Standards Council of Canada doing the job of the private sector and the voluntary agencies unless it should become absolutely essential, in which case it has a basic responsibility. The work cannot be left altogether to the market place. We are deluding ourselves if we think we live in a completely free economy. I should not say "free". We live in a free society, I suggest. I meant a completely free market.
There are many factors at work, particularly internationally, which are affecting us, all with their good intentions and all with their own viewpoint. None of us is without a bias or without a viewpoint. This is perfectly legitimate. But I think the people from the private sector who are objecting to these proposals are afraid of something which I do not think stands a chance of happening. I am a member of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and of other groups including the Society of the Plastic Industry, all of which, I believe, are concerned. These are the very people who will be involved. They will not only be doing the work themselves but they will be reaping the benefits themselves, as will all Canadians. I agree we must be terribly careful that we do not reach down and spoil the good job that these people are doing Nevertheless, I think there really is a need for a co-ordinating body. I think someone called it a super council. I do not like that word; it sounds like a commissar of standards and I do not think we function that way in this country.
The problem about some of these criticisms is that we speak as though we were not Canadians. You know, we have always had a system, our Parliamentary system, under which with a Prime Minister and a majority government we could have the worst dictatorship in the world. Yet somehow we have not.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, not yet. I think Canadians will fight this at all costs. We just would not allow it to happen. If there were even the slightest hint of that from the front benches- and there is no indication of it-the people on
Standards Council of Canada the back benches would not stand for it because I think basically we are a free and democratic society, so this will not happen. With all the checks and balances the other systems have, I do not think any have any more responsibility than we have. Maybe there are some which have what might be considered a degree more efficiency but I would not trade that efficiency for the choice I have, and in any case I very much question that efficiency as well.
This reflects itself in the quality of life. I think I was saying in the debate yesterday that we have the second highest standard of living in the world. Some people say it is the third highest because Sweden has a technically higher standard of living. I respect the Swedes. They are a great people and Sweden is a magnificent country. But I do not think I would change our standard of living for theirs, nor would I change our standard of living for that of the country which is supposed to have the world's highest standard of living. These are not things that make a country great. The thing that makes us great is that we are Canadians, and we make ourselves great in our own special way, not any better than other people but just in our own way.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have digressed into an area of philosophy that perhaps I should not get into when talking on the subject of standards, but the standards we are talking of are Canadian standards. This is Canadian legislation and we will respond to it and co-operate with it as Canadians. This means we will not be extreme unless some of our friends get into the matter too deeply, though I do not think this is likely.
In view of the affection with which the minister responsible for the bill is held in this House, I think that the terms of reference here will be eminently fair. I look forward to a great role for industry, for business and for the consumer as a result of a first class job done by the private agencies in this country, co-ordinated with, and inspired and assisted by, the Standards Council of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to express my gratitude to some hon. members who have participated in this discussion, namely, the hon. members for Gan-der-Twillingate, Wellington, St. John's East
6590	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada and Champlain (Messrs. Lundrigan, Hales, McGrath and Matte) who have remained in the House to hear the replies to some of the questions they have asked.
May I also thank the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) for his kind words about me and the officials of the department it is my privilege to head. The reading of his comments on the ability and merits of my staff will make us feel that we should get for our offices a new frame in which to keep today's Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East has asked me to throw more light on the matter. That reminds me of the vicar who, in the presence of his bishop, had preached in a particularly aggressive and loud manner. After his sermon, he leaves the pulpit and, when passing in front of his bishop, he says to him: I thundered at them, didn't I, Your Excellency? The bishop, not very much impressed with the content of the sermon, immediately replied: A little more enlightening would have been better. It may be the difficulty encountered by those who, like me, do not thunder at people, namely that they do not attract enough attention when they enlighten. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer the questions that were put to me.
It will not be possible for me to do everything today, but I refer my hon. friends to my speech of March 12 where 1 foresaw many of the questions they put to me then and again today.
In the first part of that speech, I analyzed the very concept of standards: What are standards? Why do we need them? How are they set up? And, what purpose do they serve? I think we have there a small code that every young man should know about standards.
He will find there especially the distinction between voluntary and compulsory standards. The member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) seemed sorry that we are not today going to pass a bill to set up compulsory standards in every field. I feel there is room, in an industrialized society, for these two categories of standards, compulsory and voluntary ones.
But the most important part of the preamble to my speech of March 12 is that where I try to define the characteristics or essential qualities a national standards organization should have. I said, first of all, that it should be representative. The national organization

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
must absolutely be representative of all the parties interested, directly or indirectly, in the adoption of standards.
In my opinion, this body should not only be impartial but also appear to be so. I remember when I quoted the well known example of Caesar's wife who had not only to be chaste but also to seem so in the eyes of the world. The same is true when we speak in terms of a national standards organization.
This organization should also command the respect of all, it should be dynamic and it should be aware of national, domestic and international policies. In spite of all my admiration for the Canadian Standards Association, and though I would be the first to acknowledge the valuable services it has piovided to Canada, I do not think that right now, it meets the criteria I have indicated, and this is the view of the Association itself, not just mine. I have here, for instance, a press release from the Canadian Standards Association dated March 3 which reads:

The Canadian Standards Association today announced a nine-point plan to expand and strengthen its role as Canada's national standards organization. The changes range through improved communication-
That is, communication with their own members.
-to establishment of a consumer council, and give high priority to international standards work and technical aid to Canadian exporters.
Gordon B. Tebo, CSA managing director, said the planned expansion is a direct result of recent reorganization.

If I wanted to show off, I could also suggest that these important changes-which, incidently, I do welcome-are-

I might add this has been the direct result of the introduction of the Canadian Standards bill in this House.


Mr. Lundrigan:: That is not a fair statement, as you know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think it is a fair statement. I am glad to see that the CSA is improving itself, but I cannot promise to bring in a bill every year to make sure that the CSA is the totally dynamic body it should be at all times.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is a very unfair statement.
May 5, 1970


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not an unfair statement. I am sorry, I am moving into English. I could give a list of 50 sectors in industry within which the CSA has not been fully operative or operative at all.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are not perfect either.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is exactly my point. But the way hon. members opposite speak of the CSA, it is as if they are speaking about God or the Bible. The CSA is only one of the standards organizations in Canada; there are many others. The CSA is the most important one and has done wonderful things, but there are many other things it has not done.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) asked me what was the philosophy behind this legislation, and the philosophy is simply that. We observe that we have a number of standards-making organizations in Canada; we observe that there are some areas unstandardized; we observe that there is no really national standard policy-making organization. There is no one to decide, for example, in which area a greater effort is needed. This is exactly the reason we have brought the bill into the House.
I think this procedure is quite rational and has been done in other areas of activity. For example, we have a Canada Science Council. I suggest it is quite desirable and normal to have a Canadian Standards Council that is representative of all interests, of consumers, of all levels of government, of all types of groups concerned with standards. Each of these will be represented so that a truly national policy on standards will be evolved. It will be the focus for the forum, the umbrella, under which all those concerned with this sphere of Canadian activity will meet. I think this is a most desirable objective.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister accept a question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister not agree that the Canadian Standards Association has done a very commendable job in the past on a national basis? Is there any reason that organization should not be allowed to continue in this way?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already said that I have great admiration for the Association and certainly it will be allowed to continue. At the same time I also said that in my estimation- 22213-711
Standards Council of Canada and I hope it will also be in the estimation of most members of this House-this organization has not satisfied fully the criteria which I believe should be met by an organization representing the total Canadian interest in matters of standardization. I do not think it has.
I have received letters from many people, Mr. Speaker, and I, like the hon. member, will read some of my correspondence in a few minutes.


Alfred Dryden Hales: That is the only point on which we differ.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think so.

I would like now to come back to the French language Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member's reaction was very interesting. It is quite typical I think. The official opposition usually adopts the "Why change" attitude. It is going to cost more, they say. Why create something new when there are already well established organizations which apparently are quite satisfactory?
On the other hand, the NDP's attitude is exactly the opposite. If the new Standards Council is not-


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would get around to reacting to the fundamental questions raised by hon. members rather than again philosophizing on how he agrees or disagrees with various members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not get the question if there was one.


An hon. Member:: There was no question. [Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was precisely talking about those two attitudes. One, conservative if I may say so, wishing to keep what we already have regardless of its numerous imperfections and the other, from the New Democratic Party, which consists in abolishing what we already have in the hope of getting the ideal thing.
So, as a good Liberal, I suggest a compromise between both extremes. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Champlain seemed also in favour of a Standards Council of Canada while using the Canadian
6592	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada Standards Association's services. It is exactly what we are trying to do in the bill I have the honour of presenting now.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt some people in the Canadian Standards Association have made great efforts to create concern or fear about the proposed Standards Council of Canada, despite the bill and the minister's endeavours to reassure them.
The Canadian Standards Association sent SOS messages to several groups of individuals, companies or associations in Canada and, at its request, people wrote us. In most cases,
I simply replied by sending them a copy of Hansard for March 12, in which are recorded the speech by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and mine.
Quite often, and particularly on this matter, the correspondence of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) might not be up to date. Representatives from some associations showed fear following the intervention of the CSA, but others wrote back to tell us that they were quite satisfied with the replies obtained.
I have before me quite a number of such letters. I cannot read them all, but some of them may serve as illustrations.
0English]
This is a letter from the Canadian Gas Association of Canada which, as you know, is an important standards-making association. It reads:
After reviewing your statements, it is difficult to understand why we have been literally bombarded with statements and briefs requesting our support in bringing about the delay or dissolution of Bill C-163.
It continues:
Since this step would probably have to be taken ultimately to ensure uniformity of standards-writ-ing in Canada for the benefit of industry and consumer alike, you and your staff are to be commended for your foresight in vigorously pursuing this change and for giving the Standards Council of Canada an opportunity to become organized into a smooth-flowing agency in the event Canada becomes involved in long-range and complicated measurement conversions.
I could read the whole letter. There are two more pages, and it becomes more and more eloquent as it goes along.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
do you.


Jean-Luc Pepin: So do I? I have quite a few more letters. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg something, who is a favourite of

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
the weaker sex, would like to know what the National Council of Women of Canada has to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I did not say they were weaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I don't think so either. This is a letter from the National Council of Women of Canada. The letter reads:
We wish to assure you of our support when you introduce Bill C-163 and of our interest as we follow the readings through to Royal Assent.
They got the message. I cannot say so much for some members on the other side of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope the minister is more conciliatory when he sells wheat.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian Wheat Board does that. Here is another letter from the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating. This was written to one of my officials, and it reads;
Please assure Mr. Pepin that this Institute is most anxious to co-operate wherever public interest is concerned. Many of our people are well versed in the subject of standards and we would be pleased to assist the council in determining the need for and the definition of individual standards.
I could give you copies of these letters. They are most eloquent. I am the first to recognize that we also have opposition. Some people have been more influenced by the SOS's, they received from the Canadian Standards Association than by reading the bill. In some instances, I wonder if they have read the bill or read it well. However, most of those who had doubts and who have received the information we provided have been reassured.
A number of specific questions have been asked today which I shall try to answer very rapidly. One has to do with the powers of the proposed Standards Council of Canada. May I repeat and emphasize that the Standards Council will foster, promote and co-ordinate. It will not usurp-which was the word used by my friend from Gander-Twillingate-take over or supersede. The Standards Council of Canada will not duplicate the activities of existing organizations. It will not write standards of its own. But I believe it is fair and desirable in the public interest that the Standards Council of Canada have the power to act if this should be necessary. If there should be a recognized need for standards in some areas, and if none of the existing stan-
May 5, 1970

dards organizations move, I think it is in the national interest that the Standards Council of Canada should have the power to create an organization that will do so or to ask an existing organization to do what is needed. I believe this is in the national interest. After all this is our responsibility in this House. We are not here to do what the Canadian Standards Association believes is right.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We are here to decide, with all the facts before us, what is in the interests of Canada. As Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I am not here to defend the interests of industry; I am here to defend the interests of the people of Canada, and I think it is high time that all of us here concentrated on this particular matter. I add that the Standards Council will not operate inspection or testing laboratories; it will not invade the revenue sources of the Canadian Standards Association or those of other organizations.
The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) is particularly concerned about the finances of the Council as he has to live up to his reputation in these matters. I might say to him that the Standards Council's expenses will be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament, so that it will not encroach on the revenues of the Canadian Standards Association or of other organizations. The Canadian Standards Association has its own money which is derived from the services they render to industry. In addition the funds voted by Parliament for its own operation, the Standards Council will have funds to assist the CSA and other standards organizations. When the Standards Council of Canada becomes fully operational in two or three years' time, the annual expenses of the Council and of its staff are expected to be about $400,000. It is also expected that grants to assist the other standards organizations will be determined by the Council on the basis of need. However, it is expected that initially upwards of $200,000 will be required for this purpose annually.
The point was raised that in this time of austerity this was too expensive an item. I believe the hon. member for Wellington, whose intelligence can only be compared to his responsibility regarding public funds, should bear in mind that possibly millions of dollars are not being earned, are in fact being lost, because of deficiencies in our standards operations. I think this should be taken into account at this time.

Standards Council of Canada


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister permit a question at this point? Could he advise the House on what budget the Canadian Standards Association operates?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think it is about $4 million to $5 million, but, if my memory serves me correctly, most of this is derived from revenues for services, the very direct services it renders to industry, for example, in the form of testing and inspecting. As the hon. member knows, the federal government provides $51,000 to help the CSA fulfil its international responsibilities. Of course, this will be part of the $200,000 which I already mentioned.
It has been mentioned that the staff of the Council would be very numerous. The Council will be responsible for determining what it needs to do and in the light of appropriations by Parliament and the size of the staff it will require to do it. At the time that the government and the Canadian Standards Association steering committee met, it was estimated that a staff of 13 professional people and 11 support people would be required. Since the Council will not engage in standards writing, testing and inspection activities, it will not need to hire or steal away personnel from CSA or from any other standards organization.
I should like to comment on many other points but my time is almost exhausted. One subject which was raised very often in the House has to do with a comparison between what the bill we are introducing now proposes to establish and what exists in France, Great Britain, the United States or elsewhere in the world. I have a series of comparisons before me now and the conclusion is simply that we have created something sui generis. In some ways it is like the British Council and in other ways it is unlike it. In some aspects it is like the French standards organization and in other aspects it is not. What is wrong with that? We are creating something that is typically Canadian, and personally I am all in favour of that. I understand that some Americans disagree with the way it is done in the United States, and this would only confirm that we should do our own thing.
There is one more point I would like to mention, especially in the light of what the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) said regarding the importance of conversion to the metric system. I am very concerned about the delays that this bill is encountering in the House because it was our intention,
May 5, 1970

Standards Council of Canada and still is, to give to the Council paramount responsibility in the private sector for encouraging preparations for changes over to the metric system so as to achieve optimum benefits at a minimum cost. Specifically, it would be the Standards Council which would initiate studies, planning, consultations and be the ultimate organization for a co-ordinated approach to the conversion which would need to be capable of flexible adjustment to the evolving situation in Canada and abroad. In this instance we need somebody quite au fait, quite well informed.
There is no doubt, as the hon. member for Malpeque intimated, that the speed of the conversion will vary from one industry to another. In some individual sectors the conversion has already taken place; in other sectors it cannot take place until the conversion is carried out in the United States. So we need somebody quite well informed on all these facts to direct the effort that we want to see made in carrying out the conversion to the metric system.

Mr. Speaker, having all my life advocated flexibility, compromise and co-operation, I am willing today to set an example and prove that I do what I preach.
Since the beginning of this debate, and particularly during the recent sittings of the house which were devoted to it, many conversations, as I already mentioned, have taken place between my officials and representatives of the C.S.A. and the C.E.M.A. -the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers' Association-provincial	governments and
other agencies of all kinds.
Mr. Speaker, I myself took part in some of those meetings. Other similar meetings are contemplated, one I think for tomorrow, between the officials of my department and the representatives of the Canadian Standards Association.
It seems, Mr. Speaker, that interested people have arrived at a consensus. I should say rather that there is at this time a consensus regarding the establishment of that council. There does not seem to be any more objections to the establishment of the council itself.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As I said earlier, many who had reservations were comforted and reassured, since in any case they were in full agreement from the beginning.
But we still face difficulties about the definition of the powers of the Council to be

and the choice of words which for some are too dynamic, too "active". They would want more "passive" words.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to do the necessary efforts to reconcile all grammar and vocabulary experts on this matter. I think that we should now refer the bill to the committee in order to seek, like men of good will, some compromise.
I wish to make it clear, because I do not want to be charged with having given wrong impressions, that I am not at all desirous to change the substance of this bill. I want very much, however, to please the parties concerned about the formulas defining, for example, the relationship between the Council and the standards organizations.
In any case, the Canadian Standards Association is now ready to appear before the committee-at least according to my information-to submit a brief and discuss changes it would like to see made in the legislation.
As for me, I fully agree with that. Besides, I think that this bill should have been referred to the committee a long time ago.

I hope that at this time the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) will stand up and accept my very cordial invitation-


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister's cordiality is a little late.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -to withdraw his amendment and allow the bill to go to committee.


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


John Howard Lundrigan: I was about to reply to the minister's suggestion that I withdraw the amendment. That was the intention of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, previously, but having listened to the minister I am now more convinced than ever that there is a need for the amendment and that the sections of the bill granting certain of the powers need to be redrafted. I also wish to say that it is my impression the minister has misrepresented the views of the opposition, who agreed in principle with the bill but not with the extent of the powers provided by it. That is the reason for our amendment.
May 5, 1970

Division
The House divided on the amendment (Mr.	Legault	ReidLundrigan) which	was negatived on the fol-	Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard	Richard Richardsonlowing division:	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	RobertsLewis	RobinsonYEAS	Lind	RochonLoiselle	RondeauMessrs:	Macdonald (Rosedale)	RowlandMacEachen	Roy (Timmins)Aiken	McGrath	MacGuigan	Roy (Laval)Alexander	McIntosh	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	SaltsmanAlkenbrack	McKinley	(Vancouver-Kingsway)	SharpAsselin	Marshall	Mackasey	SkobergBell	Mazankowski	McBride	SmerchanskiBigg	Monteith	McNulty	Smith (Northumberland-Coates	Moore	Mahoney	Miramichi)Crouse	Muir (Lisgar)	Major	Smith (Saint-Jean)Danforth	Nesbitt	Marceau	StaffordDinsdale	Noble	Marchand (Langelier)	Stewart (Cochrane)Fairweather	Paproski	Mather	St. PierreForrestall	Peddle	Matte	SulatyckyGrills	Ricard	Morison	SullivanHales	Ritchie	Munro	Thomas (Maisonneuve)Harkness	Schumacher	Noel	Thomson (Battleford-Lambert (Edmonton	Scott	Nystrom	Kindersley)West)	Simpson	O'Connell	TolmieLa Salle	Southam	Olson	TrudeauLundrigan	Stanfield	Orange	TrudelMaclnnis (Cape Breton- Stewart (Marquette)	Orlikow	Turner (London East)East Richmond)	Thompson (Red Deer)	Osier	Turner (Ottawa-MacLean	Valade	Penner	Carleton)Macquarrie	Woolliams	Pepin	WalkerMacRae	Yewchuk-47.	Perrault	WatsonMcCleave	Peters	WhelanPilon	WhitingNAYS	Portelance	WinchPringle	Yanakis-142.Messrs:	Prud'homme	Allmand	FosterAnderson	GauthierBadanai	GendronBarnett	GervaisBeaudoin	GibsonBechard	GivensBeer	GleaveBenjamin	GodinBenson	GrayBlair	GreeneBlouin	GroosB re win	GuayBrown	(St. Boniface)Buchanan	Guay (Levis)Burton	GuilbaultCaccia	HardingCadieux (Labelle)	HogarthCafik	HoneyCantin	HopkinsCaouette	Howard (OkanaganChretien	Boundary)Clermont	HymmenCobbe	IsabelleComtois	KaplanCorbin	KieransCote (Richelieu)	Knowles (WinnipegCrossman	North Centre)Cyr	LachanceDanson	Lambert (Bellechasse)Deachman	Lang (Saskatoon -Deakon	Humboldt)Dionne	LangloisDouglas (Assiniboia)	LanielDrury	LapriseDuquet	LatulippeEmard	Leblanc (Laurier)Forest	LeBlanc (Rimouski)Fortin	Lefebvre
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been some discussions concerning the particular committee to which this bill should be sent. I think there might be agreement to an amendment deleting the reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and substituting therefor the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. In these circumstances I should like to propose, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene):
That all the words after "referred" be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Luc Pepin: That Bill C-163 to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
6596	COMMONS
Yukon Placer Mining Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that much of the private members' hour has elapsed, I wonder whether the House would agree to calling it six o'clock so that we might have a full debate next time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling it six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Grain-Wheat- Suggested withdrawal or alteration of acreage reduction program; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office- Postage rate increases forecast by minister- government policy; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Transport- Fate of regional office in Halifax.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.28 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill S-4, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NORTHERN INLAND WATERS BILL


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-187, respecting inland water resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be worth while to take a few moments at this stage of the proceedings to emphasize one point that I think is of importance. I may say that the amendments made in committee were generally agreeable to all members of the committee, and I do not propose to discuss them except to emphasize that the understanding was that the purpose of these amendments was to give the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories a greater voice in the operations of the boards which will be set up under the act.
However, having recognized that, I think it is important that those of us in this chamber should be aware that what we are enacting here is essentially legislation that would normally be enacted by a legislature within a province. However, because of the existing constitutional situation we in this chamber are, I feel, acting in this particular instance on behalf of the residents of the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories. In addition, we should not be unaware of the fact that this bill ties in, up to a point, with the Canada water bill that is currently before the House.
I am not at this point raising the question of procedure that was debated at one point in the proceedings in the House in regard to the sequence with which third reading should be given these bills. As I understand it, this bill
May 5, 1970

has still to go to the other place. However, I should like to stress-and this is my purpose in rising-that in no case should royal assent be given to this bill until a final determination is made of the water act, to which there is specific reference in this legislation.
Because of the tie-in between this bill and the water act and the fact that both under this bill and under the Canada water bill it is possible to enter into arrangements involving the governments of one or more of the provinces and the federal government, and in view of the specific reference in this bill to involving one or more of the provinces in an arrangement with one or more of the territories, I suggest hon. members should be aware of the concern expressed by the people of the territories, which concern was also expressed by witnesses before the committee, that regard be had to the proposal that the water resources of the territories should be used first and foremost for the benefit of the residents of the territories and for the economic development of the territories.
In view of the jurisdictional authority that we have over the destiny of the residents of the territories, which is different from that which we have over those people dwelling within the boundaries of the provinces, it is important that we stress at this point the operations of the water boards in the two territories, to which the majority of appointments will be made by the federal government.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We should also stress the point with the federal government that what is done under this legislation and under the Canada Water Act should be done in a way which will not be detrimental to the long-range interests of the development of the territories. As one councillor of the Yukon Territorial Council emphasized, they do not want to be locked in now by action which would hamper their growth if and when, as they hope, they become a province some time in the future. I feel that this point is worthy of emphasis as we consider this bill at third reading stage. It was for that reason I thought I should make these few remarks and point out these facts to the chamber. It was something that was certainly in the minds of all members of the committee which considered this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
DEBATES	6597
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL



ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MARKETING COUNCIL AND AGENCIES

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 27, 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.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-197 I do not think that in my time in the House there has ever been a bill that will attack the economics of western Canada more than this particular bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Attack the problems.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister said "attack the problems". If he will listen to me for a few moments I am sure he will agree with me. I do not think there has been more dissatisfaction in western Canada under any government or under any minister whether it be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) or the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) who looks after the Wheat Board.
At the outset I want to say that there are two kinds of boards. There are boards in which the producer has something to say and where the jurisdiction of the board is under the control of the producer. When the Canadian Wheat Board Act was established by R. B. Bennett in 1935, if one goes back in history he will find that the producers were represented on that board. But when we analyse the board that is being established by Bill C-197, we find the government and the cabinet of Canada is to be permitted to take over the full control of the marketing of all agricultural commodities by proclamation of the government. At the outset, in order to make my point quickly, I should like to say that this is the most dangerous, dictatorial, damaging and destructive piece of legislation ever brought in by any Minister of Agriculture or any government, and it is one which particularly attacks western Canada.
In western Canada, whether in an urban or rural area, the people have no hesitation in appreciating that agriculture in the province of Manitoba, the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta is still the biggest industry of western Canada. That, of course,
6598	COMMONS DEBATES	May 5, 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill does not detract from the petroleum industry. But agriculture is still the primary industry. If one examines closely the Canada Year Book he will find that in Ontario the gross national product is equal to that of any of the western provinces when one considers all the farm commodities marketed. The only exception perhaps would be in the few years when there were large sales of grain in Western Canada.
Let us take a look at what this bill really would do. First of all, our position as a party is that we were the party which in 1935 set up the Canadian Wheat Board. It was not a Wheat Board such as we have today, which is controlled by a group of employees of the cabinet. It was a board representative of the producers. The idea of the Canadian Wheat Board was that it would organize the sellers against the organized purchasers, because at that time grain was on the open grain exchange and was subject to fluctuation. In those days grain sold for as low as 20 cents a bushel.
The government of the day, led by the Prime Minister from my home city, brought in legislation known as the Canadian Wheat Board Act. At that time the Canadian Wheat Board was not a compulsory board. It was set up to market a certain percentage of grain and to protect the farmers. It had the support of the wheat pools and the farm organizations. When we look back in history we find that in 1935 the only people who did not support the legislation were the members of the Liberal Party. All one need do to establish this fact is to examine Hansard for that period.
Let us take a look at the present situation. What the government wants to do in Canada is take over the marketing, by proclamation, of all the products produced on the farm. Today I plead particularly for the cattlemen of western Canada. If I might use this phrase without being presumptuous, I would say God only knows, if the cattle markets get into the condition the wheat market is in under this government, what will be left of western Canada? The land will fall into the hands of the state, as promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the city of Weyburn during the last election.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have heard a good deal of propaganda lately in respect of this compulsory board. Although it is under the jurisdiction of the Minister without Portfolio from

Saskatchewan, nevertheless the Minister of Agriculture is on the hustings from time to time defending this particular policy. Not so long ago he sat to my left as a member of a right wing party. I am sure that if he were standing in my place tonight he would be attacking this kind of legislation which he is now trying to pilot through the House, because he would be against this dictatorialness.
Let us look at the Wheat Board. They talk about a world surplus. There is no real wheat surplus. There is a surplus in respect of buyers. Two-thirds of the world's people go to bed hungry every night. Yet we have what we call the LIFT program. All it will ever lift when this plan begins to operate will be the top six inches of soil of the summerfallow of the Prairies. Let us look at what is said about the surplus and what is to be done. They will appoint the civil servants and bureaucrats, they will make the proclamation and then they will take over the control of cattle, hogs and other farm products.
I have read the terms and conditions of this bill. The minister had better go back to his legal officers to find out what it says. Let us look at what this set-up would do. I have before me the latest report prepared by S. C. Hudson for the Economic Council of Canada. This is what it says:
Canada's wheat export position has deteriorated-
It does not say there is a surplus.
-from a 24 per cent share of the 54 million ton average wheat marketings for the 1962/66 period to a 19 per cent share of 45 million tons marketed in 1968. An examination of Canada's competitive position in 23 countries or groups of associated countries, which in 1967 accounted for more than 80 per cent of the total world imports of wheat and provided more than 80 per cent of Canada's export wheat market, indicates that Canada's share has been declining in most markets.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
What has really happened is that we cattlemen in Alberta do not want the government getting into the cattle business. I say now to the Liberal government, and particularly to the Minister of Agriculture who comes from Medicine Hat, one of the great ranch areas of western Canada, that I am sure the ranchers in his constituency and the ranchers in Alberta will tell him and his government to keep their hands off cattle. They do not want the government interfering in the cattle industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No one intends to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me tell the minister that under this bill he will have the power to
May 5, 1970	COMMONS
do so, and so will the cabinet. Maybe he is one of the silent men in his cabinet. In fact, I may say that he was a very strong man when he was in the opposition but he has proven to be a very weak minister because he has no say in the cabinet whatsoever, and he knows he has not.


An hon. Member:: So true.


Mr. Corbin:: You are saying that because you are jealous.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not jealous. I would rather stand here with my principles than sit over there without them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was about to say that in the last two years Canada has moved from being the first exporting nation of wheat in the world down to sixth place. The minister, who is an intelligent man, knows this. He knows that if we had held our first place as an exporting nation, the western farmers today would not be in the mess which was described so well this week in the Globe and Mail. Even they have caught up after two years and realize that the situation is serious in the west. All you have to do is to walk down the streets of Regina. I have not seen anything like it since the 1930's. There is a depression there. We have been talking about inflation in this House, but there is a real recession in western Canada in most major centres as well as in the towns and on the farms, and the minister knows it.
I say to him that with a compulsory board which controls wheat marketing-I will say something about that in a few moments- those salaried people have made a mess in the grain exporting business, which has been intensified by the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) would not make any move with regard to strikes in Vancouver while we were losing our markets throughout the world, particularly in Japan, and not upholding our agreements such as the export agreement we had with Russia. The minister knows it and I know it. This is an indictment of the government and an accusation that I make against the government. It is true, and the minister cannot deny it. There is no defence to it.


Eymard G. Corbin: It is easy to make.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This may be, but it is easy for the hon. member to sit in his seat. I do not see him standing on his feet and saying anything intelligent in the House.
22218-72j
DEBATES	6599
Farm. Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Eymard G. Corbin: You are wrong. You are never in the House to listen to my speeches.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let the hon. member listen tonight and he will learn something. I thought that was the member that fell out with the government today, but I may have made a mistake. I continue reading:
An analysis of observations relating to the competitive position of Canadian wheat in each of 23 selected wheat markets suggests a variety of causes for the deterioration in Canada's share of export markets. These include a lack of uniformity in the protein content of Canadian wheat shipments;
For the last two years this party has continually told the government that one of our export problems is the protein quantity of our wheat in reference to changing the kind of grading. Nothing was done about that situation up to this session.
Let me go on with this quotation. It then reads:
a lack of flexibility in pricing associated with selling

What did this government do through the compulsory board? If they make the same mess of the cattle and hogs business, if they put it under this dictatorial act, they will lose markets for the cattle of Canada as effectively as they have lost wheat markets. Let them not deny it because that is a fact.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister can ask his question when I am finished. I only have a few moments to get something on the record. I will be prepared to answer the minister's questions any time afterwards. What about flexibility in pricing? While all the exporting wheat nations of the world were cutting their price contrary to the international wheat agreement, Canada sat around doing nothing. I agree that this was long before the minister held his position, but the fact is that Canada sat around and did nothing. Finally, the government and the Wheat Board woke up; the men on salary woke up. It does not matter to them how much wheat they sell, they still get their money. They are not on commission and they do not get an extra amount of money for getting off their posteriors and getting some business.
The selling price beat us. The United States was dumping wheat in Japan and all the other markets of the world, and what did the Liberals say? Their public relations men tell the western producers and a few people here
May 5, 1970
6SOO	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
and there in western Canada, "We cannot help it; we have a surplus". They cannot explain the fact that the United States and other exporting nations dumped wheat in our world markets at a price far below the international wheat agreement, while we sat around for a year and a half with labour troubles which did everything to destroy the economy of our western agriculture. I agree with what Senator Cameron said, that if there were an election tomorrow or even after tomorrow there would not be one Liberal elected west of the Great Lakes. He happens to be a Liberal appointment, for the information of my good friends.
Let me go on with the quotation as follows:
a lack of flexibility in pricing associated with selling on an f.o.b. basis at "one price to all customers"; insufficient effective market development work-
The Economic Council of Canada says that what has been done by the Canadian Wheat Board has failed. On close examination one finds that they are not doing their job. In the face of that evidence this government has the audacity to bring in Bill C-197, to which I will refer in a few moments, under which the marketing of cattle and hogs will be taken over not only in western Canada but throughout the country as wheat is controlled by the Wheat Board.
Let us pause here for a few moments to consider the cattle industry. I should like to read from the Canada Year Book. I know that the Liberals are even capable of changing that when it does not agree with their view, as they did during the last constitutional crisis. I can understand why the Minister of Agriculture would question even the facts contained in the Canada Year Book.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All I said was I think it would be a good idea to pause now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is exactly what will happen. This board will advise the minister, or the minister will advise the board. If the minister decides tomorrow morning to take over the cattle industry of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I call a multi-million dollar industry-it is worth at least $600 million in Alberta alone-and the marketing of cattle or any other commodity that is known as farm produce, he will be able to do it without a plebiscite from the people and without the consent of the producers.
Then the bill says that the board may consult with the producers. Isn't that very gracious of the government? Members of the government say, "We will consult if we feel like it." We know the kind of government we are getting now. They do not consult with the people. This measure will be rammed through the House, rammed through a sham committee and passed, and then the minister and the Minister without Portfolio who is looking after the grain trade will be able to take over the marketing of cattle. That is the only farm life left in the economics of western Canada, otherwise it will become a dust bowl created by the LIFT program when the winds blow in May and June.
Of course, the minister says that all this is not compulsory. He shakes his head. I have read this bill and I am glad to see he is starting to read it now, because he is getting some bad advice. In connection with public hearings the bill says:
A public hearing shall be held by the council
(a)	in connection with an inquiry into the merits of establishing an agency or of broadening the authority of an existing agency to cover an additional farm product or farm products;
(b)	where the council has under review a proposed marketing plan; and
(c)	in connection with any other matter relating to its objects if the Governor in Council or the minister directs the council to hold a public hearing in connection with such matter.
That is what it really means. You know, they are so gracious to the producer. They say, "We are not going to be that autocratic.
DEBATES	6601
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill We don't want to be that dictatorial. If we sit down in the cabinet chamber we might call the producers together." I know a lot of boards. I have appeared before many boards and I know many have made their decisions before a lot of the evidence hits the council table. Some of the royal commission inquiries operate like that. The report of the Le Dain Commission is not before the public right now because certain cabinet ministers know they are playing with political dynamite.
The same kind of hearing will be given the agricultural producers. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture might even hold a few sham hearings out in Medicine Hat, but after listening to the farmers he will come back here and do what he wants anyway. If this is not dictatorship, taking over the markets of western Canada, I do not know what is. This is a fight to the finish so far as western Canada is concerned. If the Minister of Agriculture does not resign when he hits the cabinet with this bill without it being amended, I will be surprised because at one time he was one of the best orators, one of the best thinkers, one of the best fighters for western Canada. Where has his soul gone now? He must be thinking of that poem "Just for a pot of gold."
Let us see what else they have the power to do. Not only do they set up a compulsory board under this legislation but they appoint all the people to that board, and they will be Liberals. They say the farmers will be heard, but they will have power as to whether evidence will be admissible or not. Then they can make Orders in Council as to rules and regulations. This bill is like the BNA Act or the constitution of any country giving more power to a cabinet that loves power. They say they are pragmatists. That is one thing the Prime Minister said. He said, "I am a pragmatist. I promised nothing." He delivered nothing, Mr. Speaker. The bill also provides for the making of Orders in Council. Where are Orders in Council passed? In the secret chambers of cabinet where privy councillors are sworn not to tell what goes on behind closed doors.


Mr. Bell:: Except Judy LaMarsh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are absolutely right; Judy made her confession. That is the kind of deal the producer is getting in this bill. Having read the bill, I could not sit in my place any longer without opening up and letting the public know. I hope the newspapers and Information Canada will tell what is going on here.
May 5. 1970

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


An hon. Member:: They won't.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They will, but they will get it right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then let me tell you what will happen after you have the council appointed. You have the orders made which give the government more power. What will happen then? Then without the knowledge of Parliament you could make a proclamation saying, "All the cattle, all the hogs of Canada, all the poultry of Canada, all the eggs of Canada, all the soybeans of Canada, all the corn Canada produces are now under this very free-minded Liberal board." That is what is inside this bill. The minister looks sad. He should feel sad, as a Minister of Agriculture from western Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sad at your misinterpretation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister should feel sad, remembering what he stood for when he was a member of the Social Credit Party. He must remember that Mr. Aberhart told certain governments to keep their hands off business. So did Premier Manning. Now the Minister of Agriculture endorses this Liberal, dictatorial pragmatism that treats the farmers just like Stalin did the Kulaks when he made them all serfs. Time magazine, which has some sort of charisma with the government, may say this is extreme language. It has to be extreme language, Mr. Speaker, because this is an extreme bill. It is time the farmers and producers of Canada knew what is going on.
Western ranchers came down here at one time and gave a beef supper for Senators and Members of Parliament. What did the head of the rancher's association say at that time? "We ask the government only one favour- keep your hands out of our business." That is what the rancher wants today. That is what the Ontario cattle producer wants. If there is to be a board to provide guidance in the marketing of these commodities, it should be a producers' board, elected by the producers, who should have the say.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
When the Conservatives set up the Canadian Wheat Board it was a voluntary producer board. It now pays its members their salaries no matter whether they sell wheat or not, no matter whether they sell 100 million or 200 million bushels.


An hon. Member:: What will be the salaries of members of this board?
IMr. Woolliams.]


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone wants to know what the salaries will be. I cannot quote figures, but I know the salaries are almost equal to those paid to cabinet members. When this act is proclaimed and the board controls marketing, Parliament will be bypassed, democracy emasculated, the producer emasculated and Parliament itself emasculated. That is what this bill will do.
Another question is, who will appoint the board? It will be the Governor in Council. We know how the government works. If they are to appoint 18 or 19 people to position, they will appoint one non-political person so that it does not look as if the appointments are political. The minister knows they will mostly be Liberal appointments and this government will act under the same kind of motivation as when the Prime Minister set up the board that deals with television. You will see the same kind of philosophy and intellectual motivation at work in the setting up of the board that will govern the hog producers.


An hon. Member:: That is Canadian
Socialism.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone calls that Canadian Socialism. Well, I believe a certain kind of Socialism at least would give the farmers a chance. Let us look at some of the other things that can be done under the act. The cabinet can enter into any agreement with any province or any importing nation without bringing the agreement before Parliament for approval. That means that this executive, this all-powerful cabinet which is not present tonight in the House can make any agreement it wishes with any nation. I hope the minister remembers the British wheat agreement, because that sold the farmers short and cost the western farmers a great deal of money. I have read one of his earlier speeches in which he said that it cost the western farmers $600 million in one year. But at least that agreement came before Parliament. I have researched this matter in Hansard. But under this legislation the government will take no chances. It never misses a trick.


Mr. Gibson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I will not. I wish that law student would be quiet and go to his library and do his own work. What I am saying is that this government, this executive, can now make any agreement it wishes without bringing the matter to Parliament and without giving Parliament a chance to suggest
May 5. 1970

changes in the agreement. Under the new rules this procedure is very dangerous. But this is spelled out. I ask anyone to check page 17 of the bill and you will see that power referred to.
The minister sits there today but, as Tennyson said, men may come and men may go. If the minister disagrees with the Prime Minister, he may be elevated to the other place as some others have been and another all-powerful minister using this type of dictatorship may sign agreements which may not be in the interest of the producer or the country.


Colin David Gibson: Why would they not be?


An hon. Member:: Be quiet.


Colin David Gibson: Why not? There is no reason for saying that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Also, the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act shall not apply to this act. It is all right for the government to set up a powerful monopoly, but of course it is wrong for private enterprise to set up any monopoly or get into that kind of hanky-panky. Since the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act are not to apply, I say to the consumers of Canada that this bill will help neither them nor the producers. The price of beef, pork and farm products will be determined at the farm. If that is not dictatorial, if this little Bill C-197, which is not too thick, does not confer dictatorial powers, I do not know what does. Apparently it is all right for the government to have a monopoly, but not for free enterprise.
What happens if you disobey? I can see why they are building a new penitentiary in British Columbia. We have one at Drumhel-ler, and I think I can take a little credit for what has happened there. But, Mr. Speaker, if the farmer contravenes the provisions of this act he will spend two years away from the cows and the land. That is the kind of bill we have before the House. That is dictatorship, as I see it. I submit it will put farmers out of business.
We lost a good deal of the grain trade because the board charged with responsibility was paralysed. It did not represent farmers and had no incentive for doing anything. This bill will create a board more powerful than the Canadian Wheat Board. Frankly, the basis for passing certain regulations controlling the Canadian Wheat Board has always been beyond my comprehension. You cannot sell Saskatchewan wheat to Alberta, or Alberta wheat to British Columbia. We know that you
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill cannot even have a chicken ranch in British Columbia and from the land you own in Manitoba ship wheat to feed the turkeys and chickens. The new board will have similar powers affecting every commodity produced on the farm in Canada. If the white paper does not break the farmers, this bill will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture. He talks about diversification, yet no one will have the right to elect to diversify. Every farmer will be told by this all-powerful board what to produce and, finally, west of the Great Lakes and even in some places in western Ontario we shall see state farms, because that is what we are coming to. That is really the purpose of the bill, and the minister cannot deny it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Just give me a chance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am prepared to go before the committee and call witnesses.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Just give me a chance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I tried to do this sort of thing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when the hate literature bill was being considered. The members there said, "You can have one witness, Eldon. We want to pacify you, but we want to rush this through." Well, we are rushing into a great dictatorship. That is what we are doing here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the kind of government we have. I say, let us save the farmers. Let us take a look at some recommendations contained in "Future Market Outlets for Canadian Wheat and Other Grains". These show some of the things the government could have done to help the wheat trade. The first I refer to is:
To improve the effective competition of Canadian wheat in existing markets, action is urgently required on many fronts. Such action includes:
(a)	Amendment of Canada's wheat grading system to include protein and other technical criteria associated with baking quality in order to maximize the competitiveness of Canadian wheat from a quality standpoint-
The second recommendation is in part:
(b)	Implementation of the findings of current studies of the transportation, storage and handling of grains-
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) put a question on the Order
May 5. 1970
6604	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill Paper. It was not given much publicity, but what did it ask? It asked how many elevators in Saskatchewan have no elevator agent. The answer was 99. Also, how many elevators in Alberta have no elevator agent? The answer was 71. I forget the number without agents in Manitoba, but it was a like number. Why have they no elevator agents? I will tell you. If you own an elevator in western Canada, you own a gold mine: you get a cent per month per bushel for storage and for the handling charges, according to the economic experts, the elevator should receive up to 24 cents a bushel per year.
Now the government lets the wheat stay there for five years, pays the elevator owners and tells the farmers, "We cannot do anything for you." Do you want to do that with hogs? After all, when hogs reach 200 pounds they must move from the farm to market if they are to be competitive and sell at a proper price. And so it is with cattle. You cannot store cattle or hogs in bins for five years; they get pretty smelly in time. That is something the minister has not taken into consideration in this bill.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The next recommendation is:
Immediate arrangements for a study of Canadian wheat pricing to be made by an outstanding, unbiased, international authority on the subject, as a basis for future policy decisions-
I agree with the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) who talked about the funny little statement made by the Minister without Portfolio. I do not think the minister would have given a lecture like that when he was dean of the law school. There are 44 exporting and importing countries. Canada should take the initiative. We were the first of the wheat exporting nations in the world. We are now sixth. Ask the Minister of Agriculture how we got in that position. Don't blame the lost of market for the surplus. Blame the government and the cabinet for their inaction and lack of leadership. The ministers will not come into the House for the question period. When they are in the House, they make jokes. In answer to a serious question on unemployment, the Prime Minister asked somebody if he was still beating his wife! It is recorded in Hansard. That is the frivolous kind of nonsense the opposition has to put up with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Woolliams.l


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The next recommendation is:
Provision for a greatly expanded market research and development program.
Let us pay people a commission for selling wheat. When you hand out a few dollars you get some action. I am a free enterpriser. I find there are a few in the Liberal ranks, when I have coffee with them-but not when they are voting in the House. The answer is, give somebody a buck and they will sell our wheat. If the government would get off its so-and-so it would sell wheat and we would not have the trouble we now have.
The farmers do not want a handout. They are independent. What's $100 million? This program will not apply to 50 per cent of the farmers in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. In this wheat belt 50 per cent of the wheat is grown. How do you diversify in the gumbo area of Regina? The minister knows about that. As soon as it rains, the cattle will be over their hocks in mud you cannot diversify. The government wants to set up a board similar to the Wheat Board to market every other commodity. No wonder I stand in my place and speak as sharply and as firmly as I do. Somebody must.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin).


Mr. Hogarth:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I offer my consent to the hon. member continuing, solely to see how much more bull he can get into his speech about cows!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was a very rude remark by the member. I will let it rest there. I thought he had more dignity, but maybe the dignity came out of something else. I will not go into that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Portneuf.
May 5, 1970	COMMONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Portneuf.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just a minute. On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. There was no unanimous consent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I ask that Your Honour put that question again. The member made a facetious remark. As far as I understand it, there is consent. I have only one other recommendation to make. I felt that consent was given. I ask Your Honour, in your usual nonprejudiced manner, to put the question again to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
sorry, but I heard no unanimous consent. Does the House give its consent to the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent. The hon. member for Portneuf.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no unanimous consent.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments after what the previous speaker has just said. His observations were quite relevant and I intend to support the position he will take as regards the legislation now before us. 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", will merely create a new body to enable the government to find well-paid jobs for friends of the party.
I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this legislation because we already have the Canadian Wheat Board whose responsibilities are becoming less and less important as sales are down throughout the world. Ever fewer sales, but still the same, well-paid staff. There are no lay-offs at the Canadian Wheat Board, nor any fight against inflation. The report of the Board shows that the wages of its staff are always increasing.
DEBATES	6605
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill A few years ago, in the spring of 1967, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board was established. After three years of operation, we realize that Quebec farmers and millers must pay $1.06 or $1.07 per bushel for barley, while it can be bought at 76 and 78 cents per bushel on world markets.
In spite of those famous boards, we are still facing obvious injustices. We witnessed the creation of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which, so far, has not brought any results. This situation exists because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs must accomplish dual functions, which creates a conflict right from the beginning. How can he approve and disapprove something at the same time? Can a department make a stand against the speculator and encourage the consumer at the same time? Can one encourage the consumer while protecting speculators? This is utterly ridiculous and in the light of the bill now under consideration, we realize that this is going to be done.
Indeed, clause 6(2Kb) reads as follows:
(b) have regard to the interests of consumers of farm products and of those engaged in the marketing thereof as well as to the interests of producers of farm products.
Mr. Speaker, this is utterly ridiculous. Can a lawyer speak for the plaintiff and the accused at the same time? This is inconceivable!
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Until now consumers have never asked for protection. In Portneuf riding as elsewhere in Quebec consumers are not at all afraid of the farmers because the latter are not evil-doers but mere producers. The enormous quantity of products accumulated in warehouses and stores creates a surplus problem for the government but shows that the farmer has fulfilled his task well.
What consumers want is simply more purchasing power. All things considered, with a little money in your pocket, you can get anything you want. You buy what you want, both from the standpoint of quality and quantity, when and where you want it.
Clause 6 (2) of the bill states, and I quote:
In carrying out its duties the Council shall (a) consult, on a continuing basis, with the governments of all provinces having an interest in the establishment or the exercise of the powers of any one or more agencies under this act or with any body or bodies established by the government of any province to exercise powers similar to those of the Council in relation to intraprovincial trade in farm products;
May 5, 1970

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
When has the federal government taken into account the decisions or the representations of a province? What rulings have been made following investigations conducted throughout Canada since 1950? Was the inquiry made by hon. members and senators throughout the country and on which the joint committee reported in 1967 followed up? We are still waiting for the decisions which should have been made after this famous report.
We are also waiting for the report of the Committee on Agriculture, which toured the country last year, including Toronto and eastern Canada, going through Quebec in order to meet representatives from the CFU, the Cooperative federee and milk producers.
We all know that this famous report has been tabled, but we are still looking for it in the Clerk's desk because we think that the report was actually hidden so that we could not speak about it for the time being.
The protection granted during the past years has simply been reduced. You will remember that the government paid rather important subsidies. You will recall also that the CFU and all the organizations of this sort in eastern Canada asked not only that these subsidies should still be granted, but that they should be increased according to the rise in the cost of living, that is to say by 5 or 6 per cent each year. However, these recom-mandations were simply ignored. The decision of a few persons was abided by and the dairy producers of the province of Quebec were penalized by 8 per cent if one takes into account the money they have lost. However, the associations made these recommendations quite voluntarily. It is probably for this reason they have not been considered.
Today, we are getting ready to establish another board, another council to which will assuredly be appointed the party's friends, some of them have perhaps failed under the present economic system while others could hardly earn their own living otherwise, but they will get salaries of around $20,000 or $25,000 a year. This will be an excellent muzzle which will keep them from recommending whatever farmers demand and refrain from making public the objectives already decided upon by another team. This is most unfortunate. I was not wrong when I said it, because if one considers the present situation, one realizes what is happening in Canada today.

Bill C-197 is a piece of legislation which simply makes agriculture dependent on the State.
In clause 3, for instance, we see that the chairman and the vice-chairman of the National Farm Products Marketing Council are appointed by the Governor in Council.
Clause 5 provides that members of the Council become public servants.
The purpose of the act, as defined in clause 6, is to maintain and promote an efficient and competitive agriculture industry. We can therefore guess right away that this just means that small farms will disappear.
From a political viewpoint, this would be tremendous, because the government is playing a winning game since at present 92 per cent of Canadian voters are non-farmers. The government listens to the urban population and will be able to handle the farmers at will.
Clause 6(2)(b) makes it clear that it is intended to protect both the consumers and the producers and with only 8 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture, the workers will be the winners. I am not against the workers but the figures are there, Mr. Speaker.
Let us see now what are the Council's powers. Under clause 7(a)(i)(ii) and (iii), the Council may require any person engaged in production or marketing to register with an agency and to maintain books and records in such form as it may require.
As indicated in clause 18 (2), the Governor in Council may designate the new products which will be regulated anywhere in Canada.
The objects and powers of the agencies are to promote a strong, efficient and competitive industry. An agency may purchase, package, process, store, export and sell any product as indicated in clause 23.
As far as arrangements with the provinces are concerned a federal agency may perform on behalf of a province any function relating to intraprovincial trade on any regulated product. It may also grant to a provincial body powers of regulation in relation to the marketing within the province.
The powers of the inspectors are described in clause 34 which indicates that the inspectors may enter any place if they are convinced there is any regulated product or a product intended to be marketed in interprovincial or export trade and may examine the records or other documents in such place.
I shall now deal with penalties. I refer to clauses 36 and 37. With respect to failure to
May 5, 1970	COMMONS
comply with a requirement of the Council, this is what we read, and I quote:
-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.
We are therefore making arrangements to jail farmers. It is obvious that if they are put in prison they will not be able to produce. We will then be able to cut down surpluses.
Penalties have already been imposed. All farmers are not in jail, but we have reached a point where the situation is deteriorating, and I wonder whether many of them would not be more in security behind bars.
I am very sorry that the milk production problem was not dealt with before introducing Bill C-197. I regret that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). In the final analysis, we know that when the worker has problems he goes to his fellow-worker to negotiate his working conditions. If the union leader has some competence, negotiations will be fruitful. When a student has problems, he goes to his professors or to counselors who help him.
When we have health problems, we go to a doctor. If he says he is unable to help us, he then sends us to a specialist.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Unfortunately, the officials of the federal Department of Agriculture have proved their ineffectiveness, and consequently we are always up against the same so-called "champs", so-called "know-it-all", even though they know nothing.
We know the Minister of Agriculture operates a farm and that he does not go in for dairy farming although he has a 500-cow herd. Thanks to his herd, and nature, the Minister sells 400 to 500 calves every year. And so, he owns calving cows.
Today, if we are facing a serious problem, it is in the dairy farming industry. It is obvious that the minister is beyond his depth.
In spite of everything, we still expect him to introduce a beneficial policy, but because of his ignorance, he must appeal to the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) who is quite pleased to make his remarks. It is common knowledge the minister and his parliamentary secretary merely keep floundering along. Moreover, it must be remembered that the hon. member for Richelieu hastened to sell his cows three weeks after his election and it can be inferred therefore that dairy farming was more or less important to him. It is
DEBATES	6607
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill unfortunate that the farmer who is now directing the government's dairy policy has found no other way of showing his knowledge than to sell his cows.
Perhaps he found out that having one in Parliament is as profitable as 25 in the cowshed. At any rate, it is remembered that the hon. member for Richelieu, who is messing about with the dairy policy now, was not even a dairy farmer but a cattle farmer and dealer, and especially a good dealer.
One can remember also that he was part of the gimmick, that he could export all his cattle to Mexico, Spain and South America. All that to say that while the hon. member for Richelieu is still spluttering in English, it could be that the last calves he sold can speak Spanish fluently.
Mr. Speaker, I say once more that dairy farming was of little importance to that exfarmer and I am convinced he would sell his wife to save the Liberal government's dairy policy.
The Minister of Agriculture announces a $10 million reduction for the Quebec farmers. He cannot indeed be commended for that. The costs of exports have gone from 26 cents in 1968 to 51 cents in 1969. It can be recalled that the farmers of the province of Quebec, and more particularly those of the eastern part of that province, have been imposed quotas in 1967. In fact, at that time, owing to the bad weather, crops had not been good. Milk production had suffered from it. That opportunity was taken to set production quotas. It is surely a good deal for the government, but I am not prepared to admit that it is honest. The hon. member for Richelieu does not object to that.
If a farmer-


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Florian Côté: Would the hon. member for Frontenac-


An hon. Member:: for Portneuf.


Florian Côté: -for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) allow me simply to explain what happened at the Committee on Agriculture when two of his Creditiste colleagues were there
May 5, 1970
6608	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill and the committee report was unanimously-approved? If he agrees, I shall read him the minutes of the proceedings of the committee. He knows nothing about agriculture and was not on the committee. He could-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to do that when he speaks in the debate, but I hardly think that Is a point of order.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am the eldest of a family of ten children and my father was a farmer. I, myself, was a farmer for many years before I became a co-operative manager. As for the famous Committee on Agriculture, I do not want the hon. member for Richelieu to call to witness my friends of the Ralliement Creditiste in this matter. He knows very well that each time amendments were moved by members of the Ralliement Creditiste, they were defeated when put to a vote. The report of the Committee on Agriculture is not unanimous and I should not want anyone to cite it as an example.
I continue, Mr. Speaker.
Incidentally, it is always the same thing over and over again. Every time someone-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) on a question of privilege.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I am a little mixed up. I listened to what my colleague said, which was that the report had been voted on unanimously, but the hon. member now tells me it was not voted on unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend of the Ralliement Credististe does not understand English-because he never did go to the trouble of learning it-I shall reply in French, if I may.
As a rule, I abide by the Standing Orders which stipulate that a member must accept the word of another member in the House.
My colleague from Richelieu (Mr. Cote) has just told me that the third item of the Agriculture Committee report was unanimously adopted, but the member for Portneuf claims it was not. I should like to know who is right, because I feel I am entitled to know as a member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I consider that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) has deliberately and voluntarily misled the House a moment ago when he said that I refused to learn English. That is absolutely untrue!


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege. I never said anything of the sort.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. There is no question of privilege before the House. There is a debate before the chamber, and I suggest that we allow the hon. member for Portneuf to continue.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: I too rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I can hear only one question of privilege at a time. I will hear the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that every member had a right to know the truth.
Two honorable members are therefore contradicting each another. I would like to hear the official version of the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, for example, to see who is right.
Has that section been unanimously passed? It seems to me that it is my privilege to know. I will have to vote Mr. Speaker, so I would like to know the truth.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he consult the record on this matter. This is hardly a question of privilege; it is a matter of debate. The hon. member has the right to consult the record to determine who is right. It is hardly an unusual feature of this House to have two points of view which are different.
May 5, 1970


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to it when I was interrupted a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, when the members opposite say that the Creditiste members in committee and elsewhere were favorable to the government's dairy policy, with all due respect I must say that they deliberately mislead the House. We were opposed to that policy to such an extent that we were not afraid to attend the farmers' demonstration in Sherbrooke, where no federal Liberal member was present, not even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote), and this because they had cold feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Again, that is hardly a question of privilege. If we are going to get into this sort of argument, it seems to me that the Chair has only one course to take and that is to insist that hon. members stick strictly to the motion before the House. I have been exercising a certain amount of leniency in allowing the hon. member for Portneuf to go slightly beyond a strict interpretation of the motion, but if as a result of that leniency we are going to get into this sort of argument I shall have to apply the rules of relevancy more strictly than I have hitherto. I suggest we allow the hon. member for Portneuf to conclude his remarks, and if other hon. members want to contribute to the debate they are free to do so.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. There was perhaps no question of privilege. However, that has allowed me to throw some light on something that was becoming obscure.
This has happened before. The notorious report was adopted on division. One day, the meeting was held in camera. So one cannot say just about anything on the matter, since the meeting was held behind closed doors. Nothing is known about it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
If the hon. member for Richelieu meets a farmer who explains his dissatisfaction to him, the hon. member says piously: Think of the circumstances, you do not understand what is going on in Canada. The whole province fails to understand the problem. Right now, he is the only one who understands anything, Mr. Speaker. I regret that he is the only one at the present time to advise the
DEBATES	6S09
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill government in matters pertaining to the dairy policy when we know that this question has always more or less concerned him.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Roland Godin: We recall that in 1968 there were quite similar problems. In fact, the then Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a very simple reason for it: all the difficulties were the result of a minority administration. Therefore, a majority government had to be elected.
With its majority what is the government waiting for to prove itself? Up to now attempts have been made to keep the farmer informed through speeches. He has been begged to keep on working his farm and today we realize that if he ever was the king of the land he has not been for a very long time. The Canadian farmer was king but that time is past because the policy of the government aims only at taking hold of all that the others own.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: This is socialism!


Roland Godin: From the economic point of view, the farmer is in a clearly inferior position to that of other workers. He is very poor compared to other professionals. In order to obtain a better yield, he had to improve his production and cattle breeding methods. To produce more rapidly, he mechanized his equipment. To meet the demand for quality products, he bought modern machinery at a cost of thousands of dollars.
In spite of his efforts, he cannot become prosperous because he is caught between his cost price and the price he has to accept for his products. The price of food is not settled automatically. One must recognize that he is in a very sorry plight indeed because his products are perishable. It is not a question of holding up deliveries, specially milk deliveries. It is also impossible to stock it. Therefore, the producer takes what is given to him, and that has been going on for a number of years.
Although this government has a clear majority, agriculture is always squeezed in between supply and demand and is always at the mercy of various government agencies. Since he had to be satisfied for too long with a low income, he has to go to the Farm Loan Board for financing. Then, he is told that first of all he has to increase his production, after which he will get a loan. The farmer, therefore, goes and buys his neighbour's land, raises more cattle, increases his stock, and then he is subjected to a penalty because he
6610	COMMONS DEBATES	May 5- 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill listened to the officials of the Farm Loan Board who told him to increase his production in order to get a loan. Now, they tell him it is absolutely impossible for him to get a loan. Today, he is refused the loan because his profits have declined since last year instead of increasing.
Whether it be natural or artificial, no matter, there has been an increase. It is unfortunate, because for a Canadian anxious to make a living for himself and his family it is the beginning of the end. Effectively, he will be deprived of part of his production not only of the one dollar subsidy, but also will have to accept the export rate of $1.25 per hundredweight.
Milk, which costs $4.50 per hundredweight, will in certain cases just be sold for $2.30 per hundredweight. If that is the government's logic, I fail to understand it.
Now I would like the Minister of Agriculture to acquaint himself with the suggestions put forward by the people most involved, mentioned in the reports of the Committee on Agriculture which collected this evidence when it travelled throughout Ontario and all the other eastern provinces.
The minister will realize, I suppose, that he cannot indefinitely count on the moral capital of these farmers. The march that they once organized on Parliament proves without any doubt that even if they listen to election promises they also want some results between elections. The public meetings organized in Sherbrooke and elsewhere in Quebec and others that will be organized prove that the people cannot stand it any longer.
We have seen auctions. Farmers with very good buildings, excellent implements and choice livestock are financially disorganized and unable to meet the interest on their debts, even if their loans have been made at 7 and 8 per cent. And that situation is deteriorating from year to year due to the tribute which they have to pay, through governments, to the dictatorship of money and credit.
That situation is reflected by the young who leave the farm and have no wish to inherit the debts of their parents. One could read the following in the April 2, 1970, issue of a Quebec City newspaper, and I quote:
Resounding failure of the integrated farm vocational training.
Everything is being contemplated to retrain farmers, but the training already in existence

is in the process of disintegrating. I go on with the quotation:
The integration of the farm vocational training will have been a resounding failure, if the recently published official figures are true. Indeed, only five training centres have been set up for 1969-70, while for the previous year, there were seven traditional institutions devoted to farm vocational training.
The enrolment, at the first year level, for 1969-70, that is at the secondary IV grade, in the five centres, are practically five times less than for the previous year, in agricultural schools (49 as against 220). And to conclude those disappointing statistics, while normally 75 per cent of the students enrolled in the first year were coming back to finish the second period of training, only 25 per cent did so this year, although favourable conditions were offered them.
And, as a matter of fact, the report indicates that, for the year 1968-69, 220 students had asked for enrolment, as against 49 in 1969-70.
This is how things repeat themselves. Farm operations are becoming more and more productive, as compared with 15 years ago. The capitalization of a medium-sized farm in the province of Quebec, which was $10,000 15 years ago, has gone up today to $25,000. And at the same time, the value of the land, buildings and cattle has doubled, whereas capital outlays for machinery and equipment of all sorts have tripled. Quite often, we see farms worth over $50,000. And all such changes happened not only before the eyes of the government experts, but on their recommendations. Many farms are worth $50,000 but on the other hand, some farmers are in the red to the extent of $25,000 or $30,000. They had to get into debt, it was for them the only way to make their business profitable.
A Portneuf farmer who wished to borrow $10,000 to expand his barn and whose farm covered 125 acres, who could rent his neighbour's farm for quite a limited amount, was simply refused a $10,000 loan. He was told: "My boy, buy your neighbour's farm and we will loan you $20,000. "Therefore, all they want is to cut those people's throats. The Farm Loan Board and the Farm Credit Corporation do not care to lend $10,000. But once he has bought his neighbour's farm and secured a $20,000 loan, the farmer will be slaughtered. Financing, insurance rates, taxes of all kinds and increased operation costs, that is what today's farmer has to face.
Under the auspices of the dairy policy of the last three years, the farmer has managed to keep his chin up while playing on depreciation and running into debt right and left, because he was trusted. We have wit-
May 5, 1970

nessed many sales by auction. We shall now see bankruptcies. And, on the best run farms, which bring 80 cents per hour to the operator, people will face a salary reduction. And is it .absolutely sure that this salary reduction is what the just society is all about, that just society Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wanted to bring about?
Mr. Speaker, whereas the most prosperous farms in Quebec and Ontario yield only 80 cents per hour to their operators, do we realize the situation, since, according to the Liberal government and the experts that were aiming at a just society, a wage of 80 cents per hour was already too much? In fact, were not all possible means taken to reduce that wage?
In my opinion, this cannot last any longer. How shall we know whether the government, through the Farm Credit Corporation has not enough securities in Quebec to take over all the lands? Does the government want all the farms to be brought under the control of the State and the farmers to become mere public servants? We recall the Prime Minister once expressed admiration for the communist theories and we wonder whether the hopeless indebtness of the farmers is not part of the Prime Minister's plans? Is the government contemplating, through the Department of Agriculture, to take over these farms and to convert them into collective farms? Do they want the farmers to be turned into public servants?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Is there any better way of frustrating an honest man who earns only 80 cents per hour than to bring his income down? Our farmers are in debt or compelled to get into debt while even better means are available. Will this not end, in the long rim, by a quiet seizure of our lands? How many farms will be in the hands of the State within two or three years? I would like the minister to answer this and I am still wondering whether the province of Quebec will not be the first to fall into the hands of the government.
There is an article in the March 1970 issue of Le Meunier Quebecois from which we may gather how anxious the people are. Here is an excerpt of this article and I quote:
Mr. Otto Lang, Minister without Portfolio of the Canadian government who is responsible for the wheat policy, has just tabled in the house the emergency plan to solve the enormous wheat surplus problem in western Canada.
The plan, which will be in force for one year, will cost the pretty amount of $100,000,000-
DEBATES	6611
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Quebec millers are somewhat apprehensive of that wheat policy from the federal government. If the Canadian Wheat Board keeps the control over the sales of wheat, barley and oats that will be produced in western Canada, how much will it cost to the grain merchants in Quebec, who cannot get their supply on the world market?
Moreover, the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. H. A. Olson, stated in the House that the subsidy of $20,000,000 on wheat transport granted to eastern farmers, out of the 1969 budget, will be reduced to $17,500,000 from April 1st 1970.
While the western farmers are privileged, for they can convert their grain into livestock products and besides get compensated for sowing it, we, millers from Quebec, protest against the federal policy which clearly discriminates against the eastern cattle producers, who will finally and definitely have to foot the bill.
Mr. Speaker, we never saw such blatant injustice and they could not have found anything better to force people off the land.
And if you refer to the last report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the year 1968-69, you can read the following:
The Regional Development Agency has paved the way in the field of industrial development subsidies-
If we refer now to table 1, on page 19 of the French version of that report, we see the following statistics concerning Quebec:
$800,110,000 were spent on capital investments, to create 16,934 new jobs, that is $47,249 per job.
Instead of going out after the farmers, out in the sticks, to bring them to the city, would it not have been better to pay them a subsidy of $1,000 a year? They would then have stayed 47 years longer on their farms, hoping to live a bit more decently.
How unfortunate that in times of peace the government does not try to apply a formula to encourage the fulfillment of the human being. Indeed, two great ideologies govern the world: that of domination and that of freedom. Any ideology that strives to establish the sovereignty of one man, one dictator, one league, one State, one trust or one political party is one of domination. On the other hand, if it strives to give the people easier access to benefits, it becomes a policy of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, while maintaining the right to make representations later on for the working class that the farmers constitute, I take it upon myself to call for a bit of justice, precisely under bill C-197. I claim that part to which those people are entitled, quite freely. That is why I shall vote against Bill C-197.
6612	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [English']


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, considering the history of agriculture in Canada and the present situation of farmers in this country together with the future prospects for farmers and rural people, I would have thought that when the minister introduced Bill C-197 it would have been presented as a brave new step forward in solving some of the very serious problems which face farmers and rural people in Canada. Instead, we find that this bill was introduced with hesitation, uncertainty and indeed with a faltering step.
In reviewing the remarks of the minister when introducing the bill on second reading, one almost gains the impression that he was not quite sure where he was going and just what he wanted to do with this legislation after it was passed, assuming it is passed; and, finally, one gains the impression that he was not completely convinced of the merit of the legislation. Of course, if he says otherwise I will have to accept his word and I will do so without hesitation. Nevertheless, I was rather unhappy with the presentation that the minister made in introducing this bill. I intend to have something more to say on that matter later in my remarks.
I certainly do not underestimate or downgrade the difficulties and complexities of Canada's agricultural marketing situation, because there is no question that agricultural marketing policies across Canada have been a great source of uncertainty and confusion. We have had a wide range of policies, divided jurisdiction and disagreement on policies among both farmers and governments, which have contributed to this picture. It seems to me that marketing boards are essential in order to strengthen farm bargaining power in the economy. The fact is that governments have often dragged their feet in this area and further steps toward orderly marketing are long overdue.
I suggest that federal legislation is needed to establish the machinery for national marketing with which provincial producer-controlled marketing boards could conform and thereby be able to market products in any part of Canada or on the export markets. A related matter has to do with the principle of supporting prices and a variety of techniques, some of which have been used from time to time in Canada. However, often the expenditures have involved help for those who needed help the least and it has been suggested that support plans should be based on

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
income instead. Such plans will certainly need to be co-ordinated with whatever adjustment programs the government eventually brings forward.
An essential requirement of any or all marketing plans is that farmers have advance notice of price levels and quantities to be bought at a specified price. These need to be worked out in negotiation with farmers and farm organizations. This would be of tremendous help to the farmers. By negotiation I mean meaningful negotiation. I suggest that this would be a guide to a voluntary system of supply management. I suggest that stepped up economic research and improved market information are further steps in developing a program of production planning and supply management. Some marketing agencies now have a fairly well-developed system of supply management. The processing industries, it has to be acknowledged, adopt the principle of supply management in various contract arrangements.
The question might be asked: Why not supply management? The basic idea is simple and sensible enough, but it is not that simple in practice. There are very complex and difficult problems to overcome. The whole problem of how to implement supply management is yet to be resolved and the government, through its performance in operation LIFT, has given every indication that it has not learned any of the lessons necessary.
That does not mean that we should throw up our hands and give up, but it does mean that we will not find overnight solutions in dealing with what is admittedly a very difficult problem. I think we need to examine the situation of agriculture as such in considering this bill because, after all, the industry is expected to operate within the framework of a true free enterprise economy and there are few other sectors of the economy which are expected to operate on this basis. Because agriculture and a few other small industries have been forced to operate on this basis, to operate at a disadvantage when compared with other sectors of the economy, the industry has suffered and the people who make their livelihood in that industry have also suffered.
The basic fact is that the Canadian economy has undergone drastic changes. Today we live essentially in a managed economy, and at the same time the government and many in this country still espouse the platitudes of an economic system that no longer exists. Agriculture is expected to operate on the
May 5, 1970

basis of these platitudes. The marketing bill that is before us now tries to straddle some of the old and some of the new. I suggest that in many respects it falls in between, and the farmer is still expected to operate on the same old basis as he has in the past. It tries to strengthen the bargaining power of the farmer, and possibly it helps, but I suggest it is not good enough and it will not really do the trick.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill capital. Here again we must consider the need for an adequate allocation of capital for agriculture, at reasonable interest rates. That report also called for compensation to the victims of inflation. With the possible exception of some old age pensioners and those living on small, fixed incomes, I suggest that no industry and certainly no group of people have suffered more from the effects of inflation than farmers.
Changes have taken place in our economy over the past number of years. In our economic organization, the concentration of economic power, the influence of technology in all aspects of economic activity have all had an influence on agriculture and on every other sector of the economy. I suggest that no sector of the economy today can operate successfully on an ad hoc or piecemeal basis. I suggest that all industries and all sectors of the economy must operate within the framework of the economic world as it exists. I suggest the only way they can operate sensibly, without causing suffering and hardship, is within a framework of economic planning. Today it is generally accepted that economic planning is essential and must be carried out, but the question is how, and by whom? This is where the bill requires some examination.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I would like to recall briefly to the minds of hon. members the minority report of the Finance Committee on the question of interest rates and inflation. That minority report was presented by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and myself on behalf of the NDP members of the House. In it we called for a comprehensive incomes policy, something which has implications for agriculture. The adoption of such a policy would mean that people making their living in agriculture would be assured of an adequate level of income and could enjoy a good life in their chosen vocation. We must consider this marketing bill in that context, because just where the legislation will lead farmers is not clear. The bill establishes some guidelines but it does not go beyond the old system to which I was referring a few minutes ago.
The consideration of price within the context of this bill is not enough. We must also examine the entire question of income. The bill does not do that in any way. The minority report on interest rates and inflation also dealt with the question of the allocation of
Finally, I suggest we are living in a new kind of world where the laws of supply and demand as we knew them in the past cannot be depended upon to provide answers to the problems which are facing us. That, therefore, brings us to the question of government initiative and public action to deal with some of our problems. In this field there is to be a farm marketing council established to which, in its own right, no one can object. The bill suggests that the council can recommend, either on its own initiative or at the request of the minister, measures, proposals and other recommendations. But I suggest that banking on the council to introduce adequate policies is not enough. No council, no matter how well-intentioned or how hard it works, can do this job unless it has an adequate degree of government support.
The government must allocate necessary resources in order to put effective plans into use. This bill does nothing of that sort. Certainly I do not expect all aspects of a proper agricultural policy to be included within the scope of this bill. I suggest the bill provides a vehicle, although it is open to question whether it is the best possible vehicle, to be used in helping to find solutions to farm problems. The use that is made of it will depend both on the government and the farmers.
One important point touched on in this debate is the question of farmer participation. Where does the farmer come into the picture? Does he have an important and meaningful role to play? As has been pointed out by a number of hon. members, there is no guarantee of farmer participation on the boards that will be established under this bill. I suggest that the participation and co-operation of farmers is essential for the success of the legislation. We have heard a great deal from government spokesmen about the necessity of moving in the direction of participatory democracy. This bill, in the way in which it is framed, is a negation and a denial of everything the government has said about the necessity for participatory democracy. We are
May 5, 1970
6614	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill to have a National Farm Products Marketing Council. Various boards are to be established with government appointees, without any meaningful participation by farmers, those directly affected by the legislation.
Another matter that requires examination is the corporate invasion of the agricultural industry. This is a real danger to farmers and to the industry. It threatens the entire social and economic fabric of rural Canada. Admittedly, some aspects lie beyond federal jurisdiction and require provincial action, but the questions that must be asked with respect to this bill is: Will it be used as a tool by corporate enterprises to consolidate their position? Will it enable corporate enterprises engaging in agriculture to consolidate their position and give them an advantage over ordinary farmers who are attempting to make a living by farming?
A few minutes ago I referred to the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture when he was introducing this bill. I suggest that he used a very hesitant tone in bringing the bill before this House. He suggested that in his view the situation-
-makes it at least desirable if not essential that we have enabling legislation on the statute books-
That is recorded at page 5968 of Hansard. Note the words "enabling legislation." This raises an important question as to what initiative the government will bring to bear once this legislation is placed on the statute books. The minister also noted that there are serious problems in the agricultural industry associated with fluctuations in farm income. I am glad he recognized that point. But then he went on to suggest that the real purpose of the legislation was to improve the efficiency of our marketing systems.
I have no quarrel with the objective of greater efficiency as long as it is kept within a proper context. Efficiency is not an end in itself. Efficiency is a means which is only well directed if it is directed towards a good and useful end. I suggest that when the minister placed his greatest stress on efficiency he overlooked one of the basic aspects of the farm marketing situation throughout Canadian history, namely, the instability which has been inherent in agricultural marketing. Surely the basic purpose of marketing legislation, whether it be at the federal or provincial level, should be to achieve stability.
The minister said that specific marketing agency legislation had been enacted in the

past. He made specific reference to the Canadian Wheat Board. I agree that there is an overdue need for legislation to deal with the whole range of farm products to ensure that they might be marketed on an orderly basis. He also said that the basic role of the National Farm Products Marketing Council would be to provide guidance and advice. I have no quarrel with the establishment of this body for that purpose. Certainly it can play a very useful role. It can also provide liaison with provincial marketing agencies and provincial governments. But, again, the whole question depends on what action the government is going to take.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Such a council can make all the recommendations it likes; it can do everything possible to try and proceed with adequate marketing legislation, but unless it has the full support of the government none of the problems this bill attempts to start to solve will be solved. Mr. Speaker, I could go on to comment further on some of the minister's remarks in dealing with the bill on second reading. It seems to me that we had in the minister's remarks a very real indication that the government will move forward in a very hesitant, cautious way in making use of the legislation. I think it is important that we take note of the whole question of the approach to marketing problems once this legislation has been established.
In his speech the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made reference to the Canadian Wheat Board. In my view the Canadian Wheat Board has done an outstanding job in the past. I think there is no good purpose to be served by anyone in this House continuing, for whatever purpose he has in mind, to pillory the Wheat Board commissioners. I think this does no one any good. I think it does a disservice to the farmers of western Canada and to the interests of all Canadians, because in my view the Canadian Wheat Board brought order and stability to the wheat scene in this country and to the grain scene in western Canada.
There have been problems, there have been some distortions in the picture, but I suggest that this has not been due basically to whatever shortcomings the Wheat Board commissioners may have had as individuals. After all, they are human beings just like the rest of us, and they can make mistakes just as any of us can. They have attempted to do a good
May 5, 1970	COMMONS
job. I think the point that needs to be kept in mind is that the basic inadequacies have been in the area of government policy.
In my view, the latest example of that has to do with the question of operation LIFT. I hope that no government attempts to introduce marketing policies or to make use of the legislation now before us in the way the government has used the Canadian Wheat Board Act in introducing operation LIFT. The farmers have a rather colloquial and very down-to-earth term in referring to operation LIFT. If I were to use the term in this House,
I would possibly be ruled out of order. Perhaps I could refer to it in the way farmers use the term. They describe operation LIFT as being a half donkey type of plan. I think this contention on the part of many farmers is borne out when we take into account the comments made in answer to a Motion for Papers which I placed on the Order Paper some time after the announcement of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). On March 25 a Motion for Papers in my name was moved asking-
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all background studies and reports prepared for the government in connection with the Lower Inventory for Tomorrow and Wheat Acreage Reduction Programs.
What was the response of the government? When the motion was moved in the House of Commons the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence who on that day was dealing with Motions for Papers in the House, answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the hon. Otto E. Lang, Minister without Portfolio, that there are no background studies or reports prepared for the government as requested by the hon. member. Background material on this subject has been prepared by government officials. However, such material constitutes internal government documents and is therefore privileged. As there is no material suitable for tabling, the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
I think that certainly indicates the lack of adequate study and planning in presenting operation LIFT to the people of this country. I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the government is to carry on any sort of meaningful consultations with the farmers of this country in dealing with marketing problems in future, it will have to use a different approach than was used in connection with operation LIFT. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture, who is in his seat, and to the Minister without Port-
DEBATES	6G15
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill folio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who is also in his seat, that when consultations took place with the farm organizations on operation LIFT before it was announced, the plan that was discussed with the farm organizations was different from the plan finally announced. If that is not true, I challenge either of those ministers to rise in his place and say so.
I suggest that this illustrates the bankruptcy of government policy in dealing with the entire area of agricultural and farm marketing. I suggest that operation LIFT and the way it has been introduced is a distortion and perversion of the entire principle of orderly marketing.


An hon. Member:: You said it!


John Stratford Burton: If this is any indication of what the government will do with marketing legislation in the future, there is grave cause for doubt in dealing with the legislation now before us. I have some further remarks to make, but I do not have time to finish them this evening. Before calling it ten o'clock, may I have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to note that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), who is in his seat at the moment, has also taken a great deal of interest in this legislation. This is the first opportunity I have had in the House to congratulate him on his election to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I also have your indulgence to note a unique role that the hon. member for Selkirk has undertaken in becoming a member of this chamber. In 1968 there were elected to the House of Commons 96 members who had never before sat in this chamber. One of those members fell by the wayside when his election was declared null and void. In the two by-elections, prior to the one at Selkirk, held since 1968 we witnessed the return of hon. members who had previously sat in this House. Thus, the 95 of us were still junior members of the House of Commons. Now we have a new member of the House and the 95 of us can now consider that we are no longer the junior members of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Selkirk is now the junior member. Certainly he does not need to look askance at this new role because I suggest he can consider that he has taken the place formerly occupied by 95 members. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
May 5, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



GRAIN-WHEAT-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OR ALTERATION OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr.   Doug. Rowland@Selkirk: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I asked two questions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the substantial portions of which he declined to answer on the grounds that he did not agree with the premise upon which the questions were based, those premises being that operation LIFT was a failure and that it will be of virtually no assistance to those farmers whom I have the honour to represent and to farmers in like circumstances throughout the rest of Canada.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has spent a good deal of time lately on the Prairies talking to farmers. I should like to say at this time that if he still believes operation LIFT will succeed in reducing the acreage sown to wheat in western Canada by two-thirds, he has been doing a great deal more talking than listening.
During my campaign I must have visited between 20 and 25 per cent of the farm families in my riding. Not one of those farmers thought he would benefit from operation LIFT, and very few I talked to felt they would be in a position to comply with the provisions of the plan. Indeed, if I may be blunt, the greatest liability the Liberal candidate had in my campaign, next to the Prime Minister himself, was operation LIFT. Journalists have spent considerable time in the last few weeks commenting on operation LIFT and interviewing farmers to find out what they have done. They have all reached the conclusion that Mr. Newman reached in today's Globe and Mail, that farmers are rejecting the plan and will not co-operate with its provisions.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I mention also at this point, with respect to the premise upon which I based my question, that last month there were demonstrations in Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg which involved over 12,000 farmers. At each of these three demonstrations the 12,000 farmers denounced operation LIFT and demanded its
[Mr. Burton.)
abandonment by the government. If in the face of this kind of evidence and these events the minister still says that the plan is going to be a success, I hate to think of the kind of evidence the minister requires before he will indicate it is a failure.
I do not intend to go into the reasons for the likely failure of operation LIFT in any detail this evening. The reasons have been presented to this House in copious detail by numerous spokesmen of the opposition. All of the reasons are transparently obvious to the most casual observer. In summary, the opposition is arguing that Operation LIFT must be abandoned or substantially modified. Operation LIFT simply does not meet the farmers' needs; as a consequence they cannot or will not comply with its provisions.
In addition, opposition spokesmen have been saying that the plan is discriminatory in the extreme, especially with respect to areas such as the Interlake in Manitoba. Finally, the plan is an administrative nightmare. The validity of the arguments against operation LIFT which the opposition has been pressing upon the government is self-evident. Yet the government has not undertaken the entirely sensible action which members of the opposition parties have been recommending to them over the past several weeks. Why? I believe the government is not taking action because this plan was never really designed to work. That is, whether it meets the farmers' needs or not is entirely beside the point. That is not its purpose.
Operation LIFT was conceived by cynicism and born of arrogance. Operation LIFT is nothing more than another public relations effort by this government which seems to have advertising account executives hiding behind every door. It is a massive put-on. It is simply an attempt to "con" the city dweller into believing that this government is taking some action that will help the farmer. It is a "con" job.
I want to spend a moment on the circumstances in which operation LIFT was born. The farm cash income shortage on the Prairies had reached crisis proportions, so much so that people in the villages and the urban centres of the Prairies were beginning to be affected by it, beginning to sympathize with the farmers and beginning to demand action from the government. Operating on the assumption that they hold few rural ridings and that the cities must be held at any cost, the government conceived a plan which in terms relative to the size of the problem
May 5, 1970
would cost them next to nothing. With minimum expenditure the government could give city dwellers the impression that the government was hard at work attempting to solve the farmer's problems and thus avoid incurring a political liability of vast proportions in its main areas of strength.
The plan is tokenism of the worst sort since it attempts to pose as a substantial remedy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is fond of saying that it represents a massive injection of capital, $100 million, into the western economy. It represents nothing of the sort. Noncompliance with the plan will mean that the projected $100 million expenditure will be reduced to $55 million at most. Even if the west received the full $100 million, what does that mean in real terms when the farm income in Saskatchewan alone has declined by $167 million in the past year?
Two years ago the then Minister of Agriculture told the farmers of western Canada that he would undertake to sell at $1.95 f.o.b. Lakehead 433J million bushels of wheat per year over the next three years. For a number of years governments in Canada have been advising the farmers that they need to expand and specialize. These promises may have been sincerely made and the advice sincerely given, but the fact is they were wrong. I think the government of the day has an obligation to attempt to solve the problems that have been created because farmers followed that advice incorrect as it was, and because those promises could not be honoured. The proper way to do this would be to buy the farm-stored grain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Kon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I should like to have been able to congratulate the hon. member on his effort tonight in view of his status as a new member of this House. I will try to be as gentle as I can with him, bearing in mind what he has said.
I find it surprising that he should continue to say, in effect, "What's $100 million?"-to suggest that this is not a significant sum and even to infer that the provision of such an amount was somehow helpful to us politically in the cities. In fact it is difficult to explain in parts of the non-rural areas of the country why this program to help farmers was desirable. I am not surprised the hon. member does not understand the program. He has been
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion talking with his hon. friends who have been doing the general disservice of denying themselves an understanding of the plan and failing to acquaint farmers, in discussions with them, with the real benefits to be obtained from it.
1 shall not speculate as to the exact number of acres which may come out of production. Before long we shall know the facts. The truth is that the plan provides an opportunity for farmers with surpluses to avoid producing further crops and to dispose of their surpluses in favour of an improved cash position this year. It allows those without surpluses to calculate the advantage of growing wheat as compared with other crops. Generally, it will direct them to the growing of crops other than wheat this year as a further help in disposing of the wheat surplus.
I should like to emphasize the benefit of the plan to farmers without surpluses who will produce other crops. To the extent that this program is successful, many acres which might have been used to grow crops other than wheat may be kept out of production. This would allow farmers without a surplus to have a better market for barley and rape-seed. The plan does provide for an injection of cash into the Prairie region where it is so badly needed, particularly into those areas where grain has been the main source of income and where cash has been shortest.
In a situation like this, $100 million can be of significant assistance. Such a sum in the Prairie region has secondary and tertiary effects as it moves through the economy, and this is why I have asked from the beginning that hon. members join in explaining to farmers the advantages they can take from the plan and not spend all their time in petty, partisan carping.



POST OFFICE-POSTAGE RATE INCREASES FORECAST BY MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, since my question was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) I do not know who will be responding to my comments in this adjournment debate.


Eric William Kierans: I'll give you one guess.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Even before the Montreal crisis brought cabinet minister after cabinet minister into the act, the mismanagement of the Post Office Department had become a matter of concern for the whole government.

6618	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion This is a service department and the people of Canada have a right to ask the government as a whole why service is not being provided. This is especially pertinent when the same minister who has such difficulty in getting the written and printed word into circulation is playing godfather to a satellite communications project which will cost this country millions of dollars. Incidentally, I am sure it will cost much more and go into orbit much later than the minister's forecast of some months ago indicated. But on the hard-pressed Post Office and the long-suffering users of the mail service, this relentless "efficiency expert" will press a pay-as-you-go policy. Up will go the cost of stamps, lock boxes, money orders, keys, and so on-upward, ever upward.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
How encouraging to the Canadian people must be the utterance of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) yesterday. He said:
I repeat a promise made several times before, that future rate increases will be of smaller absolute size, will be introduced with as much advance notice as possible, and will quite possibly occur with greater frequency than in the past.
In other words, there will be smaller bites but more of them. Scarcely a comforting outlook for a long suffering public, and scarcely a promise attuned to the anti-inflationary chorus which the government has been singing for these many months. All of this is to start in 1971, based apparently on the assumption that the government's pusillanimous policies will have licked inflation by then. Little wonder that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday injected the comment that the Prime Minister, in agreeing with this assumption, could hardly have been serious. This famous quote in the speech that thrilled me so much yesterday, almost as much as the minister's review, catches the eye:
We intend to pay our way, which means that those who do not use the postal service will not be picking up the bill, through their taxes, for those who do.
This interesting declamation of the opting-out doctrine may put the Postmaster General in a new school of constitutional authorities. He has been in strange places before, but this might be a new one. I refer to the proposition that the citizen pays only for those governmental services that he uses. I trust that despite all that has happened in the last 20 months the government still admits that the Post Office should be a public service.

DEBATES	May 5, 1970
This is a formula with many intriguing possibilities. For example, the childless will be exempted from school taxes. Those who listen to private networks or local stations only will be excluded from the mammoth financial burdens that the country assumes on behalf of the CBC. Conceivably, the citizen who never used or needed police protection would opt out of contributing to the cost of maintaining our national police force, the RCMP. Such a process of selectivity of contributions to the public purse could be fascinating and would open avenues for M.A. and Ph.D. theses galore. You could opt out of this and into that. Individuality is the keynote. The resultant financial labyrinth would, however, make the white paper look like the purest of prose and the epitome of reason.
That the Post Office Department should be unique among government departments and asked to pay for itself, and it a service department, is surely something approaching absurdity. It should be efficient, of course; and at the moment it is not, nor does it seem to approach that goal. But that it must pay for itself, no matter that other aspects of governmental operation dig deeper into the treasury, is unbelievable.
It is this brittle insistence on this satus for the Post Office alone which has contributed considerably to the present plight of the minister and his department. The continuing obsession with the balance sheet, with proving the point come what may, has surely, after all these suffering months, been revealed for what it is. If before we are engulfed with greater ills we could concentrate on service instead of proving points, we might perhaps get things moving, including the mail itself.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the millifluous muse of the Conservative Party is often amusing, but he is rarely relevant and hardly ever impressive. His carping and constant criticisms are neither constructive nor do they reflect any particularly or deeply held beliefs or principles.
Yesterday I simply said to a group of the largest customers that the Canadian Post Office has, "Here are a few of the facts of life. In this day and age costs are rising. The government is determined to cut down the spiral of inflation which robs, as all of us know but few of us will admit, those who are weakest in society. It is our desire to protect them". You can cover the cost, including the
May 5, 1970	COMMONS
present postal union demands which all members on the opposite side will undoubtedly endorse, in one of three ways. This can be done by charging the people whose mail is carried by workers in the Post Office, by improving productivity and efficiency or by increasing the taxes of the general public.
We believe in a combination of the first two. We do not believe that $500,000 should be given in the form of a subsidy to the business community of this country who are 80 per cent users of the service. We believe they can afford to pay for the services they demand. We have given evidence of our intention to improve productivity and efficiency. We do not believe in making pick-ups in mail boxes where there are no letters, or in making runs that are duplicating or irrelevant. We do not believe in maintaining post offices after the population has moved away, nor do we believe in employing 450 people to distribute and carry the mail in Montreal when 250 people can do the job.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this. If we follow what the hon. member seems to suggest and provide this service at less than its cost, where shall the money come from? Shall it come from the pensions we are trying to increase for the aged? Shall it come from programs to increase housing and cure pollution? Shall it come from education? Shall it be taken away from the apparently legitimate demands of the provinces and municipalities? I am trying to point out that the members of the Tory Party exceed in their demands, although one would not expect it, the demands of the two parties to their left. But that party is distinguished from the two parties to the left because the members of that party never say where the money is to come from.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.



AIR CANADA-POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF EASTERN HEADQUARTERS FROM HALIFAX TO MONTREAL

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, after the high-blown prose of the rhetorical reunion of the two dear friends who have just spoken, my remarks I fear will appear to be pedestrian. Nonetheless I shall persevere. My remarks have their genesis in the question asked on April 29, as recorded at page 6413 of Hansard, by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis). He asked the Min-
DEBATES	6619
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) whether Air Canada had made him aware that it is considering the moving of its eastern headquarters from Halifax to Montreal. The minister replied that he had not had any such advice from Air Canada. The hon. member then asked the minister the following question:
The minister has not been informed of a number of things Air Canada is doing, but is he aware that this company which operated with six vice-presidents ... now has 19 vice-presidents and there are three more to come.
There was no response to that question. My colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), asked whether the minister would inform himself about the situation and advise the House at an early opportunity, and the minister replied that he would be glad to do so. The exchange was continued today. Before I relate that in brief, may I say that there was a statement made by the public relations officer of Air Canada, Mr. John Rankin, in Halifax to the effect that the present sales department and operational department will be replaced by a passenger service department. This step, by the way, is to be taken in all Air Canada centres, so I say to the fellows from the west that it will strike the west as well as the east. This is to be under one manager. In the Atlantic region the managers would report through the Halifax manager, as a sort of super-manager, to the head office in Montreal.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
My colleague, the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East raised last Thursday's question again in the House today, directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister indicated that a full report on reorganization would be given to the House when received. I complained that the specific question that had been raised by my colleague had received only a general answer and, as I recall, I asked, "Does that mean that the decision of Air Canada is the obliteration of a regional office in favour of centralization somewhere else?" The minister replied that this was exactly what he had asked of Air Canada and he had been told there was a complex reorganization under way; it was not something that could be answered within the framework of a normal verbal answer in the House. Thus our appearance tonight; the standard route was followed.
In any event, the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East and myself are informed that in a recent bulletin issued by Air Canada something called the Eastern Voyageur
May 5, 1970
6620	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Region is defined, and this embraces the province oi Quebec, metropolitan Ottawa and Atlantic Canada including Labrador. It stretches from Stittsville, in other words, to Bona-vista. There would be a regional office for this large land-mass in Montreal, says this bulletin of Air Canada, and the vice-president for this new region has not yet been appointed. So the prophet, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond may have been partly right when he said that three vice-presidents were on the way, because certainly one of those three is on the way.
Apparently, Air Canada has not advised the Minister of Transport of this, or perhaps if they sent him the bulletin it was put in the hands of the minister in charge of the Post Office and has not yet arrived. But what a heady word is "voyageur." Instead of canoes, one can see Viscounts, Vanguards, DC-8s and DC-9s floating through the great skies over Atlantic Canada, invisible strings attaching them to some vice-president yet to be appointed in Montreal. Montreal, sir, was always the great centre of the fur trade in the days of the early voyageurs who deposited there the skins that they took from western Canada. Now it looks as if it is the turn of the east to be skinned.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can merely reiterate in part at least what I said this afternoon and remind the House and you, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as management decisions are concerned it is for the directors of Air Canada to make them and it is not the habit, nor do I think that hon. members opposite any more than any member of this House would want it otherwise, for them to consult with or get the approval of the Minister of Transport for such matters as are entirely and by law, in fact, assigned to them.
I am in a bit of an awkward position, as hon. members will know, in seeking to answer these questions as specifically as I would like to, for the simple reason that until this reorganization is completed I have no way in which I can intrude into the process. I simply have to get the advice on the request

of members and pass it along to them. This I have attempted to do.
I was informed, subsequent to our discussion this afternoon, that in fact in the judgment of Air Canada-I am passing this on as a result of our conversation and not in any written form, so I would ask members to bear this in mind-the use of such terms as "regions" and so on has not really been in the old framework of Air Canada; that it came into common usage but was not necessarily a part of the organizational structure.
In fact, now there are going to be regions but there will only be three for the whole of the country. I have undertaken to provide members with a complete outline of the reorganization as soon as it is obtained from Air Canada. But as I understand it, under the new grouping there will be three separate regions, the one to which the hon. member has referred-and I agree with him that it is rather romantically titled-and two others. These will presumably be central Canada and western Canada.
Within these regions, however, I am told that there will be very large districts and that in fact the position with regard to, let us say Halifax, which is naturally the object of the hon. member's primary concern, would continue to be an important focal point in terms of Atlantic air transportation. Whether or not the outcome of this will be satisfactory to the hon. member, I frankly cannot say at this moment. I can only indicate the two steps I have taken. One is to request the details of the reorganization, the second is to advance the time at which the Committee on Transportation can deal with this matter and then hon. members will have a chance to question both the chairman of Air Canada and its top officials as to what is proposed.
I am assured by Air Canada that it is their intention to achieve a more efficient operation, in their judgment, but to do so and to temper this need for efficiency with a great deal of understanding of the personnel problems involved. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.



END OF VOLUME VI