1971-12-28

CONGRATULATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER ON BIRTH OF SON

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, a point of order and a matter concerning the business of the House. In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), on his behalf, on behalf of all members of this party and, I think, all members of the House, as well as all the people of Canada, I extend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mrs. Trudeau our very warm and sincere congratulations on their new arrival. We hope that his wife and new baby will be home soon. We wish them joy.
I resisted all kinds of advice as to what to say at this time. I have stayed away from witticisms. However, I am entitled, on a Parliamentary issue, to say to the Prime Minister that he will have joy and happiness. There will be problems, of course, but it will be useless in the debates that may take place from time to time to employ 75C. It just will not work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest that he learn by heart the provisions of Standing Order 13 which contains the procedure when there is a stranger in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy, on behalf of this party, to extend our warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mrs. Trudeau on the happiness that came to their life Christmas night.
Around this place, one frequently looks for precedents, especially when there is something one must say. I thought, since so much has been made of the fact that only on one previous occasion has a Prime Minister while in office become a' father, that I might find something in the records of February 1869, that would be appropriate. Alas, my search was in vain. The House was not sitting in February, 1869. When it did meet in April, nothing was said about the arrival that February of a daughter in the home of the then Prime Minister. This means, Mr. Speaker, that this really is a first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the first time in the history of Canada that the House of Commons has had the opportunity to extend to a Prime Minister and his wife congratulations on the arrival of their child. We do so with great pleasure and wish them all very real happiness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to extend, in my own name and on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit party, most sincere congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mrs. Trudeau on the birth of a son, occurring on such a memorable date.
We wish the new baby and the Trudeau family every happiness and success during 1972.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank members of all parties for the very good wishes that have been expressed on behalf of every member of this House. I want to say that this is certainly the right season for this to happen. The House leader of the Conservative party, by his reference to rule 75C, has said that this is one way in which I could proceed. I hope I will be able to use 75B a bit more often.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But one way or another, the baby has arrived 'just-in' time to have agreement.
This is one case where I would be able to tell him that I have had advice from people of all parties who have had some experience in the rearing of children and that there will be a multi-party approach to this. Mr. Speaker, I will say this is one area where I am certainly very happy to receive advice from the opposition parties.

And I particularly tell all hon. members that it is a memorable day for me when I am the object of such a warm reception from everyone.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this very memorable day and considering that all parties have offered their good wishes to the Prime Minister, may I, on behalf of my electors of the Joliette riding, offer my very best wishes to the newborn child, to the Prime Minister and to Mrs. Trudeau, as well as to the members of their families.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It is a motion which I

December 28, 1971
Air Transport
consider to be of major and pressing importance. On November 18, the Minister of Transport made the following statement in answer to my question on hijacking and the need for improved security measures. As recorded at page 9675 of Hansard for November 18, the minister said:
I do not think it is a breach of secrecy to indicate that detection devices have been installed at a number of airports and that others are on order. As soon as they have been received they will be installed.
This is the purpose of my motion under Standing Order 43 because, notwithstanding what the minister said on November 18, my advice is that no detection devices have been installed at any airports in Canada. This situation calls into question the veracity, and indeed the competence, of the Minister of Transport and the efforts of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member knows the rules. He cannot take advantage of the Standing Order to make a speech and accusation. He can propose a motion and indicate the urgency for putting the motion. Certainly, the hon. member does not respect the spirit of the rule when he makes a statement such as he has just made.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was laying the groundwork by pointing out the events related-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot discuss the ruling of the Chair. He should indicate the motion he proposes to put to the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the ruling, but I think I have the right to lay the groundwork for my motion and that is precisely what I have been attempting to do. I want therefore, to ask unanimous consent-hon. members may indeed laugh, but this is a very serious matter-to move the following motion seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to make a full statement to the House tomorrow spelling out what was done prior to the minister's statement of November 18 and the extent of the use of detection devices and other security programs that will now be employed to prevent air piracy in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose the following motion of urgent and pressing necessity.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House do initiate a special investigation of delays in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and further, that this committee do meet immediately to commence this investigation, so that a full report might be made to this House upon its return after the recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


Mr. Horner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened very closely to the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in which he gravely questioned the word of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) given to this House on November 18. He said, in fact, that the Minister's statement was erroneous and gave the minister until tomorrow to clear his name and set the record straight. I agree with the hon. member for St. John's East that the minister should be given until tomorrow. I, therefore, move:
That until tomorrow, and until the record is set straight, this House should stand adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a seconder for the motion? Will the hon. member kindly put the motion in writing and I will put it to the House.


An hon. Member:: Somebody write it for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. Downey, moved that this House-the hon. member did not put the motion in the correct form, so with his permission I will use the traditional form which would be "That this House do now adjourn". The hon. member's suggested motion reads, "I move that this House do now stand adjourned until tomorrow". The traditional form is simply "That this House do now adjourn".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Messrs:
MacKay
MacLean
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
McIntosh
McKinley
Marshall
Matte
Mazankowski
Moore
Nowlan
Paproski
Ryan
Schumacher Skoberg Southam Tetrau'lt Yewchuk-41.
NAYS Messrs:
Knight
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Laing
(Vancouver South) Lajoie
Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
La Salle
Leblanc (Laurier) Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen Mackasey McBride Mcllraith Mahoney Marchand (Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-tCariboo) Mather Murphy Nystrom O'Connell Olson Ouellet Pelletier Penner Perrault Peters Pringle Prud'homme Reid Richard Richardson Roberts Rochon Rock Rose Rowland Roy (Laval)
Saltsman
Sharp
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart
(Okanagan -Kootenay)
Inquiries of the Ministry Messrs:
St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan Thomson
(Battleford-Kindersley)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting-lflfi



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastlngs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister but before asking it I would like, as a member of long-standing, to welcome the newest member into the fathers' club, and to tell him there are many of us in this chamber who have had vast experience in bringing up children. We will be happy to pass along to him the benefit of this experience, with or without invitation. We are all experts; all he has to do is just listen.
Mj) question is: In view of the OECD warning that strong inflationary pressures can be expected in Canada in 1972, is the government expecting in the near future to announce new policies to combat inflation during the new year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are taking these warnings seriously, and all the more so in that we ourselves are aware of that ever present danger of a recurrent inflationary push, although the past experience of the government in combating inflation has been reasonably successful in terms of the OECD, and we are keeping watch. If anything has to be announced we will announce it in the usual manner.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in making its plans in this regard for next year, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the government has no intention of slowing down the economy and thereby allowing unemployment to remain at 6 per cent or higher?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister concerning the recommendation of the OECD to the effect that Canada should be able to finance most of its investment needs from its own savings. Would the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not it is government policy to restrict foreign capital inflow to Canada through some sort of mechanism?

December 23. 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as one of our new year projects we do have to announce a policy regarding the domestic control of the economic environment, and the hon. member will find the answer to that question when we make that announcement.



PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLL-POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSITION

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the government have price and wage control measures ready to enact, if it decides to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have been stating for more than a year that we would look into the possibility of price and wage controls as a contingency measure. They are still there, if we do have to use them. I hope if we ever do, we will have the support of members on both sides of this House.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, do I take it that the Prime Minister is saying yes to my question, and that the government has such measures prepared and ready?



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister advise the House when the report of the Prices and Incomes Commission on its studies into inflation, its causes and effects, will be made available, since the minister assured the House it would be available in the near future?


Hon. Ron Baslord (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised it will be early in the new year.



TERMINATION DATE-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN TERMS OF REFERENCE

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister tell the House what is the temporal mandate of the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: What is the temporal what? I am sorry, I don't understand the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Then, perhaps I may rephrase my question. Could the minister tell us in a nutshell whether, in fact, the Prices and Incomes Commission is empowered to carry on for the duration of 1972, and whether it has any broader terms of reference than were originally given?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. Its terms of reference are spelled out in the various orders in council that appointed
[Mr. Saltsman.J
and reappointed it. Its present existence continues into the middle of next year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. William Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the prediction by OECD that foreign capital will continue to be attracted by the opportunities in our natural resource industries, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not the government intends to take steps that would make our resource industries less attractive to foreign capital and more attractive to domestic capital?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make them attractive to domestic capital by actions we have already taken, for instance, in the income tax reform. However, we do not see that the resource industries themselves, the resources, will be less attractive to foreign capital, but we hope to make sure that Canadian capital has priority in investments.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the promise that additional security measures would be installed at air terminals, and in view of the fact that there are no physical signs evident of such installations, can the minister say why such installations have not been installed since representations to that end were made to him as far back as February, 1971, almost a year ago?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have gone through this exercise on several occasions in the House and it is obvious that my capacity to communicate has been somewhat less than complete. I have indicated before that a number of such devices have been in use from time to time at various airports throughout Canada. The signs concerning security installations refer to personal checking, and when such a sign is in place it does not necessarily mean that both the personal check and the automatic check will be carried out. That is perhaps the reason the hon. member is asking for this explanation.


John Leroy Skoberg: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Minister on November 18 in answer to a question put by the hon. member for St. John's East that such installations were then on order, and in view of his further statement that the department had agreed to pay for them so that the burden of the cost would not be borne by the airlines, and in view of the fact that there is a clear indication that
December 28.1971

there have not been any installations installed, would the minister say why there has not been better co-operation between his department and the Canadian Airline Pilots Association in this regard, to bring about the security measures that we would expect to be enforced?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many hypotheses in that question, if it can be called a question, that I would like to refute. I said on November 18 that additional equipment had been ordered. This, in fact, is the case. I have re-read that answer thoroughly and I am satisfied that each word in it is accurate. Further, I would like to indicate that we have been in constant consultation with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association. If there is anything further that the pilots have to propose by way of specific measures relating to my responsibilities I would be happy to consider them, and implement them if at all possible.



HIJACKING-NUMBER OF PREVENTIVE DEVICES OPERATIVE AT AIRPORTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PREVENTIVE MEASURES

['When?']
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, in view of the minister's reply on November 18 that devices had been installed at a number of airports, may I ask the minister if these devices are operative, at what dates they were operative, and how many have been installed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, even if I had that information obviously I would not make it known publicly. I believe the hon. gentleman knows there have been cases where they have been in operation. I would refer the hon. member to the second part of my answer on that date when I replied to one of his colleagues who referred to the fact that these devices were portable. As I say, I do not know the dates on which they were operative at particular airports, but if I can find out and provide this information without risk to the travelling public, I will do so.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman who pulled off the recent successful hijacking said he came to Canada for this purpose because it was easy to do it in Canada, may I ask the minister if in the public interest-


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is alleged to have said something to that effect, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand by the very reliable information that I have on this matter, and I am sure the minister knows it is reliable. I merely want to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please? The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor for the purpose of asking a question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you my authority is as good as the authority that the hon. member has.


Mr. Peters:: Sure. You just dreamed it up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member takes second place to nobody when it comes to dreaming things. Because this is a matter of great public importance and urgency may I ask the minister if he would be prepared, in the public interest, to point out exactly what security precautions we are taking at our airports in Canada to prevent hijackings.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if I were to do that, then the hon. gentleman's comment with regard to hijackers would be exactly right, because I would be inviting them to learn exactly what precautions we are taking. Obviously, the question cannot be dealt with in that way.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why? Because we are not taking
precautions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As for the comment regarding the hijacker's alleged statement about this being easy to do in Canada, I hardly think that that stands up, since the last man to try it got hit over the head with a hatchet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Gérard Laprise: I would like to direct a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker.
Could he tell us if the government intends to undertake negotiations with the Cuban government so as to include air piracy in the extradition treaty concluded with that country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. These negotiations have been underway now for some time. There has been excellent co-operation on the part of the Cuban government and we hope in the very near future that there will be a treaty of this kind between Canada and Cuba.


Mr. Forrestall:: When?



MANPOWER


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

December 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell the House if the results of projects undertaken under the local initiatives program satisfactorily meet the government's criteria?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the applications being approved, do of course meet our criteria to the extent that we can determine.



EFFECTS OF LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary.
Would he say if now at the end of the year the unemployment rate has decreased or increased?


Mr. Speaker:: This is statistical information. The hon. member might put his question on the order paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the previous round of questioning regarding air piracy and hijackings. I understand that Canada intends to ratify both The Hague and Montreal conventions on this subject. Since the Canadian ratification of these two conventions depends upon amendments to the Criminal Code which we were promised about one year ago would be brought forward in the immediate future, may I ask the Minister of Justice when these particular amendments or appropriate amendments will be coming forward.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, domestic legislation not only depends on multilateral treaties; it also depends on the ratification of bilateral treaties with the United States, Cuba and other nations. When that treaty picture is completely in place, domestic legislation will be immediately forthcoming.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East and then the hon. member for Peace River. Later during the question period we may return to this interesting subject.



HIJACKING-MEASURES TO PROTECT CANADIANS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General what security arrangements he is making to protect Canadians from hijacking in Canada.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper to comment on that.



HIJACKING-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LEGISLATION

['Order, please. I believe that that is a suggestion or a representation.']
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Since the Speech from the Throne 15 months ago announced there was to be legislation with regard to air piracy, will the Minister of Justice table that bill at present, if there was in fact.such a bill on that date.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said on several occasions that domestic and international aspects of the problem have to be dealt with simultaneously. When that has been done, the bill will be forthcoming.



Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Minister of Justice has indicated that amendments to the Criminal Code are dependent on the successful completion of multilateral and bilateral treaties, can the minister indicate to the House when he expects those treaties to be successfully concluded.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as the treaty between Canada and Cuba is concerned, we expect that it will be forthcoming fairly soon. The second and, I hope, final round will take place very soon. Perhaps I ought to explain to the House that it is quite possible to take legal action under the existing extradition treaty between Cuba and Canada; it does not depend upon any future treaty.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with negotiations taking place on the automobile trade pact between Canada and the United States and is based on the statement by the right hon. gentleman that perhaps the United States is justified in asking for some amelioration of the safeguards and the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the House that perhaps the auto industry does not need such safeguards. May I ask the right hon. gentleman, first, if the automobile industry and the government of Ontario share in this optimism and, second, if he is aware of a contingency plan that can be implemented quickly if the DISC program should prove that jobs will be exported from this country to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubts about the legitimacy of the first part of the question. The
December 28.1971

hon. member asked the Prime Minister whether somebody else shares the views or optimism of the Prime Minister on a certain matter. I am not sure that a question asked in those terms is in order. Perhaps the Prime Minister could reply to the second part of the question, and then the hon. member could ask a supplementary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the second part of the question, I want to point out to the hon. member that if he looks at the answer I gave on this subject he will find that I said that the United States might be justified in asking for it and that we might be justified in not giving it. It would depend on what the conditions of the negotiations were. As to the second part of the question about the DISC program, I must say that that program is not related to the negotiations on the auto pact.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on the first part of my previous question. May I ask the right hon. gentleman if the government has conferred with the automobile industry and the government of Ontario with regard to whether the actual outcome of the negotiations would in any way reduce the safeguards affecting the automobile industry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has talked with the automobile industry in Canada at some length. As far as the Ontario government is concerned, there has been an exchange of correspondence between the two governments. I suggested that the government of Ontario might make their views known to us. There have already been meetings, and I am told that there will be a meeting between the ministers of Ontario and our government again next week.
Inquiries of the Ministry
world in relation to oil and gas in the development of our own policy.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In assessing those conclusions, I wonder whether the minister would look at the effect on the Canadian economy, along with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, resulting from the major price increase.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that that is a suggestion or a representation.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which arises from reports regarding certain Christmas amenities to members of the Cold Lake band in the Alberta region headquarters of his department. I would like to ask the minister whether members of his department are making preparations to help celebrate next Christmas on the top of the CNR tower or whether the minister has constructive steps in mind to bring about an end to the situation before that time?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Indians of Cold Lake should follow the example of other Indians in northern Alberta who sent their children back to school for their own welfare.



REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF NATIONAL POLICY IN VIEW OF ACTION TAKEN BY VENEZUELA

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder if the minister would indicate, on behalf of the government, that he will be prepared to make a statement to the House regarding the government's assessment of the action of the government of Venezuela in rapidly escalating taxes on oil for export to Canada. In light of the conclusions reached by the government, can he say whether the government will undertake a review of national oil policy, so as to assure a greater share of the Canadian market for Canadian oil?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that when the appropriate time comes for a statement to the House, it will be made. Of course, we are attempting to take into consideration all factors in the



FISHERIES


Jack Marshall: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement by the Minister of the Environment on December 24 indicating that the high seas fishing of Atlantic salmon puts into grave question the survival of that fishery, will the minister advise what emergency steps Canada has taken to resolve this crisis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been in constant discussion with the countries that are involved in the Atlantic salmon fishery. We are continuing these discussions. We are striving, of course, to see an end to high seas fishing of salmon, but we do not have any fleet that could prevent other countries from salmon fishing if they so decide.

December 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question. In view of the action taken by the United States to prohibit fish imports from countries whose fishing operations diminish the effectiveness of international conservation programs, will the minister advise if Canada will be taking like action against these countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take the suggestion under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



ATLANTIC SALMON-POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN TREATY WITH DENMARK-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS

John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question. Can the minister indicate whether the present discussions between Denmark and Canada involving the signing of a treaty have any reference to the present salmon fishing on the high seas? Also, will the minister assume his responsibility and table the documentation with regard to that particular treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the treaty that has been initiated by the officials is that it deals with the phasing out of fishing operations in Canadian waters.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Since a year ago, Mr. Geoffroy, a notary of Saint-Jean-de-Matha was given a life sentence for having killed his wife and since he was authorized to make a short wedding trip but did not return to the fold last night, could the Solicitor General tell us when we will again see the newly-weds?



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In light of the conclusion of a recent study of the Science Council of Canada on foreign investment that United States subsidiaries in Canada are restricted in their research and development, what new action is the government taking to require or encourage foreign owned subsidiaries to do more or at least a fair share of their research and development in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition asked a similar question last week, I stated I was studying the report of the Science Council and would be making recommendations to my colleagues in due course.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is for the
Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government express its regret at the serious escalation of the United States air strikes in North Viet Nam and the use of a monstrous weapon which is said to kill everything within 3,000 feet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the facts. Perhaps the hon. member is clearer than I am about the device that has been described in the newspapers today. In reply to his first question, I can say that we have publicly stated in the past that we condemn any action that may widen the war in Indo-China. I have no hesitation in again saying this with respect to the bombing operations in North Viet Nam.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister has been receiving representations from various groups of individuals with regard to proposed increases and transportation costs in the Maritime Provinces early in the new year. Can the minister inform the House what action he has taken to date with regard to these representations ?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that offhand I cannot relate the hon. member's question directly to representations. Is the hon. member referring to some railway rate increase? Is this specifically what he is seeking?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to increases in demurrage charges and other things to take effect as a result of the Darling report early in the new year.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Here again, I have to say there has been no decision with regard to implementation of the Darling report. If any such action is contemplated, it is entirely separate from that. Perhaps the hon. member will be good enough to give me the details and I will look into them if, in fact, they have not been looked into already.


Robert Carman Coates: For clarification purposes, I wrote the minister and he sent me a reply, which he signed. He indicated that there was a committee in his office which was looking into that. I wonder if he will check into this with the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 28, 1971



DARLING REPORT-IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION OFFSHORE DRILLING RIGS BE DESIGNATED CANADIAN PORTS

John Howard Lundrigan: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister give consideration to accepting the recommendation of the Darling report which would designate offshore drilling rigs as Canadian ports in an attempt to increase the Canadian labour content in the offshore exploration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that the objectives the hon. member outlined are in themselves desirable. However, there are many other aspects of the Darling report. The question is whether we can put one part into effect without doing other things which might prove detrimental. That is why we asked for representations from all interested parties. When these are received and have been studied by the department, a policy will be announced in due course.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on a press release of that department last Friday relative to Newcastle disease. Can the minister advise if the original source of the outbreak of Newcastle disease has been discovered and isolated?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. It relates to another kind of hijacking. Are the minister, his department, his officials or the Canadian Transport Commission carrying out any investigation into the most recent air charter flight boondoggle, and, if he has not already done so, will he use his authority to prevent Joint International Airways landing rights in Canada until such time as they have reimbursed stranded passengers for funds and inconvenience.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if it is within the authority of either the Ministry of Transport or the government of Canada, I will be more than pleased to look at it in a very sympathetic way. Without having all the details, I am not at all certain whether this is a travel agency. If that is the case, it will come under provincial jurisdiction.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CHARTER FLIGHTS-MEASURES TO PREVENT LOSSES BY PASSENGERS

John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister inform the House and concerned Canadian citizens what steps, if any, his department will take to prevent such unconscionable operations from being continued in so far as charter flights are concerned?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, what legislative authority exists, exists within the Department of Transport.



CHARTER FLIGHTS-ACTION TO PREVENT NEW AIRFARE CONSULTANTS FROM ENGAGING IN BUSINESS

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now that the ball has been thrown back to the Minister of Transport by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will the minister state whether his department or the Canadian Transport Commission have authority to deal with New Airfare Consultants Incorporated, travel consultants on Yonge Street in Toronto, in a manner which would effectively prevent them from selling charter flights?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I cannot-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much whether the question is in order in any event.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is to the Solicitor General. It should have been asked on Christmas eve. Has a final decision yet been made with regard to overtime pay for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, consultations are going on with members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



AGRICULTURE


Harold Warren Danforth: My question is for the
Minister of Agriculture. When representations were made to the minister on behalf of the corn industry with regard to the storage problem in Ontario, he indicated these representations would be considered. Can the minister now indicate whether a decision can be made regarding the storage problem and when may we expect an announcement in the House?

December 28^1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, a decision has not been reached. However, I can say that the government wishes to take some action to achieve the desired end result. The details have not been completely agreed on, but I hope we can make an announcement very soon because I realize some construction should be got under way.



CORN-POSSIBILITY OF USE BY WESTERN DISTILLERIES

Mr. Robert McKinley (Huron):: A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister looking into the possibility of arranging for the transportation of corn at reduced rates by rail from Ontario to the distilleries in the west rather than have them buy their corn from the United States.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we are looking at that suggestion at the moment.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Bearing in mind the report tabled by the minister on December 10 purporting to show that the Canada manpower training program is highly effective, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman is aware of the criticism of the method of evaluation used by his department, as expressed by the Economic Council of Canada in its Eighth Annual Review.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is not in order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I had a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask a supplementary in these circumstances. He might try to rephrase the question. He knows it is not sufficient merely to ask whether a minister is aware of a certain situation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Then I will ask the minister whether he will refer the question of the evaluation technique as used by his department to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration or to some other independent body-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -to determine whether or not it is a proper way to evaluate the department's program.


Otto Emil Lang: I am perfectly satisfied with the technique being used to evaluate the training program. I note that what the Economic Council did was to note an alternative way of doing the same thing. They did not disagree at all with our technique.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour relating to the intolerable length of time taken to process certain claims for unemployment insurance benefits and to ask him whether he is aware of cases in the Montreal area, affecting the minister's own riding, where the waiting period has been as long as ten weeks. Does the department have a scheme ready to put into operation which would shorten this waiting period? I believe the minister has told us something will be done soon. Why has a statement not been made in this regard?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: The hon. member's question will be conveyed to the minister, who will be in the House tomorrow afternoon. It should be said, however, Mr. Speaker, that delays arise as a result of a number of circumstances. Sometimes they are the fault of the Commission, but many delays result from the inadequacy of records with respect to contributions from employers and employees. There is a great range of difficulties to be overcome in our effort to implement such a widely embracing plan as unemployment insurance today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad the hon. member is finding out there are problems. Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether or not there is a plan ready for operation at this particular time which would expedite the processing of claims? The minister has indicated that there is such a plan. I should like an answer to that specific question. Otherwise, let us have some action tomorrow when the minister is here.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the continuing interest in security matters, I should like to ask whether the hon. gentleman can inform us as to the current status of the co-ordinating agency or security organization which is supposed to augment the R.C.M.P. Has this force taken a formal place in the country's security organization? If not, when will it do so and under what terms of reference?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I think that this is well known, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants to check Hansard, he will find in it all the information that he is looking for. If he wants to get any further information, he should put more specific questions.
December 28^ 1971



REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF PLAN FOR RATIONALIZATION OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the minister able to say what position he has taken with regard to tabling or making public the grain handling and transportation studies which I believe he is supervising?


Otto Emil Lang: As I said a few days ago when this question was last raised in the House, I had in mind further discussion at the official level with some of the interested provincial governments who have the reports and have been studying them. I consider this the next step before any decisions are taken with respect to this study area.


John Stratford Burton: Since the contents of the report have been made available to the railway companies and the grain handling companies, does the minister not consider that farmers should have access to this information as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is argument. It is debate.



DUTCH STARCH-ALLEGED DUMPING IN CANADA

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the hon. gentleman taken any action to inquire into allegations in the press that Dutch starch is being dumped in Canada and underselling competitors in a market which is an important one for certain types of potatoes?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration having to to with a question asked earlier. Has the hon. gentleman's department any special plan to make use of the recommendations contained in the job vacancy survey which was released a few days ago and which cost about $2.5 million to prepare?


Otto Emil Lang: The job vacancy survey which was released the other day is the first firm result of some very important work done by Statistics Canada for my department in an attempt to evaluate the job situation, the job demand situation, in Canada. The results of this work are being
Inquiries of the Ministry
used within the department in a variety of ways. We are very pleased indeed that this information is now available in a form which is sufficiently satisfactory to enable it to be made public.



NATURAL GAS-POSSIBLE SALE BY PANARCTIC TO UNITED STATES-CONTROL OF PIPELINE

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Having regard to the statement made by the President of Panarctic Oils Limited, of which the government of Canada is a substantial shareholder, to the effect that Panarctic intends to sell on the United States market at least one trillion cubic feet of gas annually, which is equal to the total volume of current Canadian gas consumption, would the minister inform the House whether this intention is shared by the Canadian government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the gas that Panarctic Oils Limited has found so far cannot be sold on the American market without the approval of the Northern Canada Power Commission, and the abovementioned company will be subject to the same export regulations as all other Canadian companies.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Does the federal government support the position of the President of Panarctic that the proposed Arctic pipeline should not be controlled by Panarctic Oils Limited?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether a question asked in those terms is in order.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the acting minister. Just before Christmas I asked whether an agreement had been negotiated between the department and the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island with regard to the continued operation of the engineering services located in Amherst, Nova Scotia. The minister said an agreement had been worked out and had been placed before the cabinet for approval. Has that approval been given? Can the minister tell the House exactly what the situation is?


Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I shall have the matter looked into and try to have an answer for the hon. member as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, a man whom many of us admired and esteemed for years in this House has just passed away tragically. The death of Augustin Brassard, who sat here with so much devotion, guilelessness and sincerity, brought back memories and moved the hearts of those who rubbed elbows with this very humane Quebecer whose stature and generosity will never be fully known because that prominent citizen was totally discreet.
Augustin Brassard devoted himself in difficult circumstances, at times to thankless jobs. He was one of those who give without demanding any guarantee whatsoever. The House will surely want to join with me in remembering this late colleague and offering his family our most sincere condolences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that questions of privilege, even in exceptional circumstances such as this one, cannot be raised without notice. The hon. member could have given notice to the Chair, as required by the Standing Orders.
In any event, I agree that these are very special circumstances.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 29, 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).
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on with the debate! Let joy be unconfined today. We are back here because the government obviously is in some doubt as to the value of the program contained in Bill C-176, which in the last Parliament had a very undignified and unhappy career in the name of Bill C-197.
I want to support the amendments which appear in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I do

so in spite of the fact that the government has made a proposal which, if accepted, will go a long distance toward removing the offensive and repugnant features of this bill as it stands today. We have also proposed an additional change, the exclusion of cattle and cattle producer, which we think will take the bill even further and make it still better. It appears to me, however, that we are engaged in debating the bill as it was originally introduced into this House, and reprinted following the committee meeting, so I have to deal with it on that basis.
Despite the fact that there are aspects of this bill which are not attractive to us, we still believe it is a bill with which we could live if it contained the amendments which have been proposed; but we have to proceed on the basis that this may not happen and as if we were dealing with the bill in the form in which it was reprinted.
What is the purpose of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot? At the time he conceived them-and they are honourably born-we were in a very serious situation with regard to certain actions by some provinces of Canada which were tending toward the balkanization of this country. There was, Mr. Speaker, an action pending in the courts of the province of Quebec with respect to which this government did not have the intestinal fortitude to appear and to make representations and ask to be represented by counsel at that time. We had reason to believe that for political purposes this government was prepared to stand by and allow the benefits of the federal system to go down the drain. That is one of the main reasons why the hon. member for Crowfoot has introduced his amendments.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) about it.


Gerald William Baldwin: As my friend the hon. member for Crowfoot has said, we asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on numerous occasions what he was going to do, and we also asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what the government was going to do. As usual we were met with dissimulation, divisiveness and delay-the three "D's" upon which this government is founded, especially at question time.
It is principally for these reasons that the hon. member for Crowfoot has moved the amendments. We all know what happened. At a later stage the province of Manitoba enacted legislation which was challenged. Ultimately it arrived at the Supreme Court of Canada, and as the government could no longer exercise its delaying tactic it was challenged by members of this party to appear at that court and take a position. Up to that time it had shown no indication at all of its constitutional responsibility with regard to this matter.
I do not think it will do us any harm at this time to pause for a moment and look at the situation which could have developed and to look at the situation upon which these amendments were predicated.
The federal structure in a country such as Canada means more than language, geography and national unity; it is a great movement toward permitting the free flow of goods and services and people from one end of the country to the other. Without that this is not-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker-



December 28, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: I see one of the marketable products from Manitoba-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Boniface rising on a point of order?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the hon. member for Peace River is giving us an historical background, or is he speaking to the amendment?


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Ricard:: That is up to you to decide.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask you-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we might have one point of order at a time. If the hon. member would allow the Chair, the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface was to suggest that the member who has the floor is not addressing his remarks to the motion. My understanding is that the hon. member was making general introductory remarks, which is quite normal. I do not think that up to this point his remarks were out of order or irrelevant. The hon. member knows, as we all do, what is before the House, namely certain specific motions. The hon. member for Peace River will, I am sure, allude to these motions in the course of his remarks and make them relevant to his remarks.	,
The hon. member for St. John's East was rising?


James Aloysius McGrath: Since you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to raise my point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the hon. member for St. Boniface who should himself be on a marketable quota of nil.
The amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot relate specifically to the question of the country as a whole being brought within the confines of this bill, and they aim at trying to prevent the divisiveness which would come about through that part of the bill that divides areas of Canada for the purpose of marketing plans into regions. The amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot are definitely aimed at preventing this.
For this reason, and to lay the foundation for support of these proposals, I say to this House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that anything which could have a divisive or detrimental effect by stopping, easing or preventing the free flow of goods and services and people from one part of this land to the other will result in grave damage being done to our federal structure. Without the amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot the bill could have this particular effect.
Now, of course, it is true that, as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Manitoba reference, to some extent this danger has been averted. When we remember what happened in the United States, which became a tremendously wealthy and progressive country in a very limited time owing to the fact that it had its own common market, and when we see what has happened in countries belonging to the European Common Market and what will doubtless happen in those which are shortly to be brought into the Common Market, we see the benefits which flow from the free movement of goods and serv-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ices, people and money. While there may be a place for marketing legislation of some kind, it is the responsibility of every member of this House to ensure that legislation of this kind will not have, and cannot have, this divisive, detrimental effect. This is why I and other members of our party support these particular amendments.
I would point out that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was very welcome in this House and in all parts of Canada. It immediately had some effect in bringing to an end increasing economic divisions between different parts of Canada and the kind of Balkanization which is bound to be dangerous to the survival of our federal structure.
But there is far more than this involved in this particular bill. The case in the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of the Manitoba reference was decided on the simple ground that no provincial legislature has any right to legislate with regard to matters which constitute the regulation of trade and commerce. So far, so good. That has now been established beyond any question of doubt. But we must go beyond that and deal with the danger this legislation in its present form presents.
How did the people who wrote our Constitution attempt to ensure that there would be this freedom of movement within Canada? They did so through section 121 of the British North America Act. Just to refresh our memories I shall read this very short section. It states:
All articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.
There have been a number of decisions which do not bear directly on that particular section but which have had some interpretative effect in the minds of judges, both of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Privy Council when that body had jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Canada. I shall not go into this at this time, but I would point out, through you, Sir, to the members of the House that in the case of Murphy v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1958, it was suggested by the judges of the court that Section 121 of the British North America Act applies not only to prevent provinces but also the federal government from dealing with the free flow of goods and property from one part of the country to another.
I want to read to the House part of the judgment of one of the most distinguished judges, a former member of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Rand. As reported at page 638 of 1958 Supreme Court Reports, Mr. Justice Rand made certain comments. The case, which hon. members may recall, was a test case in which Mr. Murphy had attempted to impugn the validity of the provisions of the Wheat Board Act by shipping a small quantity of grain from Manitoba, I believe, into British Columbia. The decision went against him but there were some very interesting comments made at that time. Mr. Justice Rand said:
The main contention was that the legislation and regulations infringed section 121 of the Act of 1867 . . .
Then he quoted the said section and went on to say:
Assuming this section to be applicable equally to action by Dominion and province, is the charge exacted as a condition of the shipment an impediment to that free passage for which the section provides? Viewing it in isolation, as a hindrance to interprovincial trade detached from all other aspects, the demand bears the

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
appearance of a violation. Apart from matters of purely local and private concern, this country is one economic unit; ...
I commend those words to members of the government opposite as something they seem to have forgotten; that is, that this country is one economic unit. One of the main purposes of confederation is precisely that. Mr. Justice Rand continued:
-in freedom of movement its business interests are in an extraprovincial dimension, and, among other things, are deeply involved in trade and commerce between and beyond provinces.
-"Free," in section 121, means without impediment related to the traversing of a provincial boundary.
These words I particularly commend to hon. members.
-If, for example, Parliament-
This is not a province, this is Parliament.
-attempted to equalize the competitive position of a local grower of grain in British Columbia with that of one in Saskatchewan by imposing a charge on the shipment from the latter representing the difference in production costs, its validity would call for critical examination. That result would seem also to follow if Parliament, for the same purpose, purported to fix the price at which grain grown in Saskatchewan could be sold in or for delivery in British Columbia.
When we come to examine this particular bill, in clause 2 we find a definition of "marketing plan" which, in my opinion, could bring a proposal in the form of a plan submitted by Order in Council squarely within the restrictions which according to Mr. Justice Rand might well be unconstitutional just as much for the federal government as for a province. Clause 2(e)(iii) provides that:
(iii) the marketing of the regulated product on a basis that enables the agency that is implementing the plan to fix and determine the quantity, if any, in which the regulated product or any variety, class or grade thereof may be marketed in interprovincial or export trade by each person engaged in such marketing thereof and by all persons so engaged, and the price, time and place at which the regulated product or any variety, class or grade thereof may be so marketed;
I repeat the words "the price, time and place at which the regulated product or any variety, class or grade thereof may be marketed". There is a clear indication contained in this definition of marketing plan that an agency may establish a price and means of sale, which would mean that a product-and I do not care what it is, whether apples, potatoes, chickens or what have you-grown in one province could be marketed under the structure of the marketing plan in some other province with an artificial price gauged by the difference between the cost of production in the two provinces.
I suggest to you, Sir, and through you to members of the House, that in the mind of Mr. Justice Rand this would clearly bring into question and challenge the constitutionality of this plan. It is for this reason that any doubt as to the right of any province to engage in marketing programs which infringe on the federal government's right to deal with trade and commerce by means of regulation is now set completely at rest. There is no right in a provincial government to engage in activities which, in the province of Manitoba, the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario or in any other province, prevent the free flow of trade. That now has been clearly defined.
However, we still have this other consideration to take into account, and it is for this reason that I welcome the amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. 
Horner) and debate on this subject. It is not a technical matter which is peculiar only to lawyers. Surely all of us in this House must be very anxious and greatly concerned about the promotion of the freest possible flow of trade between the different parts of Canada. Surely we are interested in seeing that the legislation is not ultra vires, that it is legislation which cannot be challenged.
I suggest that if this bill were passed in its current form we would be authorizing the government to establish by Order in Council an agency with a marketing plan which could very easily involve proposals which would be in violation of the Constitution. Therefore I welcome these amendments and the proposal of the government to take out of the bill all the supply management features, which in my mind would do away with the possibility of this sort of situation arising. We would still include poultry products and eggs.
I would think that if the amendments of the hon. member for Crowfoot are defeated, and if the government goes ahead, enacts this bill in its present form in defiance of what I have said, a bill that I am sure a great many constitutionalist lawyers will say is of doubtful validity, and proceeds to establish a marketing plan which flies directly in the face of the statements made by Mr. Justice Rand, then the government will be challenged, the marketing plan will be challenged, and the agency will be challenged. And we in this House will have a great deal of responsibility to bear for allowing passage of legislation of this kind without looking at this very important issue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that if this country is going to grow and prosper there is need to provide for an over-all marketing program. But in devising the individual programs, I say that we must exercise the greatest care to ensure that what we do will pass muster as being part of the federal structure leading to greater prosperity, unity, and the cohesion of all parts of Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say how surprised I am that we are back here between Christmas and New Year's discussing this bill, particularly when the Senate Hansard indicates that that chamber is not coming back until the middle of February, although subject to recall in January or later this week. Obviously they are not too concerned about this bill but will be available to deal with it.
This bill has been with us for a long time. It was with us in the form of Bill C-197 several years ago. It has been with us for some time as Bill C-176. I think many hon. members are unfamiliar with it, but in my experience it is the most amended bill I have ever dealt with in Parliament. Last year the committee travelled across the country with the bill and collected a sheaf of amendments. And wherever we went the minister or his representatives kept on saying, "We are going to amend this particular section, or that particular section. We don't intend to implement it as it is; you have to read the amendments in conjunction with the bill." In January, 1972, we will be looking at a new batch of amendments connected with this bill. The amendments now on the order paper are not necessarily the last word on this measure.
December 28, 1971

It should also be borne in mind that the changes which are being made, including the amendment we are debating, are fundamental to the operation of the family farm. In this connection may I say I was pleased to read in last Saturday's edition of the Ottawa Citizen an article by a writer, Paul Grescoe, entitled "Goodbye to the family farm". This article was particularly interesting in light of the debate on this bill and the amendments, and I would like to quote two or three paragraphs from it. It reads, in part:
Canada-which once brought thousands of immigrants from Europe to farm the land and build the country-is now allowing its family farms to die.
And their death is being officially encouraged by the federal government.
Ottawa wants to ease small, low income farmers off their land. The Financial Times recently explained the government's reasoning: the federal Department of Agriculture believes that Canada can support no more than 150,000 farms, this means that 250,000 farms must go.
That underlines our fear about passing this bill, and that is the reason for the hon. member's amendment. We are interested in those 250,000 farmers. Where do they go? As long ago as six or seven years I saw letters from leaders of the Liberal party indicating it was their intention to eliminate the small family farm, and to turn agriculture in Canada into an economic agribusiness.
With respect to the first amendment dealing with the removal of a number of products, I must ask who is making all the fuss about the products. It is not the little farmer who does not have much say in any marketing structure: it is those who are producing in an agribusiness, and in many cases over-producing.
One of the former speakers who just made a comment is one of those who got into trouble by overproduction in the free enterprise system, who produced until the price went down and until his own friends went out of business. I am told the same thing would have happened to him had he not found an advantageous sale and managed to overcome his difficulties. We have to decide who will be served by this bill.
If 250,000 farmers are moved off the farm the argument will be made that it is because their holdings are uneconomic. As pointed out in this article part of which I quoted, the average income from that class of farm across Canada is $2,800. This is a disgrace because it means we would be paying them welfare in the cities. They are living on farms because they have decided this is a good way of life. They have clean air, fresh vegetables and many of the advantages of a quiet, slow moving life. They live there in dignity and raise their families in dignity. We have moved them into the cities because we cannot keep them in the rural economy. There are no jobs for them in the cities, yet they cannot stay on the farms.
If you move them into the city they will have to live on an income of $4,000, in poverty and with no personal dignity. There is no future for them there. Who will be left on the farms? Kraft will be left on the farms, where it will have control of the cheese industry in this count through its own form of marketing legislation. Kraft is in a position to buy cheese in the area from the wholesaler at 80 cents a pound, which is one cent more than the price of
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
butter in that area. I suggest that that is unreasonable. You can produce twice as much cheese from butterfat as you produce butter; therefore the conclusion is that Kraft has raised the price of that commodity to the consumer in an unreasonable way.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this might be a good point at which to interrupt the hon. member. I confess I am not sure to what extent the remarks he is making now are related to the motion before the House. It may well be that they are. The hon. member has a knowledge of agricultural matters which is second to none, and certainly much greater than mine, and perhaps as he pursues his remarks he will indicate how his comments are related to the motion now before us.


William Arnold Peters: I shall be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the argument is complicated, but the amendment removes from the plan such things as animals, meats, eggs, poultry, wool, maple products, honey and any part of any such product. The producer would have no control over any part of any such commodity as maple, sugar, hams, bacon, cheese or butter, because the bill says "any part of any such product". I presume cheese and butter are by-products of animals, and if we remove these we will only be controlling farm products, meaning any natural products of agriculture. Obviously we are not referring to bacon and pork, and we would not be talking about cheese and butter, because these are by-products of animals or natural products of agriculture. In themselves they are not natural products although they might be referred to as products of the cottage industry.
I singled out the Kraft Company because it is agribusiness at its best. Certainly everybody can use different examples. In the province of Quebec farm representatives are not talking about farmers, they are talking about Granby Co-op. They are talking about the monopoly which that particular organization has now in the province of Quebec. They can go into the broiler industry and can put it completely on the rocks, as they did, or they can go into any of the other fields, because they have a vertically integrated operation which bears no relationship to the family farm.
The point that I am making is that while that may be good business for the Liberal party, while they may believe in agribusiness and in large farms being good and size being the prime requirement-


Mr. Mazankowski:: No.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend says "no". Let me read an article that reveals what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) said about it before he became minister. Eight years ago he hinted at what was to become of the federal government's policy to kill Canada's small farm units. He is now minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, but when he was law professor speaking to graduates of agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon he had this to say:
"The family farm is not entitled to subsidy," he said. "Should those living on farms be subsidized by non farmers to bring their economic level to that of non farmers? Clearly not. The farmers are receiving non economic benefits to make up the difference."

Decern ber28,_197_l
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
The benefits, he suggested, include "independence, fresh air, quiet and privacy and the intimacy of neighbourliness ..
This is what he is going to give them. They will get independence, free air, quiet, privacy, and the intimacy of neighbourliness where you know all your neighbours well. Lately the minister has not been speaking about those benefits, but the federal government has bluntly informed family farmers that they can no longer expect to be subsidized. The big farm cannot be run economically any longer. My point is that we should not remove these products from clause 2 of the bill.
Earlier today I was asked whether I did not believe that any price increase for the farmer would mean a price increase for the consumer. I say that that is true, that if the farmer receives more money, then obviously the consumer will have to pay a higher price. But I suggest that in the case of agribusiness the farmer may not get one cent more, though the consumer will have to pay a great deal more for his commodity. In the case of milk, which is a natural product which would be left in, if you produce butterfat from it you should be able to produce twice as much cheese from the same amount of butterfat as you produce butter.
However, what happens when agribusiness gets hold of it? There are as yet some butter factories around the country. As a matter of fact, the little butter companies are trying to buy butter from the government. They cannot obtain enough cream in their area to produce butter so they are buying butter from the government, which is stored in the province of Quebec in the city of Montreal. However, they have no control over the cheese industry, which is now big business. If Kraft is getting competition from them it buys them out, and this is true of other companies, including General Foods. They buy out the little producer and the little industry. They have raised the price of cheese until it is higher than the price of butter, although it takes twice as much butterfat to make butter as it does to make cheese. That is what agribusiness does, and the consumer continues to pay more money.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let us hear something original.


William Arnold Peters: That is original, and it is a fact that has been stated by many agronomists over a long period of time. This is the first time in my memory that there has been an unreasonable relationship between the price of butter and the price of cheese. The hon. member probably comes from an area which does not produce either butter or cheese, and therefore he is not aware of this fact; but it is a fact, and it seems to me that this is something that even those members who do not come from agricultural producing areas should consider. Although a family farm operated at a very low return, and had the privileges and benefits to which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration referred, namely fresh air, privacy and the friendliness of neighbours, it was also provided with enough money to develop the farming industry of this nation. The family farmer sent his children to school, and some of them are now Members of Parliament. We have been able to develop a social structure in much of Canada that has been under a rural economy.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill carries, the benefits for those in the agribusiness will be bountiful and substantial. If this bill carries, it will suit admirably the purposes of agribusiness in Canada. It will give that industry as much flexibility as people now enjoy when buying an automobile-a Ford, a Chev. or a Chrysler product. There was not much competition in this field, because the price to be paid has been agreed to. When Japanese car exports hit this country, their effect was such that the big three automobile manufacturers went to the Canadian government and got a 15 per cent increase in the tariff protecting them. I do not suggest that was bad. Perhaps that was necessary for the economy of this country. However, I suggest that if four or five big companies can control the automobile business in Canada and set prices, the same could be true of other products. For instance, members from Quebec could cite examples in addition to the two I cited to show that natural maple products might be affected by this bill. In many parts of Ontario as well people enjoy the fruits of the maple tree, so to speak.
Most of us do not eat oats, wheat or the other grain cereals unless they have been processed. It is fairly easy to roll oats; you can do that at home. Nevertheless, even though the "health nuts" may prefer them in the raw state, teeth do decay and it is necessary for some of us to eat processed cereals. There is little relation between the five pound bag of flour that your wife buys in the store and the five pound bag of wheat that was used to manufacture that flour. The price of the flour bears no relation to the price of the wheat, although the flour is produced from the wheat.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this is an unexpected privilege that I had not anticipated.


An hon. Member:: You can speak now for 24 hours, if you wish.


William Arnold Peters: I realize that. May I point out that in establishing this marketing legislation we are doing something that will benefit the entire farming industry. I believe that the Department of Agriculture believes, and believes sincerely, that we cannot have 400,000 farmers in Canada. I also believe that the federal Department of Agriculture does not expect to wait for the normal process of attrition to eliminate 250,000 of our farmers. It wants to hasten the process by legislation.
I have always believed in marketing legislation. My father originally set up in northern Ontario as well as in southern Ontario milk marketing boards. Over the years he negotiated many of the fluid milk marketing contracts in those areas and consequently over a period of time the
December 28.1971

fluid milk producer in Ontario ranked fairly high in the agricultural industry. When we set up the Canadian Dairy Commission and went into the industrial milk field, and when we said that milk could be taken from the fluid milk field and applied to the industrial milk field, and vice versa, it had taken us 25 years to reach that point. We said that farmers in the seventies will need to buy great bulk tanks. Farmers will need milk boilers and great stanchion barns. All these the farmers will need to meet higher health standards in Canada. The result was that the little farmer owning only five or ten cows did not think that the required $20,000 investment in his operation was worth while; consequently, he went out of business. I know that we said that he only needed to have 480 pounds of butter-fat and that this could be secured from the production of two or three good cows. However, the little farmer did not have two or three good cows, or the bulk tank or the barn. Since his cattle was of poor quality, he felt it was necessary for him to go into the production of other commodities.
In the last few years we have attempted to control the production and sale of broilers and poultry. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will, after an amendment to a certain bill has been proclaimed, be able to exercise control over eggs or poultry products. At least, that is what some think the effect of the legislation will be. I suggest that it is not quite that simple. What will we have done by passing that legislation? We all agree that we cannot force that kind of legislation on a province. We decided that, and it is not true to say that the Supreme Court made that decision. We just have not taken that matter to the Supreme Court for its advice. At any rate, we admit that the provinces will need to make a decision in this field. At the same time, we are sitting here during a period when civil servants who sometimes think they are not well treated are on holiday, and we are discussing this bill. Our specific purpose is to include eggs and poultry in it.
Hearings were held in Ontario to decide whether there should be an egg marketing board set up in Ontario. This was some time ago. After the hearings, a vote was taken, and that vote was overwhelmingly against the establishment of such a board. A number of years later a vote was again taken on this subject, and again the idea of a board was turned down. It was subsequently decided to withdraw this matter from the political arena and establish a commission. Judge Ross was appointed and went around the province. He was in Ottawa about a week ago last Monday and held a hearing. I was not present, but I gather that it was not much different from the hearing that had been held in London, and is similar to the one that will be held in Toronto.
People at all those hearings did not agree on the establishment of boards. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Surely everyone assumes that the guy who is producing eggs will support the establishment of a board controlling them. This sounds fairly reasonable. Why did not those people support such boards? I suggest the reason is that the owners of hens really would vote on a board.
Who owns the hens? A half dozen people own the majority of the hens in Ontario.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


An hon. Member:: The feed companies.


William Arnold Peters: As the hon. member points out, it is the feed companies. They have nothing to do with this. They only have a vertically integrated operation. In many cases the egg producer is being paid on a similar basis to that in the province of Quebec where the producer is paid 10 cents a bird to produce broilers. Everyone knows he is the hired man of the feed company.
We are not talking about the person who peddles his eggs on the street. The person I am talking about is the one who buys his eggs or has a few hens at home, where he and his wife are conducting a small operation and he peddles his eggs around town. He will not be hurt by a board. He can still peddle his eggs, legally or illegally. People can come from town to his farm, if the price is right and buy eggs. The people bothered about a board are those on the small end of the operation.
A person in Ontario stated to the commission that the day a board is created for eggs, someone will be a millionaire because he will have a quota of over $1 million. It will not change anything else. Surely that is not what we want to accomplish, unless we agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Department of Agriculture and the former law professor from Saskatoon. We are not interested in eliminating the family farms in Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Neither are we.


William Arnold Peters: I do not see why we should put the farmer off the farm, bring him into the city and put him on welfare. He has a job to do and he does it. It is true, in many cases, that his farm is inefficient. His marketing is inefficient. Why are we aiming to get him off the land at any price?


Mr. Faulkner:: That is pure nonsense. Stop inventing the stuff.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says that is pure nonsense. When an NDP government was elected in Manitoba, what was one of the first things it had to do? This government has been going around giving away money. It will give a farmer $50,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming can relate his remarks to the amendment before the House. Without being critical, I suggest that maybe he should do so.


James Hugh Faulkner: This is pure garbage.


William Arnold Peters: What are we asked to do in this amendment? We are dealing with all farm products. We are asked to limit those farm products and to remove by-products of agriculture. I think it is perfectly in order to indicate that the small producers in this country are being eliminated. They will not be able to compete. This clause refers to any natural product of agriculture. Basically, we are talking about produce in its natural state. If this is what is left, I think everyone will agree that agribusiness will be the only form of agricultural production in this country.
There will be a period of transition. The hon. member does not believe that, but the facts speak for themselves. He need only look at the Canadian Dairy Commission to see the results of that act on the western farmers. This

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
was not done because it was necessary, but because we did not put in the necessary limitations. The Minister of Agriculture is now going back to put in some of the limitations that should have already been there.
I am in order to speak about these matters because they bear directly on this amendment. Your Honour even suggested that we take this amendment in conjunction with amendments 5 and 22, which are fairly broad amendments. I am aware of the courtesy of the House in extending my time and I do not intend to take advantage of that, but I must state that we are not only concerned about this bill but about the effects of it.
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) should look at the record. I heartily recommend to him this article which appeared in the Montreal Star, the Ottawa Citizen, and a number of magazines. I think it is quite factual. It states exactly what would happen to a small farm operation in a small community. I fear that thousands of people across Canada will think we are changing the whole rural game. For this reason, we should give very serious consideration to every amendment to this bill. If this bill is passed, it should be the most considered and advantageous bill possible.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has received much discussion over the past number of months and I am certainly pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate. This legislation constitutes a very big change in the agricultural industry, one which I feel is most necessary if the agricultural industry is going to survive within the society we live in today.
We must look at the way all other organizations exist. Regardless of what type of work you do, you are organized by your members for the benefit of those who are involved. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) referred to the fact that 250,000 farmers must go. It appears that each time someone is paid to write a report on agriculture, it automatically becomes government policy. It is obvious that the hon. member has not read the small farms development program which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) very recently announced. If, after reading this, he still believes it is the government's plan to remove people from the farms, then I suggest he has the wrong understanding of this legislation. The sole desire of this legislation is to have as many producers as possible operate in an economic unit.
The amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) proposes the removal of beef and veal products from clause 2. In considering this, I have to ask myself several questions. Who is covered in the bill and who is not? How does one qualify? What must one do to take advantage of the bill? We have gone through this many times, Mr. Speaker. Whether you are listed in the bill or not listed is not important. If any commodity group that is organized asks to come within this bill, no government will deny them this opportunity.
We must remember that this is permissive legislation designed for those who choose to use it. How does one qualify to operate under this bill? Most of us are quite familiar with the procedure that must be followed. There must be marketing boards in the provinces which are interested in the program. They in turn must agree to

establish a national marketing board. The contents of the legislation are solely for the purpose of their operations once they have established the plan under which they choose to operate. The plan they choose, design and draft themselves is far more important than what is in this present legislation.
These are the controls which are to be imposed on any organization. The producers themselves will decide. Some people say they will not have the opportunity, but I say it is provided in the bill that should any area of Canada which produces a significant amount of the commodity referred to choose not to establish a national marketing plan, there is no way in which a plan can be established. It is obvious they must get agreement before a plan can be presented for approval.
Now I must look at what this bill can do for producers. In discussing agricultural commodities there are two areas of concern. There are those who are producing in a surplus position, and those who are producing not in a surplus position. Those who are producing in a surplus position are definitely asking us to pass this legislation. It is important that these people be organized and have some control over the production of their products, how the product is handled and what price they can get for it. These are the only people who can make those decisions.
As far as a product which is being produced but is not in surplus is concerned, there are quite a few of these but they are diminishing each year. These people have a different area to serve. First, how do they prevent themselves from getting into a surplus position? There are certain areas to which they must give consideration. I refer to such things as market research. There are many areas of market research which in my estimation should be explored in a manner in which they are not being explored today. For example, I have heard there is a potential market for pork in Japan. The federal government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has explored this possibility and has been successful in getting some of the barriers removed so that we may ship pork there. A boatload of pork was shipped to Japan to see how the Japanese people liked our product.
Once a market is established, who takes over the job of assuring that we keep this market? I say that once we capture a market and get into the business of supply management a commodity group is the most likely body to handle affairs. I know this is a contentious point because supply management works both ways. Once you establish a market you must guarantee that you will produce sufficient of the product to supply that market, and this is as important as any other control.
There have been requests that import controls be included in this legislation, and that commodity groups should be given a measure of control over imports. It is obvious that if any one commodity group were given control over the import of the product it produced, it would immediately stop that product from coming in, and hon. members know the chain reaction which would then take place.
There are many opportunities for the government to work with commodity groups. This is apparent from some
December 28, 1971

of the actions taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in the last while. When you are dealing with an organization which speaks for all the producers who are producing that commodity, and you get the same story for them all, it is possible for the government to act. But if you get one answer from one area and another from another area, it is difficult for anyone to establish policy and work for the benefit of that commodity group.
Let me refer to some of the organizations which have sprung up already. There is EXCAN, an organization of people interested in the grain industry. They organized for the purpose of finding new markets, finding better ways of handling grain, and every day you hear favourable comments about the progress these people have made. These are people directly involved in the industry who are engaged in the promotion and sale of their products. In the oilseed industry and the rapeseed industry a tremedous job has been done in establishing a market and providing the product for it. Then there is the work of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And the cattle industry.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: And the cattle industry, I agree. But the cattle industry, I hope, will be national.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They have a national board.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: We have a national board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A national association.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: We have to set up an association involving everybody who is producing. Then these people can make great strides in the industry. The Palliser Wheat Growers recently worked with the government in providing a unit train which was a tremendous success. This is what people in an industry can do to help their own industry grow.
In considering a proposal to remove beef and veal products from the bill I become concerned because I feel there are a lot of ways in the bill any commodity group could operate without having any supply management. Hon. members are familiar with the proposal which I understand was discussed and agreed to by nine of the ten provincial ministers of agriculture, that being a possibility that beef and veal products be removed from clause 18, which deals with supply management, but be allowed to come within the rest of the bill. I think many people would agree with this. I think the people I have spoken to in the beef industry would do so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member's speech but he inferred that nine out of ten of the agriculture ministers agreed to exclude cattle from the provisions of clause 18. That was not the agreement according to my understanding and I should not let his assertion go unchallenged. I am certain he knows better, and that the Minister of Agriculture knows better.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order. That is a matter of debate between hon. members.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: On that point, it is my understanding that this was agreed to by nine out of ten ministers. The 24725-53 J
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
minister from the province of Manitoba did not agree with this, as he has other ideas of how control should be placed. But those are his opinions. When you get nine out of ten ministers agreeing-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To what? What was their agreement?


Gerald Richard Cobbe: -to something which had arisen and something which we have not been able to deal with, I hope the House will consider the possibility of the minister introducing another amendment. I know this requires the unanimous consent of the House, but I think consideration must be given to it. If beef and veal are to be removed from any part of this bill, I think the only part that should be removed from is clause 18. I know there is a problem in establishing who is a producer, who gets a vote and how many votes. These are things over which we do not have control as they are handled by producers and the provincial governments, but I feel that they can resolve these questions and I am confident that they will resolve them.
I would ask hon. members to give very serious consideration to finding an amendment which would permit the removal of beef and veal producers from the supply-management portion of this bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In rising to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as supporting the amendments proposed by my colleague from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I believe that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) outlined in very valid terms some of the reasons why the amendments should be supported, particularly those relating to the movement of goods interprovincially in such a way that we would have an unimpeded flow of agricultural products to all provinces.
We have heard a great deal in this country about unity. Certainly I believe that one of the prime requirements for national unity is the fundamental objective of economic unity. It is of the utmost importance that we have free movement not only of agricultural products but manufactured products as well across interprovincial boundaries.
Another amendment deals with the definition of a farm product as it relates to the objective of this bill. In this area I think we could allay the fears of those who have expressed concern over the fact that this could be coercive legislation if the amendment proposed by my hon. friend were accepted.
Some hon. members opposite have objected to the openendedness of this debate. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with one of the fundamentals of this bill-the definition of farm products and an amendment to a marketing plan. It is in this context that we have to debate these amendments, bearing in mind that the objects of the bill are ostensibly designed to promote an efficient, competitive agricultural industry.
As has been pointed out by other hon. members, this bill has been with us for almost two years. One might ask why we need more amendments. The answer is very simple. This Bill is a classic example of the government's inability to manage effectively its program of legislation. There have been so many examples of this legislative mismanagement that the government should have learned its

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
lesson by now. Even after almost two years this legislation has not gained general acceptance across the country, and one would expect that any sane government would abandon it and make another attempt by introducing a properly drafted well defined measure. The bill is ill-conceived, poorly drafted, was presented to the public full of distortion, complete with misleading facts and grave misrepresentations.
To this point, some 30 amendments have been introduced. This is similar in nature to the grains bill, Bill C-275, which required some 40 amendments before it was half-workable, and to the stabilization bill, Bill C-244, wherein the government displayed its intransigence, its contempt for the law and the Parliament of this country. It is also similar in nature to Bill C-207, the government reorganization bill with its sweeping powers, and to the Auditor General's bill, which was withdrawn. I must also mention Bill C-259, the tax reform bill, which was forced through this House by closure.
The bill before us is no different from the bills I have cited, Mr. Speaker. Because the bill has been around for a long time the majority of producers who will be affected by its contents are becoming more and more alarmed by its implications. In spite of the clear manifestation of non-acceptance across this country, substantiated by the ruling of the Supreme Court, the government continues to pursue this piece of legislation and will probably use every conceivable method to put it through, whether that be by closure, coercion or some other method.
The sad fact about this particular piece of legislation and other pieces of farm legislation is that the government has removed itself completely from the realities of agriculture. The major problem facing farmers today is not overproduction; it is simply that they need a raise in pay. They need to derive more income for their efforts, having invested capital to produce foodstuffs for this country and the export market. They simply need more money in order to eke out a living and survive.
They do not need a union, as was suggested by my hon. friend from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-and I shall have something to say about that, Mr. Speaker. As cost of production continues to rise even though the method of production is being streamlined and is becoming more efficient, farm incomes are remaining relatively static. This type of situation makes it a haven for the integrator, for corporate monopoly processors, food companies and so on, to take over. They alone will capitalize on this type of environment.
This bill only sets out to simplify the transitional process by expediting the removal of the small farm operation from the land and placing it firmly in the control of monopolistic corporations. If we are to place any credence on the minister's declaration to the National Farmers Union meeting recently in Winnipeg that the small family farm is an asset and a desirable unit, then I suggest immediate steps must be taken to increase the net return to all farmers, not just to a select group of corporate structures.
A look at what has happened in the past few years reveals that the farm products index has risen from a level of 100, as established in 1961, to a level of 113.1 in
(Mr. Mazankowski.J
1971, a period of ten years. In the past three years the realized net income has been reduced by some 45 or 50 per cent. The cost price squeeze is having a tremendous effect on the life blood of the small farm community. These people will be forced to retire to an enforced retirement program of the sort enunciated by the minister in his small farm development program.
The government's answer to this is simply to help the big operators get bigger and to heck with the small fellow. In this bill, and in the various measures introduced, the concept of more efficiency is advocated. To me more efficiency means the provision of more goods and services at lower prices.
Let us look at what happens in other sectors. I do not have the figures for the whole of Canada, but in Alberta wages and salaries since 1967 have increased by 30 per cent. Correspondingly net income has been reduced by 44 per cent in the farm sector, while the cost of living index has increased something in the area of 13 per cent. At the same time, the commodity index relating to input in the agricultural industry has increased by some 14 per cent. This simply means we must take steps to improve the net income position of our farmers in Canada.
This bill does not set out to do this. There is nothing in the bill to indicate any measure of collective bargaining. There is nothing in this bill to establish a two-price system. Why is there nothing of this nature in the bill if it purports to establish an efficient, competitive and viable farm industry? Surely there should be some provision in this bill which for once allows the producer to dictate to the consumer his suggested selling price.
The bill, rather than putting the squeeze on the producer, should incorporate into its provisions adequate income maintenance and adequate returns for labour and investment. I know the incorporation of a two-price system for wheat involves a political decision, but certainly to ask for a realistic two-price system for a commodity such as wheat would not be asking for the impossible. Why cannot there be a system of protective devices for agriculture such as prevail in the European Common Market countries? It strikes me there should be such devices in this bill. But unlike agricultural policies in the European Common Market, the policies of this government are moving away from protective provisions for the primary producer, while all the other major agricultural producers in other countries are moving in the other direction. This government is asking the primary producer to be efficient, to be viable, to compete in international markets and to purchase his input in a protective Canadian market.
I do not believe it would be asking too much to incorporate some protective devices into our system so that the farmers can realize an adequate income from their effort and investment, something which continues to be increasingly difficult. A number of people have argued that this bill will give farmers the same opportunity to negotiate and to organize as the unions. I see nothing of this sort provided for. I simply say that this bill will strangle the opportunity of young people and old who wish to engage in the business of agricultural production.
The hon. member for Portage (Mr. Cobbe) mentioned that all other occupations and professions are organized.
December 28, 1971

My friends to the left say that we need unions and that farmers should be unionized. My hon. friend from Fraser Valley West knows that this bill does not set out any provisions for collective bargaining. It will simply strangle the young man's opportunity to become engaged in the agricultural industry. Opportunity will no longer be based upon ability, knowledge, initiative or desire, but rather upon ability to garner the necessary funds to buy out someone who is well established or some corporation.
In other words, the vested interests will be protected and the young farmer will end up paying for his equipment, his facilities and probably a handsome sum for good will. This would seem to me to be a retrograde step in the land of opportunity which I believe Canada still is. I believe there is still opportunity in the agricultural industry, but this bill is a retrograde step.
Furthermore, this bill constitutes, I believe, an inward approach to solving the ills of agriculture by controlling production, creating provincial barriers, and closing out the prospect of deeper penetration of export markets. I believe we must be ever conscious of the very important part the export of our agricultural commodities plays in our world trade. I believe we must be expansionary in our approach.
I think this bill places a damper on the future growth of our export industry. I am not alone in this belief; an editorial in the Country Guide lays this out in very clear terms. In speaking about the effect of the deal which was consummated by the provinces in relation to solving the chicken and egg war, it states:
The agreement could bring them short-term relief for it may offer one way to bring egg prices back up to survival levels. But it may be little more than a short-term reprieve.
This bill is only ratifying the agreements that were basically reached by the provincial ministers of agriculture in respect of allocation of commodities and so on. The article states:
But the effects of the agreement extend far beyond the poultry industry.
The development places all farmers face-to-face with the most urgent issue facing them. Can their industry be one of growth? Dare Canada's farmers search for new and expanding markets in the U.S. and elsewhere in the face of Ottawa's apparent readiness to shut the border to U.S. food products and the likelihood of retaliation?
The implications for beef and hog producers and others, who might want to share in fast growing consumer markets in other countries, could be devastating.
It compels them to ask if they, too, must begin to cut back to Canada's domestic needs. Must they begin the retreat from export markets? Or must they commit their time and resources to a life-and-death struggle against politicians who would strangle them with restrictions and controls? The development forces each farmer to ask himself if government has abandoned its ancient role of being a servant of the farmer and set its sights on becoming his master?
The poultry agreement results from another failure by Ottawa, and by provincial governments as well, to recognize the importance of agriculture and to develop policies which could give farmers an important role in Canada's future.
In that context one might very well ask what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) meant in his speech to the thirty eighth meeting of the B.C. Federation of Agricul-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ture in New Westminster B.C. when, in outlining his agricultural program, he said:
This means a minimum of government intervention but a maximum of government help.
It would be rather interesting to hear the minister explain the context of this bill and its relation to a statement of that nature.
I and many other speakers who have participated in the long debate on this bill in committee and in the House believe that this measure is part of the over-all program of speeding up the rationalization process of the small farmers. There have been some changes, a new dressing on the cake, you might say. Some titles have been changed; for example a program has been renamed from an adjustment program to a small farm development program, but the content is the same.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think the House is prepared to give the hon. member extra time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank hon. members for allowing me to speak for a few minutes more.
I would merely like to place on the record the statements of Mr. Runciman, who is a well known and highly regarded individual, particularly in Canadian farm circles. He speaks of the same fear that we have expressed on so many occasions, that policies have been introduced by this government which have been aimed at speeding up the rationalization process. He states:
The Canadian government's policies are designed to constantly cut back production and work toward a shortage situation and, if they force farmers out of business in the process, that's to their advantage.
"The NFU believes milk production in particular should be expanded, not curtailed, because it is a key food around the world."
Mr. Runciman is concerned with other farm spokesmen about the new federal development program which "regardless of the fine words .. . aims to reduce the number of farmers in this country".
He goes on to say that there are programs which could be incorporated:
Farmers in the Common Market countries receive more than double what Canadian farmers get for their grain, prices which make "your mouth water" Mr. Runciman said.
"With prices like these stimulating production elsewhere in the world I think Canada would be ill advised if she went ahead and tried to solve world surplus problems with a unilateral program to reduce the number of farmers in this country".
This is the concern which we have continually expressed with regard to this bill. We feel that in the definition of a farm product all commodities should be excluded until such time as plebiscite is held or a significant number of producers of that commodity signify that they want to become party to the marketing plan. I do not believe that this is asking for too much. If this is indeed

December 28^ 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
enabling legislation, it should be left entirely to the producers of those commodities to decide whether they want to become a party to this marketing plan. It is they who should decide what the marketing plan constitutes, whether it would constitute a program of supply management of simply be for promotion and research. In my opinion this would lay the groundwork for this bill to become permissive or enabling legislation, rather than coercive legislation.
With regard to the free movement of agricultural products across provincial boundaries, I believe section 121 of the BNA Act should be upheld; and I believe it is the duty of the federal government to ensure that the ruling of the Supreme Court is asserted. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) simply reflects the decision of the Supreme Court. I believe that if we are to have a bill with which we can live it is mandatory that these amendments be incorporated, and I urge that all hon. members lend their support to them.
In conclusion I would like to indicate that there are a number of people in this country who continue to have, more than ever before, serious reservations about this bill. I would like to read a letter which I received on December 20 from Coronado, Alberta from a gentleman by the name of Kenneth eleven. I believe that he outlines in a nutshell some of the serious reservations that individual farmers across the country have about this bill. He writes:
Recently we hear alarming reports that Bill C-176 is again up for passage, this time reportedly with production control sections for cattle and hogs deleted. However, one can be quite certain that if this government were given another five year mandate these features would later be added.
That is something that I would doubt.
I am quite certain that any freedom loving farmer who has read this bill would be violently opposed to it. It is one step farther down the road to complete federal government control of our lives and they already have too much.
During World War II, as a member of the Canadian infantry I assisted in liberating European farmers from such a system-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: Garbage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -where inspectors would call to see that quotas were being met. Also, I have a brother-in-law from Norway who farmed under the Nazis. They would go to great lengths, at risk of the death penalty, to evade these quotas, such as by concealing an extra cow behind the hay mow in the barn or raising a few extra pigs back in the woods.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is nonsense. I am surprised at you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am surprised at the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner). He has simply not read the bill and he does not know what it contains. There are many implications in this bill and I am merely placing this letter on the record. It goes on to read:
One can readily see how difficult production controls would be to enforce in Canada, with our vast spaces and rugged terrain. It would require an army of inspectors, to be paid out of our production, and penalties would have to be severe. Canada would degenerate into a police state as far as farmers are concerned.
This gentleman could be a Liberal.
[Mr. Mazankowski.)


James Hugh Faulkner: He is certainly not a Liberal. I dissociate myself from him.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The letter goes on to read:
Being a former cream shipper I have had some experience with the Dairy Commission. Rigid, impractical rules and regulations laid down by bureaucrats have greatly increased labour requirements and cost of production and driven many farmers out of the industry.
In that connection, we have only to look at the record of the Canadian Dairy Commission to see what has happened. We have had a wholesale extinction of the smaller operators, those with delivery quotas of less than 420 pounds. Small creamery plants were forced to shut down. Now, because of political expediency, the minister has introduced an amendment to his Canadian Dairy Commission proposal reinstating those people who lost their quotas or who fell below their allotted minimum delivery requirement.
We now see the results of the Dairy Commission and their controls, the wholesale closure of cheese plants because of milk shortage, the breaking of contact between producer and cheese manufacturers (which is necessary for making top quality Cheddar cheese) because of pooling arrangements, and now a shortage of butter. I expect to see a far greater shortage. There is some justification for government involvement in the dairy industry, being subsidized, but this is not so of cattle and hogs.
We in the cattle industry now have a very efficient marketing system, the law of supply and demand in North America, accurate market information, and producers making their own intelligent decisions. Cattlemen are almost invariably free enterprisers and any imposition of bureaucratic control between us and the market place would cause a mass exodus of worth-while producers from the industry and would result in beef rationing in Canada within a few years, unless our foreign reserves were large enough to import large quantities-
In closing I would urge you to force the government to withdraw this bill and bring in a new one, mentioning only those producers who have requested it. Of course they may use closure, but the voting public of Canada have shown in the past that they do not look kindly on closure.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to speak this afternoon in this debate on Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, and in particular on the amendment to which we are now addressing ourselves concerning the proposal that on page 1 at line 14 the clause should end after the word "agriculture".	-
As you know, Mr. Speaker, farming in Canada is an industry that is represented by many thousands of small producers, producers who could best be described as small businessmen. Unfortunately, as anyone who is interested in the agricultural industry knows or ought to know, the great tragedy that befalls agriculture in this modern day is that there are thousands of individual producers all producing a single product which must be sold to a very small and limited number of purchasers. This results in the fact, of course, that if there is not some semblance of balance between the amount of product produced and the demand for that product, then the income to the producer is forefed to swing in exaggerated patterns, in a boom or bust cycle.
Decern her 28,1971

The best example of this is the recent case in Prince Edward Island-I think I have my figures correct-where a year or so ago the production of potatoes increased over the previous year by some 5 per cent. This resulted in a decline in income for the potato growers of some 50 per cent.
It amazes me, as a person from the province of Ontario representing an agricultural constituency, to hear members like the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) not so much attack the bill-because I suppose it is to be expected that the opposition would oppose and criticize-but to hear him saying, in essence, that he is against orderly marketing per se and in toto.
This is a an argument with which I heartily disagree. I venture to say that certainly Ontario members of his party, such as the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth), who is held in high regard in this House, must surely disagree with the hon. member for Vegreville. I know that the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) and others must surely reject categorically this kind of ridiculous conclusion that somehow orderly marketing is going to hurt the farmers. It is disorder in marketing that hurts the farmers, not order.
Marketing which was not orderly, or was somehow organized so that the farmers themselves did not control it, would be something we ought to reject. I would be the first to reject it. That is why in Bill C-176 we have bent over backwards with respect to representation, particularly with respect to the Marketing council that is to be established. I point out that the council's role is to look into the situation as it pertains to any particular commodity and then to recommend to the minister whether or not a marketing agency should be established for that product.
The bill has already been amended in such a way that either the chairman or vice-chairman of the council must be a farmer, and at least 50 per cent of all members of the council must be farmers. Why did we insist on that? We insisted on that to be absolutely sure that no group of bureaucrats, or persons who were somehow removed from the agricultural industry, could in fact direct that industry.
Having done that we went even further to assure that, when the council looked into a certain commodity and how its situation was at any particular time, the council had to be convinced, first of all, that there was a majority of the producers of the commodity in favour of establishing some kind of an agency to promote or to direct the sale of that commodity before any agency would be established.
In discussing the particular amendment before us now we must also take a careful look at clause 17 of the bill on page 11. In order to appreciate properly clause 2(c), which is directly before us at the moment, we have to remember what is in clause 17, which will, of course, absolutely prevent the kind of horror situation, so well described, but wrongly, by the hon. member for Vegreville. This is what clause 17 says:
The Governor in Council may by proclamation establish an agency-
That is, establish an agency after the council decides that this would be a good thing.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
-with powers relating to any farm product or farm products the marketing of which in interprovincial and export trade is not regulated pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act-
The hon. member for Timiskaming might take note.
-or the Canadian Dairy Commission Act-
Mark these words, Mr. Speaker.
-where he is satisfied that a majority of the producers of the farm product-
Where are all these horrors and bogeymen hiding in the cupboards and closets, to whom the hon. member for Vegreville referred?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Keep on reading.


Murray Arndell McBride: I will.
-or of each of the farm products in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Keep on reading.


Murray Arndell McBride: I will keep on reading because this will reassure some of the beef producers who have been misled by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association into being stampeded by this bill. Clause 17(2) reads:
The Governor in Council, in order to determine whether a majority of producers of a farm product are in favour of establishing an agency, may-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the key word. Change "may" to "shall" and we will go along with it.


Murray Arndell McBride: -may request that each Province carry out a plebiscite of the said producers.
This is because it is a provincial responsibility, something which even members like the hon. member for Crowfoot ought to know. When he starts hollering and pretending that he is representing the interests of the agricultural community I think he ought to know that many of these responsibilities come under provincial jurisdiction; and if he does not know-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member imputes some suggestion that I ought to know something, or is suggesting that I may have misrepresented certain things. He may not know that this very clause to which he is referring was moved by myself in committee, but I do think it would be far more meaningful if the word "may" were changed to "shall".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, we are used to the hon. member for Crowfoot. Over the months, as a matter of fact for over two years in the agricjjdtural committee, we heard him throw his tantrums thsft were supposed to impress the press and show that he alone had the best interests of Canadian agriculture at heart. I submit that if anybody looked at the amendments he moved and at the position he took in committee, a position which is similar to the one he is pursuing today, one would recognize that the fear motivating the hon. member is the fear that, somehow, the agricultural industry might become


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Nothing could be farther from the truth.


Murray Arndell McBride: Of course, we all know-there is no need for me to point this out to the hon. member for Crowfoot or to any other person in Canada-that this bill requires that at least 50 per cent of the makeup of the council be farmers. The same requirement is to be applied to the marketing agencies that will thereafter come into being. That means that if an agency is set up to market pork, at least 50 per cent of those controlling or making up that agency must be hog producers, and it would only be set up if the majority wanted it in the first place. Perhaps the hon. member and others in Canada have very little confidence in the leadership and judgment displayed by those who produce the various agricultural commodities in this country. Perhaps he and others are afraid of permitting the control of the agricultural industry to fall into the hands of farmers.
I am not so afraid and am prepared and willing to submit two points to this House. First, I submit that it is high time the farmers of this nation had in their hands the legislative tools and equipment to bring the order that they in their wisdom wish to bring to the marketing of their own commodities. That is an elementary right, and it amazes me to see even the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), from whom one expects a reactionary position, standing up in opposition.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: At least he is a farmer and knows what he is talking about.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is high time for us to be prepared to say to those who are producing any particular product "You know best." It is not for us to determine whether they do know best; that is not a matter for Members of Parliament or for bureaucrats but for the people within the agricultural industry to decide.
The main purpose of this bill is to place control over production and prices of commodities in the hands of farmers, as spelled out in the various clauses of the bill. The bill's purpose is to place into the hands of the producers of a product the control over that product if and when the producers want such powers.
Why are we so afraid to give producers power over their own product? Why are we so afraid, for instance, that if these powers are permitted of producers, the beef producers of Canada might somehow choose a course of action that would not suit a few of the big producers?
If we are not afraid of this, I cannot understand the position that has been taken by organizations such as the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. That group has kept assuring us of its position. They say that the producers of any commodity should not come under this bill if they do not want to come under it. When we say that we are ready to assure them that they have nothing to fear from the bill and that we have amended the bill in a couple of places to

take care of their fears, it turns out that they are still unhappy. They say "No; we want to go one step farther. We want no cattle at all to be included in the bill. We want the bill to provide that cattle are specifically excluded."
From that position I can draw only one conclusion, namely that there are those in the livestock and cattle industry in Canada who have a deep and abiding fear that if there were to be a plebiscite on the question of whether a marketing plan should be established for the production of beef, such a plebiscite might carry.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Murray Arndell McBride: Many suggest, "You know, if there were such a plebiscite and it carried, many little producers who do not have much influence at present would obtain as much influence as the big producers." To that I would say yes, that is correct.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps at the end of January, the hon. member will understand what is involved.


Murray Arndell McBride: The time has come for people to stand up in the parliament of Canada and on the platforms of Canada and say they are prepared to fight for the little producers, and not just for the big producers.


An hon. Member:: Hogwash.


Murray Arndell McBride: If hon. members are not afraid of the little producer, why are they afraid of this bill? I say to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who seems to be the spokesman for the association and who is most impatient in his remarks, that if he is not afraid of what the majority believes, he has nothing to fear from this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: On the other hand, if he is afraid that somehow the majority of the very producers about which I am concerned will not vote the way he wants them to vote, what means has he available? What must one do in such a case, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that one has to do the same thing one must do in the destruction of any democracy: one has to prevent the question from being considered. Do not let the vote come. Do not let beef be included, because "the day might come when the beef producers would want something that I as an individual and a few of my wealthy cronies do not want." I deplore that attitude. I deplore that such a position has been taken in the House.


Mr.   Homer@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on a question of privilege.
I wish that hon. members would keep order in the House so that the Chair might follow the speech. There has been so much shouting that it has been almost impossible for the Chair to follow the speech. I recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Again?
December 28, 1971


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I mean it. No work will be done before six o'clock unless the hon. member withdraws the remark he made. He imputes that I am working for vested interests, for the wealthy ranchers. I am in no way doing that and I want those remarks withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I did not hear the remark which the hon. member wishes to have withdrawn, because I have been having a hard time hearing what has been said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, if I may say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I did not hear or see any matter that could give rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill is, of course, to make sure that the agricultural industry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot rises on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I well understand the difficulties that you may or may not have been under in hearing the hon. gentleman's remarks, which everybody else heard. I point out that they will show up in Hansard. The hon. member imputed motives to me and suggested that I have been working on behalf of my own vested interests and those of wealthy friends of mine in the cattle industry.


James Aloysius McGrath: Withdraw.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I assure both you, Mr. Speaker, and this House that I live in what I have often referred to as the desert of Alberta. Many families moved out of my neighbourhood in the dirty thirties because they could not make a living in the area. The area I represent consists of small, hard up farms in the dryest part of Alberta, a part in which less than hine inches of rain falls in a year. We grub about for a living.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please-


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this afternoon-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East rises on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I concur in what the hon. member said. I think the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot was well raised. The hon. member who spoke previously had no right to impute motives. That was exactly what he did and it was improper.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I will settle the matter by saying that I did not hear or see anything that would give rise to a question of privilege. That is why I will again recognize the hon. member who has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. I remind hon. members again that the Chair is doing its best. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege. The Chair heard nothing which might give rise to a question of privilege, but there was trouble hearing what was said as a result of the past few minutes. I wish the hon. member would not take advantage of the member who is presently speaking. The Chair will do its best. As the hon. member knows the rules, he will know that I have already-


An hon. Member:: You said that before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I already said that I did not hear any question of privilege raised.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Murray Arndell McBride: The bill before us this afternoon is of extreme importance.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order.


Murray Arndell McBride: We are used to having a certain amount of obstruction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your Honour may or may not have understood the intent of my first question of privilege. I recognize that Your Honour is trying very hard to master the full task of being a Speaker, but I never heard Your Honour ask the hon. member to withdraw those remarks. Naturally, that is your prerogative. If you did ask the hon. member and he has not withdrawn those remarks, then I say to him through Your Honour that he is a cheap s.o.b. that the United Church is welcome and glad to be without.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I gave him plenty of opportunities to withdraw that remark. If he wants to indulge in name calling, he will get it right back.


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


Murray Arndell McBride: One of the advantages of being in a debate on a question like this is that the side you are on is clearly demonstrated.
10786

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mr. McIntosh:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour made the excuse that you did not hear what the hon. member was saying. By insinuation, you also referred to this side of the House, indicating that we were the cause of Your Honour not hearing what the hon. member said. At the time the statement was made, we all heard it. I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) that it should be withdrawn. I do not think Your Honour should allow this debate to continue without making the member withdraw what he said. If you did not hear it, it will be reported in Hansard.


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: Wait until I get through with my question of privilege.


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am rising on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I will repeat what I said before the question of privilege was raised. I was rising to state that there was disorder in the House. I could not follow the hon. member who was speaking. When the Speaker asks for order, he should have the order of the House. I do not see any question of privilege at this time. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is one of great concern.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think everyone in the House except Your Honour heard what the hon. member said. I quite naturally believe Your Honour when you say that you did not hear what was said. I wish to make a suggestion. I know the Chair will agree that the rules must be followed and that no hon. member is allowed to impute motives to another member. I suggest that Your Honour wait until six o'clock, examine Hansard, come back at eight o'clock and then make your ruling. I quite agree you cannot make it now if you claim you did not hear it. Naturally, we accept Your Honour's word. I think this matter should be cleared up and I feel this is the way it should be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member did not get my point that I did not hear. I will look at the blues when I receive them, that is for sure.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You never said that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I may not have said it, but that is what I meant to say. I will read the "blues" at six o'clock. If there is any ruling to be made, it will be done when we resume.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, if my aim was to cause havoc in the House I would have more cause for a question of privilege then does the hon. member. When the hon.
(Mr. McBride.]
member stands up and uses foul language concerning me, it brings dishonour on the House and on the constituents he is supposed to be representing. Surely all members in this House are prepared to follow the advice of Cardinal Leger who reminded us that the facts are also the truth. In this instance, it happens to be that many of us are long since convinced that there must be some interest somewhere. If you do not want to spell it out, you do not have to, but I will spell it out categorically. There is some interest somewhere other than the interest of the small farmers being represented by the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker-


Murray Arndell McBride: If he were convinced and wanted to show that he was most concerned about the small farmer in Canada, he would act accordingly. He would not be concerned about blocking the legislation presently before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that last week and this week I have shown a preparedness to make progress on this legislation; but if Your Honour is going to allow the debate to degenerate into name calling and imputing motives to various members, I can assure Your Honour that the debate will become more difficult as this week and the month of January progresses. Very little progress is apt to be made in the passage of this legislation. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I ask Your Honour to ask the hon. member, for whom I would like to retain some respect, to withdraw the remarks that he imputed to myself and to my actions in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), it is not in order to impute motives. It is as simple as that. It is not a matter of withdrawing words. As hon. members know, there is a distinction between withdrawing words which are unparliamentary-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asked me to intervene, and I am pleased to do so. What I am pointing out now is that the hon. member who has the floor has no right to impute motives. I am sure he will want to indicate that he is not imputing motives, as the hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out.
We will not make too much progress if we do not limit the debate to the motion before the House. The hon. member said the Speaker's job will become even more difficult. I hope that will not be the case; it is difficult enough. I invite the co-operation of all members, particularly the hon. member who has the floor, in limiting their contributions to what is before us, which is a very specific motion. I ask the hon. member to keep in mind that he has no right to impute motives to hon. members, either on his side or the other side of the House.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, what is before us is Bill C-176. It is an act to establish the national farm products marketing council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products.
December 28, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not intend to enter into an argument with the hon. member, but from the point of view of procedure, that is not what is before the House. What is before the House at the moment is a motion, not the bill itself. The hon. member has to make an attempt, as all hon. members are required to do, to relate his remarks to that motion. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to determine at all times whether all members are going beyond the four corners of a debate in the consideration of a motion. While I was in the Chair earlier this afternoon, I gained the impression that some of the speeches went somewhat beyond the limitations of the motion before us. I took it upon myself to remind hon. members to limit themselves to what is before us, namely, these motions. I make the same appeal to the hon. member who has the floor at this time.


Murray Arndell McBride: With all respect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I think that if you look at the blues you will find I was speaking to the motion before us; I was talking about cattle and calves, which are to be removed from the bill by the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, amendment No. 2 is not up for debate, the amendment dealing with the exclusion of cattle and calves. We are now supposed to be dealing with amendments 1, 5 and 22, which do not mention cattle and calves. I wish to draw this to Your Honour's attention and, perhaps, through you, to the attention of the hon. member.


Murray Arndell McBride: I presume the hon. member's purpose is to prevent us from having our say in this debate, and he appears to be doing this quite successfully.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You can have that all through January!


Murray Arndell McBride: We are discussing the clause before us-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we may leave that discussion behind us for the time being and try to address ourselves to the substance of the motion.


Murray Arndell McBride: I am almost tempted to rise on a question of privilege and ask whether a man has a right to make a speech without phony points of order and questions of privilege being raised by members opposite with no other purpose than to prevent that speech from being made.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting I have raised phony points of order. I should like Your Honour to clarify what amendments we are dealing with. In my view we are dealing with amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 22. It is amendment No. 2 which deals with the exception of cattle and calves and it is not now before the House. My point of order was not a phony point of order, and if the hon. member insists on saying it is I suppose I should insist on rising on a question of privilege.


Murray Arndell McBride: The committee of this House which was charged with considering the substance of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) held 66 meetings and arranged for public hearings in Halifax, Quebec City, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver. So a great deal of time
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
was spent in trying to assess whether this bill in its totality was in the interests of Canadian agriculture.
It seems to me the time has now come when we should be prepared to vote for or against the measure and get on with it. There are now plenty of protective devices included in it to make sure that no product can be brought in if the producers of that product do not want it brought in. That is the purpose of the amendment before the House at the moment. It is true that the bill as originally drafted did leave too much room for other than producers to have too much say, but this weakness has now been corrected. The point has been met and we now have before us a far better bill. It aims to set up machinery whereby a product controlled by a marketing agency in a province may be regulated across the country by a federal agency. Its object is to establish a marketing council, of whose members at least 50 per cent, or five out of nine, shall be primary producers.
Critics of the bill have suggested that it might be destructive of the agriculture industry; those were the words of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski). But the purpose of the bill, as I see it, is to provide a means whereby the provinces can get together with respect to products about which they are themselves concerned. Whether it be eggs or poultry or turkey or beef or any other of the commodities mentioned, the provinces could get together to work out a plan of marketing which was acceptable to them all.
The provinces already have legislation governing the marketing of certain products, but are unable to apply it on a national basis in the absence of legislation such as we see before us. In effect, as we all ought to know, Bill C-176 is enabling legislation. It does not coerce anyone into doing anything. So I do not understand why we should be so anxious to exclude certain products. If legislation such as this had been in force earlier there is little likelihood that the chicken and egg marketing war would ever have got started.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but apparently his time has expired. As hon. members know, it is difficult to determine at what point the time allotted to him actually ended because there were a number of points of order raised. He could continue, of course, with unanimous consent.


George Harris Hees: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue.


Murray Arndell McBride: I thank all members of the House for the courtesy extended to me, as it was to the hon. member for Vegreville. I shall conclude as rapidly as possible by pointing out that it is a very serious matter, in my opinion, that a large number of producers of beef should be spooked or frightened into believing somehow that regardless of the safeguards which have been provided, regardless of the amendments which have been brought in, there is nothing but evil intent on the part of the government or on the part of people like myself-that we are here, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said, to destroy the agriculture industry, that we
24725-54)

December 28z 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
are holding a reunion to say farewell to the family farm, and a lot of nonsense like that.
As one of my constituents said to me many months ago when this bill first came before parliament, the only freedom Canadian farmers really have today is the freedom to remain poor. If they wish to preserve that freedom, if farmers wish to remain poor in their thousands, as autonomous, separate businessmen, they will continue to place themselves entirely at the mercy of those who buy their products.
It is to the advantage of those who buy agricultural products to keep production chronically out of line with the demand, so that at all times products can be purchased at a much lower price than would otherwise be the case. The farmers I represent have learned from bitter experience that when prices fall, usually as a result of over-production, a farmer has two choices; he can either go out of business or he can work harder and produce more. In effect, he is running faster to go slower, because although he will be working harder and longer he will probably be making less. Farmers are doing this because the government has been too slow, too inept, about bringing in adequate farm legislation. For this, it should be roundly condemned. It seems passing strange that, when we do bring in a bill, hedged around with guarantees for minority groups, regional groups and others, even though I would say it is very likely inadequate, we should get into a two-year filibuster, a bunch of nonsense about forcing small farms out of business, and so on.
All we have to do is block this bill for a few more years and then there will not be any more small farms. They are scarce now. The time has come when more of us ought to be prepared to say in this House and outside that regardless of any group of people in this Parliament, we ought to bring this matter to a vote and arrange things so that we do not discriminate against any product. In other words, no single product should be excluded from the bill, so that any group of producers of any commodity could come under the bill and have the advantages of it.
To allege that democracy is somehow being destroyed and the moral fibre of farmers is destroyed by saying to them, "If you want to improve your lot, we will help" is something that I fail to understand. How the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and others can stand up with straight faces and their supposed concern for agriculture and speak this nonsense is beyond me. They say, in effect, that the government has this bill as one part of a total package, which is to remove all people from rural Canada. This is absolutely not true and the hon. member ought to know that. The day comes when you stand up and say, "We are not here to fight for the big boys; we are here to fight for the little people, the people who are the backbone of agriculture".
Some of the fellows from the Prairies over there leave it to people over here like myself to defend western Canada. Where are the people from Nova Scotia and rural Alberta who should be prepared to get up and say, "I believe in the small farmer enough that I want him to have some legislation." I realize that this bill is inadequate and that it should be stronger, but I am for it. If you want to attack this government it should be attacked solely on the

ground of this legislation doing so little to enable farmers to help themselves, instead of being condemned for doing too much. How can you be doing too much when farm incomes in Canada are too low? How can you be going too far when you are saying that you want the benefits to apply across Canada? We will give them to you.
The time has long since come when members of Parliament ought to ask themselves whether it is enough to assure their re-election in a rural riding by telling a bunch of half-truths or even untruths about the terrible situation of agriculture and by attempting to pretend that the difficulties this modern era has brought to agriculture are created by the present government, and that if this government is about to move to alleviate some of those difficulties it has to be stopped, otherwise the farming community might realize that we are trying to help their situation. I think that is the cheapest, most petty and most despicable type of politicking ever perpetrated in Canada. There is far too much of this going on in the rural communities of Canada just for the sake of political gain, to the effect that it is to the advantage of some people to keep the farmers in poverty.
If you want to condemn this bill, why have you not got the courage to say that it is inadequate and that you want more for farmers, not less? Why hold it up for two years? Why be so concerned with beef? Why not leave it to the beef farmers: if they want it, let them have it. If they don't want it, they won't get it. If the farmers of Canada are begging for help, why block it? Why not say, "The time has come when the farmers of Canada need assistance". Why condemn the government for not giving it to them? Why ruin your Christmas recess in order to ensure that somehow the farmers continue to suffer enough that you can continue to create the false impression that it is the government's fault and if only you were in power you would correct the situation? This is unmitigated nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and surely the people ought to recognize it.
I appeal to the House not to emasculate this bill, not to take any commodities out of it. There are safeguards in it to ensure that no commodity will be included unless it wants to be. Let us leave it that way. Let us do something for the farmers, and do it now.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since Bill C-176 was last before the House and I must admit I have some ambivalent feelings about seeing it back again today. It is like meeting an old acquaintance who has been away on a long voyage.
Amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 22 have been put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). My purpose today is to speak in favour of these amendments. Basically, what is at stake in discussion of this bill is the question of free trade among provinces. Also at stake is the principle of free enterprise which the farmers of this country have enjoyed ever since Canada in its present form was established. Through Bill C-176 the government hopes to impose a bureaucratic, political solution on the issue of free trade among provinces as well as that of free enterprise in the agricultural industry.
We in this party believe that policies which encourage aggressive and imaginative marketing should be instituted for the benefit of the producer. But we do not believe that Bill C-176 is the kind of imaginative marketing solu-
December 28, 1971

tion for which we are looking. We do believe that the government has a responsibility to set the environment for successful marketing of farm products in the national interest, but placing too much authority in the hands of bureaucrats and vested interests is fraught with danger to the agricultural industry. It is also fraught with danger to the country, since a bill of this nature could well lead to severe balkanization of the country.
There is no question that the bill in its present form is an improvement over the original bill presented some months ago. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carle-ton (Mr. McBride) made mention of it, but I think he erred in his statement in trying to claim credit for bringing about the change. The fact is, the country should be thankful to the opposition parties for the changes. But the bill in its present form, although an improvement, is still not what the people of the country want. It still has to be amended and polished and improved to such a degree that it will serve the needs of the producer and not simply the needs of the government. I believe the amendments we are discussing will help to achieve this aim.
At this point I would like to touch briefly on the principle of supply management which this bill proposes. In discussing supply management we must constantly keep in mind the other principle which is basic to agriculture, the principle known as free enterprise economy. In a free enterprise economy, while it is recognized that improved marketing mechanisms at the primary producer level are needed, it is also important that one keeps in mind the fact that market prices as determined by normal demand and supply relationships are an indispensable part of our free enterprise economy. Any legislation, therefore, in this area should augment the free market rather than place artificial restrictions and controls on it.
In the past, marketing boards of certain types have proven to be useful tools for orderly marketing. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce sent a brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in February, 1971, which suggested that the major functions of marketing boards should be the following:
(a)	Product promotion and market development for the purpose of expanding sales potential through creation of new demand, both within Canada and abroad;
(b)	Quality standardization and control of produce for purposes of creating new and continued demand;
(e) Collective marketing to give a better balance between the limited number of buyers and the many sellers that normally exist for the raw product. This approach can take three forms:
(i)	Single agency marketing with all producers receiving an annual "pooled" price for their products, as differentiated by quality;
(ii)	Single agency marketing with each producer receiving market prices for his product as of date of sale;
(iii)	Some combination of individual product pricing and overall price pooling;
The final function suggested by the Chamber of Commerce is supply management as an attempt to control the ultimate product output in order to strengthen prices by limiting supply relative to projected market demand. This process depends on such alternatives as restricting the number of producers, limiting the inputs used by the
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
producer or limiting the quantity of output that each producer can sell.
It is recognized from the above points that marketing boards could play an important role in expansion of product promotion, quality standardization and some form of collective marketing. But in the context of the free enterprise economy, supply management, which suggests limiting the inputs used by the producer or limiting the quantity of output by the producer, is a regressive move, inconsistent with the realities of international and interprovincial trade. This kind of supply management in the long run would damage the agricultural industry because it suggests too many controls and a negative approach to increasing produce prices. It would seriously curtail the growth of efficiency within the industry. It would also limit severely the entry of new and possibly more efficient producers into the business of agriculture and at the same time maintain inefficient ones not otherwise able to compete on an economic basis. I think the point concerning possible limitation of entry of new producers is a very important one since it takes away from Canadians the freedom to choose the kind of life's work which they desire.
The various restrictions I am referring to go completely against the grain of the philosophy in which farmers believe. There is no need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a very large segment of our population in Canada is here precisely to get away from too many restrictions, too many controls and too much government. Many people who immigrated to Canada came here because this has been a land, at least until now, where individual initiative, individual ambition and hard work are respected virtues which can only be practised fully in an environment of freedom to make one's own decisions, and freedom from bureaucratic control which has the effect of telling the producer what to do and in so doing would destroy his initiative and his right to make this own decisions.
Since supply management on a national basis requires quota allocations by provinces, regional economic differences would not be taken into account, resulting in decreased efficiency. Such locked-in inefficiencies would result in artificially increased prices which could price us out of international markets and which, at the same time, would require import restrictions to protect our domestic market. Ultimately, the consumer would bear the cost resulting from a reduced supply.
With regard to collective marketing by marketing boards, there is also a danger in that the pooling of prices removes incentives from the individual producer and fails to recognize differences in quality of products. However, it is recognized that by pooling, severe fluctuations in prices which are unforeseen can be prevented in respect of individual producers. The question is, then, is the Canadian economy best served by an industry that resolves its differences and adjusts its resources primarily by political rather than economic processes?
This bill is a good example of the government's assuming omnipotent capabilities to solve problems by technocratic manipulations. It fails to perceive the consequences of the balkanization and retrenching of local interests. It fails to perceive the handicap to young people wishing to enter agriculture because of the capitalization required in supply management. It fails to perceive the fact that polit-


Mr. Mahoney:: You don't know anything about it.


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) wants to make it known that he has come back after the recess. We acknowledge that. He agrees that he does not know anything about it. I agree with him on that.
I urge every member of this House to take a serious look at the three amendments before us. If agreed to, they would improve the bill and make it more acceptable to the producers who, after all, are the ones about whom we are most concerned. I think the amendments would create a situation where the government would be in a better position to serve the people, rather than the reverse where the people serve the government.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, it is said that this is the kind of world where you have to run as fast as you can to stay where you are. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) referred to farmers being in a world where they have to run as fast as they can to fall backward. The debate on Bill C-176, the farm marketing legislation, has some Alice in Wonderland qualities about it so I do not think I would be remiss if I quoted from "Alice in Wonderland". If I were a practical politician, a minister of agriculture attempting to put through the House of Commons a bill having to do with chickens and eggs, I would have limited this farm marketing bill to poultry products. Politics is the art of the possible, but for two years we have been trying to solve the impossible.
December 28, 1971

I cannot support the Conservative amendment because as a farmer I believe in orderly marketing. Although I think this is a poor bill, it is the only one around and we have to put up with it. Certainly as an opposition member on this side of the House I have found it very difficult to do very much with the bill. We have suggested some amendments. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said that we should be criticizing the government for not having promoted adequate farm legislation sooner. I agree with him in that respect. As a farmer I have been unhappy with the way in which farmers have been ignored and I have been unhappy with the marginal position of farmers in the marketplace. If this marketing bill were to help me or other farmers to obtain a stronger voice in settling this problem, I would be only too happy to support it. I wish it were a better bill, but I do not see how the amendment before us would bring this about.
A lady from the Consumers' Association of Canada complained to me. She said that prices to consumers might increase and we would be in a position to dictate to the consumer. I am not particularly interested in dictating to consumers, but as a producer I would like to be in the same position as anybody else when it comes to setting the price. That is what I am interested in. I would like to see this bill give farmers a bargaining position in setting a fair price for their products. We should give the farmers a good bargaining position. Since this is only a permissive bill, it is logical that farmers should be able to pick up the ball and run with it as they see fit.
To be fair to consumers and to those who process farmers' products, I agree that they need a steady supply of a product if they are to manage it well from the processing or distribution point of view. In order to get a steady price you need a steady supply of a product. This makes me think of the story of a little brown hen which sent her eggs to market only to find out what she was not going to get for them. This type of thing has gone on for too long.
It seems to me that even a poor bill such as this is better than no bill at all. For this reason we support the bill, hoping that it will be amended before we are finished with it. A bill must be applicable and it should have an adequate framework. This bill should provide for small farmers, because they should have the right to market their products and they should have the right to a place in the sun. I am not speaking only in the social sense but in the economic sense as well. I would like to make certain that the smaller farmers have a percentage of the quota so that they will not be frozen out of the market as soon as they are able to produce a product that is needed in the marketplace.
May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Public Service-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Displaying of political posters by employees at home or on personal property; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Industry-Pulp and paper-Problems discussed at conference and type of aid offered; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)- Grain-Request for tabling of report on rationalization of handling and transportation.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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).
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, when one starts his speech before the dinner hour one is never quite sure of the stage reached when the House rose, and I am sure people in the public galleries are not aware of what is happening when a member rises to continue a speech.
Before the dinner recess I was referring to the problem of a small farmer who attempts to get an adequate price in the marketplace for his product. It seems reasonable to me that farmers should join hands with their neighbours and use a marketing board, agency or some form of market management body to reach a common solution of their individual problems. I have known many small farmers who tried to solve their marketing problems themselves. One method they used was to attempt to produce more from the same amount of land, cutting costs and having members of their family contribute free labour. However, generally the net effect was a reduced price in the marketplace and the farmer and his family received less than they should for their produce. Well organized sections of society do not do this, so it is not reasonable that farmers should do it.
Speaking as a farmer, I say it is time for farmers to forget individual efforts. The idea that a farmer can raise any number of chickens, hogs, eggs or what-have-you without regard to the marketplace, and later apply for a government subsidy, is ridiculous in this day and age. Farmers must accept some responsibility and organization. Up to date commercial farming does not operate in the same way as subsistence farming used to work. Farmers nowadays have certain costs that must be met. They can operate on a deficit only so long before facing bank-

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ruptcy. Farmers must be prepared to meet modern challenges. The farmer himself must manage his farm, his finances, his livestock and field operations. The marketing of produce is generally far removed from his farm. It is handled by somebody else, and on an individual basis the farmer generally gets skinned. This has happened to me, and most farmers have experienced it.
Many grain farmers in western Canada took a trimming until they joined together, formed pools and finally began to operate under the government Wheat Board. Experience in earlier days makes me think of the old farmer who, when grain was on the open market, always seemed to sell his when prices were lowest. At present I know some farmers who seem to sell their livestock only when prices are lowest. It is time they joined together to overcome this problem.
Despite its deficiences, this bill does provide some leadership in the direction of orderly marketing. If farmers do not join together to solve their problems, someone else usually benefits. An example was given this afternoon of the large, integrator feed mill operator who decides to put birds out on contract, with the result that the farmer gets only 10 cents a bird. The farmer gets the short end of the stick. If farmers join together to solve their problems, such things might not happen.
During the dinner hour, Mr. Speaker, I phoned a farmer in my riding who has discussed this matter with me at some length to see if he had changed his opinion and to ask him whether we should proceed with a bill of this nature. Sometimes it is wise to check with the people back home. This farmer is a medium sized hog producer and also raises cattle and grows some grain. He told me that despite the deficiencies in the bill which I had mentioned to him, he would like to see it passed. There is no provincial hog marketing board in Saskatchewan. This farmer is concerned not only about the low prices he gets for his hogs, but he is worried that if the rest of the country organizes he, as a Saskatchewan farmer, might be frozen out of the market. For this reason he wants us to pass this bill.
We live in a changing world where we see multinational corporations running grocery and department stores. If there is a powerful bargaining agent on the side of the consumer, I would like to see the farmer put in the position to talk turkey to such people. I do not intend this as a pun, but certainly a turkey farmer needs to be able to talk turkey to such people and insist on an adequate price for his product.
We would like to see some changes made in the bill. As a western Canadian producer in an area from which we have traditionally moved surplus meat into eastern Canada I would like to see protected our historic rights in that respect. We would like to see a bargaining agency established to work for the farmer. If a forward price is set, the producer has the benefit of knowing what he may get next year for a particular product.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see adequate appeal provisions inserted in the bill so that if farmers are not satisfied their complaints may be heard. This appeal would not be to the agency but to the Crown. I am not suggesting that there will be problems, but we should be prepared to deal with them if problems arise. I know
[Mr. Thomson.)
there are other hon. members who wish to speak on the bill. I have no desire to monopolize the time of the House. In conclusion, I wish to say I am in support of orderly marketing, especially for farm products that are presently in trouble, and we should move right away to do something about it.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some apprehension that I take part in this debate on a bill to establish marketing agencies for farm products on a national scale. I am convinced all hon. members know to what extent the government wishes to find a solution to the slump in agriculture.
I am also convinced that it is not by adjourning the House, as proposed this afternoon the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), that we will solve the problem of the farmers.
When you received that request, Mr. Speaker, you called in the members, which gave us a chance, through a recorded division, to see to what extent the leaders of the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party are interested in the debate. Indeed, the Canadian people will note tomorrow when reading Hansard that those three leaders were away, but that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was present.
Mr. Speaker, it shows how much we want to help the farming industry, how much we are concerned by its problems and how much the government members wish to approve such a-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been speaking about a vote which took place this afternoon. It is against the rules of the House of Commons to reflect on a vote already taken. Secondly, the vote was on a procedural matter. It was on whether we have representative government in Canada. It was not on Bill C-176. The hon. member has been implying that in essence the vote was connected with Bill C-176.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy). In my opinion he was not reflecting on the vote. He made an observation about the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) moving the adjournment of the House. In fairness to the hon. member, he did not reflect on the vote.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That vote was not on Bill C-176.


Marcel-Claude Roy: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling the hon. member to order. I have heard him for two years in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. On the 23rd of March last, I had to listen to him until 8:20 a.m. So, I
December 28. 1971

would like him to let me express my views on this legislation.
Let us get back to the subject. What reasons have made us consider this problem? I would first say that our agriculture is in deficit. I think that at present no farmer is so happy with the situation prevailing on the markets. If one considers the net farm income realized last year, one sees that our Canadian farmers incurred a loss of 10 per cent, and I would not want this legislation to be considered in terms of a competition between Eastern and Western Canada. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this legislation, as all my colleagues have done, that is as a member of the Canadian Parliament, and not as a representative of a specific area of our country.
So, in all objectivity, we shall look into the present situation. There are two alternatives: to keep on producing without taking demand into account or to put some order in the market.
We had surpluses in spite of a 50 per cent decrease in farm labour and a 25 per cent reduction in the number of farms in the last 20 years. Agricultural production has increased by some 50 per cent. This increase has been greater than that of demand. What were the results? Never before have such an abundance and such a variety of food products and prepared foods been available to the Canadian housewife.
In 1957, food expenses represented 23 per cent of the income of families and individuals after taxes. In 1968, the percentage was 19 per cent. While consumer prices have increased by 56 per cent from 1949 to August 1968, prices for agricultural products have only increased by 21 per cent.
So that is what the agricultural problem is all about. It is not a production problem. It is a marketing problem.
Without adding to our technical know-how, without resorting to any new methods, we could increase our livestock by 20 million heads of cattle, as compared to the 6 j million we now have.
The same applies to the dairy industry; we could double our production without necessarily increasing the number of heads. We could simply increase our output per unit a little. The production per unit, with regard to cattle, hogs or farm products, has increased a great deal.
What happens if we increase production regardless of the consumers' needs?
There are direct effects on prices to producers.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the bill establishing national marketing agencies should be considered only from the viewpoint of imposing quotas on poultry products, of solving the chicken and egg war.
The first purpose of the bill is to set things in order, to study farm marketing problems. We should not have in mind to set only poultry production in order. There was really a problem about poultry production and we were very pleased when the federal government granted a $388,000 subsidy for the shipment of production surplus to Japan.
It was a subsidy to the broiler industry of Quebec which was losing $250,000 a week. There is no doubt that the financial assistance of the federal Department of Agriculture helped the agricultural industry.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Now if we are convinced of the importance of orderly marketing of farm products, we must accept-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. I will accept questions when my speech is concluded.

I think that if we are aware of the importance of such a legislation, if we really believe in the farming industry and if we want to help it, we should pass this bill without any amendments.
Further, to show to what extent the government is concerned with the problem of marketing farm products, one has only to refer to Bill C-197. We considered it in committee for seven days. We received briefs from all associations that have been willing to submit their views to the committee on agriculture. The members of this committee travelled across Canada, they visited all the Canadian capitals and examined the briefs that have been submitted.
Then, Bill C-176 was introduced in this House on October 26; two days were spent for the second reading and 37 for consideration in committee. To show you the extent of participation from interested parties and the consideration that the briefs received the committee accepted 36 amendments to try to improve this bill, to make it a realistic bill that meets with the farmers' needs. Then, 52 amendments were rejected, but of these eight are still before us at the report stage.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall point out to those who believe this is just a chicken and egg controversy that while we were touring the country a question was directed to the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario. This morning, I was listening to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) stating that there should be free movement of all farm products.
And on January 25 last I addressed to the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario the following question, which I quote from Issue No. 14 of the committee proceedings:
Thank you. I have a question for the minister. Does the minister know that since we started to balkanize the provinces, the Quebec broiler producers or the Quebec poultry meat producers lost $250,000 a week since this situation has developed. As a Quebecker, I think that is the application of the separatism thesis that some people want to develop in Quebec, and I think the reaction was so bad actually in Quebec because it was impossible to find any solution during your negotiations.
To which the minister replied:
First of all, Mr. Roy, if I may, sir, with great respect, I take exception to the comment you made that we started to balkanize because of the broiler situation. I respectfully submit, as I did this morning, that the balkanization of Canada started in 1935 with the implementation of the Wheat Act. It seems strange to me, sir, that it is now being referred to as the balkanization of Canada when we talk about broiler and egg problems in Canada.
I think therefore that the primary objective is not to restrict this bill to broilers and eggs and that the first balkanization policy of the provinces has begun, as the Ontario Minister of Agriculture said, with the establish-

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ment by the Conservative government, in 1935, of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, attempts are apparently being made to exclude such products while alleging that this bill is good, but not for us. It is alleged that the Canadian Wheat Board is excluded from the bill; beef will also be excluded and the hon. member for Crowfoot seems to be the protector of small producers. Some members of the opposition are attempting to make political hay by asking: What will happen to the family farm? What is going to happen to our family farms?
In fact, they want to exclude beef and veal, but those same people base their arguments on recommendations or suggestions from a very powerful organization to which they often refer-the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture appeared before the committee. They presented a brief on January 14 and here is the recommendation which they made concerning beef and veal-I quote: We do regret the proposal to exclude cattle and beef from the legislation-
-which is contrary to some people's wishes. I quote, because opposition members often refer to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Here is what they went on to say:
In doing so, producers marketing cattle for feeding and slaughter are deprived of the opportunities for close and competent examination of the industry through the medium of the Council that the legislation would provide, at once, or in the future. There are a great many producers of cattle represented through this Federation who do not share the views on this issue of the organizations opposing inclusion of these products. It should be stressed that inclusion in the Bill in no way commits the industry to support an acceptance of any marketing plan now or in the future, but exclusion does rule out the possibility of using the Act for useful purposes as may, on examination of the issue, appear.
The hon. member for Crowfoot seems to imply that farm organizations are opposed to the inclusion of beef and veal. He speaks on behalf of big producers at the expense of small ones, which is precisely what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture wanted to point out in the presentation of its brief on January 14, 1971.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. For those who want to have certain categories of producers excluded from it, I will read clause 17 dealing with the establishment of agencies, and I quote:
The Governor in Council may by proclamation establish an agency with powers relating to any farm product or farm products the marketing of which in interprovincial and export trade is not regulated pursuant to the Canadian Wheat Board Act or the Canadian Dairy Commission Act where he is satisfied that a majority of the producers of the farm product or of each of the farm products in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency.
That means that if the beef or calf producers do not want to be included in this bill they will not be if they so desire.
I cannot see why we would eliminate a category of producers if we look closely at clause 17.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by making a suggestion. I have tried to draw the attention of this House to a product marketing program and I would like to call the attention of the minister on the report of the Federal Task Force on Agriculture which was established

on October 10, 1967. Here is what a newspaper had to say on the subject:
-only 8 per cent of researchers in agriculture are doing research work in the area of economy and marketing.
In other words, only one man-year out of 200 alloted to agricultural research production in Canada applies to the field of marketing. So it is urgent to review this situation.
It seems t<5 me that since our productivity is higher than our potential consumption we should direct more of our research work, of our research personnel toward the marketing of agricultural products.
This, Mr. Speaker, is something I would like to suggest to the minister.
In my view, this bill is most important. We want to deal with the current agricultural slowdown. When UCC officials met on November 1st with Quebec members of the government party, they submitted a brief and advised us as to the extent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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:: If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member may continue. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to thank all my colleagues for their cooperation and assure them I will be brief.
I was saying that the UCC also tried to have the Quebec members of the government party recognize the situation currently facing hog and laying hen producers. For instance, this brief mentioned, in connection with hogs, that when production cost was $29.50 per 100 lbs, the average selling price was $23.50. For 1,700,000 hogs, the deficit was then $10,200,000.
As for laying hen production, the deficit was $4,860,000.
For turkey production, the deficit was $1,125,000, that is to say an aggregate deficit of $16,285,000, solely for the production of hogs, layers and turkeys in the province of Quebec.
I am convinced that those figures are inconsistent with regard to production costs in Ontario and in the Maritimes.
Throughout 1969-70-I have the statistics here-in the eastern provinces, there was an 8 per cent increase, namely of 278,000 hogs, and in the western provinces, a 32 per cent increase, or about 1 million hogs. A tremendous production increase resulted in price changes at the producers' level and it is for that reason that Quebec producers suffered a loss of about $10,200,000.
We are all aware of the importance of agriculture and it is for this reason that we are looking into the farmers' problem between Christmas and New Year's Day and are trying to find a solution. Bill C-176, to establish marketing agencies will be that solution. All products should be

included. If some producers want certain products to be excluded, section 17 will give them satisfaction.
In conclusion, I wish to say that agriculture as much as society needs an agricultural policy to promote economic growth. That is what the government party wants to achieve through the passage of this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know the hon. member is very desirous of bringing about orderly production and marketing, but does he not agree that this all depends on the price and fair distribution of feed grains?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, is my dear colleague referring to distribution at the consumption or at the production level?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Production.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the establishment of quotas, as stipulated in the bill now before us, will surely be discussed by each minister and each province and that concensus will be arrived at, as stated in the bill, by the producers themselves. Now, I believe that this answers the question asked by my hon. colleague.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 22 to Bill C-176, a bill designed to introduce the principle of supply management to the production of agricultural products. Let me say I believe, as my party believes, that production should be curtailed only when the majority of the producers of the product concerned clearly indicate that they wish to curtail production.
The majority of producers of eggs and poultry across Canada have said very clearly that they wish the introduction of production control. We therefore believe it is quite satisfactory for the federal government to step in and apply the principle of supply management to the production of these two products. However, I think the majority of producers of other farm products have clearly indicated that they do not wish their products to be so controlled. This being the case, I do not think they should be controlled by the federal government.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: That is what the bill says.


An hon. Member:: Go back to sleep.


George Harris Hees: I believe the federal government should adopt the same policy that was followed by the Conservative government which preceded it. That policy was to encourage farm production by taking effective steps to sell our surplus agricultural products in the export market. The application of this principle had several results. First, it relieved pressure on domestic prices of agricultural products and, second, it ensured that our products were sold in their entirety either in Canada or on the export market, obtaining for Canadian producers the best possible market. Such an aggressive and expansive policy is a very far cry from the negative, restrictionist policy presented in this bill.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Mr. Speaker, I very strongly urge, and our party strongly urges, this government to start to do something constructive along these lines, to start now to organize a massive export trade drive similar to that which was organized by the Conservative government which preceded this government in power. It should endeavour to sell our agricultural surpluses in the export market, gaining for our producers the best possible price and protecting the prices of products sold in the domestic market as well.
This can and must be done, Mr. Speaker. It can be done if this government will simply get off their fat behinds and get to work, instead of sitting back and doing nothing about selling our products around the world. This lethargy is the reason our export trade has increased by a mere 5 per cent over last year. This is a disgraceful performance and something which must be corrected right away.
I see that you feel I should return to the bill, and naturally I shall, Mr. Speaker. In order to make it unnecessary to apply the principle of supply management to products that have not been indicated by the majority of the producers of them that they wish the production of such products to be curtailed, this government must organize a sales drive and go out into the export market and sell our surplus products. This will enable our hard-pressed farmers to receive a fair return for their products and will restore agriculture, at long last, to a healthy and profitable condition.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite an interesting speech by the hon. member, but perhaps he should not be given the responsibility once again of being the minister of industry, trade and commerce-"Sell, no matter at what price or at what cost". But there was very little in his speech pertaining to the legislation with which we are dealing.
Mr. Speaker, having listened with a great deal of interest throughout the day to the arguments put forward by hon. members on the question of orderly marketing and Bill C-176, I suggest that the amendment proposed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is probably based on the very dismal record of the present government in terms of its handling of agricultural policies over the last 3j years. One needs only to reflect on the unsuccessful Lift program to see what a failure this government can be when it comes to such things as supply management. We can also look at the operations of the Canadian Dairy Commission to explain the reluctance of some members on this side of the House to blindly accept the proposed legislation.
When the bill was first introduced in this House under another number it read in such a manner as to not merely allow the government to create a situation of orderly marketing but to control marketing in the interests of the government, and to control production. It was not what I would consider orderly marketing. It was through the work of opposition members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture that we have seen some of the improvements in the legislation.
The amendments we are now discussing would become even more redundant, Mr. Speaker, if some other amendments were accepted by the government. I should like to deal with the amendments on the assumption that the bill

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
as it now stands is reasonable. 1 begin by saying that I was pleased to see that the government changed the requirements for representation on the council. The council is to consist of-
-three and not more than nine members, at least 50 per cent of whom shall be primary producers-
Possibly that could have been worded to make them almost all primary producers. The government has made some change in that the agencies as well have a majority of primary producers on the board. However, may I suggest that the government consider some additional changes to the agencies. Possibly the agency should be representative of the primary producers in the sense that they are elected by the primary producers affected by the particular agency in question. I would also suggest that the primary producers who become members of the agency have the right to bargain for price supports and subsidies to their programs when they find that prices are inadequate. As the elected representative of the producers, this agency should be allowed to set minimum and maximum prices, assuming that there can be minimum and maximum prices.
The Conservative amendments do not take into consideration that this is permissive legislation which allows the producers themselves to decide whether they wish to come within its terms. I refer to the bill which in section 7(2) provides:
The council, in reporting to the minister under subsection (1), shall not recommend the establishment of an agency in respect of a farm product or farm products or the broadening of the authority of an existing agency by vesting it with powers in relation to a farm product or farm products unless it is satisfied that a majority of the producers of the farm product or of each of the farm. products in Canada or in the region of Canada to which the recommendation relates is in favour of such action.
If producers of certain commodities are not inclined toward the concept of orderly marketing, they have the option of deciding among themselves not to become involved. There are other areas of this bill that could be improved in order to make it more workable. There is, for example, the whole question of the establishment of quotas. We have seen the results of the operation of the Canadian Dairy Commission in terms of the quotas that dairy producers received and the amount of production allowed. In light of that experience, the government should consider changing this legislation in order that we may have, in the words of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
A marketing plan to the extent that it allocates any production or marketing quota to any area of Canada, shall allocate that quota on the basis of the production from that area in relation to the total production of Canada over a period of five years immediately preceding the effective date of the marketing plan. In allocating additional quotas for anticipated growth of market demand, the marketing agency shall be guided by the principle of comparative advantage of production.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is not to deter a particular area or region from the quotas it deserves. It is, in fact, a matter in which each area is allowed its fair and just share of the quotas under that particular product. There is also the question of the manner in which the farmer may appeal if he is not satisfied with the way the agency is handling his particular quota. The council shall make

such inquiries and take such action within its powers as it deems appropriate in relation to any complaints received by it from any person who is directly affected by the operations of an agency and that relate to the operations of such agency.
I believe that particular manner of appeal in this legislation could be strengthened by the use of the amendment suggested by the hon. member from Fraser Valley. There should be every option available to the farmer to appeal to the agencies of the council in terms of the manner in which his particular products are being handled. I believe there should be a tightening of the means of appeal within this legislation.
There is another area which, if improved, would make the amendment suggested by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition somewhat more redundant than it is; that is, if the government would consider the question of promotion in respect of selling farm products, as suggested at page 17 of the bill, to which I should like to refer for a moment, where it states that an agency may "undertake to advertise and promote and do research into new markets for the establishment of greater sales." The hon. member for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition just referred to this. The government is introducing a clause which deals with promotion of farm products and increasing their sale, I suppose especially in the export market. Then at page 19 we find this provision in clause 27:
Subject to subsection (1) of section 28, an agency shall conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis without appropriations therefor by Parliament.
The only appropriation is a grant from the Minister of Agriculture in order to get the agency started. I suggest to the government that if it wants to improve this legislation so as not to face amendments such as those introduced by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it should take into consideration the fact that more funds should be available to the agencies in terms of grants from the government in order that those agencies may do the proper kind of research to ensure that all products have an opportunity to be sold in foreign markets.
We in the New Democratic Party, for a considerable length of time in history have been essentially in favour of orderly marketing. We still take this position. I suppose the definition of "orderly marketing" over the years has somewhat changed in terms of its effect upon the primary producer. Some of the changes I have recommended to the government in terms of this legislation would do a better job of ensuring that there is real orderly marketing.
In conclusion, I suggest there are approximately three areas in which this legislation could be improved. First of all, the bill should relate market-sharing quotas to historic production records. It should strengthen the farmer's bargaining power in terms of prices, and it should improve the farmer's appeal procedures. I suppose the dilemma we face in this party in terms of the legislation is that we have a government which is introducing legislation dealing with orderly marketing and we have before us its record in terms of agricultural policies. It is not a question of opposing orderly marketing but of whether or not we can trust the Liberal Party to handle orderly marketing.
December 28, 1971


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity I have to express my views on this bill which in my opinion is one of the most important ever introduced in the House in the last three years. I think all hon. members will realize that we needed legislation that could alleviate the difficulties agriculture has been facing for many years, that means realistic legislation.
In fact, it seems to me that all hon. members intend to help our farmers as much as possible. Since lack of planning has been deplored, the government prepared Bill C-176. And, having examined this bill long enough, I feel the government probably will do Canadian producers a service.
I believe in the merits of this bill and I do not hesitate to say that ever since I was elected to this House, agricultural groups in my constituency have been in favour of legislation designed to control production. Considering the experience that Canadian producers have had with this policy of supply and demand, which has put the farming community through ups and downs, without ensuring price stability for consumers, I think it is easy enough to recognize that a piece of legislation such as Bill C-176 will prove most beneficial to the people.
Of course, after 18 months, you try to introduce some amendments. Yet I am under the impression that this bill was adequately discussed in committee. At this stage, we could have saved time and legislated seriously, for the benefit of farmers.
Like many others, I promised the farmers I would fight for the interests of those who live in my riding, not for the sake of a few individuals, but for the good of a community. I will ask the government to keep on doing whatever is necessary to offer the farmers the service that Bill C-276 represents.
I say "service", Mr. Speaker, because taking into account the amendments designed to reduce the scope of the bill, we know full well that this bill to establish a national council, which provides adequate representation of agricultural leaders on that council, previous consultations with the representatives of the ten provinces-something we have not witnessed often in this country-to discuss quotas,., distribution of national production in terms of each 'province, and marketing, to the extent where it would be favorable to the majority of the producers of a given commodity, offers the solution to all the problems.
All the worries of the hon. members who object against that legislation are dispelled.
In my opinion, it is clearly defined in page 8 of the bill and I quote:
(2) The Council, in reporting to the Minister under subsection (1), shall not recommend the establishment of an agency in respect of a farm product or farm products or the broadening of the authority of an existing agency by vesting it with powers in relation to a farm product or farm products unless it is satisfied that a majority of the producers of the farm product or of each of the farm products in Canada or in the region of Canada to which the recommendation relates is in favour of such action.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me quite clear. If Bill C-176 is a service made available by the government to farmers who may use it according to their needs, it would indeed be unfortunate if the government would amend the bill and exclude some products, because once again the legislation does not compel farmers to accept quotas. Thus the farmers will be able to take advantage of the legislation if they so desire.
I think that we could not, except through this bill, achieve stability in the interest of the agricultural class, and stability of prices, which is also necessary, cannot be achieved without production control.
The policy of supply and demand that some would like to keep has nonetheless brought about great difficulties and we know too well today overproduction in various fields to believe that this policy is still valid today.
I was listening a short while ago to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) who was talking about the good policy of the Progressive Conservative government when it was in power. I would like to believe that tlie Progressive Conservative party had an excellent agricultural policy-it would be dishonest for me to claim the contrary-but times have changed and difficulties have not decreased. A new act is also desirable.
The government feels that Bill C-176 could solve the problems now facing the farmers.
Bill C-176, as I was saying, leaves the decision up to the majority. I come back to this because I believe that this paragraph is important. Why exclude some products? When we know very well that some day these categories of producers will perhaps need this legislation which will be there for them to use. Once again, they will be free to use it or not.
Some mention was made of difficulties between provinces. It was given to understand that this would bring about confrontations. On the contrary, without Bill C-176, we have known such difficulties, such trade barriers between the provinces. On the contrary, I think it is wrong to claim that Bill C-176 will bring about these problems.
Worries were also expressed about foreign competition which could be too rough. Having a National Council would prove an ideal way, I think, to make the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) aware of the need to limit certain imports from time to time, but I also think that the National Council, created in accordance with Bill C-176, would be the best channel to reach the responsible minister.
There was also concern about the disappearance of some small producers, and the same hon. member who said 'that Bill C-176 was going to drive many into the ground admitted at the same time that for ten years now we have seen thousands of them cease their operations. Yet Bill C-176 was not in force during the last ten years.
So it is foolish, I think, to bring in such an ambiguous argument.
I believe rather that the small producer will one day benefit from the establishment of production quotas and will have the assurance of selling his production at a reasonable price, which will encourage him to pursue his farming career. The big corporation which can only too easily assimilate small producers will have a harder time
December 28, 1971
___________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
doing it because small farmers will be guaranteed security.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this will encourage farmers' children to remain in agriculture, thus ensuring them of some stability and security.
I think the objective of Bill C-176 is to give farmers the security workers enjoy today as a result of improved programs. Farmers are also in need of a better farm policy, and I am convinced that Bill C-176 will achieve this goal.
In any case, if we really want to serve the farming community, I believe it is time we stop moving all these amendments.
This bill has been under consideration for months. Our farmers are particularly anxious to see this piece of legislation enacted. We could, in a very short time, solve some of the problems that may arise among farmers who want to live in agreement with all provinces in this country. I believe this bill will bring about what has never been done before, namely to bring to the same table representatives from all provinces, in order to discuss together the problems that affect the whole nation.
It is unthinkable to continue to pass measures at the provincial level, because we all know that compensation will come sooner or later. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture has met on several occasions with provincial ministers of agriculture and that it is no exaggeration to say that most of them agreed that the bill should be introduced with amendments. From the start, it has been changed and reviewed and today there still seems to be opposition to this instrument indispensable to farmers who need stability and security.
I believe that all the objectives which our farmers have at heart will be achieved through Bill C-176. There can be debate and even petty politics about the bill, but I do not feel it is right to delay its passage any further, knowing full well that it is our farmers who will be footing the bill.
Perhaps a more efficient measure could have been imagined, but in the House nobody has proposed such a measure yet. Therefore it seems to me that we should act quickly and at the same time let hon. members express their views. I congratulate all those who take part in this important debate, but I believe that we should also be honest with the farmers. I think we must also be practical and give the agricultural community an instrument that we have not tried yet. We passed a great deal of measures concerning agriculture, but we know the results today. The problems have not disappeared and the causes for concern remain.
I think that Bill C-176 will eliminate a number of these problems, and part of this concern. If the government legislates seriously and honestly to improve the condition of the agricultural community, this community will live better and enjoy an income comparable to that of unionized workers.
Mr. Speaker, I close my remarks by calling on hon. members to give serious thought to this bill which will not divide the country but unite Canadian farmers for the benefit of the provinces and for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate and express my support for the very worth-while amendments that we are discussing. If hon. members pass these amendments I believe we will get somewhere. They are important to all the people who are concerned with this bill. In this context I refer to many people who strongly favour marketing bills. In this particular instance I refer to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, who have stated:
Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool press for producer representation on the marketing council, and majority producer representation on the marketing agencies.
These are some of the things they believe in and that we are seeking. We have a perfect right to do so because these are sound, logical amendments. I recall when Saskatchewan held a plebiscite not many years ago with respect to a marketing bill applicable to livestock. Today I tried to get the exact figures that were recorded in that plebiscite, but failed. I do know that the livestock producers voted overwhelmingly against that bill. I believe they should have that right again and should not be forced by this bill. I would also like to mention the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. This is a sound organization, but its members also feel that the producers of individual commodities should have the right to determine, by way of plebiscite, whether they want an agency to handle the marketing of their produce.
I take strong exception to the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carle-ton (Mr. McBride). He said that my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), was speaking only for big interests and ranchers. I want to tell him that the hon. member for Crowfoot speaks for all his constituents. I shall refer to some statistics for the benefit of the hon. member, statistics which he can pass on to his constituents. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in a release dated December 22,1971, stated:
Average net income of Saskatchewan farmers has dropped to $2,650 from $5,640 between 1969 and 1970, according to the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture.
Possibly the hon. member would go back and tell that to his constituents. Perhaps he would like to go back and tell his constituents more of the truth and let them know some of the things that are taking place. Possibly he would tell them that this country, with its so-called just society, which has experienced an increase in population of less than one million since 1965, today costs twice as much to administer as it did in 1965. Perhaps he would like to tell his constituents some of the truth with respect to what is happening in this just society, instead of criticizing members of the official opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting. I appreciate that his remarks to this point are introductory in nature and that he will be coming to the substance of his speech and turning to the motions which are before us. However, it seems to me that his last remarks were outside the terms of the motions now before the House.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, all of the hon. member's remarks were allowed to go on the record this afternoon
December 28, 1971

when you were not in the chair and I think I should be allowed to place some of the truth on the record so that he can go back and tell his constituents what is taking place. I apologize for straying from the subject of the amendments, but this was allowed this afternoon and I think the people should be told about it.


Murray Arndell McBride: On a point of order-


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: He should go back and tell his clergy on Sunday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members should try not to be personal in debate.


Murray Arndell McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member keeps referring to me, I suggest he check Hansard. He will see that I referred to this amendment and described how the bill would help small farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You didn't even know what amendment was up for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) has the floor.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: We will get away from all that, Mr. Speaker, and talk about what is going on and what is in the cabinet's mind. The livestock producers do not want to be included in the provisions of this bill. These are the only amendments that we are pressing and if they were adopted we would be willing to let the bill pass. They are good, sound, sensible amendments. As I have said, the members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool do not believe that producers should have a marketing bill forced on them without first having an opportunity to make their views known in a plebiscite. That is what we are seeking, Mr. Speaker. The livestock men would not have risen up in the way they did if it was not something they did not want. They do not want this bill forced on them. Why should it be forced on them?
We in western Canada brought in the Wheat Board. We are proud of it. That is a great piece of legislation. It gave the people the right to say whether they wanted the board or not. I think cattlemen should be given the same right.


Murray Arndell McBride: They have the right.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Last spring, when this legislation was introduced, we were continually called to meetings throughout our constituencies and the cattlemen packed the halls and said they did not want this marketing bill.


Murray Arndell McBride: And did you tell them the truth?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Why force them into it?


Murray Arndell McBride: We are not forcing them.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Put the bill through in a form which says that producers of an individual commodity who desire to use it, may use its provisions.


Murray Arndell McBride: That is what the bill says.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: That is not what you were talking about this afternoon. You were criticizing the official opposition. I want you to go back and tell your people what is happening. I am sure all hon. members received a particular
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
document on their desks this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, do you know what it would cost the producer of eggs in British Columbia if he wanted to increase his production by a dozen eggs per week? It would cost him $3.85.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, $385.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Yes, $385-just to produce another dozen eggs.


Murray Arndell McBride: Who wrote this?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: It is all written up here. I am sure you received this document on your desk.


Murray Arndell McBride: Who wrote it up? Hudson?


Mr. Bigg:: You've got a big mouth, McBride.


Murray Arndell McBride: Tell us about the wheat pool.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: It is just completely ridiculous that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the government are tying up the House of Commons for a petty, stupid thing. They are trying to be dictators, to force something on the producers that they don't want. Let us take a look at this bill. Let us get down to earth and read the whole bill. I have read it a dozen times. All the livestock producers in my area say they do not want it. And I warn hon. members not to think that all hog producers are in favour of it. Look at the situation in Manitoba. What part of this bill do they want?


Murray Arndell McBride: Tell us about Schreyer.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Shut up, McBride.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members to respect the hon. member for Meadow Lake who has the floor. The Chair would like to hear the hon. member.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) has spoken. We are not opposed to Quebec's introducing marketing legislation. They can bring that in; we are not opposing it. We feel they have a right to vote for it, if that is what they want. However, we do not want, and the producers out west do not want, them to tell us that we must accept this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Down with the Social Credit Minister of Agriculture.


Murray Arndell McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has implied that this bill is for the benefit of Quebec only and is against the interests of the west. That is categorically untrue.


An hon. Member:: That is no point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member has had his turn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat, please. The hon. member is really arguing a point of debate.

December 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Murray Arndell McBride: I am telling the truth.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I have so much material in front of me that if I were to refer to it all tonight no one else would get a chance to speak. For instance, the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers' Association has said:
As cattlemen, our members are greatly concerned and upset with the proposed federal compulsory marketing legislation-presented to the House of Commons as Bill C-176.
In every part of western Canada beef producers are opposed to this bill.


An hon. Member:: But the United Church is not!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: If you want to pass marketing legislation that will exempt beef cattle and calves and will give producers adequate representation on boards, then I say that if the people concerned see any future in the legislation I am sure they will come half way to meet you. But why try to shove it down their throats? They do not want it and they are not going to accept it. We will stay here and fight this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: We are going to stay right here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You bet we are.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: And God help you if you people bring in closure to pass this bill. That will be the day, I can tell you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Meadow Lake should address his remarks to the Chair.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He was being provoked. The government is employing an agent provocateur.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, when you were kind enough to give me the floor I only wanted to speak to you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I was a bit intrigued by the hon. member's remarks this afternoon and I want to leave him with something he can take back to his constituency so that he can tell the truth about what is going on. No matter to which part of the country 1 turn, I hear protests against this bill. I have never received any encouragement to support it. We have groups that favour a marketing program such as is involved with our wheat pools but, by hell, the producers do not want this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: We hear talk of producer control and a plebiscite. Under a democracy, people should have the right to say whether they will accept the bill or not. We have no grievance against Quebec. We would like them to buy our beef. We want to ship them lots of it and we will give them good beef, too. But we do not want them to tell 
us that we are going to have a marketing board whether we like it or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I could go on in this vein at great length. However, since there are many others who want to speak I will say no more. I hope the minister will pay attention to us and heed our suggestions, and that he will come into this House with an appropriate amendment so that we can all get out of here.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member in favour of the orderly marketing of wheat as through the Canadian Wheat Board?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Yes, I am very much in favour of it.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Then are we not doing the same thing in this bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) may ask a question but he should not engage in debate. If there is a further question, perhaps the hon. member for Meadow Lake will receive it.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, we have the Wheat Board because we want it. We worked for it and we got it. That is why it is there. But we do not want a large marketing board for cattle, and we are protesting against it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote).


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Richelieu.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: Order. The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order but simply to express my opinion on this bill which seems to me to be very poorly understood by hon. members opposite. For the last two years I have been wanting to express my opinion in this House on one of the most important pieces of legislation which many seem to consider to be a matter of feelings rather than Serious legislation.
Since I seldom rise in this House because I have always considered the Commons as a place where we would try and pass legislation to fulfil our mandates as efficiently as possible, I was very disappointed to hear speeches which seemed to me to have separatist overtones.
There is an aspect of this legislation which does not seem to be understood. A few years ago, the Canadian farmer-I did not say from Quebec or Western Canada or the Maritime Provinces-was asked to try and provide consumers with products at the best possible prices, so that consumers-wherever commodities might be pro-
December 28, 1971

duced or consumed-may pay a normal price. I believe the farmer responded very efficiently with such a production increase that for two years now this government, knowing that the real problem was not a production but a marketing problem, introduced the famous bill C-196.
It may be said that I am not dealing directly with the motion presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) whom I would have preferred to see in his seat, for that same amendment was discussed on many occasions during the debate on second reading as well as in the standing committee on agriculture. As I was saying, farmers do recognize marketing as being probably the most effective tool that can be had. When some hon. members suggested this afternoon that we were going to destroy family farming they were merely playing on words for the benefit of the House. I do not think that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was serious, any more than other hon. members who made suggestions which to me seemed highly illogical. He may have used the wrong expression, for the one means through which family farms can be established or preserved is precisely this marketing board, which will prevent large producers in Eastern as well as Western Canada from preserving a monopoly. The farmers concerned are not producers tied-up with a co-operative, as someone said this afternoon, but producers who live from their farms and who were clever enough to settle close to a big co-operative-and mention was made of the Granby co-operative.
Those same producers should be allowed to take advantage of bill C-176 so that they themselves-not the government, as the hon. member who spoke before me was saying-would establish marketing agencies. It is the farmers themselves who are asking for them and who are voting for this bill designed to establish marketing boards in their province.
There is no point in exaggerating the way It was done during the 38 committee meetings. There was talk of separatism, of Quebec and the West. I dc not think this will lead anywhere.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


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


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question?


Florian Côté: Yes, but only when I am through, if I may, as I have had so much to say for so long that I would like to complete my remarks first.


Léonel Beaudoin: Agreed.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure when my time is expired to reply to the honourable member for Richmond, and probably enlighten him.
This afternoon, I noted the concern of the member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) who stated that last March, we wasted time discussing with Quebec and Ontario, and you see that I do not mention western Canada. I also believe that the member for Saint-Hyacin-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
the (Mr. Ricard) and the member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) will do their utmost to convince their colleagues to participate in the discussion. And yet thousands of dollars have been wasted because we had no national marketing agency while the farm production in certain regions was out of all proportion with the consumption of neighbouring cities. We, of the federal government, could admit to ourselves that we are to blame, but I have the privilege of stating that we cannot do that. The opposition could say it because this bill would have been passed two years or at least one and a half years ago had we not been prevented from so doing.
It is now thought that this bill would benefit the production of eggs, broilers and poultry meat. How is it possible that a bill can be said to be beneficial in regard to a farm product produced in one region of the country and not to another produced in another region?
The hon. member who spoke before me wished that a more equitable bill could have been introduced.
This bill, which is national in scope, is actually fairer. It is not an eastern or a western bill because it affects the whole range of farm products and I would not like my hon. colleagues, be they of the opposition or otherwise, to try to exclude a particular product alleging that the farmer does not want it. It is not true.
People from eastern and western Canada have asked us why he have delayed passage of the bill. Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-which is a national agency-came to us last year, requesting that this bill be passed as quickly as possible. This Federation which groups all agricultural organizations did not request that the bill exclude beef and veal and include only broilers and eggs. It asked that all farm products be included. There are presently two acts and two programs governing these two specific products.
The Canadian Dairy Commission aims at distributing milk at the same price everywhere in the country.
The previous speaker would like Bill C-176 to be similar to the legislation governing the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Speaker, I shall reply in the negative. I do not want it. I should even ask this government to withdraw this bill since I do not wish it to have a limited range. I want that bill to apply all across Canada because I am a Canadian.
As a farmer, I am ready to abide by some quotas as concerns some products as eggs and broilers. Therefore, it would be false to say that this bill is to be effective in eastern Canada and not in other parts of Canada. If beef, veal, or pork production is no longer profitable, quotas shall be established not by the government but by the producers, as they recognize that overproduction results in lower prices. If we want a normal price to be maintained, we should be able to abide by some quotas at the consumption level. If we accept to abide by some quotas as concerns eggs and broilers, we should be ready to abide by some quotas also as concerns other commodities. To act otherwise would be very harmful; a second balkanization would occur if this government accepted to have only part of the products under quotas. Then, I would resign, I would oppose the government, whatever its political denomination, because I want the passage of a national legislation.

December 28, 1971
Farm. Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Last year, Mr. Speaker, ,1 learned just to what extent this bill could be beneficial, because the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) recognized its efficiency during informal conversations in between the meetings of the committee on agriculture. They said that this bill seemed to "smell good" for the farmer. Strangely enough, we do not feel that it will smell good simply for election purposes; we know that this bill will be good for a sector of the Canadian economy. In fact, agriculture represents 35 per cent of the Canadian economy.
We were told that this bill should not be passed, that it would be too advantageous from an electoral point of view. Now, if it were as bad as it was depicted a while ago, I feel a good number of members of the opposition would want it passed, as it would be an excellent means of leading eventually to the downfall of the government. I am convinced that is how things would happen if this bill were really that bad.
But as they know the farmers want this legislation, because it will be truly efficient, they will not let it be passed. And how do they go about it? This afternoon, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) probably remembered what he did last summer, and that disappointed me. Last summer, the principle of democracy-that the majority decides, and that at times the minority has to accept the decision of the majority-was not recognized. So, at the time when we were sitting in committee to discuss section 2-a section that they would change through an amendment concerning natural products- after a tremendous amount of verbiage, nothing remained to be said. Opposition members saw that they could no longer face the majority of the Committee on Agriculture which stuck to its guns. So, two members, the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Mackenzie must remember the two members of the committee on agriculture who retired to the rear of the room and said: You no longer have quorum, and this simply in order to prevent the committee from sitting.
That was deplorable, because members of farm associations had come to Ottawa. There were some from the West, from Quebec and Ontario, and they treated us as children. We were even told: Back home, if we acted like that, we would be taken for ridiculous characters. We were even told that democracy was next to anarchy. What happened in the committee last year seems to be starting all over again here.
I do not want to hold the House foo long, so I ask all hon. members to make sure that agriculture will be in a better position tomorrow. Let us not forget that thousands of dollars were lost each week, last fall, in egg production. The same thing might happen with regard to pork or beef. We do not know the future. Production might exceed consumption and then, prices would drop. But some hon. members might not be here after the next election because I imagine they will be defeated if they vote against the legislation. They might have to admit that at the end of 1971, they had the opportunity to solve the real problem, that is the marketing of farm products.
I have been told, before taking part in this debate, that perhaps Bill C-176 would be misunderstood in eastern [Mr. Cote (Riehelieu).J
Canada. This may amuse those who are not from the East, while helping them to understand better the problems of eastern Canada. It has been suggested to me that there might be someone inside the slaughter-houses to take over the overproduction or do something so that this bill will not cure all ills.
I don't believe that by passing this bill we will solve all problems relating to agriculture, but we will at least put in the hands of the producers, who want to control themselves, the marketing of their products, and not have it done by the state, marketing agencies of their own. Afterwards, if conditions are worse, we could perhaps exchange views with producers, but up to now, as politicians, if we can so call ourselves, and as farmers, it is the fijTSt such legislation introduced in the House since I have been a member that I urge hon. members to pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: Order. The hon. member for Richmond wishes to ask a question.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richelieu has just said that all Canadian producers are demanding that Bill C-176 be passed. I would like to ask him if he knows that recently, a majority of hog producers voted against the establishment of any program dealing with hog production.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, the hog producers did not vote against the establishment of a hog producers' association. The production per unit was perhaps heavier among large producers who at times try to exercise control and this is what we want to prevent!


Léonel Beaudoin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague and friend from Richelieu if he knows that those who voted-be they important or not,-were hog producers and that, by a majority vote, they made known that they were against the establishment of a joint program for hog production.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Florian Côté: Agreed. I well understand the question and my hon. friend from Richmond, who is from an area where this legislation is eagerly awaited, is right in asking it.
There have been serious problems there. If this bill had been given effect, the egg and poultry producers' association would not have known such difficulties. The beef, egg and poultry producers have formed an association, but as there was no legislation that applied nationally, they have fought amongst themselves, they have dumped their products in one another's region and have had some very difficult problems. They have had money losses because of this lack of national legislation.
When hog producers voted, they were influenced by the fact that broiler production was uneconomical for lack of federal legislation. Hog producers felt that there would be practically no results so long as Bill C-176 had not been passed. So they got confused because of the egg experience and of the opportunity for setting up a hog producers' association, however in the absence of federal legislation they could not be efficient. They did not feel the need for it. That is why we must pass this federal legislation as early as possible. Subsequently, the provincial marketing
December 28, 1971

agencies will integrate and as they have to resort to the federal legislation the marketing problem in Canada will fade away.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would appear we are now entering into a debate between the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) and the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote). I might say that the time allotted to the hon. member for Richelieu has now expired.


Mr. Downey:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I realize the time of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) has expired, but there is one question we should clear up, in light of the discussion we have heard between the two hon. members on the subject of the family farm. If I might pose a further question to the hon. member for Richelieu-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Stanbury:: What kind of question of privilege is that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I have indicated, the time of the hon. member for Richelieu has expired. The Chair is, of course, in the hands of hon. members and if they wish to extend the time available to the hon. member they can do so. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cliff Downey: I note that according to the figures, about 80 per cent of the broiler industry in Quebec is controlled by four outfits-three feed companies and an organization headed by a man called Benoit Beauregard. Was the hon. member referring to the family farms which control 80 per cent of industry in Quebec, namely, the four I have mentioned? I should also like to ask the hon. member this question: Is he, or is he not, a tool of the integrators?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair asked hon. members if they wished to extend the time of the hon. member for Richelieu so that he might accept a question from the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). With respect, the hon. member for Battle River should have asked a question rather than entered into debate with the hon. member. The hon. member for Richelieu might wish to answer the first question, but with respect to the second part it seemed to the Chair that it was not a proper question.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I must abide by your decision that the second question should not be answered. However, I wish I could have answered it.
As for the first question about the family farm, it was not raised by myself but by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters). Besides, I had explained myself the gradual elimination of small producers, and a phenomenon which is of concern to him. In fact, on Quebec farms, there remain very few broiler producers. The lack of a national legislation accounts for the breaking up of the family farm and the taking over of big producers. The family farm producers were unable to put up with the ups and downs of production.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
The small producers who were unable to support production costs were automatically absorbed by the big producers. The purpose of the bill now under study is to prevent such things in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to the Chair, with respect, that we are entering into debate and I think it would be unfair to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) if the Chair did not recognize him.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I really thought this was the place for debate, but it may be that the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) will have an opportunity to enter into it later and explore the situation which apparently took place in Quebec and which I thought the Liberal government under Jean Lesage would have straightened out as they straightened out so many other things in that province.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to engage in or try to promote any acrimonious conversation or debate. We are too soon after Christmas for that. There is also the fact that, as we all know, it is almost a standardized way of proceeding in this House for the government to prepare and develop legislation and ideas, present them to the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and then sit back and wait for the criticism of the opposition and for changes to be put forward. Almost invariably, the proposals for change are not dealt with on their merits but, rather, on the basis of their source.
Regretfully, we find that governments over the years, this one probably more than any other, tend to automatically reject suggestions from the opposition regardless of merit; tends to reject them out of hand because they come from the wrong source. That, of course, does not lead to a very sensible type of legislation.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that with the type of legislation before us that deals with a group of people in the farming industry, in the agricultural section of our economy-a group of people who probably beyond anybody else in society have not got any large degree of authority over their own income, their methods of operation, their own economic well-being-this is the one time when Parliament should settle down and try to examine what we are doing in a sensible, reasonable and logical way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: That was the hope this afternoon and I am sure it was the hope of members of the Liberal party who spoke earlier. One parliamentary secretary-I cannot recall his constituency-approached it in a rational and sensible way, to examine from a very careful point of view what this Parliament of Canada could do that would be best for the farmers of this nation. Regretfully, the speech we heard a moment ago did not have that tone at all but was designed to antagonize, to be acrimonious and not to seek a logical conclusion to anything, but just to be offensive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 28, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Frank Howard: This was also the case with the question of my friend from Battle River; it fell within the same category.


An hon. Member:: Terrible!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Beware lest you fall into the same category.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not come from a farming background and I do not know a great deal about it from the point of view of people who have to farm for a living.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is your colleague? Where is the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)?


Frank Howard: However, I know a fair amount about the fishing industry and the legislation of the Parliament of Canada in respect to the position of people engaged in it. There is a distinct parallel between farming activity and fishing activity, and from that standpoint I should like to say a few words.
I am sure there is not a farmer in this House who would not agree that the farmer is the one person in this economy who has not very large control over his income. He is trapped on both sides. Somebody else decides what he will pay for machinery, for services, for facilities, for equipment, for fuel and all the other commodities he needs to carry on. He has no authority and no control in that. The decision is made in the farm implement industry, the oil industry, the chemical industry. Whatever the 'farmer has to buy, someone else dictates what he shall pay for it.
He is in the same position when it comes to selling the commodities he produces. He has no control and no authority over what price he shall receive for them. Early this afternoon we talked about the position of the Kraft company with respect to the cheese industry. This company determines what it will pay to the dairy industry for its product which it turns into a junky kind of cheese.


An hon. Member:: No.


Frank Howard: My friend says no, but I consider that Kraft makes a junky type of cheese. Taking Kraft just as one company, the farmer does not negotiate a price with it but takes what is offered. It has been indicated that if Kraft does not like a certain number of producers in an area, it buys them out. My friend can shake his head till it drops off, but I am telling the facts. Using that as an example, the farmer generally does not have any degree of authority in setting the price for which he sells his products. He is caught in a cost-price squeeze, and that is what we should be dealing with.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on November 26,1 asked the government the following question:
Is the government contemplating any changes to the Public Service Employment Act which would make clear that a public servant is not contravening the act when he displays a political poster at his own home or on his own personal property?
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) answered:
Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a question which cannot be answered in one word. I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would give me some of the circumstances.
The question I asked on that date arose out of a question which I had placed on the order paper on October 27, 1971, which read as follows:
Are public servants prohibited from displaying or allowing to be displayed a political poster on their personal property and, if so, under what authority?
The answer given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) was as follows:
I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act provides that: Public servants may attend political meetings and may contribute money for the funds of a candidate for election or money for the funds of a political party. In addition, an employee may seek nomination as a candidate and be a candidate for election in a federal, provincial or territorial election, provided he is granted leave of absence without pay by the Public Service Commission for such purpose.
This section of the act, however, prohibits employees from engaging in any other type of work for, on behalf of or against a candidate for election of a political party.
This answer, I suggest, clearly indicates that it is against the Public Service Employment Act for a public servant in the employ of the Government of Canada to allow a political poster to be displayed at his home. My question on the order paper was placed there in the first place because of some incidents reported during provincial election campaigns this past summer. For instance, I have before me a Post Office circular to its employees which I was given in the city of Edmonton during the Alberta provincial election campaign. Points one and two set out prohibited political activity and permissible political activity. They are directly in line with the answer I was given to the question to which I referred a minute ago. It seems to me there is need for clarification regarding posters because some postal supervisors and others told employees to take down lawn posters from their homes because it was in contravention of the act.
I suggest the answer given to the question I asked maintains that civil servants cannot even say through political posters in or on their own property that they are for Joe Blow or whoever it may be. It might be argued that the erection of a poster is working for or against a candidate. If that is the case, a civil servant is contravening the act if he reveals to anyone who he is going to vote for. This is the logical conclusion which must be drawn if we say revelation of support through one way or another is working for or against a candidate.
This is an infringement of fundamental rights and liberties in Canada. In dealing with the problem I think we
December 28, 1971

have to look at the Public Service Employment Act. I do not have time to quote the relevant subsections 1, 2, 3 in clause 32 which are essentially as I have already referred to them. It seems to me, though, that it would be a very simple matter to extend the provisions of subsection 2 to provide that the display of a poster at one's home, whether inside or outside or on a lawn, is not in contravention of subsection 1 which states that no deputy head and, except as authorized under this section, no employee, shall engage in work for, and so on.
I think it should also be drawn to the attention of the government that there have been cases concerning the display of posters before the courts of Canada. I would in particular draw attention to the case of one Moses McKay and the township of Etobicoke, in the city of Toronto, concerning an incident in the 1962 federal election. This case eventually reached the Supreme Court, who found in its decision that the township was not allowed, under the provisions of the constitution and constitutional law, to prohibit a person from displaying a federal election poster. There is also one very significant quotation in the judgment handed down at that time. I quote from the decision:
If by-law 11737-
The relevant by-law.
-is construed as it has been by the learned justice of the peace and by the Court of Appeal, it does not merely affect, it destroys the right of the appellants to engage in a form of political activity in the federal field which has heretofore been possessed and exercised by electors without question.
I agree there are some differences in circumstances, but nevertheless I think the concern of the justices of the Supreme Court on this matter should be noted in this regard. I should also point out there is already a distinction set out in subsection 3 of the act between the situation of a deputy head of a department and other employees of a department. Both categories can attend a political meeting. They can contribute funds to a candidate of a political party. All employees except the deputy head can apply for leave of absence, which may or may not be granted, at the judgment of the government. The experience to date has been that people in the executive category and personnel administrators have not been granted this leave. I submit that the Public Service Employment Act should be amended to make clear that the display of a poster at an employee's home is not in contravention of the act.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. President, I am told that the act is now under study, and if amendments or explanations are to be brought in the area referred to by the hon. member for Regina East, the minister responsible will announce them in due course. The people involved in this study will no doubt take into account the hon. member's comments.



INDUSTRY-PULP AND PAPER-PROBLEMS DISCUSSED AT CONFERENCE AND TYPE OF AID OFFERED

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in spite of my repeated questions in the House over the past four months, for some reason or other I have
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
failed to get any meaningful answers and any recognition of the continuing crisis which exists in Canada's pulp and paper industry. My particular concern revolves around the close-down of a highly productive paper machine in the Bowater organization in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, which resulted in the lay-off of 350 skilled workers and which will affect an additional work force in the woods operations, therefore affecting in total some 1,200 employees.


Mr. Bell:: Don't forget Bathurst, New Brunswick.


Jack Marshall: My hon. friend reminds me of a similar situation at Bathurst, New Brunswick. The Bowater mill is the main industry in a city of some 2,800 citizens, and one does not have to be too intelligent to realize the effect of such a close-down on the economy of the city, the surrounding areas and indeed the whole province of Newfoundland.
Apart from this confined crisis in Newfoundland it is obvious to all that one of the foremost industries in our nation is now in a state of crisis. Almost daily we experience examples of shut-downs in paper mills in almost every province, yet the problem seems to be treated with complacency by the government. There is ample evidence of the seriousness of the situation in the figures disclosed by the Pulp and Paper Association. Let me record some statistics as published in recent issues of newspapers. A decrease in the demand for newsprint outside of North America was experienced for the first time since the Second World War. There was a decrease in the demand in North America for the second consecutive year, producing a world decline in demand in North America, western Europe and other areas. At the same time, capacity is increasing in Canada, in the U.S.A., in western Europe, in the Far East and in other areas, with evidence of a decline in Canadian shipments to overseas markets.
The larger decrease in total Canadian shipments compared with the decrease in world demand is explained by an increase in domestic shipments by U.S. and overseas producers. Canadian newsprint mills operated at 82 per cent of productive capacity compared with 88 per cent just last year. The Canadian increase in capacity was primarily in eastern mills, with a 205,000-ton increase in the Atlantic region and a 162,000-ton increase in Quebec, and this is the area of Canada where unemployment is highest. Yet at the time when these factors are so obvious, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion continues to give regional development incentive grants to establish mills in regions of Canada to create employment opportunities but destroys employment opportunities in eastern regions where unemployment is most severe. At the same time, the government is granting loans to overseas countries to establish mills, thereby destroying needed markets.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) keeps sending trade missions all over the world to explore export markets, yet no mention is ever made of the need to explore markets for paper, which is so vital to the Canadian economy. Many hundreds of highly technical employees of the pulp and paper industry are being placed out of work and yet the government treats with apathy the waste of our experienced work force, ignoring

December 28, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
meaningful consultation by labour and manpower departments to assist these members of the work force.
To me, Mr. Speaker, it is a source of frustration and aggravation that one of the three top industries in Canada is seemingly relegated to meaningless concern. It is very difficult for me to understand and reconcile in my mind why those who should be concerned treat the crisis with such seeming apathy. I hope that the parliamentary secretary, whom I know to be a conscientious and responsible member, can give me some answers to clear my frustration and that of thousands of concerned Canadians who are suffering because of the pulp and paper industry crisis.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to provide some answers to the question raised by the hon. member with respect to this difficult matter which has been part of the Canadian pulp and paper industry for many generations. The,Canadian pulp and paper industry has always had a problem of trying to reconcile supply and demand in some kind of rational way. The history of the industry has been one of attempts at prorating supply in order to satisfy market demands appropriate to the industry. This has often been difficult.
It is difficult at the present time because of slack markets around the world, particularly in the United States, where the slow growth in the economy has produced a downturn in consumption during the last few months. Industry officials do feel, however, that the bottom of the market has been reached and that there is an upturn taking place at the present time. Nevertheless, there are serious, long-term problems within the industry.
A meeting did take place in Ottawa on December 6 last. It was attended by ten cabinet ministers, which is an indication of the seriousness with which the government considers the problem within the industry. Some of the topics looked at included taxation policy, in response to a request from the industry to compare Canadian taxation with the taxation imposed on other companies around the world, transportation cost problems, pollution abatement cost problems and the effect of regional development incentive programs. Other matters discussed were competition policy and the social obligations that the companies have in front of them in trying to make changes in their industry, modernize it and bring it up to date and at the same time take into consideration the needs of the employees.
Asl a result, the government agreed to examine many of these problems in conjunction with the industry. It agreed to do a study on taxation as it affects the industry in relation to its competitiveness around the world. The government agreed to study with the industry transportation costs and to undertake a long-range study of a strategy for the development of Canada's pulp and paper industry in relation to the problems it has and the markets it has available to it. I assure the hon. member that the government is considering most seriously the problems that exist in the industry at the present time.
The hon. member made mention of the overseas programs that the Department of Industry, Trade and Com-

merce has with respect to the promotion of markets for industries. I can assure him that the pulp and paper industry is one of those industries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).



GRAIN-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON RATIONALIZATION OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on November 29 I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when the report on the rationalization of grain handling and transportation would be made available to Members of Parliament and he took the question as notice. On December 9 I asked the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) when this report would be tabled in the House, and I appreciate the fact that the minister is in the House tonight.
Somehow or other the real Mr. Farmer, the practical Mr. Farmer, is supposed to know something. He is supposed to listen only to the educated, to the law professors, to the degreed people. It used to be said by some law professors that all that one required to be a farmer was a strong back and a weak mind, but nowadays to be a successful farmer a fellow needs to have a good head and a sound education to understand the advice handed out to him on all sides by city men and select that which will do him the least damage.
A tremendous responsibility, therefore, rests upon those who have had the privilege of higher education. They must advise on issues where the implications may not be clear. They must guide the people through the complexities of modern technology and explain those complexities. That is partly why I asked the minister my question. I hope he will answer it tonight.
If one looks at the headlines which have appeared across the country this year one will realize why this question concerns the people of Canada and why some of these complexities they are facing are important. One headline reads, "Easier road to retirement." That refers to agriculture. Another reads, "Government may soon control farm output-Olson." That appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. Another headline reads, "Big selling job ahead." The heading over another article reads, "Encourage adjustment of farm units to more efficient sizes." Another article says in part, "The program is aimed at the small farmer who wants to stay in farming, but lacks sufficient acreage to develop a profitable business."
One of the Manitoba pool elevators has said that there is a lack of information regarding the implications of the proposed plan of stabilization. The headline in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, October 25, says, "Lang wants to bring farm act back into House of Commons." Another headline says, "Either way the farmers lose." Still another headline says, "West becoming disillusioned with Liberals, Conservatives." Another headline says, "Sweeping revisions to agricultural policy sought in Ottawa by provincial ministers." Still another headline says, "New management skills suggested for farms."
I come now to something the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said. He said, as reported:
December 28, 1971

Perhaps, to be quite candid with you, when you talk of growing disenchantment I must begin by saying that some of my reading of the west is that it is always disenchanted.
We all agree, I think, that in view of the complexities of the agricultural economy today, explanations should be forthcoming. We should discuss thoroughly with the people concerned the matter I have raised tonight. I ask, why would the west not be disenchanted with the government, when it is realized that the plan we are talking about, the one concerning the rationalization and handling of grain transportation, has been in the hands of the railway companies for over two months? It has been in the hands of the various grain handling companies. They have had the opportunity to look at the plan confidentially. I emphasize that. It has been in the hands of those people but has not been made available to Members of Parliament. If Members of Parliament are to be credible and discharge credibly their duty of considering legislation in this House, this plan should be made available to them so they can discuss it with the people who will be directly affected.	.
The two main steps that are being taken in the agricultural field are branch line rationalization and the step to do with the rationalization of grain handling and transportation. Surely we want to be honest with the people who will be adversely, or possibly beneficially affected by this plan. Surely the government could make this plan available to members of the House. If, perchance, we can get out of this House within the next week or so, each and every one of us representing an agricultural community will be able to go to his constituency, call meetings and explain the plan. We can explain the workings of the plan to the producers who will be affected by it. They will have an opportunity to advise us about it, to discuss it and argue the benefits or otherwise of the plan. I therefore plead with the minister tonight to make this plan available to every Member of Parliament.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) are so smart, and the distortions introduced are so irresponsible that they do not augur well for the role that some hon. members would play in connection with any information being put forward for the good of agriculture.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John Leroy Skoberg: Oh, boy! That is a good start.


Otto Emil Lang: About two years ago we began working on making the existing transportation system work better. We studied the total system so that the facts would be available on the cost of a better system and on the cost of alternatives. We succeeded in making the existing system work better, to the extent that our very great selling efforts which are reaching record proportions each year, and which will set new records this year, are reaching levels which some experts a few months ago felt were impossible to achieve with existing capacity. We think that this is a result of hard work and planning and stems from our interest in looking after the interests of agriculture.
We said all along in our handling and transportation studies that we would try to find the facts, present the facts and leave it to the producers to decide in this matter. We wanted to try to make sure that the producer would be chief beneficiary of any improvements which might be made. In this work we had the tremendous co-operation of the elevator companies, those great co-ops of the Prairies, the other elevator companies and the railways in putting together the facts and figures with which we wanted to work.
We then put the studies as they progressed into the hands of these people to give us back criticisms as part of the further work. We have now put them into the hands of the interested western provinces with the same idea, that we should have meetings, discussions and whatever studies are required so that we will have a more complete picture to present when we have anything to present at all.
We can be sure of one thing. The moment the studies are available to the hon. member who makes these slang remarks, he will either be saying they are incomplete, too complete or three times too complete. My objective has been to simply present the facts and avoid this very kind of conflict. That is why we try to work with the companies and the provinces, to present a balanced picture not only of economic involvement but of all the social problems involved in any changes which might be made. Our object is to avoid conflict and petty politics and to work quietly together for the good of the farmer.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Wednesday. December 29. 1971