1971-12-29

CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. It is one based on what I believe to be an urgent and pressing necessity. I do not expect that the House will support unanimously the substance of my motion but I hope hon. members will agree it is one which ought to be considered.
The Financial Post Directory of Directors for 1971 indicates that 19 of 23 directors of the Canada Development Corporation hold the office of president, vice-president or chairman of the board of 39 corporations and also hold among them 93 corporation directorships. In view of the obvious conflict of interest which may arise from this situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House is of the opinion that the government should consider the introduction of a bill to amend the Canada Development Corporation Act to provide that the directors of the said corporation shall divest themselves of any and all corporation directorships so that they will not be involved in any conflict of interest, and that in the meantime the government should request the said directors to divest themselves of any directorships they now hold.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. On December 7, and again yesterday, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated in the House that the Economic Council of Canada did not disagree with his department's evaluation technique of the Canada Manpower Training Program. Between pages 104 and 133 of its Eighth Annual Review, the Economic Council points out at least four essential
deficiencies in the program and found the evaluation technique to be defective in a further four critical areas. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg):
That this House refer the question of performance and evaluation of the Manpower Training Program to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will not be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Were books, pamphlets, etc., prohibited from entering Canada last year under Item 99201-1, Schedule C of the Custom Tariff Act on the grounds that they are of a "treasonable or seditious nature" and, if so, how many?
2.	Were books, pamphlets, etc., prohibited from entering Canada last year under Item 99201-1, Schedule C of the Custom Tariff Act on the grounds they they are of an "immoral or indecent character" and, if so, how many?
3.	What officials of the Department of National Revenue or what experts outside of the Department make the decisions prohibiting the entry of the above-mentioned items?
4.	What procedures have been established for appeals by individuals or organizations who feel that the decisions of the Department are unfair or improper?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: In so
far as National Revenue, Customs and Excise is concerned: 1. 1970 - two importations.
2.	1970 - 4,461 importations.
3.	Decisions can only be made by officials of Customs and Excise. These decisions are first made by senior executives, and they can be appealed to the Deputy Minister. The decision of the Deputy Minister can be appealed to the Courts.
4.	Appeal procedures are set out in Sections 46 and 50 of the Customs Act RSC 1970.


COMPLAINTS UNDER THE FEMALE EMPLOYEES EQUAL PAY ACT
Mr. Fairweather: In respect of the Minister's answer to Question 1,265, at page 5520 of Hansard, May 5, 1971, about complaints by virtue of the

December 29, 1971
Questions
Female Employees Equal Pay Act (a) on what dates were each of the eighteen complaints made (b) what were the names of the employers against whom complaints were made (c) about how many employees did each complaint cover (d) in whose favour was each complaint resolved (e) have any complaints been filed since July 1, 1971 and, if so (i) how many (ii) against whom (iii) what has been the disposition of each case?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister oi Labour):: (a) (i) February 17, 1970, one complaint; (ii) April 8, 1970, five complaints; (iii) June 26, 1970, eight complaints; (iv) December 2, 1970, three complaints; (v) February 15, 1971, one complaint.
(b)	This is privileged information.
(c)	Each complaint involved one employee.
(d)	(i) Not applicable, as the complaint was judged to be outside the purview of the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, and the complainant was so advised; (ii) In favour of the employer. In the opinion of the Department, the work was not identical or substantially identical within the meaning of the Female Employees Equal Pay Act; (iii) Same as answer to (d) (ii); (iv) In favour of the employer. The complaints did not meet the conditions specified in the Female Employees Equal Pay Act and no further action could be taken under this Act. The investigation was continued under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, Part III: (v) The complaint was withdrawn.
(e)	Yes. (i) One; (ii) This is privileged information; (iii) Still under investigation.


TASK FORCE REPORT ON YOUTH
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): What was the total cost of the Task Force report on Youth and how much of this cost was spent in salaries for the Task Force members?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: The total cost of the Committee on Youth Report as of September 30, 1971 was $509,767.07. All staff members were employed under contract. The total expenditure for "Professional Services" was $408,711.46.


FEDERAL GRANTS MADE TO THE YUKON BROTHERHOOD
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Which departments 'of the government have made grants to the Yukon Native Brotherhood for the fiscal years 1968-69,1969-70 and 1970-71?
2.	What was the amount of such grant by each such department?
3.	What was the purpose of each such grant and was each such grant utilized for the intended purpose?
4.	With respect to each such grant, was an audited or any financial statement required by each or any such department from the Brotherhood?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: 1.1968-69, No; 1969-70, Yes; 1970-71, Yes.
2.	1968-69, Nil; 1969-70, $2,562; 1970-71, $27,438.
3.	To provide funds for the organizing, operation and support of the Yukon Native Brotherhood to provide a

management and operational unit to conduct the affairs of the Brotherhood. Grants were used for the purpose intended.
4.	No, as the grants were made on a non-accountable basis.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: Citizenship Development: 1. and 2. 1968-69, Nil; 1969-70, Nil; 1970-71, $22,400.
3.	(a) The purpose of the grant was to assist the Brotherhood in their effort to organize, develop and implement programs designed to aid the native population of the Yukon. The grant covered basic staff and office costs, meeting and travel expenses and professional services, (b) Yes.
4.	An audited financial statement was required


FEDERAL SUPPORT TO THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What has been the total support of the National Cancer Institute from federal sources since 1947?
2.	What proportion does this total constitute of the total income of the Institute during that period?
3.	What proportion of the total budget of the Institute for 1971-72 is contributed by the government?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Under the various health programs, administered within the Health Insurance and Resources Branch, federal financial support to the National Cancer Institute amounted to more than $4,000,000 for the period 1948-49 to
1970-	71.
2.	The total income of the Institute for the total period 1948-49 to 1970-71 is not readily available to us.
3.	Information on the total budget of the Institute for
1971-	72 is not readily available to us. However, an amount of $250,000 is being made available to the Institute for the fiscal year 1971-72.


NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE OF CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Have amendments to the terms of reference of the National Health Grants and the Public Health Research Grants been made which reduce the eligibility of the National Cancer Institute of Canada to receive support from these sources?
2.	Was there a marked reduction in the rate of growth of the Medical Research Council Budget in the past two years?
3.	Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare prepared to assure continued growth of the Canadian Cancer Research Program by increasing the size of the annual award to the National Cancer Institute of Canada?


John Carr Munro: 1. No.
2.	From March 1969 to March 1972, the Medical Research Council Budget has gone from $31,215,000 to $36,142,000 which is an increase of 15.8 per cent.
3.	Researchers in the field of cancer are encouraged to submit specific proposals for research assistance within the terms of federal programs in this field-namely Medical Research Council, National Health Grant, and Public Health Research Grant.
December 29, 1971


RECOMMENDATIONS OF RECENT POLICY CONFERENCE OF UKRAINIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the government considering the recommendations of the recent policy conference of Ukrainian Canadians that in order to accommodate the multi-cultural nature of the Canadian Confederation all languages spoken in Canada be recognized as Canadian languages?
2.	Has a reply been made to the request and, if so, what was the nature of the reply?
3.	Has the government also replied to the recommendation that Canadian embassies and immigration offices abroad improve information about the multi-lingual and multi-cultural nature of our society and, if so, what was the nature of the reply?
[TranslationJ


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The government is aware of the recommendation of the recent policy conference of Ukrainian Canadians. The new policy of multiculturalism recognizes that Canada is a multicultural country, operating within a bilingual framework. While there are two official languages in Canada, the government recognizes all languages as instruments of Canadian cultural expression.
2.	No official request was received by the government asking it to consider the recommendation of the conference of Ukrainian Canadians.
3.	Information kits on the new government policy of multiculturalism have been distributed through the Department of External Affairs, and Manpower & Immigration, to their offices overseas. The government is considering other measures to publicize its policy of multiculturalism.


ABORTIONS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of including the opinion of other disciplines as well as a medical opinion when a request is made for an abortion?


John Carr Munro: In Section 237, subsection (6) f., the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 with respect to abortion, there is no restriction regarding the inclusion of opinion of disciplines other than medical in the hospital therapeutic abortion committee.


CANADA PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total amount collected for the Canada Pension Plan in 1969 and 1970?
2.	What amount was paid out in the years 1969 and 1970?
3.	What was the total amount collected for the Canada Pension Plan since its inception?
4.	What amount has been loaned to each of the provinces during the total period?
5.	What is the total amount credited to the Canada Pension Plan, including all loans as at December 31, 1970?
Hon. ]ohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Since the Canada Pension Plan is a partially funded social insurance plan, contributions received together with interest earned, will exceed benefit pay-
24725-55;
Questions
ments during the early years of the plan. Full retirement benefits are being reached in stages over a ten year transition period. Survivors benefits did not become payable until the third year of the operation of the plan. Disability benefits did not become payable until the fifth year. Income received by the Fund will come into balance with benefits payments sometime in the 1980's after which the Fund will steadily decline.
1.	Contributions
1969	$737,442,655.17
1970	$773,108,006.61
Other
1969	$3,755,782.17
1970	$4,592,053.18
Interest on Investments $124,332,645.57 $189,052,025.96
Total

2.	Total Benefit Payment	
1969	$38,167,132.09	
1970	$77,781,817.53	
3.		Interest
	Contributions	on Investments
To Dec. 31/70	$3,503,129,825.71	$429,683,200.76To Sept. 30/71	$4,066,489,929.46	$607,197,644.70Other	TotalTo Dec. 31/70	$14,598,380.77	$3,947,411,407.24To Sept. 30/71	$17,375,785.09	$4,691,063,359.254.	To December	To OctoberProvince	1970	1971Newfoundland	$ 66,838,000	$ 82,628,000Prince Edward Island	13,142,000	16,407,000Nova Scotia	135,708,000	167,700,000New Brunswick	103,509,000	127,593,000Quebec	11,585,000	17,359,000Ontario	1,964,255,000	2,411,073,000Manitoba	207,202,000	255,465,000Saskatchewan	166,083,000	204,926,000Alberta	324,061,000	401,970,000British Columbia	510,026,000	627,636,000Canada Government	19,573,000	25,373,000Total	3,521,982,000	4,338,130,000
5. Closing balance December 31/70, 3,596,496,316.18


CMHC-MORTGAGE INSURANCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the amount of mortgage insurance moneys paid to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the form of mortgage insurance in each of the years since the introduction of this scheme?
2.	How is this money allocated, by way of reserve or purchase of insurance from outside private agencies?

December 29, 1971
Questions
3.	What was the amount of losses which required payment out of the insurance fund?
4.	What reserve still exists?
5.	Is the government giving consideration to reducing the present 2 per cent mortgage insurance fee?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Mortgage insurance fees paid to the Mortgage Insurance Fund established under Section 9 of the National Housing Act, have amounted to: 1954. $2,389,850; 1955, $9,237,250; 1956, $9,839,746; 1957, $7,278,911; 1958, $13,816,071; 1959, $13,146,403; 1960, $8,456,279; 1961, $10,970,952; 1962, $11,576,518; 1963, $9,868,797; 1964, $12,063,480; 1965, $13,500,496; 1966, $14,272,850; 1967, $16,491,251; 1968, $14,640,563; 1969, $14,994,782; 1970, $10,710,731; total $193,254,930.
2.	This money is allocated by way of reserve.
3.	The total amount of claims and legal expenses paid from the Mortgage Insurance Fund, to September 30, 1971, was $90,172,455.
4.	The total of the reserves of the Mortgage Insurance Fund, at September 30, 1971, was $302,881,829.
5.	The amendments to the National Housing Act, approved in June, 1969, included a provision for a reduction in the mortgage insurance fees charged under Section 5(6) of the Act. The mortgage insurance fees are now calculated as follows: (a) Loans for home-ownership require a fee of 1 per cent of the loan amount if progress advances are required during construction, and 7/8 per cent of the loan amount if the loan is advanced in total upon completion, (b) Loans made for rental housing require a fee of 1 1/4 per cent of the loan amount if progress advances are required during construction, and 1-1/8 per cent of the loan amount if the loan is advanced in total upon completion.


NHA LOANS FOR EXISTING HOUSING AND REHABILITATION OF HOUSING AREAS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	To what extent has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided money for guaranteed loans on older homes?
2.	Will Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation extend funds for the rehabilitation of housing areas in the Metropolitan Toronto area and elsewhere and, if so. to what extent?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. See following table.
2. In 1970, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved loans totalling $1.5 million under Section 58(40) of the National Housing Act for the purchase and rehabilitation of 200 housing units in the Don Mount and Don Vale area of the City of Toronto. The continuation of this program in 1971 includes loans under Section 15(16) to finance the purchase, repair and/or conversion of existing housing to provide 25 housing units, located in the area bounded by Sherbourne, Parliament, Carlton and Shuter Streets. A Federal contribution of $2.5 million was approved in September, 1971, under Section 24 of the National Housing Act, to assist in the implementation of a pilot rehabilitation project in the Strathcona area of Vancouver. The total cost of the program is estimated at $5 million, with the Province of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver each contributing $1.25 million. Resident property owners of the area, depending on their incomes and required rehabilitation costs, will be eligible to receive grants and/or loans of up to $3,000 each which can be used to repair and rehabilitate their existing homes. The question of extending rehabilitation assistance is a matter which is currently under consideration.
NHA Insured Loans Approved for Existing Housing
Approved Lenders (Sec. 6)	CMHC (Sec. 58)	TotalYear	Loans Units Amount	Loans Units Amount	Loans Units Amount1967	5	5	511968	3	5	501969	674	685	10,2451970	5,284	5,344	77,8751971 (January-September)...	10,894	11,053	167,682


CMHC-APARTMENT BUILDING, 6595 BOYCE STREET, MONTREAL
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation own the apartment building located at 6595 Boyce Street in Montreal and, if so (a) on what date was it acquired (b) how many apartment units are there in the building (c) are the apartments leased exclusively to senior citizens?
2.	Were all the stoves and refrigerators replaced in each apartment and, if not, how many were replaced and what was the reason for not replacing all of them?

		J			$
3,660	3,746	34,962	3,665	3,751	35,0133,466	3,660	34,158	3,469	3,665	34,2083,584	3,789	42,408	4,258	4,474	52,6531,882	2,149	24,268	7,166	7,493	102,1431,300	1,346	16,246	12,194	12,399	183,928Hon.	Robert	K. Andras	(Minister	of State	for Urban
Affairs): 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation owns the apartment building located at 6595 Boyce Street, Montreal. This building is part of a two-building senior citizen project, the second being located at 6666 Boyce Street, (a) These buildings were acquired in January, 1962, (b) There are 27 apartment units in the first building, and 59 apartment units in the second, (c) The apartments are leased exclusively to senior citizens.
2. All of the stoves and refrigerators were not replaced in each apartment, 70 refrigerators and 83 stoves being replaced during 1971. 16 refrigerators and three stoves were not replaced because tenants in occupancy have preferred to use their own appliances.
December 29, 1971


PUBLIC SERVICE-FLQ EMPLOYEES
Mr. Robinson: Were any of the persons charged as being members of the FLQ employees of the Public Service of Canada and, if so, how many?


James Alexander Jerome: Information not available.


CMHC HOUSING PROJECT, AMOS, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: Does the government own any housing units for low income families in the city of Amos, Quebec and, if so (a) how many (b) when were they built (c) for what income levels were they intended?


Robert Knight Andras: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation owns a 96-unit rental housing project in the City of Amos, Quebec, although it is not specifically designated for rental to low-income families, (a) (b) 48 of these units were built in 1954-55, and the remaining 48 units were built in 1957-58, these projects being financed under former Section 16 of the National Housing Act for rental to families of low income. CMHC acquired these projects as a result of default under the hypothecs on June 1st, 1959. (c) At the time the loans were made, income limits for continued occupancy were based on an amount equal to six times the rent charged. In accordance with its policy in such cases, CMHC has not imposed any income limits since acquiring the two projects. The present rental rates are $68 per month for three bedroom apartments, and $79 per month for four bedroom apartments.


GRANTS TO THE MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	During the past two years, has the Medical Research Council commented to the government on restrictions in the growth of the budget for cancer research?
2.	Has the Medical Research Council requested an increase in its grant and, if so, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare prepared to advocate the principle of awarding a block grant of one million dollars to this organization?


John Carr Munro: 1. The Medical Research Council has drawn to the attention of the government that additional support for research in the health sciences in Canada could be usefully employed and would be particularly beneficial in a number of important areas including investigations relating to cancer.
2. The Medical Research Council has requested and has received each year an increase in the funds appropriated by Parliament for the support of research in the health sciences.


FOG DISSIPATION AT AIRPORTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given, or is a study underway, to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of airborne commercial seeding techniques in dissipating fog at airports?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: A fog dispersal program, by airborne
Questions
commercial seeding techniques, started at the Vancouver International Airport in October 1970, and continued for a period of four (4) months. Program development, evaluation and documentation were carried out by the members of the Committee which was organized for this purpose. The program was renewed in October 1971 to carry through to December and into 1972 if required. The British Columbia Research Council is involved in the assessment of technique and effectiveness during the current program, along with Department of Transport staff and those of the seven (7) participating airlines.


PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK-GOLF COURSE
Mr. Burton: 1.	What was the total amount of gross receipts from the operation of the golf course at Prince Albert National Park in 1971?
2.	What was the total cost of operating the golf course and associated facilities, and what amount of the total cost was for administration and maintenance, respectively?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.

2. Administration $1,341, Maintenance $21,469, Total Cost $22,810. These figures represent direct costs only for 1971 to date. There is no means of identifying indirect overhead costs such as depreciation on equipment, original investment and a proportionate share of the park administration costs.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANTS
Mr. McGrath: What was the number of grants and average grant size to companies who prior to receiving a Regional Development Incentives grant employed (a) 25 to 49 persons (b) 50 to 99 persons (c) 100 to 199 persons (d) 200 to 499 persons (e) 500 to 999 persons (f) 1,000 or more?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The requested information is not accumulated or kept by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


LIVESTOCK SHIPPING
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture consulted with the Purebred Livestock Breeders Associations about the problem of shipping small numbers of livestock across Canada?
2.	Has the Department of Agriculture investigated the technical shipping problems pertaining to such livestock and, if so, what is its conclusion?
3.	Has the Department of Agriculture considered giving a freight subsidy to shippers of purebred livestock?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. and 2.
There have been consultations on an informal basis. The problem is related to the minimum charges applicable to a shipment. On rail shipments, significant economies can be achieved by shipping in carload lots.
3. Yes, and freight assistance is provided in the case of the Eastern movement of Western breeding ewes.

December 29, 1971
Order for Return KEJIMKUJIK NATIONAL PARK


Mr. Crouse: Has the government reached a decision for the establishment in Nova Scotia of a section of coastline which will be part of but separate from Kejimkujik National Park and, if so (a) what are the boundaries of the area selected (b) what amount has been set aside for this development (c) on what date will work on this project commence?


J. Judd Buchanan: No conclusions have been reached on this proposal as discussions with the Province have not been finalized, (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past year, in how many cases did the government charge and prosecute companies for violations of the Combines Investigation Act, except for cases under section 33(c)?
2.	In each case (a) what were the names of the companies involved (b) what were the names of the companies found guilty and what were the penalties imposed by the Court?
3.	What were the costs to the government of investigating and prosecuting the above cases, exclusive of the salaries of permanent government employees, but including fees paid to lawyers, court reporters and other officials, travelling expenses for officers of the department, cost of transcripts, etc.?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, on a question of privilege, draw the attention of Your Honour and the government to a series of questions, Nos. 1,709, 1,723, 1,724 and 1,727, standing in my name since September and seeking information relating to what was in fact an invasion of privacy in the community of Atlin in northern British Columbia in respect of the activities of customs officers and RCMP. Inasmuch as the people of Atlin were very much concerned about the matter at that time, and are concerned about the answers to the questions advanced on their behalf, I wonder if we might have some indication as to when those answers might be received.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, we will try to answer those questions just as soon as possible.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker, my question No. 1,343 has been on the order paper since April 27 and I wonder whether we can have an answer to it during the next session.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of this and will look into it.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to look into questions Nos. 1,738, 1,739 and 1,740 which were submitted on September 21 and which ask for very simple statistical information of the; Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and also question No. 2,184 submitted on November 25 which asks a simple, straightforward question on the operations of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I might state that these questions are of the type Your Honour very properly ruled from time to time should be placed on the order paper. It becomes rather difficult when there is such

undue delay on the part of the government in answering questions placed on the order paper by members of the House.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, as in the past we often come to a different assessment concerning what is and what is not a simple matter of statistics, but we will check these questions again to see if they cannot be answered at the earliest possible moment.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that all these motions be allowed to stand at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask when we may expect a response to notice of motion for production of papers No. 247 in my name, and which also relates to questions I posed earlier. This motion deals with allegations made by officials of government about smuggling in that part of Canada that borders on Alaska. When might we expect a response to that notice of motion.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the list of notices of motions which has been transferred for debate, of course, is already considerably longer than any list that could possibly be dealt with during the present session. We are making every effort to determine which of the remaining notices of motions we can respond to in the House, short of transferring them for debate. I will include the hon. member's notice of motion in the list we are considering.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In the absence of the statement which we hoped the minister would make today, may I ask the minister if he can assure the House that, as a result of the most recent and successful hijacking which took place in Canada, all the necessary security precautions are being put into immediate effect at all airports across the country and if the minister will perhaps reconsider his position and make a statement on this question in order to put the public mind at rest.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, am I to gather that the hon. member's question is addressed to me?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I could rephrase the question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. I heard the question but I did not hear the first part of it. The answer is, of course,
December 29, 1971

yes, precautionary measures have been taken. I think members will be gratified to note that the head of the Pilots Association this morning said he is satisfied we are moving in the right direction. I have considered the possibility of making a statement on motions but have come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to do so. I am looking at means by which interested members of the House might be apprised, perhaps in camera, of some aspects of the problem.


Mr. Forrestall:: When?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will do that as quickly as it is possible to arrange it. However, I think hon. members and the House in general will understand that this is not a matter that can be dealt with in detail, in public.



HIJACKING-PROVISION OF SECURITY GUARDS ON PLANES

James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps in the interests of the deterrent effect that it might have on any potential hijacker, it might be in the public interest if the minister would be a little more frank in his reply. That is a matter of opinion. May I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might ask his supplementary question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is as follows. Has the minister received any recommendations, and does he propose to act on those recommendations, regarding in-flight security. In other words, are we now considering providing security guards on flights of Canadian aircraft?


Hon. Donald C. lamieson (Minister oi Transport):: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker. We are not considering it at the moment and would not consider it without further consultation with the Pilots Association at least, that association up to the moment having said that this is not a solution it favours. There was a meeting yesterday with pilots making up part of the Pilots Association along with, as I understand, some international pilots, and as a result there may be coming forward to me some additional recommendations. At the moment they have not arrived. As I understand their position, and it is one with which I agree, they do not favour the idea of having armed guards on board Canadian aircraft.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has there been any contact, either through regular diplomatic channels or directly, with the government of Cuba with a view to extraditing the man who hijacked an Air Canada aircraft.


An hon. Member:: Explain.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: Can that be done either under the present extradition treaty or under some other Canadian law?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First, I should say that the government of Cuba has been very co-operative with us in the handling of the hijacking incident. They enabled the aircraft to return to Canada without any delay. We expect to receive co-operation from the Cuban government. Consideration is now being given to applying for extradition under the present extradition agreement that we have with Cuba.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs collaborating with the provincial attorney general who is responsible for the county of Peel in Ontario, over which the incident took place? Also, have there been conversations with the attorney general of Ontario in connection with the statements that he has publicly made with respect to extradition probabilities.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Perhaps I can answer that question. The office of the Attorney General of Canada has been in touch with the department of the attorney general of Ontario, and conversations have taken place.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the Minister of Justice be kind enough to advise the House whether or not there is a meeting of minds with respect to the public declarations of the officials involved with his administrative people with respect to the laying of charges.


John Napier Turner: I think that the attorney general of Ontario, like any other attorney general, would not make any statements as to whether he will or will not lay charges.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I have a supplementary question to the one asked the Minister of Transport. Did the Leader of the Opposition leave a forwarding address before leaving on vacation?


J. Michael Forrestall: Go to hell.


Mr. Danforth:: What a stupid question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: You can't manage the business of the House, so don't ask stupid questions like this one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the House allow the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre to ask a question. He has the floor at present.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very large number of corporation directorships held by 19 of the directors of the Canada Development Corporation, will the government consider asking these gentlemen and Mrs. Thur to do as ministers of the Crown have done for many years, namely, divest themselves of these directorships so that there will not be a conflict of interest?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister oi Finance):: The answer is no. The fact that the gentlemen who are directors of the CDC have directorships in other corporations, and had them before they became directors of CDC, indicates that they are people of first class quality and we want them to direct the CDC. Secondly, we would expect the directors of the CDC to act as directors of all corporations should, namely, where there is a conflict of interest involved they would not get themselves involved jn the transaction and would withhold their vote.


Mr. Baldwin:: Why did you not ask Hal Banks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of Finance give consideration to the fact that when these directors are directors of banks and finance companies and large American owned corporations, there is danger of conflict of interest which should be avoided?


Edgar John Benson: Of course, there is always a danger of conflict of interest when a person is a director of more than one corporation, but we trust that the people we have chosen as directors of CDC, whom I think are first class, will behave properly and will not get themselves involved in a conflict of interest.


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Will the minister explain why there has been no appointment to the CDC from the province of Newfoundland?


Gerald William Baldwin: Because there are no Liberals left there.


Mr. Bell:: Jim Tucker is in town.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Reglna-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the reply that he gave to the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he would endeavour to persuade corporations in Canada to appoint a much larger number of people to their boards of directors so that we could have a lot more people in this country whom the minister and the government could consider first class-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question is in order.



AIRPORTS


Walter C. Carter: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. On December 22, in reply to a question I put to him regarding the instrument landing system at the Torbay airport at St. John's, the minister expressed some doubts as to whether the system was working and promised to reply later. Could he inform the House whether the system is working?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically because I do not quite understand to what specific instrument landing system the hon. member referred. I am not sure whether he is speaking of new installations or of ones that were in place before, one of which failed. If he is speaking of the one which failed, I may say that I checked personally on December 23 and was told it is now in operation. However, there is additional equipment involved. I am not sure whether it is installed at this moment but I do know that it is in the process of being installed. This is the latest information that I have, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's West on a supplementary, but I would point out that the Chair has been trying to recognize hon. members on questions supplementary to the previous question. The question period may become a bit confused but the hon. member for St. John's West has the floor at the moment, and following that I will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who has a supplementary to the previous question.



NUMBER OF LOCATIONS AT WHICH DEVICES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED TO PREVENT HIJACKING

Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question again is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should inform him that the system to which I referred was the one which, on February 15, 1970, was promised would be inaugurated. My question is supplementary to the one asked by my colleague from St. John's East. If the minister is unable to name the airports where detection devices have been installed can he tell the House how many airports, the number of airports at which the system has been installed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I find it difficult without abusing your prerogatives, Mr. Speaker, to find how this is supplementary, but the answer is that I am not prepared to give that information publicly.

December 29, 1971



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) today handed us a communique to the effect that 1,380 economists, statisticians and sociologists are employed by various federal departments, receiving salaries totalling $23 million, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of that fact and whether it is these 1,380 officials who advise the government in its decision to fight inflation or deflation, or related to economic conditions prevailing in Canada.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Is the hon. member referring to economists and statisticians employed by the federal government?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, their role is similar to that of all officials, which is to advise the minister to whom they are responsible. This minister must make decisions on the basis of all this expertise and his own knowledge of the country.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that there are 1,380 such persons in the federal departments?


Mr. Speaker:: I don't believe this part of the question is in order. The hon. member is merely asking if the Prime Minister is aware that a certain number of civil servants are working in the Public Service. The question, as such, is out of order. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase his question or ask again the second part of it.


David Réal Caouette: I shall ask the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker. Are these the people who advise the government on policies that are followed or that are introduced in the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose so, in various areas. These economists and statisticians are distributed among all government departments. There are some in the Department of Agriculture and certainly in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well as with the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance. Those people advise the ministers in the manner I described earlier. I definitely see nothing there to make a fuss about.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate the use to
Inquiries of the Ministry
which the first $5 million of the $18 million aid program which Canada has designated to assist East Pakistan refugees in India has been put, whether he has had any advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and also will he say whether the government has decided on the use to which the remaining $13 million will be put? In effect, I ask simply for a progress report with respect to Canada's aid program.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we only allocated $5 million of the $22 million that is available was to see that the money was properly used for the purpose for which it was appropriated. As I said when I gave an answer just before Christmas, $2 million has been turned over to the High Commissioner for Refugees and the other $3 million to Canadian voluntary agencies. I have not yet had a report since this decision on exactly what is being done with that money by the High Commissioner for Refugees. I understand in general, however, that aid is still getting to the refugees and I am hopeful that will continue to be the case, notwithstanding the rather chaotic conditions that exist.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. Would the minister be kind enough to indicate to the House, if I understand his response correctly, whether any of this money is being used for the repatriation of these people? Have we done anything with respect to transport or is the High Commissioner utilizing any of the Canadian money for assistance in transporting these people back home?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot vouch for the exact use of the $2 million which will form part of the funds at the disposition of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. However, I did in my answer indicate that the money would be used not only for relief on the spot but also to help in the repatriation, so we have no objection if some money is used for that purpose.



POLLUTION


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, but in his absence I would direct it to his parliamentary secretary. What action if any can be taken by the Department of the Environment to prevent the government of Ontario from implementing a plan to transport the garbage of Toronto and dump it in Northern Ontario?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, naturally we are not involved in what would essentially be a provincial action, but we are keeping an eye on it.
10818

December 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PLAN TO DUMP TORONTO GARBAGE IN NORTHERN


B. Keith Penner: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I should like to know if the Prime Minister would entertain a serious proposal from responsible representatives in Northern Ontario to initiate talks for the creation of a new province so that we can become something other than the garbage dump for southern Ontario?


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: A supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary. Since much of this material originally comes from Northern Ontario in the shape of pulp and paper and ores, I wonder if the government would not consider supporting this proposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the government has applied to Cuba for the extradition of the man who kidnapped the plane a few days ago, does the government also intend to apply to the United States for the extradition of Hal Banks who committed far more serious and extraditable crimes before fleeing to that country? Could we have an answer?
Since no answer is forthcoming, Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice? Could the minister inform the House of any good reason why Mr. Hall Banks should not be extradited to this country?


Thomas Miller Bell: Double jeopardy Turner!


John Napier Turner: That is right, double jeopardy. We have advice from the counsel of the United States given to the Attorney General of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada that the proceedings against Mr. Banks were exhausted. That was said in the House two years ago.


George Harris Hees: And that advice was given to the American government by the Canadian government because we did not want him to come up here and talk, and you know it. You know what he would say if he got here.


Jean Marchand: What would he say?


John Napier Turner: George, why don't you extradite yourself?


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the

minister indicate at this time whether the cigarette industry is carrying out its undertaking to place a health warning on its products commencing in 1972?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. members question correctly, I think the cigarette manufacturers do intend to put a warning on as soon as they can.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order please. The hon. member for Oxford.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister tell the House if he has now made up his mind whether or not he will be restoring grants for cancer research?


John Carr Munro: As I indicated, we are looking into that situation now, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain whether needed help will be given to the cancer research society either from the Medical Research Council or our department. We are looking at it sympathetically.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Since there is a great deal of interest in this matter, would the minister make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity and tell the House in detail what he intends to do?


John Carr Munro: I shall look into the situation again and see where it stands as of today, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to inform the House, but I doubt very much whether it will be necessary to do it by way of motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will soon be running out of time. Perhaps the Chair for the moment should recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing urgency in medical manpower and the critical failure in some areas to provide medical care when required, as well as the favourable opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on the possibility of running universities for the 12 calendar months instead of the present academic year, will the minister meet with his counterparts in the provinces and come to some agreement on a program for running medical schools in semesters for a full calendar year instead of the present academic year?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the hon. member several times that we have assisted the provinces in terms of facilities for medical education through the
December 29, 1971

health research fund, that is in terms of shared capital costs and through the post-secondary education fund for operating costs. We have also, through national health grants, assisted many organizations in terms of developing auxiliary health personnel who can do much of the routine work that our doctors do. Through all these techniques, we think we are relieving the medical manpower shortage very considerably. There is no doubt that we need the help and co-operation of the provinces in terms of using these facilities on a year-round basis and cooperating with us in the development of auxiliary health personnel. We think we are getting that. If there is anything more the hon. member would like to see done, he can take it up with his own political sympathizers who are in power in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Take it easy.


Philip Bernard Rynard: May I draw to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare the fact that it was the government of which he was a member that brought in national medicare-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: -and they have responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Jack Marshall: My
question is supplementary to the previous one on cancer research. In view of the fact that the American government is spending $1.6 billion on cancer research, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare advise the House what consultation there is between his department and the Americans on the progress they are making?


John Carr Munro: I cannot answer that question in detail, Mr. Speaker, other than to advise the hon. member that our health officers are in constant liaison with their counterparts through attendance at various conferences in order to keep up with events.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise the House how soon, after January 1 next, he is going to have completed the regulations pertaining to the administration of Bill C-259 or is the tax-paying public going to have to experience weeks and possibly months of indecision?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position today to give the information which the hon. member is seeking. We will certainly attempt to have the regulations available as soon as possible after the act is in force.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government have to wait until a further large batch of amendments are brought in next year by the Minister of Finance before the regulations are in force?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: My question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As a result of the information gleaned at the consultation conferences with Indian people a while ago and the decision of the government to bury the so-called white paper on Indian Affairs, is the minister, someone in his department or some draftsman in the Department of Justice, currently drafting amendments to the Indian Act around information they received from the Indian people about those changes that are needed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have consulted with Indians as much as we could in the last three years, and we asked them to make precise recommendations regarding amendments to the Indian Act. Unfortunately, they have come up with very few such recommendations lately. But if they have any to submit, we shall be very happy to examine them and to amend the Indian Act accordingly.
(English]


Frank Howard: My question is not really supplementary. It is the original question to which the minister did not reply. As a result of those representations that have been made, and this extends over quite a period of time, is the minister, someone in his department or someone in the Department of Justice currently translating these representations into legislative changes to the Indian Act in anticipation of introducing something at the next session?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Following our first discussions with the Indians, many recommendations were made to them which they found unacceptable. With regard to specific problems, such as that of determining who belongs to a given band, I must say that opinions are about equally divided. It is rather difficult for me to decide for them. Still, should they want me to do so, I am quite willing to oblige.


Frank Howard: One further supplementary question.
24725-56 J

December 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary.


Frank Howard: I want to ask the minister why he is evading the question.



HARBOURS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I was taken by surprise, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Transport. I believe the minister is aware of the problems that exist in the city of Hamilton in so far as the city of Hamilton and the Hamilton Harbour Commission are concerned. First, there is the conflict of interest of the port directors and, second, the problem of land swap deals between the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, Stelco and Dominion Foundaries and Steel. Is the minister in a position to advise the House soon by way of a statement as to his interest and jurisdiction in these two particular controversial problems in order that we can get the thinking of the federal government with regard to these very two important matters that are faced by the city of Hamilton and the citizens of the city of Hamilton at the present time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: might be able to give the answer to the hon. member now, Mr. Speaker. In so far as the conflict of interest issue is concerned, this has no relationship in so far as the federal government is concerned. He is an appointee of the harbour commission and, as such, must be dealt with by the harbour commission. In so far as the so-called land swap is concerned, the only action that would be required by us is approval of an order in council if all of the other parties agreed and the matter was resolved to the point where an order in council was submitted to us. I can advise the hon. member that no such request for an order in council has been received to date.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question. In view of the fact the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners are not particularly concerned about the use of the land surrounding the harbour, is it the intention of the minister to involve himself with the city of Hamilton vis-a-vis this particular incident before making any decision when it comes to land swaps between the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners and any other industry in the city of Hamilton?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the question is to some extent hypothetical until such time as the request for an order in council comes forward. In the meantime, we received representations both pro and con regarding this proposal. I will be pleased to take these into account if and when some request for federal action is brought forward, but there has been none as yet.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the new regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act will come into force in a few days, can the Minister of Labour say whether the personnel employed by school boards and hospitals in the province of Quebec will or will not be subject to them?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, those employed by the school boards or school commissions of the province of Quebec, including school teachers, and those employed in hospitals in the province of Quebec will be treated precisely as these classes of employees are in other provinces and will be covered by the new Unemployment Insurance Act come January 1.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: My question is for the
Minister of Agriculture. What action is his department taking to meet alleged difficulties of users of western feed grain in the Atlantic provinces who allege that their competitive position is being eroded because the basic price paid for the grain which they receive is higher in most cases than similar grain used for feeding in western Canada and for export?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this question has been brought to my attention by a number of producer groups, not only in the Atlantic provinces, but in the province of Quebec as well. I can advise the hon. member that the Canada Grains Council undertook a survey of this whole matter some five weeks ago, I believe. They require a terminal period of about two months before they will be completing the program. We will be looking at those findings along with other suggested solutions to satisfy this demand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment if he will resume his seat. I appreciate that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East also has a supplementary. Hon. members should appreciate that we will soon be running short of time and we will have to reduce the number of supplementaries as much as possible.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: In view of the answer just given by the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to
December 29, 1971

direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture referred to him the question which I asked last Thursday about this particular problem. In view of the fact that on January 5 there will be further increases in the cost of imports of concentrates for feed to all the producers in the Atlantic area, what is the minister or the Canadian Transport Commission going to do about this? Has this question been referred to the minister?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If this question is related to freight rates, Mr. Speaker, any action which might be taken will come under the Canadian Transport Commission. As I have said repeatedly in this House, until they have taken any action, I am as ignorant as the hon. member, and I mean that in a kindly fashion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would not abuse-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question. If he is rising on a point of order, I am prepared to recognize him on that basis.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I can only be kind because this minister needs kindness, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Apart from all his other needs, kindness is the one thing he needs right now. He was not in the House last Thursday when I directed my question to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is coming, and your day is coming, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: After the Speaker called me to order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized on a point of order. He should try to get to the point of order as soon as possible. A number of other hon. members are anxious to ask questions and we shall be running short of time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, for three days or two days I have sat in my seat. I have not contaminated the Chair with any of my questions. I do not intend to contaminate the chamber with any of my questions during this abortive session of Parliament, which I hope will end soon. But I am not going to sit in my seat and have the Minister of Transport, for whom I have the greatest fondness, suggest by subterfuge that I did not know what I asked about. Today, the minister did not know what I asked about.


Mr. Speaker:: This seems to be a debate between the hon. member and the minister as to fact. I really think the point of order should not be pursued. There is not much to be gained by pursuing the point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree. I am not pursuing the point of order. I am trying to ask a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: There are still four or five minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member might ask a supplementary quickly, and then we will move on to subsequent questions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I shall be very quick indeed if the hon. member for St. Boniface will shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The only reason the hon. member for St. Boniface is concerned is that St. Boniface is no longer St. Boniface, it is part of Metro Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member will be reasonable and ask his question. We do have to get on with the business of the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am always reasonable, Mr. Speaker. I always have respect for the Chair. I will put my question very briefly and succinctly to the Minister of Transport. Following my question of last Thursday, has the Minister of Agriculture yet referred to the Minister of Transport my question so that he may know what the hell he is answering?


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, that was a simple, short and succinct question. Surely, the minister can understand a very succinct and sensible question.



BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY-POSSIBLE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR EXTENSION TO YUKON BOUNDARY

['It is my understanding that some of these people in respect of whom we did intervene have already left the Soviet Union and have come to Canada. Our ambassador in the Soviet Union is, of course, following up this question from time to time as opportunities present themselves.']
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitancy that I address a question to the Minister of Transport who, I suspect, is not as ignorant as he says he is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the minister whether the government has under consideration a proposal to assist financially in the extension of the British Columbia Railway, formerly known as the Pacific Great Eastern, to the British Columbia-Yukon boundary, and, if so, whether he can tell us when it is likely that a government decision will be reached on this matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I
believe the hon. member knows, a detailed study was made by Hedlin Menzies on this subject and delivered to the Province of British Columbia as well as to the railway several months ago. Talks have been proceeding ever since that time, but I would expect that these talks would culminate in some form of tentative proposal early in the new year.



Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After listening to all this verbosity, I am glad to be recognized.

December 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Walter Cyril Deakon: I should like to direct this question, if I may, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: Sock it to him.


Walter Cyril Deakon: If you would just keep quiet, I will sock it to him. But I want you to listen.
In view of the numerous requests which I, and, I am sure, many other hon. members, have received from Canadians of Ukrainian and European extraction on behalf of Ukrainians, Poles, Balts and people of other nationalities residing in the Soviet Union, may I ask whether representations have been made to the Soviet Union by the Government of Canada with a view to these nationals being enabled to visit their relatives here, or emigrate to other countries if they so desire?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Cyril Deakon: Will the government make representations on behalf of these minority groups in the Soviet Union and endeavour to achieve a success similar to that achieved as a result of representations made on behalf of the Jewish community?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I am happy to receive this suggestion from the hon. member. As he and other members of the House know, when the Prime Minister was speaking with Mr. Kosygin he did make representations along those lines, particularly urging the reunification of families, and also commending our own general policy which is practiced in Canada and which we urge upon all countries, namely, to provide for the maximum freedom of emigration. If there are any particular individuals whose cases the hon. member or others have in mind, I would be happy to receive details and pass along those representations to the Soviet government.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has followed up what I understood to be the promise made by Mr. Kosygin when he was in Ottawa that he would speak to the appropriate minister of his own government and expedite the process of enabling visitors, especially family visitors, to go from his country to Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that some of these people in respect of whom we did intervene have already left the Soviet Union and have come to Canada. Our ambassador in the Soviet Union is, of course, following up this question from time to time as opportunities present themselves.



WELFARE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports by Statistics Canada on provincial government finance which show that provincial expenditures on social welfare aid to unemployed and unemployables have risen by more than 50 per cent in two years, can the hon. gentleman say what action is being taken with respect to provincial requests for immediate revision of the cost-sharing arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: Our position is that the 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement under the Canada Assistance Plan is a satisfactory one at the present date.


An hon. Member:: What a cough! When are you going to quit smoking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since we have almost reached the end of the question period, perhaps I might try to recognize members who had supplementary questions to ask.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask your permission for the minister to complete his answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: He had the permission of the Chair, but he appeared to be unable to continue his answer.



AIR TRANSPORT


J. Michael Forrestall: My supplementary is in a very serious vein and it is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister not care to correct an earlier reply with respect to a decision not to use in-flight safety precautions because they had not been recommended to him by CALPA?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do
not think that is what I said. If I did make a mistake, I welcome the opportunity afforded me of correcting it. What I said, or meant to say, was that it was a decision of the Government of Canada not to use armed guards on all our airplanes. This decision was made public the best part of a year ago. It had the concurrence at that time of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association. They have not since that time indicated any change of attitude. I said they met yesterday. They are going to make other recommendations which I have not received as yet. Whether those recommendations will involve a change of view on their part, I cannot say.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question in order to clarify this point once and for all.
[Mr. Deakon.1
December 29, 1971

Could the minister indicate whether, prior to the decision by the government, representations or suggestions had been received from CAPA, that in-flight security arrangements might be considered by the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that my memory serves me right, and I believe it does, there was a meeting between my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, myself and the chief official of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, following which there was held a joint press conference at which I believe all three of us confirmed that the same decision had been arrived at during the meeting. That is my recollection.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Does he strongly recommend the control of agriculture and means of marketing provided for in Bill C-176?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question may be put in the course of the debate which will resume in a few moments.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the widespread delays in unemployment insurance payments across Canada and the minister's promise of prompt investigation into these delays, especially in the New Westminster area, has the minister any good news for those people who have been waiting between six and ten weeks for their claim cheques?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, those are the usual allegations without proof. If the hon. gentleman has any proof that people have been waiting between six and ten weeks, I should be glad to investigate their claims personally.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West and several other members wish to ask questions. We have already gone about five minutes beyond the time of the question period because I felt that hon. members who had been awaiting an opportunity to ask supplementaries should be given that opportunity. I believe we should now call orders of the day.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he is prepared to receive some correspondence from my office on this point.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might get together with the minister on this supplementary after orders of the day have been called.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that I am transgressing on the time of the House. In view of the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, which I think was extremely important, may I say that we are awaiting with great anxiety the statement that the minister intended to make regarding new machinery or new innovations which he has devised for expediting the payment of these claims.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was wondering if he would make that statement in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot, five, seven or eight minutes after the question period has expired, seek the floor by way of raising a point of order in order to ask a supplementary. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member that that is not in order. If he has a point of order to raise, of course, it is the duty of the Chair to hear him and rule on the point. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 28, consideration of Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1, 5 and 22 (Mr. Horner).
Mr. Speaker:: When we adjourned last evening, I believe the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had the floor.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should also deal with the impact that inflation has upon the economic position of the farmer. The farmer can do relatively little to protect himself from inflation. Industry has no great difficulty in dealing with inflation; it merely increases prices. Advertising campaigns are aimed at increasing the marketability or effective demand of industrial products. A person working for wages as an industrial worker finds no great difficulty in coping with inflation. Any group of workers organized within a trade union have available to them, under the laws of Canada and of the provinces, collective bargaining rights through which they can extract in wages and fringe benefits some of the income that industry obtains through selling its products. The farmer is not in that enviable position. He cannot protect himself. He can do virtually nothing to advance his position. That is what we ought to be attempting to correct on a national scale.

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Some time ago the government took the course of bending every effort to increase industrial production to a maximum. It wanted maximum production of primary resources, maximum production at the manufacturing level, at the secondary industry level and the like. The Department of Manpower and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion spend much money from the public purse in assisting industrial productive capacities in this country to increase.
None of this assistance is available to the farmer. For that reason we must ask ourselves several questions. Does the government intend this? If it does, is this bill part of the policy of the government? Does the government intend, through this bill, to industrialize the agricultural section of the economy? Does the government intend to industrialize farming? Does the government intend to drive the family farmer out of existence? Does it intend to drive the small farmer off the land and into the cities and turn agriculture into an industrial business as opposed to an agricultural business. Those are questions we must ask ourselves.
I am inclined to think, having read this bill and the amendments now before us, and having examined the agricultural policies that the government has enunciated from time to time, that the government intends this and that the bill is part and parcel of that process. At this stage, therefore, we are not dealing principally with marketing boards, which of course can be of tremendous assistance to the farmer; we are actually dealing with the policy orientation of the government. We note, for example, that the cheese industry is now geared to industrial concepts. That industry, which is part of agriculture, is being industrialized.
We note with respect to poultry, hogs and other farm commodities, that the policy direction is toward integration. Under that system the retailer or the feed grain industry will control and dominate the agricultural production sector of the industry. The effect of that, of course, is that the farmer is being moved off the land; he is being moved out of the rural area and into the city. The government is attempting to establish in this country a structure of agriculture which is industrial in concept and not rural or agricultural. A structure like that is not concerned about the individual farm, the individual family, the rural community or the like.
Those are questions to which we should seek answers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if I may digress for a moment-I do not wish to be out of order but merely to digress-I suggest that we should look at the attitude of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, see what it has said and what has been said to it about rural life, rural family living, and about what happens to rural communities when through the design of industry, through the drive for profits or through the design of government we attempt to reduce the number of people in agriculture and establish, in its place, something akin to a manufacturing type of industry.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion helped to finance, if in fact it did not finance completely, the operations of a group called the Canadian Council on Rural Development. That council made its third report

and review to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in July of 1970. As I said earlier, whether the department financed the operation of the Canadian Council on Rural Development entirely or to a limited degree is immaterial.
The report of the council was made to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. This third report and its review relates almost entirely to the damage accruing to the rural farm family and to rural communities as a result of the policy decisions of the government. It talks about the movement over the years of people from the farm to the city. It questions, not so much why that movement in itself is valuable or otherwise but talks, rather, in terms of whether the extent of that movement is necessary and helpful. It poses a very real question which this bill and this House should be posing.
Let me quote very briefly from page 10 of this report. This passage is underlined in the report to make it even more significant and to draw it even more to the attention of the government. With regard to the flow of population from the country to the urban areas, the report says this:
The real question is not so much whether mobility is necessary but how much mobility is equitable, not so much whether there should be a flow of population from rural to urban areas, but how great and how rapid a flow is desirable in social and human terms.
That, I think, is the crux of what a farm policy should take into account, namely, social and human considerations. Obviously, this government's policy in terms of agriculture ignores that concept completely. The report also reached a conclusion, as if this were necessary, because everybody in agriculture, everybody who owns a farm or farms for a living knows it to be the case, but in case the government did not know about it the Canadian Council on Rural Development took the opportunity to draw to the attention of the government this conclusion in respect of the disparities in Canadian incomes:
The conclusion is unavoidable. The most striking disparities in Canadian incomes are not so much between provinces as between the agricultural sector and the non-agricultural sector, in every part of the country.
Again, this passage is underlined in the report to give it even more impact. I shall not make specific reference to this but the report gives tables and statistics to indicate that in some cases in some areas agricultural income is as low as 27 per cent of the non-agricultural family income. It is almost a quarter of what is generally earned in a province. The report talks about the cost-price squeeze which I mentioned earlier. Another part of the report reads as follows:
The Canadian farmer, in fact, is trapped in a very similar position to that of the commodity producer in the underdeveloped countries, a position made worse because of inflation.
This report is a document to which I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) should pay great attention and should read even though it was not developed through his department. It talks about the fact that incomes are less in respect of farms, farm families and farm workers than in respect of non-agricultural communities and non-agricultural workers. It talks about the fact that employment possibilities are fewer in rural than in urban areas. It talks about the fact that the level and quality of the standard of living available to farmers and
December 29, 1971

rural communities which are dependent upon agriculture is less than in industrialized areas or urban communities.
It also talks of the fact that health facilities are fewer in the rural communities and that the doctor-population ratio is less. In other words, there are fewer doctors available to the agricultural, rural communities than to the industrialized communities or the cities. It mentions that the availability and quality of educational facilities are less in the rural community for farmers and agricultural people than in cities and industrialized sectors of the economy. It points out that housing is poorer, that health standards are poorer and that sewage facilities, water facilities and the whole range of social amenities available to Canadians as a whole are denied the agricultural and rural communities. These are denied partly because of the industrialized orientation of the government and partly because of the policy decision of the government to reduce the number of farm families and to encourage the exodus of people from rural communities into the cities.
That is a pretty sad commentary. I submit it is the sort of thing that so far has been the reason for the amendments before the House at report stage of this bill. This I believe, has been ignored so far. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has available to it hundreds of millions of dollars to give away to industries and corporations, two-thirds of which are United States-dominated, to develop industry and expand industrial plants, but is doing absolutely nothing in the area of rural life.
I submit that the Department of Agriculture should make a policy decision that it is in the interest of Canada to assist farmers to live comfortably off the land, that it is in the interest of Canada to develop a viable agricultural structure and not an industrialized structure. It should develop a type of structure which would make it worth while for farmers to farm and give them the inner feeling that that is the type of life they should lead.
Even though I am a strong supporter of the concept of marketing boards and agencies to ease the economic ups and downs which exist in respect of prices and production of agricultural products, I am rather sceptical that this bill will in fact do what those of us who support marketing boards hope it will do. I am sceptical because of the attitude of the government toward industrial productivity in this nation and a minimization of agricultural activity. Evidently the emphasis of the government is toward city life and manufacturing plants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. He may continue with the consent of the House. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as a final paragraph I might say, as I started off, that I do not from my own background in working life have experience as a farmer or of a farming community, as is the case with many members of this House, but I have attempted to draw in my mind, in an attempt to understand what the bill seeks to do, a parallel between the fishing industry with which I am familiar and the farming industry. I submit that there is a parallel, that each is a prime producer, that each is involved in the harvesting of foodstuffs and in the mar-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
keting of them to a greater or lesser degree. Each runs into the cost-price squeeze and neither is in a position to deal adequately with inflation. What makes me sceptical about the relationship of the bill to the family farm is the fact that this government has taken similar action with respect to its fisheries policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member. There is no limit on the extended time which he is allowed and he can speak much longer if he wishes to do so, but I have some doubts whether at least parts of the speech he is now making are within the terms of the motions before us. It seems to me that the approach of the hon. member is in relation to the principle of the bill itself, rather than to the principle of the motions now before us. In the time remaining at the hon. member's disposal he might relate his remarks to the motions under consideration.


Frank Howard: I thought that in the earlier part of the remarks I had followed precisely the scope that was available to hon. members who spoke yesterday when, of course, Your Honour was not in the chair. I was simply trying to follow the tenor of that debate. I admit that speaking about fisheries is somewhat far afield from a national farm products marketing bill and the amendments that are before us.
In summation and in conclusion I was trying to draw a parallel with the fishing industry. This government, without regard to the effect of some of our coastal communities, because of its attitude with respect to fisheries on the west coast has driven some of our coastal communities 95 per cent into the hands of the welfare agencies. There is nothing available to these people as prime producers because the government itself set the course which has driven fishermen out of the fishing industry. That is why I am sceptical and believe that the concept of this bill is designed to drive farmers out of agricultural life and into industrial life. Farmers are having to move into the cities owned by Kraft, by General Foods or by other massive organizations which seem to want to control the agricultural industry.
That is why I am sceptical about the effect this piece of legislation will have on the agricultural community. That is undoubtedly why those who will be affected by it, farmers in various fields of production, are also sceptical about it and are of divided opinion, because some of them can see the day coming when they will be out of business, unable to find employment in industry and on the welfare rolls. Surely that is not what we should be talking about in the House.


Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on Bill C-176, the national farm products marketing bill. As one who is an active farmer in the constituency of Middlesex, I say at the outset that I have enjoyed the privileges extended under three of the Ontario farm marketing boards. We all recognize that farmers as a general rule are rather independent people who rely on their own resources and initiative to make a "go" of farming. We realize that in the very competitive society in which we live some farmers need legislation to protect them. The well-to-do, prosperous farmers may not

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
need this legislation. The gentleman farmer, the rancher, or the individual who is well established does not need any protection, but I assert that the young farmer, the one who is taking on the burden of debt in order to establish himself as a primary producer of agricultural products, needs some protection in the marketplace.
In my area of Middlesex and in southern Ontario we have 18 different marketing boards, four of which work under the quota system. I am referring to the Ontario Marketing Board, the Flue-cured Tobacco Marketing Board, and the broiler and turkey boards. This quota system, especially under the Ontario Marketing Board and the Flue-cured Tobacco Marketing Board has been advantageous to participating farmers. I think it has been good for industries such as the dairy industry and the tobacco industry to have these marketing boards. Because of their success, because they have been able to control production, they have enjoyed in the marketplace a fair return for their efforts. Therefore they have expanded, have been able to maintain a good level of economic prosperity in the community and have been successful in the eyes of their neighbours.
Within my riding of Middlesex is the riding of the Minister of Agriculture and Food of the province of Ontario. I should like to quote some of his remarks regarding the urgency of this legislation. I maintain that we need some national farm products marketing legislation. He said on January 25:
How soon can we expect to have national marketing legislation to bring order and stability to the industry? . . .Until a national marketing act has been developed and proclaimed, provinces will be forced to use whatever measures they can develop to protect the interests of their producers. It is possible that voluntary agreements can be established, but our experience has indicated little success by this method.
Those are the words of Hon. William Stewart, Minister of Agriculture and Food of the province of Ontario. He also stated before the provincial legislature on April 15, 1971:
The government of Ontario is of the opinion that the ultimate solution to the problems of international or interprovincial agriculture trade and supply management must be found at the national level. We believe that Bill C-176, the national marketing bill now before the House of Commons, provides the legislative machinery whereby this national rationalization of production and marketing can be realized.
I am in agreement with his views on this legislation. I believe that many hon. members opposite are also in agreement with the views of the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. I urge the House to give speedy approval to this marketing bill. Due to the nature of the farming industry in Canada and its present organization, we know that many individuals are operating under severe financial stress and strain. They more or less rely on the manufacturer, the consumer or the processor to give them whatever price is going at a given time in the market. This is unfair, because those who are least able to bear the burden receive a lower price than they should for their produce. They do not have the requisite facilities to store their produce long enough to take advantage of higher market prices. Under these circumstances, I urge speedy passage of the bill.
[Mr. Lind.J
Hon. Mr. Stewart, again on April 15, 1971, said:
I suggest that had the national marketing legislation now before the House of Commons been in effect, in my opinion, the problems we now face across Canada would not have occurred, as far as interprovincial marketing problems are concerned.
We all realize, Mr. Speaker, that from time to time we become very regionally minded. We all love our home areas, our home provinces. We all fight for the good of our constituencies. But we must remember that a national farm marketing bill is only enabling legislation supporting the ten provinces of Canada in order that they may have their fair share of the market place for their products.
Some people say that national farm marketing legislation will balkanize Canada. I maintain that it will not. As a matter of fact, we have lived for years under a type of balkanization due to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. In 1935 the federal government introduced the Canadian Wheat Board Act which really provided the basis for quotas. It placed restrictions on the movement of grain from one province to another. In essence, there is nothing really new about imposing a type of quota restriction on the movement of products among provinces. This has been going on since 1935.
I believe that the Prairie provinces would not like to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. They may want to revise the Wheat Board legislation. They might like to reform it a little and bring it up to date. Maybe the board is a little old-fashioned, but the prairie provinces have lived with quotas for years. Quotas could be established under a national farm marketing act upon the advice of a national farm marketing council. I firmly believe that the marketing agencies provided for in the bill would be established only after the results of regional plebiscites had shown that producers in the provinces wanted them.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that Bill C-176 is simply enabling legislation to permit the provinces to set up their own marketing boards within their jurisdictions. I fully support it and urge that it be given speedy passage.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing motions Nos. 1, 5 and 22 and I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting these amendments. I think it is safe to say that everyone in this chamber believes we should have free trade in agricultural products, and indeed in all other products, between provinces.
I go a little further than that. I believe we should have free enterprise for the individual. I believe in this principle so firmly that I think every Canadian has the right to go broke on his own if he wants to, and a lot of them have been doing that.
Coming from the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, I know a little bit about marketing boards because my province has been a forerunner in the field of marketing legislation. We have a hog marketing board, a poultry marketing board and even an asparagus marketing board. You name it and we've got it in the province of Ontario. We have four boards that deal almost exclusively with livestock, and I think there are 11 others that deal with other commodities. What do these boards do? What are they supposed to do? Are they the panacea that the
December 29, 1971

government suggests they are for the problems facing agriculture at the present time? My first answer is, I think not.
I have noticed a thread running through all the speeches made in this chamber during the last couple of days, with virtually everyone accepting the principle that marketing boards are the answer. No one, so far as I have heard, has taken exception to the activities of marketing boards. No one has stood in his place in this chamber and offered anything in the way of criticism of marketing boards. Apparently we have naively accepted the premise that marketing boards are a way of life, and the government has assumed that marketing boards are the cure-all for the ills of agriculture.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that so far no concrete evidence has been put forward to show that marketing boards have in fact improved the situation for the farmer. I am distressed that some members blithely talk in support of this legislation, all-inclusive as it is, and give the impression that they believe all we have to do is pass this bill and farm problems will disappear as if by magic. I suggest that the problem goes much deeper than that. I ask, what do marketing boards do? What are they supposed to do? Have they done what was expected of them? Who has been the recipient of the greatest benefit, the producer or the consumer? I suggest it is the hired help, the bureaucracy that has attached itself to the marketing boards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I am not about to try to discredit marketing boards but I hope to differentiate between efficient market sales agencies and what is involved in this bill, compulsory supply management types of agencies. I suggest that the duties of marketing boards are threefold. First, to sell the farmer's product to the best advantage. I think we are all agreed on that. Second, they should standardize quality to give a better balance of supply. Third, they should establish collective marketing where there are many sellers and few buyers. But how have they done? I can speak only of the province of Ontario, but I submit they have not done as well as they might in the selling field because they have not had active governmental support.
In Ontario we have a couple of classic examples of marketing boards and I should like to discuss one which falls in the category of supply management. I am referring to the Flue-cured Tobacco Board. This has the reputation of being a very successful organization, and single-handedly has been able to cut back the acreage each year for the last three years by about 50 per cent. I am not critical of the board in this respect because they have kept supply and demand in pretty good balance, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that their problem has been compounded by those confounded plant breeders. These individuals have consistently brought in new, high-yielding varieties of plants which double production. You need only half as many acres to grow tobacco if you are getting twice as much growth per acre. This board has also established an elite, highly capitalized group of tobacco grow-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ers with a closed shop in which no young Canadian can aspire to membership unless born into it.
We have heard a lot about opportunities for youth, but how hollow that sounds. If youth wanted to start in agriculture, particularly in the tobacco growing areas, I question very much whether it could be done. A young man could have the best training and expertise in the world but could only get into the tobacco industry if he were born into it. Another thing that is missing in this bill and which has contributed to the success of the Flue-cured Tobacco Board is strict import controls. There is nothing about that in this bill. But on April 14, 1970, when the minister introduced Bill C-197 he made a platitudinous statement to which I shall refer a little later.


Mr. Paproski:: Promises, promises.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A good thing we keep them, isn't it?


Mr. Bigg:: What about $2 wheat, Mr. Richardson?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: We have examined a supply management type of marketing board, Mr. Speaker. Now let us look at the Hog Marketing Board. Some of these boards have been pretty successful, by which I mean that they have closely followed the prices established by the United States market. If the province of Ontario or the federal government have the temerity to question the actions of a marketing board, there is the stock answer, "Where would we have been without the board?" I should like to put on record a few facts relative to the Hog Marketing Board and other livestock boards in the province of Ontario. Some of the proponents of marketing boards should study their performance.
Ten years ago in the province of Ontario hogs sold at $27.58 on a dressed weight basis. Today they sell at almost $28. In 1961, cattle, which do not come under a marketing board, sold at $21.12 live weight, and today they sell at $34. It is interesting to note that since 1961 the Ontario Hog Marketing Board has collected a few for each hog marketed. Until 1965 or 1966 this was 42 cents, then it went up to 45 cents and to 60 cents, so it has averaged 45 cents per hog marketed in a ten-year period during which time 25,700,000 hogs were marketed. At 45 cents each, this brought the Hog Marketing Board between $11 million and $11 i million of the farmers' money. For this, all the farmers got was a big staff in Toronto. The packers used to send out the cheques, but now that is done by the board.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame! How do you like that, McBride?


Mr. McBride:: Why don't you say something relevant?


Steve Eugene Paproski: You tell that to your people in Lanark county.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Back in your pulpit!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) is rising on a point of order.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, since other members keep referring to me, I wonder if they would permit me to ask whether they would refer to the bill rather than condemn marketing boards. No one is arguing for or against them.

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
We are just arguing to pass a bill whereby producers, if they want, can have this type of organization. The hon. member is saying it should not include hogs. That is fine, but it does not have anything to do with the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, of course, is arguing a point. The hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) has the floor.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sat patiently and listened to the inane chatter of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I had the courtesy not to interrupt even though it was stupid gobbledygook he was putting forth.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The devil's advocate.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I wish to quote a few more figures before I get to my main point. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in 1940 cattle were $6.35 and hogs $11.15. In 1950 cattle were $23.10 and hogs $28.75. In 1960 cattle were $20.87 and hogs $24.14. The member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) said that was underpricing them, without a marketing board. The point is that today cattle are 24 cents, 36 cents and 38 cents a pound.
To return to the comments of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, I ask this question: Why in the name of heaven would any cattleman want to be covered by this bill? That is the point. If that is not relevant, I do not know what is. I mentioned the fact that with supply management and the closed-shop factor there is no opportunity for young people to get into the business. I commend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for saying that what this government wants to do is industrialize agriculture and get rid of farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: When we talk about supply management we are talking about quotas. The only people who benefit from a quota system are those who get it in the first instance. When the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Lind) goes back to his lumber yard he will want to take this into consideration. From then on it is the cost of production. Last week the commission looking into the problems of egg producers held a meeting in his city. I quote from the transcript what Mr. Littlejohn, a poultry producer, said about supply management at the meeting in London, Ontario:
This year two tobacco producers that I know well and who both live less than 3 miles from me rented their acreages for the year. The one got $400 per acre and the other $475.
There is an added cost of production. What are you going to say to the consumer who will be faced with an increased cost? The poultry producers have been talking about this quota all over the province of Ontario. The lumber companies, poultry producers and millers have been constructing henhouses as though they were going out of style. Why? They want to get a tremendous quota because they know it is saleable. They are talking about $2 or $3 a hen for a marketable quota.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now we know.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes, now you know. My third point is that nowhere in this bill do we have effective machinery to limit the importation of foreign products. We are being asked to pass another Bill C-259 on good will. The minister said he will be bringing in amendments to the tax bill after it has been tried out on the Canadian people. The government wants to do the same with this bill.


An hon. Member:: Experiment.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes, experiment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I feel very humble and grateful that my colleagues have allowed me to continue. I promise I shall not be long. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said in 1970 when introducing Bill C-197 that the situation regarding the marketing of foreign products in Canada makes it at least desirable, if not essential, that we have enabling legislation on the statute books, that is, authority from Parliament for the government to respond from time to time to the requests of a substantial number of producers in this field if they are being hurt by foreign imports.
I mentioned the fact that consumers will very likely have to pay more. I come to my final point. Why all the rush? An inquiry into egg marketing is presently being held in the province of Ontario. Their report will be completed soon. Therefore, I submit it is an affront to the producers of the province of Ontario that at this time we in the House are being asked to ram this bill through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yesterday the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said that farmers in his area are hard-pressed. He has no corner on this market. I come from one of the supposedly better agricultural areas in the province of Ontario. The farmers in my area are crying the same blues. They are desperate and despondent. They are saying, "Well, let's give it a try." I am reminded of what a world traveller said in 1949 or 1950. He had just returned from China. They had thrown out Chiang Kai-shek and had accepted communism. He said that the people of China had accepted communism because they felt nothing could be worse than what they had. This is the attitude of the agricultural industry in Canada today. They feel nothing could be worse than what they have. They are grasping at straws. I tell them that this bill is certainly no solution.
In conclusion I point out that the government's advice to agriculture over the years does not cause me to have great faith in the bureaucratic decision-making that this bill will substitute for hard-nosed decision-making of the workaday world. A year ago the government said, "Grow bar-
December 29, 1971

ley." Now barley is a glut on the market and growers in southwestern Ontario are facing disaster. It is privately admitted that they were given bad advice and that they should have been growing wheat.
Canada cannot continue to have government by promise. The Minister of Agriculture is asking Canadians to accept this bill on faith. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) did the same thing with respect to Bill C-259. He promised amendments after he had tried out the bill on Canadians. He invoked closure to get his way. Now the Minister of Agriculture is about to try the same thing. Why the rush?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member who has just ended his speech will accept a question, I will recognize the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote).


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: The hon. member said a while ago that in 1962, the price of pork was 27 cents a pound. Does he know that in 1959, the price of pork was $17.80 per hundredweight? I sold some myself. The price went up to $27 per hundredweight afterwards. A lot of farmers gave up because the minimum price was abolished. They gave up hog raising and as a result of the production margin, the price of pork went up in 1962.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I had great difficulty with the translation, but what I did understand was really nothing to answer. I shall be happy to sit down with the hon. gentleman and discuss it. Maybe, despite our different languages, we could get together. I could not understand the question through the babble that came to me. I don't think the hon. member made any sense in the first place, but I will be glad to talk to him.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up very much time in this debate, but as a farmer and as a Member of Parliament representing a farm area I think I should make some comments on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I ask Your Honour to let me know if I stray too far afield, but I listened yesterday and today to everyone who spoke and it seems to me that they not only covered the whole field but, if I may say so, they covered the whole agricultural plain.
If these amendments were allowed to pass in the form suggested by the hon. member for Crowfoot, it would be like pulling teeth from a watchdog and then training him to bite a chicken thief. It would be like removing one or two legs from a good cutting horse and then expecting him to do the same job of sorting for you. It would be like watering down a drink 90 to 1-your imagination would have to do a lot for you.
I can remember my uncles talking about prohibition days and about a certain farm process; I suppose one could call it that because farm products were used in it. A man engaged in the manufacturing business lived in the area. Every time he made a new batch he had to choose a new name. He liked his brands to have a proper title. My uncles, being of Irish descent, were always available to sample these new brands. Mr. Speaker, these amend-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ments put me in mind of the brand they called "Love in a Canoe"-it was almost water.


George Harris Hees: That's not the way I heard it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It has been watered down.


Eugene Whelan: Well, this brand was watered down so much that nobody would buy it. And I, for one, will not buy this bill if it is watered down as much as the hon. member would wish. All my farming life I have been associated with marketing boards. Every crop I grow is under the jurisdiction of one board or another. These boards are provincial; if they have any fault, that is it. Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond the Ontario border. If I said they were perfect, I would not be stating the truth. But let me say, as the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) has just said, they are a lot better than nothing. The producers who use them, that is to say, the vast majority, would not be without them.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent talked about hog producers. They have the right to reject marketing boards in Ontario. They tried it once, maybe twice, but it was always voted back in. This puts me in mind of a great co-op man who is no longer with us, Father Cody of St. Francis Xavier's University in the Maritimes. He was travelling around, spreading his ideas among farmers and on one occasion he was riding on a train in Annapolis Valley listening to a couple of apple brokers conversing in their seats ahead of him. One of them said, "It is clear what these farmers are getting ready to do. They are getting ready to sell their own apples." The other commented, "What right have they to do that? They know nothing about selling apples, nothing about business." At that point Father Cody could stand it no longer. He stuck his head between the two men and asked, "And who in hell do they belong to in the first place? They are the farmers' apples, are they not, and haven't they the right to sell them?"
Mr. Speaker, I never saw anything which comes even close to the propaganda which has been used to try to scare people about the legislation before us, unwarranted, most of it. Anyone who is making these misstatements is either ill-informed or is purposely doing so in order to divide the farmers across this land for his own selfish interests.
As I say, every crop grown on our farm is under the jurisdiction of a marketing board of one kind or another. These boards are all democratically elected. If producers do not like them, they can throw them out. Indeed, meetings are to be held starting next June in each district in connection with one of these boards. The farmers who send their produce to this board can elect whoever they please, and they do so. Every now and again they turf out some of the members, as is the case in this House. And some of them should be turfed out.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't get into personalities.


Eugene Whelan: Consider the board which controls the production of vegetables. This board has the right to negotiate prices, it has the right to set all sorts of conditions on sales. The growers have no right to sign contracts until the board announces that it has reached agreement with the processors who will use the crops. There are

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
many big farmers who would not be without such a board. These boards have contributed to the welfare of all farmers and I challenge any hon. member to prove otherwise.
The Wheat Board is a different kind of board again. One cent per bushel goes for running the board and 18 cents, I think, goes toward the marketing of the wheat. The price is set as a result of negotiations in which board representatives take part. That board sells wheat in the world market, although once or twice it has sold wheat in the domestic market. If any of the 19 cents is left over, that money is distributed among the producers. Some say the system is not perfect, but the producers get a lot more than $1.12 per bushel, the price they got before the board was established. The Wheat Board is doing a good job. We are selling a great deal of wheat at this time, and the government has had something to do with that.
The soybean board is a different kind of board. That board negotiates such things as freight rates, although its services in most cases are purely voluntary. I do not think the soybean board is as strong as it should be. As I said, it is a different kind of board but I would not be without it. I would not grow any crop if I were not protected by a board. I would not even grow something which hon. members opposite could use. Many hon. members have heard me talk about the price of corn. I would not even grow sweet corn without a board to protect me. Hon. members opposite could use some sweet corn; it might sweeten them.
Farmers have nothing to fear from the legislation as it is. The fear has been created by other people, and I have good views on why this has been done. Some people have been told, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will create socialism. My experience is that, on the contrary, it will stop it because it will definitely protect the little producer from being completely gobbled up by the big one. If anyone tries to tell me that a system that lets big monsters literally eat up little guys because they cannot protect themselves can be called a free enterprise system, they will have a hard time convincing me. You cannot convince me that that is a good form of free enterprise.
Really, what some people want is socialism for the rich and privileged few. They are the people who want to divide the wealth among themselves. All this talk about socialism means that the privileged want to divide the wealth among themselves. At least, that is what some want but not all. Some of the best farmers in Ontario that I know are strong supporters of marketing boards and have been for years. And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, I am sure most members of the House of Commons know that the boards I have talked about are all in Ontario and that practically all were started by a Conservative government which, by the way, recently received the largest mandate ever given to any government in Ontario. They are the protectors of free enterprise.


Mr. Ricard:: Is that why the hon. member voted for them?


Eugene Whelan: I beg your pardon?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is that why the hon. member voted Conservative?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member should be honest. He is scared stiff of the NDP.


Eugene Whelan: The facts speak for themselves. The Ontario government recognized the need. That government knew there was a need for marketing boards. The Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Hon. William A. Stewart, has also recognized the need for national marketing boards. That is what he said before the committee of this House. One should not forget what he said in the election campaign. He did not blame the Liberals in Ottawa for the lack of such national boards. He said that if the farmers of Ontario are in trouble, it is because of "those people in Ottawa." He was charitable to the official opposition. He did not want to blame them; he was too much of a politician. He merely blamed "those people in Ottawa," and everybody took it for granted that it was the Liberals who were holding up the legislation. The record speaks for itself. Unfortunately, the average farmer in Ontario does not read the record; he is much too busy working.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned is designed to help all our farmers to become equal Canadians. It will at least give them the opportunity to become equal partners in our agricultural industry.


Mr. McCleave:: Come, now.


Eugene Whelan: I think I know as well as anyone in this House what farmers really want. From the long association I have enjoyed with the farm organizations across Canada, I think I know what most Canadian farmers really want.


Mr. Korchinski:: Is that why the hon. member turned Liberal?


Eugene Whelan: I hear hon. members opposite making comments. I have been in the hon. member's part of Canada and I tell him that I think the vast majority of farmers in Saskatchewan are in favour of national marketing legislation. As I said, this legislation will help farmers to become equal Canadians in our economy. It will give them the opportunity to become equal partners in our agricultural industry, if they want to take that step.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent said, "Do not shove this bill down our throats." We are not shoving anything on anybody. We are making this law available to those who want to use it, that is all. I hear much talk about free enterprise, yet who wants to apply the sort of system that applies to no other industry to agriculture, when one knows the chaos agriculture is in?
Let us talk about the trucking industry. Why do not hon. members on the other side, for example, buy some trucks and start a trucking business? They cannot go into the trucking business because they cannot get a PCV licence. Let people try to walk a dog down the streets without a licence. Why do they not start an airline or a radio station? They cannot go into the radio business without a licence. You can see what happens, yet hon. members insist on talking about free enterprise in agriculture. That is the trouble. Agriculture has been free for everybody.
December 29, 1971

I see a couple of members of the medical profession in the House. I suppose they know that some doctors have had to turn to agriculture because the medical profession's governing body would not let them practice. Those people, even though qualified, could not get a licence. Even though doctors are badly needed in certain areas of Canada, these people were not allowed to practice.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eugene Whelan: If I have time at the end of my speech I will be glad to answer questions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about lawyers?


Eugene Whelan: I could name other segments of our society. If real estate brokers are afraid that too many people will enter the real estate field and interfere with their earning $50,000 a year, they withhold licences from new applicants. They are allowed to set the number that will enter the profession. Or let us talk about plumbers and electricians. How many young people have been refused membership as apprentices in the Electrical Workers' Union? I am using these examples merely to show that agriculture is the only part of our society without any controls. Nothing is done to provide for stability in that segment of our society.
I have always argued that our agricultural products know no provincial boundaries. I have said that in many speeches, and I said it even before becoming a Member of Parliament. We know this to be a proven fact, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling. We have seen in the past smart operators moving from province to province to escape producer marketing boards; sometimes they have done that with governmental help. The help came either from the province they were moving to or from the federal government. I do not approve of that. I know, as I am sure every member of this House knows, that such people have only one thing in mind, namely, making more money. They wanted to do that by taking advantage generally of all concerned. First, they wanted to take advantage of the producer; second, they wanted the advantage of cheap labour and, third, they wanted to take advantage of the consumer.
One may ask, how could they take advantage of the consumer? They do so by charging the consumer the price he would be charged if they were paying the regular price for produce and labour in other parts of Canada. I do not think very much of this practice. Although some of these operators have been successful, that is an unscrupulous type of operation and one that this bill can bring to a halt if producers generally want to take advantage of it.
These unscrupulous operators completely destroy any stability in price that a commodity might enjoy. They can do this because they are not strictly regulated. Anyone who know anything about marketing boards will know that such boards bring about a high quality of product. Strict regulations encompass almost everything that the producer produces, the result being a product of high quality. Producers produce a high quality product under national marketing boards or provincial marketing boards. In the processing business in our area, which encompasses practically the whole area, the produce is
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
second to none and the consuming public receives the benefit of it. In other parts of the world it is not of such high quality.
We must also think of some of the things that have been done because of marketing boards across our country. I think particularly of the east coast and what has been done in respect of fish production there. Indeed, I also think of freshwater fish production. These marketing agencies are not without fault, but they are of great benefit to production and producers are in a much better position than ever before. The boards have not cost very much, either.
Some of the comparisons made with fascist and communist countries would be laughable if they were not so wrong. I have visited some of these countries and I have in-laws who come from them. My wife comes from a country with a socialist doctrine. When I visit large farms I like to compare them with the inefficient state farms. I know that in Yugoslavia the independent farmer produces the bulk of the food. We also know that western European countries receive a high price for their products. Hon. members mentioned this fact and suggested that we look at what these countries are doing for their farmers. They did not go further and say that these farmers have had strict marketing boards and that they have had them for a much longer period than Canada. Two examples are Great Britain and New Zealand. Both are democratic countries. They have had marketing boards for years and I understand they were established by other than socialist governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the hon. member be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: I shall not be very much longer, Mr. Speaker. I know many Canadian farmers. I have received many letters from all across Canada. The farmers of this country are in favour of this bill in the ratio of 90 to 1. Some of those who are against it do not know why, but generally speaking have taken this position because someone has told them to do so. After studying the volumes of evidence and the thousands of words, some of which in farm language could be described only as hogwash, of the committee proceedings, I think there should be a time limit on committee proceedings and on every piece of legislation which appears before this House. If legislation is to be dealt with in a democratic fashion, there should be a time limit on it.
This bill should pass without further delay so that the farmers of Canada can take advantage of it if they want to do so. It is not being stuffed down their throats. It is being offered to them if they want to use it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe).

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr, Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) rises to ask a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member referred to the closed-shop concept. He referred to plumbers and doctors. I do not know whether he mentioned lawyers, but he could have. Does he not agree that they have no closed shop if they have the ability to go to university and acquire the knowledge to become a doctor or a lawyer, or if they have the ability to learn the trade of plumber, but that under this bill one would have to have the money to buy the quota no matter whether or not one had the ability to operate the quota after he had purchased it?


Eugene Whelan: You know better.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not, and if you do, explain it.


Eugene Whelan: First of all, I have had experience with young people who wanted to go to medical school, who were highly qualified but were not allowed to do so. We know that some lawyers in this country are saying that there are too many lawyers. We know that today one cannot become an apprenticed plumber and work as a plumber because there are too many plumbers. I am saying that every way of life has some control over it. Even when one drives a car down the road he does not drive on the right side because he wants to; he does so because there is some kind of control. Even in this House we are supposed to have some kind of control.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), who is a very good friend of mine, what he was alluding to when he said that doctors are controlled by licence. Was it the medical school he was referring to?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Compton. There would have to be unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: As I understand it, they are provincially licensed. If one should go from one province to another it is necessary to obtain a permit to practise in that province. Also, there has not been an increase in the medical schools and therefore doctors are not turned out like chickens and eggs from a poultry farm so that there would be sufficient doctors for everybody. Then we have the situation in respect of immigrant doctors. Why do we not let these doctors come to Canada and go to work? They must have a licence first.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would support me in respect of what he has said, so that the medical schools might be enlarged and the government would provide the necessary funds to run those medical schools.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to the Chair that we are wandering a little further than we should. The hon. member for Compton.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would not forgive myself if I did not take part in this complex and socialistic debate on Bill C-176 which proposes that absolute controls be imposed on farmers.
Mr. Speaker, farmers face problems that are particularly difficult, cruel and disappointing. We see today that the results of the so-called reforms in the agricultural field were not very good. Governments, both Liberal and Progressive Conservative, have, in the past, had many ideas to save agriculture.
Farm loans were meant to save agriculture. Three or four other kinds of loans endorsed by both the provincial and the federal governments were devised subsequently. Farmers' unions were also established. Farmers were told: get united, because you are divided, because you do not understand your problems. Get organized with the help of responsible and competent people who will understand your problems and submit them to the legislators who will solve them. That was the solution suggested.
All kinds of solutions were found. Farmers were fooled with so-called solutions and today we are still looking for another solution. Nothing has been found yet.
Never in our history has agriculture been in such a state of stagnation. Agriculture is doomed to failure. Farmers are desperate because they have been ruined under our fine system.
Because they were loyal to the old parties, farmers are now like castaways. They throw up their arms in the air and ask for any kind of life-boat. They are ready to place themselves in any situation now to save agriculture from bankruptcy. The government proposes Bill C-176, telling them how it can control the situation with measures that are even requested by the farmers' union, in the light of studies that have been conducted over the years.
Farmers are surrendering their possessions to an agency that will not even have a sense of responsibility, because they can no longer hold out. They are at the end of their arguments, at the end of the road. They can no longer navigate.
Such is our fine system, that we have favoured for such a long time, and it is the system that the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) asks people to support. The hon. member for Richelieu says: I am a farmer. I know your needs. The only important thing to achieve is the marketing of all your products. That is what will save you.
But we had a lot of saviours in the past. We are still at the same point. We have been saying for 30 years that all these saviours and all these organizations go round in circles without solving anything. Now we have the proof of it and we derive some satisfaction from having warned people 25 or 30 years ago. We told them then that the Farmers Union and the co-operatives would not save them. We told them that they would be saved by money because it would take money to sell their products, because it was necessary to give consumers some purchasing power and because that problem would never be
December 29, 1971

solved as long as we did not find a way to boost the purchasing power of the consumers. Today we are trying to solve the problem through socialization, through the communization of all agricultural property-which is nonsensical.
As a consequence, a considerable number of farmers left their family farms because they were kicked out by the present economic system. They are now living ip cities where they are on welfare at the expense of other citizens. And a great number of those remaining will go the same way with the coming into force of Bill C-176-the most infamous bill ever proposed to a nation. We are dragging farmers out by the neck. Whether they like it or not, they will have to follow: financial dictatorship is doing its job, and in order to be faithful to the old parties, we say: Go on accepting all those organizations which control you and strangle you; welcome them with open arms for they are your paradise and your haven.
So, the old parties' puppets like the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) are begging their colleagues to pass this infamous legislation. These same puppets in the past have had the farmers running around in circles, leading them to disaster and stagnation.
This stupid bill intended for spoliation and crucifixion, supported by the then high priests and pharisees, proclaimed, stimulated and justified by the puppets to which I just referred, demanded the condemnation of the saviour, of the just, and his replacement by Barabbas, the thief, the murderer, the bandit, the hypocrite. The same gestures are now being repeated in this House. The high priests and pharisees have won and spilled their venom; they have sown confidence in various puppets and if we want this spoliating legislation before crucifixion, the just should ask his father to forgive them for they know not what they do.
There are so many people, even among farmers, who because they have their heads in the noose because they know of no other solution, are forced to trust their leaders and request such atrocities, like socialism, forsaking their liberty, and losing everything they cherish the most.
And yet we have waged war to save democracy, to save civilization, to save free enterprise, to save true freedom. That was to be the end, to depression, misery or insecurity. So long as the earth will bear its fruits each and every individual will be entitled to live in peace, in liberty and in security.
Mr. Speaker, this is why we fought to uphold all those great principles. And we have lost all the battles. This precious Bill C-176 is now robbing us of our most valuable possession-true freedom.
Because we have been faithful to the old parties, we are witnessing the elimination of all our principles through complete control under the disguised reform of Bill C-176.
Following a system of debts, of farm loans and various counter-reforms of financing, this was to save agriculture. Unions, co-operatives, transportation facilities, adequate techniques, agriculture experts, political promises, all this was to save agriculture and to place it on its true pedestal.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
In spite of this, farmers are gasping for breath. They cannot even pay the interest on their debts. And yet production is plentiful. They are faced with overproduction. Demand is inadequate, even though many consumers are living on a bare minimum. And even if we have this confounded marketing agency, the consumers' purchasing power will never permit them to buy these products which will remain in the warehouses. Farmers will go bankrupt and their farms will become collective farms. This is what will happen since it is the objective of the magnificent Liberal party, the party of freedom, the party of radiance, the party of sunshine which saved the world.
We are on the verge of bankruptcy and communism, we are on the brink of the worst disaster ever seen in this country. And yet the farmers are opposing this kind of control. It is because they are at the end of their chains. This is why it is said that they are asking themselves for this kind of control or economic suicide. The hon. member for Richelieu stated yesterday that the farmers were asking for it but when you are shipwrecked and about to die, you cling to anything. Farmers have reached this point.
They do not say that it is a system of indebtedness which led our economy to ruin and to bankruptcy. They take care not to say that this disrupts the economy to such a point that the farmers have to bow to the all-powerful state and bring themselves to make their submission. The other businesses will follow suit shortly because they are all in the same situation.
The assets which private citizens have so dearly and so hardly earned in business will be turned over to the financiers. In order to better guarantee farm loans, assets, control, sale, marketing, purchase, the puppets of the system will step in to ensure more effective accounting methods.
The most hard-working, honest and peace-loving people will be under the control of an absolute dictatorship.
They will lose control of their production and their prices, which will be regulated by a board of high-salaried bureaucrats and by a large administration. The farmers will have to be satisfied with leftovers. They will still suffer the loss of their farms, of their assets, which this board will turn into collective farms.
We shall then have socialism, communism and state control, with complete nationalization in a fairly near future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all Canadian producers wish for an economic recovery likely to achieve the purpose of marketing their products on the Canadian market in order to meet the needs of the consumers and to get a fair return for their labour.
They are told to consider problems in a national rather than regional context. Problems in agriculture are always the same, just like in other fields of industry and commerce. People fight to obtain reasonable prices without fleecing the consumer but it always gives opposite results; the consumer gets fleeced more and more.
If consumers are fleeced, Mr. Chairman, it is on account of taxes and the interests with which prices are saddled, that prevent producers from realizing reasonable profits, since prices increased on account of all the above-mentioned.

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
We are considering amendments to the bill and the bill itself. Primary industry, like all others, has to cope with overproduction and not consumption problems. People do not know what to do with their products.
For Western producers, there is too much grain and too much beef and they embark on other kinds of production like bacon and chicken, but that hampers the Eastern producers' market. In order to get better loan guarantees, we ask for the nationalization of farm products by means of regulations controlling production, sales, price marketing, in short, all the agricultural economy. That causes the Eastern producer to invervene and force the government to establish controlling agencies and penalize Western producers. Shall we find solutions in such proposals or such positions?
Will that prevent prices from going up? Will that enable consumers to consume more? Does that policy recognize that the one who will really control the economy is the one who has the last say, namely the consumer? Do we recognize that production has but one objective, that of meeting peoples' needs? No thought is given to satisfying finance to the detriment of everyone else, everything else.
If agricultural production is to be maintained, as in other sectors, the purchasing power of the consumer must be capable of absorbing even more goods of all sorts. His purchasing power must be supported in proportion with his legitimate needs.
This can be achieved in various ways. First of all, through a compensated discount and through issues of converted credit allowing lower prices. Prices are too high and consumers are therefore prevented from consuming more. This also harms exports.
With regard to the basic industry, agriculture, a discount should be allowed on the purchase of all machinery used in production, on building materials, and products used for transport. This would result in a general lowering of prices, and it would then be easier for the farmers to sell their products. Exports would then also be greatly promoted. Once requirements are met, any surplus should be stored by farmers and their co-operatives for export purposes. The government should use some of it to make gifts, to distribute food for which there is such a great demand in starving countries.
We do not know what to do with production. Yet, two out of four people in the whole world are starving. We do not know what to do. The lands are put to rest. Farmers are paid not to plant. All kinds of formulas are deve-lopped to bother farmers, to prevent them from sowing and producing, to force them to quit so as to produce less and not get surplusses because we are too stupid to distribute the surplusses.


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


An hon. Member:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member may get the unanimous consent to continue his remarks. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the kindness that they have shown me. I admit that I have a lot to say, but I shall limit my remarks.
To get back to the Board of commodity control and credit to cooperatives, I was saying that this would assist farmers. If they already have all these types of cooperatives and marketing, they do not need other agencies for marketing. What they need, Mr. Speaker, is some guarantee for the consumer of an adequate purchasing power. In this way, farmers would remain the owners of their farms. Unfortunately, the agencies created and dominated by the government will take all the decisions regarding goods to be produced, quantities, quality, categories and classes of products prices to be paid. In this way, we will have an agricultural economy similar to that of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. I would point out that all workshops came to the same conclusions during the Congress on Agriculture: they all concluded against state intervention in agriculture most of them restricted themselves to wish for intervention between the provisions of the second and the third paragraph, that is, between average and high intervention.
At the present time, intervention is directed toward level II, but Bill C-176 does away with level II to fall to level IV. The next step will be complete state control of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, if farmers want more security, they will have to give up a certain degree of freedom, with this Bill C-176. If farmers want a guaranteed annual income and investment benefits, they cannot have high benefits. If farmers want state control, they must cater to the needs of the consumers and the taxpayers. If they want a high level of state control, their organizations will have to transfer a considerable amount of their power, initiative and responsibility to the government. That is the purpose of Bill C-176.
It is hard, if not impossible, to reconcile fundamentally opposed choices. In other terms, it is just about impossible to enjoy the privileges of a system without at the same time accepting its drawbacks.
Because of the increasing interdependence of various fields-those, for instance, of commodities, of wheat, of grains, of fodder plants, of cattle-the whole system has to be integrated in a logical way. This is why I feel, Mr. Speaker-I think that hon. members have already understood-that we cannot approve this bill, for we are fighting for freedom. We are fighting for security, true, but also for freedom, and for this reason we will vote against the bill.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Laval is rising on a question of privilege.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I listened most religiously to the speech of the creditiste member for Compton, and I would like to ask him whether there is any other means of promoting orderly production. The hon. member said that the problem was one of price and that the price of farm products was too high-
December 29, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair finds it difficult to allow the hon. member to use the pretence of a question of privilege to ask a question. He could have asked the hon. member for Compton if he would accept a question when he was making his speech but now that the hon. member has concluded his speech and the Chair is about to recognize another hon. member, I do not think that the pretence of a question of privilege could be used to add to what has already been said. I am quite prepared to allow a question with the consent of the House and the hon. member for Compton.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry P. Latulippe: Agreed.


Marcel-Claude Roy: My question is this: are there other alternatives to put some order in production? As a matter of fact, it seems that the producers themselves are calling for this legislation because the prices for agricultural products are too low. They are below the cost of production. I think the hon. member for Compton understands the problem since he objected to new licenses being issued for cable television programs in the city of Compton. He also objected to other furniture manufacturers coming down to the city of Compton to protect his own business. So it seems to me the farmers also have the right to protect their investments-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member may ask a question but he may not make a speech at this time.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the remarks made by the hon. member, I will say to him that we can solve the problem of consumption through consumption. It is consumption which regulates production. So if we want production to work we must organize consumption accordingly. We must have balance between the two.
The hon. member said that I had refused certain things because they would be detrimental to my business. I never said that. I will tell the hon. member that this is a sheer lie.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled this afternoon to comment on a bill which is also important to the Frontenac riding where 50 per cent of the population are farmers and 50 per cent workers.
I would like to reply to the hon. member for Compton who rightly said that Canadian farmers are now facing a problem. That is why this government is trying to pass a bill that would help all the farmers in Canada. It wants to provide them with a tool which will allour them to get out of their present stagnation. The government does not wish to provide them with a legislation which would serve the interests of some farmers in a particular area or province, but the interests of all the farmers in Canada.
When we hear in our ridings that farmers are in a predicament, it does not-


Henry P. Latulippe: Who placed them in that predicament?


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Compton indicates this afternoon that he does not wish to provide the farmers with the tool which they need to overcome their present situation. He takes to task the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) because he is not a
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
farmer; I think that he is probably more of a farmer than many of us.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that I should add that what the government now wants is precisely to put some order in Canadian agriculture, and the only way to do that is to establish a national marketing agency, so that marketing will not remain at the regional or provincial levels. The only way to enable farmers, especially small ones, to keep their farm is to give them the necessary tools to fight those who are trying to achieve agricultural integration.
I do not think that at the present time, farmers can complain about the Canadian Dairy Commission. Indeed, that Commission is operating at the national level and all farmers seem satisfied.
If at the present time, we want to prevent small producers from leaving their farms, all hon. members, especially those of the opposition, must help us to pass Bill C-176. We do not want to create a Santa Claus, as mentioned by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) a while ago, with Bill C-176.
One cannot give right and left. I say to the hon. member for Compton that, if such a thing were possible, I would be the first to go to his place to buy some furniture, and I hope that he would give it to me! When you call on us, you will talk in the same way as you have been doing in the House this afternoon. And you may be sure that, if I visit your riding, I will say the same thing that I have been saying in the House this afternoon, because I am anxious for the farmers of Frontenac County to be able to stay on their farms.	.
You want us to regress. There was a time when any farmer could go to the village or the city to sell his products, but times have changed and the marketing of agricultural products is no longer the same. Purchasers and consumers no longer want to buy the same products in the same forms, and that is exactly why the government of Canada is presently trying to give the farmers some means of marketing their products.
As the need for marketing services grows between producers and retailers, the role of middleman is filled by brokers, wholesalers and packers. They buy the products from farmers, group them and treat them. That is precisely what we want to give Canadian farmers: the possibility of selling their products, not individually, but in groups, through a system of co-operatives.
A while ago, the hon. member said that co-operatives have not solved any farming problems. On the contrary; to my mind, co-operatives in our areas gave farmers an instrument through which they got rid of their surplus production. The hon. member also said that the farmers do not want Bill C-176. Now, I can say that the Quebec C.F.U. have met us on various occasions. They did so when Bill C-176 was studied in committee, and if the hon. member is honest he will admit that those people want this bill passed, that they are clamoring for it, a complete bill and not part of a bill as the hon. member wants, because such a bill would then apply to a particular area or to a particular product.
It seems to me that at present the C.F.U. and the cooperatives-

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Henry P. Latulippe: A man who is about to drown grasps at anything.


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I urge him to address himself to the Chair, because it is rather difficult for the hon. members to follow an exchange they cannot hear.


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, it may be my lack of experience which makes me break the rules. But since I wanted to answer the previous speaker, perhaps I did break the rules and I apologize.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have had several opportunities to meet farmers from my riding and they are actually waiting for this famous bill which will allow them to gain recognition throughout Canada, not individually, but collectively and not at the provincial level. We have recently witnessed experiments where the aim was to introduce marketing, to control a certain production at the provincial level, and we have seen what failures have resulted from that. It is precisely through Bill C-176 that we want to solve this problem and try to put some order in the field of agricultural products.
Some are trying perhaps to distract us with products they want excluded from the bill, but I think that should not be done. If we really want to help all producers, all farm products will have to be included in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, such a national marketing agency was created at the federal level. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, it is the Canadian Dairy Commission which looks after the marketing of industrial milk. The Commission has no power whatwoever to regulate production volumes, but it influences production through subsidies aimed at promoting the production of high quality milk and at regulating the quantities required to meet the market demand. It reduces those subsidies when farmers exceed market requirements. Bill C-176 will precisely complement the regulating function of the Canadian Dairy Commission and perhaps that of the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Speaker, if we want all farmers to have similar purchasing and selling power, a single marketing is needed and we must pass this Bill C-176 which provides just that.
Once the provincial marketing boards were created, producers discovered a loophole that enabled them to sell their products to another province by going around the provincial marketing board.
To prove the argument I put forward a moment ago, I say that it is impossible to try to create a marketing board only at the provincial level: we must try and create one at the national level. Therefore, the federal government passed a law to solve this problem: the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.
A great many provincial marketing boards used this legislation in the mid sixties. They were well set up in respect of several products, particularly eggs, tobacco and some fruits and vegetables as well as pork.
The hon. Minister has called our attention to the fact that competition is to be had on a different level. Now, individual producers compete for their share of the market and provincial marketing boards are waging a

fierce war over eggs and chickens. Now, that is exactly what we want to prevent. The Opposition, seemingly, wants to abandon people to their own fate at the provincial or regional level. This is what we are attempting to control at the national level by enacting legislation applying to all provinces and areas.
May I add that I am pleased to have taken part in the debate on this bill which, in my view, is of vital importance. If we have faith in agriculture and want order to prevail in that field, I fail to see how hon. members in this House can object to a piece of legislation which is really of assistance to all farmers in this land of ours.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear from my friend, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), that all the farmers in Quebec are not in favour of this type of marketing board or this type of legislation any more than farmers in other parts of the country, because there have been charges that this is just a western fight. Those charges are not true.
In support of the amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) I would like to say that these amendments make the bill less obnoxious. The bill will still not be acceptable while it contains the principle of supply management. The legislation does not specifically point out how more money will be put into the pockets of the farmers. What else are we talking about at the present time? On the other hand, the costs of administration of this type of legislation and paying for production quotas, and so on, which are contained in a bill of this kind will increase production costs.
I am not in any way convinced that spending money on supply management is justified. However, it is necessary to spend money on marketing and research. We do not need this bill in order to do that. A lot has been said in this chamber about producers wanting the bill. I would like to read one of more than 2,000 submissions that I have received from my constituents expressing concern about this legislation. I think I am justified in reading it. It is comparatively mild compared to most of the more than
2,000	submissions that I have received. I might point out to the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) that all the representations were against the bill. It seems that someone is getting at the troops if it is said the farmers of Canada want this bill. I do not think that my constituency is much different from others. This is the letter that I received; it was in no way solicited by myself:
Dear Sir:
Eastside Uniform No. 92 held a meeting April 27 for the purpose of discussing Bill C-176. This meeting passed a resolution stating that they are opposed to government intervention in interprovincial trade and national marketing legislation embodied in Bill C-176. This resolution was passed by a unanimous vote from the well-attended meeting. The members felt that cattle and hogs should be deleted from the legislation, if passed, because of their dependence on interprovincial trade, the western market for cattle and hogs being mainly in eastern Canada.
We are sincerely hoping that you can help defeat this bill which is of so much concern to western agriculture.
Yours sincerely,
It is signed by the secretary of the Eastside Uniform. This is typical of the type of submission I have received.
December 29, 1971

The hon. member for Essex said, quite correctly, that all the members of the Ontario marketing boards were democratically elected. This is wonderful. But did he remind us that under the terms of Bill C-176, especially as first presented, the members of the national marketing council were not to be elected and would not necessarily be producers; they were to be appointed by Order in Council? It is strange he did not mention this.
In the course of the debate yesterday I heard the bill before us compared with the Wheat Board legislation. But since when was supply management provided for under the Canadian Wheat Board Act? Since when did the Wheat Board tell growers to limit production to a certain number of acres? The Dairy Commissioner has also been referred to on a number of occasions, not by government supporters, it is true. But here we really see a quota system in operation, quotas which have become rigorous and costly. It is true the commission has coped with surplus production and that as a result we are now importing butter. In fact, a lot of the small producers are out of business. I wonder what these small producers have in their thoughts this Christmas season when they hear about supply management. The Dairy Commission has not been very successful in finding markets abroad. It has been extremely successful in limiting production, there is no doubt about that.
The price of hogs has often been mentioned. I am sure the low price is blamed on the lack of supply management. That is a laugh. The blame lies with a government which advised farmers to diversify-to grow less wheat, to plant more barley and to get into hog production. Hog production can be started in a hurry. Overproduction and starvation prices have been the result. I do not think anyone can deny that the type of legislation before us will hasten the decline in the number of farms.
In Europe, and no doubt in many other parts of the world, the number of farms is decreasing at an alarming rate. Has anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps we in this country might do well to increase the numbers of our farmers, or at least to allow good young men to take over some of the present operations? It seems that all legislation nowadays is designed to hasten the decrease in the number of farmers, though in the very near future both Canada and the world could well be faced with serious food shortages. This legislation must be amended or we shall find there is a closed shop in agriculture. You can farm if you have the money, but if you do not have money then no amount of knowledge, ability or experience will enable you to become established.
Supply can be controlled on the basis of legislation of the type before us. Shortages will result and imports will take up the slack; other countries more farsighted than we have been will be happy to supply us at a price. And there is no mention, in this legislation, of dealing with imports in any way. Supply management will be costly. It will control, and thereby reduce, production. It will further reduce the number of farms. I am not yet convinced that it will in any way increase the net income of farmers. It does not attempt to deal with the real difficulty, that of combating ever-increasing production costs, lower returns and the lessening of our ability to compete in world markets.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
There is another factor which has not been mentioned so far, though I am sure it will be dealt with, at least by some of my hon. friends. It is this: an increase in the cost of agricultural products will be inevitable, and everyone in this country is a consumer. I think we should be concerned about the effects on consumers of increased costs of foodstuffs.
Speaking of displaced farmers, I think the question should be asked: Where do displaced farmers go when they have lost their farms? No doubt most of them go to already overcrowded cities where, because of circumstances, they probably end up on welfare, thereby aggravating an already serious social problem. Incidentally, yesterday when the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) referred, as reported in Hansard at page 10783, to "a certain clause in the bill which we amended," I think he used the word "we" loosely. He wanted the bill passed in committee as it was; I do not believe he would deny this. He was talking at the time to my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the member who had moved the amendment to which he had referred in the first place, so I think he should have said "you" rather than "we". He was a little confused in his use of personal pronouns.
In conclusion, I believe the record should be set straight. The cattlemen of Canada have made it clear they do not want this type of legislation. Many representatives of other commodity groups have also found the bill unacceptable in the absence of many amendments. It is about time the government listened to these people for a change.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not enter this debate as an expert on agriculture. Many hon. members who have already spoken from both sides of the House know the industry far better than I do, but I do have a large number of farmers in my constituency-about 25 per cent of my constituency is engaged in agriculture. I have had ample time in which to read the bill and, what is more, I have had time in which to discuss it with the farm groups in my area.
The purpose of my intervention is to place before the House conclusions reached as a result of these talks with people in the constituency of Peterborough. It is very difficult for me, a layman not engaged actively in the agricultural industry, to know where the truth lies. We have heard members of this House claiming to be spokesmen for agricultural groups and presenting the opinions of those they say they represent.
It was abundantly clear from the spectacle in the House that there is no consensus. On one side of the House a member representing a western constituency opposes the bill, saying he is speaking on behalf of the farmers of his area. That speech may be followed by that of a member, also from the west, claiming to support the bill. The same thing applies to Quebec. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) has said that the farmers of Quebec do not support the bill, and then the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) claimed that the Quebec farmers were attempting to foist it on the western farmers. The hon. member for Frontenac in his excellent speech said that

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Quebec farmers support the bill. It is difficult to know where the truth lies.


Mr. McIntosh:: You tell us.


James Hugh Faulkner: I intend at least to present the views, as I understand them, of the people I represent. If they disagree with what I say today, they will be at liberty to correct me later.
My second reason for entering this debate is that I was deeply disappointed by some of the contributions made yesterday. I was disappointed for a variety of reasons, because what was said in many cases was far from the truth. In practically all cases those statements were made by members for whom I have some respect. The first contribution I shall deal with is that of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who argued-I am sorry he is not here-that this government was trying to force farmers off the farm. Incidentally, these remarks derived from an article in the Ottawa Citizen of December 24, written by Mr. Paul Grescoe. The bulk of the hon. member's argument derived from that particular article. The brunt of that article is as simple as it is false. It is a clear example of yellow journalism. The article argues that this government and the Department of Agriculture are systematically engaged in a plan of removing the small family farmer from the face of this earth.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) says.


James Hugh Faulkner: That was the position taken by the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Peters:: Well, was that not the minister's position?


James Hugh Faulkner: The article was written on December 24 and the hon. member's contribution was on December 28. I should like to put on record what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said on December 6. The press release was made available to the hon. member for Timiskaming but apparently was not available to Paul Grescoe who is less important in this debate than the hon. member. I am less concerned about him than I am about the hon. member for Timiskaming, for no doubt he will speak again. Perhaps we have seen the final article written by Mr. Grescoe. Let me quote what the minister said.


An hon. Member:: Not what Grescoe wrote.


James Hugh Faulkner: I will not quote Paul Grescoe; I will not quote what the Citizen said and I will not repeat any rumours being bandied about as to the government's intentions. I want to quote what the Minister of Agriculture said on December 6.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On what subject, livestock?


James Hugh Faulkner: If the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) will listen, he will know exactly what the minister said.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I know. I heard him say it.


James Hugh Faulkner: The minister was talking about the small farms development program. He said:
What we are proposing is a relatively new approach to tackle a problem that has been plaguing the agricultural industries of the developed nations of the world for several decades-

Economic forces have driven thousands of farmers off the land and into the cities and, at the same time, have promoted the evolution of big farms requiring a high level of investment in land, machinery, livestock and buildings.
While there is a need for some farm consolidation to take place, it would be unwise to allow the current trends to result in the domination of agriculture by a handful of giant corporate farms-


William Arnold Peters: I agree with that.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is what the Minister of Agriculture said. He goes on:
Unless we develop new and workable programs, there are many farmers in Canada and, indeed, entire rural communities, that will be threatened if this trend should develop further.
Economic studies and practical experience suggest that the family farm is the best type of farm, and it is in this context that we have developed a comprehensive program to help the small farmers of Canada to develop profitable family farms-
That is the position of this government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is our policy and it is a good policy.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is precisely our position, and I have repeated it so that hon. members of this House who might have heard at second-hand the policies of this government would have a chance to be clear in their minds as to the government's policies, in order that they might explain the government's intentions. Hon. members know as well as I do that nothing in the world is easier than sowing suspicion and doubt in the minds of people who do not have access to this chamber.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us what the minister said about Bill C-176.


James Hugh Faulkner: Such people may not be clear as to what the government intends to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the hon. member talking about this bill?


James Hugh Faulkner: I now want to turn to other matters. The words I quoted were said on December 6 by the Minister of Agriculture.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Is the hon. member sure that he does not have remarks about Bill C-259 in his hand?


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


William George Knight: No, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member entertain a question?


James Hugh Faulkner: When I am through, Mr. Speaker, after I have outlined the government's position. That is what the Minister of Agriculture said on December 6. Let me now read from page 3 of the statement to do with the small farms development program as follows:
When we first announced the outline of this program earlier this year, many people interpreted it as a program to force thousands of farmers off the land, a program to make the rich farmer richer and to force the poor farmer out of business.
This is not the case.
On the contrary, we intend to help small farmers to develop thriving family farms.
Some misinterpreted our intentions and warned that our program would turn many rural towns and villages into ghost towns.
December 29, 1971

This is not the case.
On the contrary, as farmers develop profitable farms, rural towns and villages will be rejuvenated.
That, Mr. Speaker, I repeat is the policy of this government. It is the only possible policy that could attract people like myself and the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) as well as others who represent in part or in whole rural constituencies. Anything less would be unacceptable to us, just as it would be unacceptable to spokesmen across the way.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration say? Get to the point.


James Hugh Faulkner: I will cover many points if hon. members will just be patient. I am trying to deal with the points which have been raised. I was also disappointed because of a statement made by an hon. member for whom I have great respect, the hon. member for Meadow Lake. Perhaps his comment was made in the heat of the moment. He indicated, as recorded at page 10800 of Hansard, that somehow this bill was being foisted on western farmers by Quebec farmers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is correct.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am prepared to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is correct.


James Hugh Faulkner: I see the hon. member for Meadow Lake opposite. I suspect he did not intend to say that. He indicates that my assumption is correct, by nodding his head. He did not intend that at all. I accept that. The hon. member so indicates by nodding his head, although the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek would deny that. He would like to indicate that the hon. member intended it. I want to make clear that a substantial number of farmers from outside Quebec support this bill. I received on May 10 a letter from Mr. Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In it he said that many farmers of Ontario support Bill C-176.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Tell us what the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec said.


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not think it is necessary to do that. Hon. members from the west have quoted editorials from the Western Producer which support Bill C-176. I wish to read what Gordon Hill, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said about Bill C-176:
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, representing approximately 75,000 farmers-
That is not an inconsiderable number.
-continues to strongly support Bill C-176.
We believe the bill will provide farmers with means to extend existing provincial marketing plans to the national level. We see this as necessary for farmers to improve their incomes.
We appreciate the firm stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable H. A. Olson. We find him to be a man of high calibre and integrity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: This is not something from a loyal backbencher; I am simply quoting the remarks of Mr. Gordon
Farm Proaucts Marketing Agencies Bill
Hill. It becomes progressively more interesting as we get into it. I repeat these words:
We find him to be a man of high calibre and integrity, working hard to improve the economic opportunities for Canadian farmers. We will continue to inform our members and member organizations of his dedication on our behalf.
We trust you will continue to support the Minister of Agriculture in his efforts to have Bill C-176 passed into law as soon as possible.
The point I am trying to make is a simple and straightforward one. It has nothing to do with Quebec farmers foisting something on us. I am glad the hon. member for Meadow Lake indicated by a nod that that is not what he intended to suggest. Ontario farmers are behind this bill as well.
There was a third contribution which, thank God, was the briefest contribution yesterday. It came from my friend and neighbour in Ontario, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I would suggest that he has not read this bill very carefully, because when one reads his remarks one is not very impressed with his grasp of the bill. He disappointed me because he perpetuated the old myth and red herring which we on this side of the House have been trying vainly and laboriously to eradicate from the minds of the farmers, that is, that somehow the marketing plan in this bill will be foisted on them by the government. No hon. member, no matter how bitterly he opposes this bill, can honestly say that that is what is in this bill. There are many sections which allow producers to have a say in this scheme.
I think it was a little less than honest for the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings-granted that he had not read the bill and therefore was confused, but assuming he knew what he was saying-to have said what he said. It was simply to misinform the farmers on important points which we have attempted for some time to make clear. These are some of the things which disappointed me. One reason I wanted to rise today was to try in some small measure to clarify the record.
Today we had an interesting speech, as we usually do, from the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutch-eon) but, frankly, what he said was that marketing boards were not the final panacea for agriculture. I do not know whether that came as a surprise to his colleagues or whether some of his colleagues feel that some of us on this side of the House think that with Bill C-176 the problems of agriculture are finished. Lest anyone holds that view, let us clear up the matter immediately. No one on this side of the House has said that Bill C-176 is the panacea for agriculture. Anyone who argues that does not know what he is talking about. However, there is a world of difference between recognizing the limitations of this bill and going into a general indictment of marketing in general.
This is where I part company with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I think he pointed out some of the defects in marketing boards. Everyone recognizes that some are more effective than others and work more effectively for producers than others. That is a truism, but it does not dismiss the desirability of having marketing boards. I think the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) excellently pointed out some of the strengths of marketing boards. It is on that point that we on this side of the House rest our case. We can provide the legislation, and it is up to the farmers to make it work. The dairy producers and the

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
industrial milk shippers in my area, if the question were put to them concerning whether or not they wanted to get rid of the present system as opposed to what they had before I am sure would vote favourably for the present system.
Now I want to come to the part of the bill which is under discussion. I have supported this bill for a long time. I supported the principle of national marketing boards through three general elections. In the general election of 1968-not that this would interest hon. members opposite-it was the single, most important part of my, if you like, agricultural platform because I have believed for some time this concept is relevant to the problems faced by farmers today. I want to indicate that I am not alone in the constituency of Peterborough in support of this bill. I wish to place on record a letter from the Peterborough County Federation of Agriculture. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent knows some of these people. I am glad to see he is going to stay, because he will want to listen to this since it may influence his rather harsh criticism of this legislation. This is not what the backbenchers say; it is what the farmers of Peterborough say.


An hon. Member:: When did you dictate this?


James Hugh Faulkner: This is dated May 31, 1971. It reads: Peterborough County Federation of Agriculture wish me to tell you-
That is me, and through me to you.
-they support Bill C-176 in principle and hope you may pass this enabling marketing legislation as quickly as possible.
The Peterborough County Beef Improvement Association as you know passed the same resolution at their annual meeting earlier this year.
Yours truly,
Clifford H. Johnston.
I think it has required a great deal of effort for those of us on this side who in principle support this bill and who have received resolutions of support for it to sit here and wait patiently for this House to come to some agreement. Why have we waited? We on this side have members who represent western constituencies and these members have told me-this is not the nonsense from the other side of the House-that the western farmers have fears and doubts about the bill. These members have told me that they need time to explain it to the farmers.
We on this side of the House, being sensitive on the question of national unity, not being anxious to press too hard for some of the principles of the bill which we believe are good, and not wanting to jeopardize the balance of opinion across this country, wished to allow sufficient time for the bill to be understood. However, even the most patient backbenchers begin to run out of patience, and I believe the best thing for the farmers in the west and in the east is to get this bill through, dispose of the bogeys foisted on the farmers in the east and in the west and let them see that the bill is no threat to their industry and, in fact, in future will provide them with an opportunity that is presently denied them. That is why I think the bill should be passed quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy that has been extended to me. There is one area in which I want to register my disagreement and disappointment. It is not with this House but with the provincial ministers of agriculture. I believe it was a somewhat shortsighted act to request the elimination of the supply management feature.
If the occasion arises where a motion is put and unanimous consent is required to move such an amendment to this Bill, I am prepared to admit it because it is the consensus of the ministers of agriculture and I respect their position. That does not mean that I have to accept the substance. I think it is a shortsighted move. The principle of supply management is not being foisted on the farmers, and if it were I would have grave reservations about putting it in because clearly some producer groups have doubts about it. It was never intended that this should be the case. But there are groups, and there will be more groups in the future, which will want to exercise that option. What we are doing is putting one more step, one more obstacle, to the accomplishment of that goal by requiring commodity groups to come before Parliament to receive approval. I believe it is the consensus of the farmers in my area to have that particular section included, permissive and enabling as it is, so that they could take advantage of it after consensus was reached among the producer groups.
I want to conclude on the note that I regret deeply the decision to take out this section and make it necessary for farmers to come back to Parliament to utilize supply management, because I believe it is the heart of this legislation and it will become even more important to certain producer groups in the future. I think they should have access to it made as easy as possible. I appreciate the courtesy of the House in allowing me extended time and I urge hon. members to support the speedy passage of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair had a previous request from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight). I think it would be preferable if the House gave the hon. member consent to ask his question, if the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) accepts it.


William George Knight: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was charmed by the fact that at least one member of the House still has some sympathy for him. The hon. member suggested that the Minister of Agriculture has a program for the development of small farms. Would he be so kind as to inform me what the definition of a small farm might be, so I can go back to Assiniboia and tell the
December 29, 1971

small farmers there whether or not they will be included in the legislation?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am sure the minister will be pleased to provide that definition.


Frank Howard: My question is related to the previous one. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) read extracts from the press release of the minister of December 6 in which he said, if I recall his words correctly, that the government had a comprehensive program to aid small family farms, or something to that effect. Would the hon. gentleman mind giving us the details, because so far they have been hidden? Would he be prepared to tell the House what the details of this comprehensive program are?


James Hugh Faulkner: If I thought that that was directly relevant to my remarks, I would be pleased to do so; but in view of the fact that it is not, and I am bound by the rule of relevancy, I cannot. But I will be pleased to explain it to the hon. gentleman privately, as well as to the other hon. member who raised the same question.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot quote from the speech of the minister, hold that up as a reason for support of the bill and then refuse to answer questions about the very quotation he gave from the minister's remarks. He is obviously unable to answer it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. gentlemen may be permitted to ask questions, but I do not think we can allow debate to arise following the comments made by the hon. member for Peterborough. There are other members who wish to take part in the debate. The Chair is ready to recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) and I do not think we should spend too much time on questions unless the House consents to it.


Frank Howard: It is the answers that we are worried about, not the questions.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, coming basically from a rural and agricultural section of Canada, I feel it is my duty to take part in the debate on Bill C-176 at this time. I was very interested and listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and I wonder whether some of the frustrations which I noted in his comments do not stem from the fact that when he referred to the confusing speeches made by members of various parties he was really frustrated over the results of the recent elections which indicated to me that Canadian farmers in particular are unhappy with the agricultural policies of this government. When you look at the record of the votes in Peterborough in the last provincial election you find that the Liberal party had only 9 per cent of them. So I can readily understand the hon. member's frustration.
Bill C-176 had its debut originally in the twenty-seventh Parliament, at which time it was referred to as Bill C-197. The fact that we are still debating the proposed legislation two years later is a clear indication to me that the bill is poorly drafted, too controversial, unclear in its direction
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
and too all-encompassing. A further indication of this is the fact that hundreds of letters and dozens of briefs and protests from every area of Canada have been directed to the Standing Committee on Agriculture with suggestions for a large number of amendments.
I commend the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for introducing the three amendments which were grouped together and which we are debating today, namely, Nos. 1, 5 and 22, which I think are of basic importance. These three amendments do in part try to clear up some of the disagreeable features of this bill of which we and the farmers are now well aware, and thanks to the witnesses whom we have heard and to the research and industry of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, members of the opposition have been able to look very carefully at this bill in view of the experience we have had with the haphazard agricultural legislation produced by this government heretofore.
Let us consider the Dairy Commission program, the quota system and the fact that we are now faced with importing millions of pounds of butter in the next few months to meet our domestic needs. Let us consider the Lift program which was in fact a quota or production control policy which cost the western wheat growers half a billion dollars in loss of production income, a loss that can never be made up. Let us consider the grain stabilization bill, Bill C-244, which turned out to be the worst fiasco in farm legislation yet produced by this government.
The beef and cattle producers of this country have always been the most independent and successful segment of our Canadian agricultural industry and have always refrained from asking for any kind of bureaucratic or government interference in their industry. Little wonder that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is deeply concerned about the bill and the effects it might have on their industry if it is passed in the present form without some reasonable amendments.
In listening to the debate on this legislation so far, I have found that members on the government side have been carried away by some success on the part of some of the provincial marketing boards, but at the same time have overlooked the many failures of some boards. They seem to think that a national marketing board would work better. What is needed is better government policies in marketing all our exportable products including those from agriculture, rather than a regressive or production control policy.
Let us remember the International Wheat Agreement which was a reasonable, global, orderly marketing policy for our western Canadian wheat. But the Liberal government was an active party in bringing about the demise of this effective agreement in Geneva in 1967. However, in Bill C-176 we are not speaking about global marketing but about so-called orderly marketing within our Canadian boundaries, cluttered up with production controls even to the extent of interprovincial barriers being set up. We have had examples of this with Fedco and the infamous chicken and egg war.
Early in this debate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) set out a number of constitutional problems that must be avoided if we are to refrain from balkanizing
10842

December 29, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
our country. The Manitoba producers kept their sights clear on the same issue and on the pitfalls in this bill. Thank goodness they had the good sense to develop a test case which received a history-making ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year, I believe on June 28. I would recommend the various contributions by legal counsel given before the court in that case as valuable reading for members of the Liberal party.
The Progressive Conservative party believes in policies which encourage aggressive, imaginative marketing. Therefore, we support the establishment of marketing boards which give all producers-and all I repeat, all producers-fair access to markets. However, we do not think that Bill C-176 in its present form will do this. We believe the law should set the environment for the marketing of farm products and that such legal framework is acceptable and is the guarantor of the national interest. However, this bill would take the legal framework for the marketing of farm products out of the public arena, beyond the discipline of the BNA Act and the judiciary, and place the rule-making in the hands of bureaucrats and vested interests who essentially will be defensive regarding their own interests in the industry. In other words, this bill in its present form is constructed in such a way that it can lead to severe balkanization.
The amendments we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, are concerned specifically with the cattle industry. I would point out that the cattle industry makes up about 25 per cent of the total agricultural industry of Canada. Here are some of the pertinent questions that cattlemen pose:
1.	Where in the bill is there an inescapable assurance that a nationwide vote open to all producers of a commodity must, not may, be held before the establishment of a national marketing agency for that commodity?
2.	Where in the bill are there clearly stated rights of appeal to persons who believe themselves to be aggrieved by the bill?
3.	How will the farm products marketing council become "satisfied" that a majority of producers is in favour of the establishment of an agency?
4.	How will Bill C-176, if passed, solve the chicken and egg war? Or how will it solve similar incidents in the future?
5.	How will provincial quotas for beef be determined if an agency is established?
6.	How will Bill C-176 effect improved beef prices if an agency is established?
7.	How will Bill C-176 improve prices if importations of like products from the United States and low cost countries are not controlled?
8.	What economic research has been conducted to establish that supply management or any of the other provisions of Bill C-176 will prove of benefit to the beef industry?
9.	What will the agency and the administrative structure necessary to carry out the intent of Bill C-176 in the beef industry cost, and who will bear that cost?
10.	If an agency is established for beef, will interprovincial movement be subject to controls? If not, how will the bill operate?

11.	Does an Ontario beef producer have a greater right to the Ontario market for beef than a beef producer in Alberta?
12.	Why attempt passage of the bill when a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of restrictions to interprovincial movement is imminent?
That question is not pertinent now because I have just referred to the Supreme Court ruling that was handed down.
13.	What problems in the beef production and marketing sphere exist now, or are likely to exist in the foreseeable future, that may be resolved by the application of provisions in Bill C-176?
14.	Did beef producers seek this bill, and do they now want it applied to their industry? Do individuals or groups have a right to oppose or resist the imposition of legislation upon them when this legislation cannot be demonstrated to be essential to the public interest? Does the government have the right to impose legislation under these conditions?
15.	What are the full definitions of "enabling legislation" and of "permissive legislation"?
16.	Since the members of the council are deemed to be public servants, are they required to carry out the instructions of the minister or to function in a manner consistent with government policy?
These are very pertinent questions and I believe that similar ones could be asked by other sectors of the agricultural industry. Yesterday I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton when he criticized my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot, who introduced these amendments. I listened when he was imputing motives and I was disgusted that a man of the cloth, a man of his position, taking a seat in this House, would make statements that were so far from the truth.
I hold in my hand the front page of a newspaper which in effect consolidates three newspapers, the Carnduff Gazette Post-News, the issue of May 20, 1971, which has a headline reading, "Stockmen strongly opposed to proposed C-176 marketing bill." I wish to quote from it in order to indicate that it is not just one or two big operators in the stock industry who are opposed to this bill. The report in the newspaper reads in part:
Stock growers, 200 strong from southeastern Saskatchewan, at Alameda on Friday evening, severely criticized the federal government for its efforts to include beef in particular-and pork-in the controversial marketing bill, C-176.
Twenty-nine points were represented at the meeting: Alameda, Areola, Antler, Alida, Bienfait, Bellegarde, Big Beaver, Brownlee, Carnduff, Carlyle, Carievale, Estevan, Frobisher, Gainsborough, Glen Ewen, Kisbey, Kennedy, Lampman, Manor, Maryfield, Maple Creek, Northgate, North Portal, Portal, N.D., Oxbow, Redvers, Steelman, Weyburn, Willmar, and Yellow Grass.
This covers a wide area of southeastern Saskatchewan in which stockmen, not big ranchers but people who produce top calibre beef, have registered their strong opposition to this bill. I quote this passage for the benefit of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton because obviously he did not know what he was talking about yesterday. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the PalliSer Wheat Growers' Association presented a brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in connection with
December 29, 1971

this bill earlier this year. I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from it as follows:
The Palliser Wheat Growers are deeply concerned with any farm produce legislation in Canada that attempts to assist the producer by abdicating the role of decision making to non-producers-particularly as it relates to the production and marketing of his product.
Whereas we reject the principle of autocratic type marketing legislation in its entirety, we will not deal with specifics within Bill C-176, but instead we wish to spell out the trend of events that may be expected to follow if the bill is enacted.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
We, the wheat growers, see Bill C-176, in its present wide encompassing form, as a monolithic monster, completely devoid of reality, and totally unnecessary in the prairie region, where we as producers of agricultural products must export to survive.
I could continue, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House will now adjourn until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
10845

Thursday, December 30, 1971