1971-12-30

PRIVILEGE


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week during question period, I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) concerning his administration of that section of the Department of Transport which is responsible for protecting the safety of the travelling public, more particularly of those Canadians who travel by air. My questions were put because of information I had received which confirmed my suspicion that antihijack detection devices had not been installed at Canadian airports. The information directly contravened a statement made by the Minister of Transport in this House on November 18. When I asked the Minister of Transport in this House on Tuesday and Wednesday to specify the action he had taken to protect the Canadian public in this regard, he replied on both occasions that the matter could not be dealt with in public.
Now, in a story printed in a Montreal newspaper this morning, the Montreal Gazette, the minister is quoted as telling reporters outside the House yesterday that "an additional 20 or 25 devices have arrived or are on the way". This is another example of the increasing tendency of ministers to refuse to answer legitimate questions in this House, but to make statements outside this House on ^he same day giving the information that was requested in the House.
If Your Honour confirms this breach of privilege I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the matter of this question of privilege in relation to the proper interpretation and to the continuing force and effect of Standing Order 5 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
My reason for this motion is that under the roster system I am denied the right to examine the minister, who is not in the House today, on information he gave outside the House yesterday which was denied in the House and then made public.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has given the Chair due notice of his intention to raise his stated question of privilege and, in the time available to me, very careful consideration has been given to that matter.
It does seem that the hon. gentleman's question may be broken into two parts. In the first instance, the hon. member refers to statements or utterances made outside the chamber. As the Chair stated on December 23 last, a
prima facie question of privilege cannot be founded on a statement outside this chamber. I can find nothing in any authority or practice to support the proposition made in this regard by the hon. member.
Second, the hon. member suggests that when a reply to a question is refused in the House for security reasons it becomes a question of privilege when the same information is given the same day outside the House. That is a very interesting proposition, but I do not think it is founded on any precedent or practice of this House. May I refer the hon. gentleman to sections (3) and (4) of citation 181 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which read as follows:
(3)	A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer in out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
(4)	An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by the minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be replaced on the notice paper. The refusal of a minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege.
The hon. gentleman may have a legitimate grievance, but that is not a matter for the consideration of the Chair. It seems to me that such a grievance can be raised in a number of proceedings or by a number of avenues available to hon. members. In particular, it can be raised during supply proceedings, where the House itself will be in a position to deal with the grievance.
I do not think that privilege proceedings should be used to supplant other recognized and more relevant procedures for the resolving of grievances.



MR. KORCHINSKI-GOVERNMENT ACTION ON NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a question of privilege. The question of privilege which I raise is one of the greatest importance to all members of this House. It involves the contempt of Parliament displayed by the government in respect of the government's action as revealed in the documents published in the Globe and Mail of today's date and which show that the government has taken and proposes to take action with respect to northern development and the native peoples of the north without securing legislative authorization.
I will therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie has also given the Chair the notice required under the provisions

December 30, 1971
Northern Development
of Standing Order 17(2). After giving the matter serious thought, I have to advise the hon. member that I would find it extremely difficult to agree that we have before us a prima facie case of privilege. Successive Speakers have been required to give a definition of parliamentary privilege. In most instances, the Chair has alluded to the definition given by Sir Erskine May which is to be found at page 42 of the 17th Edition of this author's work on parliamentary practice. The learned author states:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.
Parliamentary privilege is also defined as:
The sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law-
The question is whether in the circumstances described there has been a prima facie breach of the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons. I suggest to the hon. member and to the House that essentially the hon. member for Mackenzie is inviting the Chair to determine a question of law in respect of certain administrative actions by the government. I am unable to see how in such circumstances the Chair can be called upon to consider the matter on the basis of breach of parliamentary privilege.
I might add that even if there had been, in the opinion of the Chair, a prima facie case of privilege the hon. member's motion could not have been accepted procedurally because it proposes simply that, and I quote: the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
This, in itself, is an indication that what the hon. member wishes to have considered is the government's administrative actions which could quite properly be considered by the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, while a matter of parliamentary privilege ought to be considered by the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
For these reasons, the Chair is not free to put to the House the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the representatives of the several parties have reached an agreement with regard to the proposed allotment of time for the disposition of the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-176. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the making of the motion has been preceded by consultations with the parties opposite. It is proposed that when motion

No. 1 is before the House again, the government will be moving an amendment to that motion which has been the subject of discussions between the official opposition and the government, and that when the House is considering Motion No. 27 there will also be an amendment submitted by the government which has been the subject of discussions with the New Democratic Party. Also, within this motion, the rights of the Social Credit Party with regard to their wish to participate at certain stages of the debate have been fully protected.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75a, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson):
That when the consideration of 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, is resumed in this day's sitting, the House shall first consider motions (1), (5) and (22), including any amendment to be proposed and, then, to any amendment that may be proposed to clause (18) of the bill, and next to motion numbered 27, and any amendment that may be proposed thereto.
At the expiry of 90 minutes, if required, for the discussion of each of the above item or items stated in paragraph (1) of this motion, every question necessary to conclude consideration of the specified item or items shall be forthwith put and any recorded division, if demanded, shall be deferred.
If the items listed in paragraph (1) are concluded prior to 10 p.m., the House will revert to motion numbered (2) and continue to consider other motions in the sequence listed on the Notice Paper.
That during the further consideration of the report stage of the said bill, no member may speak longer than 10 minutes at any time.
At 10:00 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the said bill.
After the disposal of the report stage of the said bill, the House shall proceed forthwith to the consideration of the third reading and passage stage of the said bill, and shall continue to sit until proceedings thereon have been concluded, and during such proceedings no member may speak longer than 20 minutes at any time.
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention one point, that is that the Minister of Agriculture will be seeking to make an amendment to clause 18 of the bill, the subject of which is well known to members of the House.


Mr. McIntosh:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Standing Order 75A which reads in part:
-there is agreement among the representatives of all parties ... setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
My question of privilege is to obtain from you, Mr. Speaker, a statement on the position of an independent private member in this House. Has he any status at all under this part of our Standing Order?


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. member is somewhat hypothetical. I think that if it were asked by the Speaker, perhaps it might have practical implications. If I must rule on the question asked by the hon. member, which I consider to be hypothetical at this point, my understanding is that the Standing Order has been drafted in such a way that the parties recognized as parties in the House would be the ones which would have to be recognized for the purpose of interpreting Standing Order 75A, B and C. I am not sure whether that is the way the
December 30, 1971

Standing Order should have been drafted, but certainly it is drafted in such a way that the Chair must take into account what must be considered by the House, in accordance with the practice and precedents, to be the recognized parties of the House. I appreciate the difficulty where one, three, five or ten independent members of this House are opposed to the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council. In a way their rights would not be given the same recognition as those of other hon. members who are represented by a representative of the parties as provided by the Standing Order. My answer to the hon. member would be that I have to deal only with the representatives of existing parties as indicated in the Standing Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I now rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do so for the purpose of moving what I call a privileged motion. I move under Standing Order 24, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey):
That Orders of the Day be now read.
I would like to add, "in particular order No. 90", but if that part of my motion takes away from the first part, I will omit it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. After a brief consideration and consultation, my interpretation and understanding of Standing Order 75 are that it directs that the motion be put forthwith. I would think that the motion proposed by the hon. member, being a superseding motion, would have to be moved while there is a matter under debate by the House, and could not be put by way of a point of order. The hon. member himself indicated that he rose on a point of order. According to the precedents, he cannot move a superseding motion on a point of order. Perhaps later on the hon. member might have some other remedy, but at this point I doubt that his motion is acceptable procedurally.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, while I have been an interested spectator for the last few minutes, I have been wondering about one aspect of the motion which the President of the Privy Council has put. I know it is not debatable, and not amendable. I accept that. However, the hon. gentleman did make a very short statement at the beginning, prior to putting the motion, and I am simply seeking guidance with respect to it. I intend to respond very briefly to that statement, and while we are feeling our way I will put it in the hands of the Chair to cogitate whether I am entitled to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members want to allow the hon. member for Peace River to make a statement, there is certainly no objection on the part of the Chair. But again the Standing Order is clear. The Chair must be guided by Standing Order 75A which requires that the motion be put without debate. If hon. members allow the hon. member for Peace River to make a statement, I just wonder how the Chair could legitimately and equitably prevent other hon. members from making statements. However, I am in the hands of the House. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed that the hon. member for Peace River has the unanimous consent of the House to make a statement in response to the statement made by the President of the Privy Council.


Gerald William Baldwin: My comments simply refer to the addenda which the President of the Privy Council produced in regard to the amendment which the Minister of Agriculture was going to move. This was quite correct. I simply want to say that it is our distinct understanding that the minister will attempt to secure, by all means possible, consent to putting before the House the amendment, of which we are aware, but that if he is unsuccessful, if the practices and procedures of the House do not permit this amendment by the Minister of Agriculture, and again I say that we are aware of the contents of it, there will be an undertaking given that at the earliest possible opportunity the government will introduce amending legislation to bring this about. Because we are talking about agreements on which this motion is founded, I did think I was entitled to make this very brief comment.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first may I confirm the statement of the President of the Privy Council that this motion is before us because the representatives of all of the parties have agreed to it. I might add that the consultations, although very lengthy, have been amicable, and indeed now appear to have been fruitful.
However, on closely reading the text of the motion-and perhaps I should raise this as a point of order-I think there is one point on which we had agreed which has not been included. We agreed not only that the debate on motion No. 1 on clause 18 and on motion No. 27 would be limited to 90 minutes, but that if those were cleared and we had remaining time between that time and ten o'clock, that any other motion would be considered for only 90 minutes. Thus, the whole afternoon or evening would not be spent on one of those motions. It is true that the minister showed us the statement at about five minutes to two, but at that time I did not notice the omission. I believe he will agree with me that our agreement would be reflected more accurately if at the end of paragraph 3 these words were added:
-provided that the consideration of any such motion shall not exceed 90 minutes.
While the minister is noting that, I may say that I thought we also understood that we would use Private Members' hour for this purpose today but maybe it was not intended to put that in the actual agreement but rather to deal with it when five o'clock comes. However, I do think that the point I made a moment ago should be included in the motion.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: I just want to confirm, regarding negotiations which have been held this morning, that we have given our agreement concerning the motion introduced a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps by consent we might allow the hon. member for Joliette to speak. This, of course, has to be done by consent because I assume we are now hearing statements under the terms of the Stand-

December 30,1971
Business of the House
ing Order which would allow representatives of parties in opposition to speak in response to a ministerial statement. By consent the hon. member for Joliette; is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interfere with agreements reached this morning by the various parties. However, it was said that all hon. members have been informed by the House leaders of amendments to be introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). But I must say that I am not aware of these amendments for some reason, and if unanimous consent was requested, I should like to know about the amendments before letting the House take an unanimous decision concerning this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member is well taken, of course, and we will meet that very real problem whenever that kind of amendment is proposed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). If at any point unanimous consent is required, of course, any hon. member can object, including the hon. member for Joliette.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I say in reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it is quite agreeable that this change be incorporated at the end of paragraph 3 of the motion as indicated by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, then, would read as follows:
That when the consideration of Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council, is resumed in this day's sitting, the House shall first consider motions (1), (5) and (22), including any amendment to be proposed and, then, to any amendment that may be proposed to clause (18) of the bill, and next to motion numbered (27), and any amendment that may be proposed thereto.
At the expiry of 90 minutes, if required, for the discussion of each of the above item or items stated in paragraph (1) of this motion, every question necessary to conclude consideration of the specified item or items shall be forthwith put and any recorded division, if demanded, shall be deferred.
If the items listed in paragraph 1 above are concluded prior to ten o'clock p.m., the House will revert to motion numbered (2) and continue to consider other motions in the sequence listed on the notice paper, provided that the consideration of any such motion shall not exceed 90 minutes.
That during the further consideration of the report stage of the said bill, no member may speak longer than ten minutes at any time;
At ten o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the said bill.
After the disposal of the report stage of the said bill, the House shall proceed forthwith to the consideration of the third reading and passage stage of the said bill, and shall continue to sit until proceedings thereon have been concluded, and during such proceedings no member may speak longer than 20 minutes at any time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of an important change in the Canadian Dairy Commission's holdback policy on payment to shippers of manufacturing milk and cream. This change will further improve the returns of dairy producers.
There has been some question of the necessity of a higher rate of holdback on over-quota deliveries in a situation where butter production this year will be slightly below Canadian requirements.
The Dairy Commission has consulted closely with dairy producer organizations on this. The consensus is that if the supply management system on which the dairy industry is embarked, and which has been of considerable benefit to producers this year, is to work effectively there has to be some significant charge to discourage excess production when appropriate. However, as a special measure in the circumstances of this year the payment programs will be adjusted to allow producers a margin of deliveries in excess of their quotas before the over-quota rate of holdback is applied.
In provinces under market quotas the holdback is made from market payments to producers, based on their market quotas. This applies at present to Ontario, Quebec and, since December 1, to Prince Edward Island. In these, the adjustment will permit a producer to exceed his market quota ten per cent before the over-quota holdback is applied.


Mr. Horner:: This is just election bait.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Elsewhere, the holdback is made from subsidy payments, based on each producer's subsidy quota.
If all provinces were under market quotas, the national total of the subsidy quotas would be about 70 per cent of the total market quotas. For this reason, there will be a larger allowance for over-quota deliveries where the holdback is made from subsidy payments. The adjustment will permit producers in provinces not under market sharing quotas to exceed their subsidy quotas by 30 per cent before the over-quota rate of holdback is applied.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do not forget the sheep men. They want their subsidy back.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This arrangement will apply both to manufacturing milk and cream.
I wish to stress that this is a special arrangement for the dairy year ending next March 31; dairy producers should not interpret this as indicating that a similar arrangement will apply next year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This announcement is being made just for the election. The minister should give the sheep men back their subsidy. They will not vote for the government unless he does.


An hon. Member:: This is nothing but election blackmail.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes. This is election blackmail.
December 30, 1971


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I will not go into the question of whether or not the supply-management concept should be applied to agricultural products. It appears that that concept, as operated under the Dairy Commission and under this minister, has not worked out too well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It has been an obvious failure.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The statement the minister made today amplifies the statement that was made about three weeks ago in this regard. I submit that if there is to be a supply-management operation in this country, it ought to come under the Canadian Dairy Commission and, as well, under the control of the Canadian dairy producer. It seems to me that much more work must be done in finding markets and the Canadian Dairy Commission ought to explore export markets for dairy products produced in this country.
I know that a great deal of money was deducted from the payments for surplus milk in order that producers could gain the markets that we now enjoy. We acquired those markets by using the producers' own money. At the same time, however, we told them to cut back production. Now we have the markets but we do not have enough product to fill the demand in those markets, and consequently the dairy producers of this country have been losing millions and millions of dollars.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let no more small farmers be driven out of business before the election.


Robert Elgin McKinley: May I also say that our Canadian cheese is selling well. Nevertheless, for a considerable period of time the cheese factories have encountered great difficulties. I know that factories in Ontario, and factories in other provinces as well, are having a difficult time filling the demand for cheese. This has meant losses to farmers. They could have earned extra money from exports. These difficulties, of course, have affected the smaller cheese factories which could not keep up their levels of production.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government wants to take them out of production.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I see that you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. I am not supposed to speak for a longer time than the minister spoke. Sometimes I think he makes his statements brief so that we must be brief. I suppose he has done so to protect himself, ever since Your Honour's ruling on this matter.
The milk processing plants have been facing difficult times because of the shortage of milk. The markets are there for us, but now we are short of butter. We are away behind in our efforts to meet the demand. I say to the minister that his announcement allowing producers to raise their production levels before over-quota holdbacks are applied has come too late. He should not have waited until an election is almost upon us before making it. That is not the way the people of his department should operate. They should operate in a way that will be of benefit to all producers and make sure that farmers in Canada get 24725-58
Manufacturing Milk and Cream Policy
as much money for their agricultural products as possible at all times.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we would have appreciated it if, in the statement, there had been an indication of how great the reduction in the holdback is to be. It is generally well known, I presume, that the holdback can run as high as $2.40 per hundred pounds for over-quota deliveries. This has been a serious factor in the expansion of the manufacturing milk industry. Of course, the minister's statement raises two questions. Has the holdback been too high, and is the purpose of the holdback to restrict the amount of manufacturing milk produced? This restriction has been made effective in two ways. First, that has been done by imposing a holdback of $2.40 per hundredweight and, secondly, by eliminating a large number of very small farmers in the country. That is how the supply-management concept has been operated. It is the type of management that will become available under the piece of legislation that we will be discussing later today. All this raises a problem. We must ask whether there is a close enough relationship between levels of production and the needs of the market on a national basis.
For instance, a shortage of milk has developed in Canada. So great is that shortage that we are paying to the United States at present 64.5 cents per pound, plus transport charges, for 10 million pounds of butter. There has not been such a shortage in Canada for many, many years. The shortage is evidence, of course, of the fact that the supply-management program has worked. However, it has worked at considerable cost to the Canadian dairy industry, both through the loss of small farmers and the $2.40 holdback which has been imposed. This has meant that in the area you represent, Mr. Speaker, and in other areas of eastern Canada, a number of cheese factories have had to close as well as other outlets that handle the surplus production of the Canadian dairy industry.
I suggest that the Dairy Commission should assess the present domestic and export markets for dairy products and assess, as well, what the long term needs of both domestic and export markets will be. It seems to me that, as a Christmas present to the country, the minister could, through the Dairy Commission, have allowed a number of young farmers, under suitable conditions and regulations, to make their contribution to the market at this time. It seems to me that the minister had an opportunity for allowing the small farmers to get back into the business. I am pleased to say that the Canadian Dairy Commission has given consideration to this aspect of the business in a pronouncement that it made recently. I suggest that the farmers are waiting to see how much the reduction holdback will be. We, too, will await that announcement with considerable interest.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment very briefly on the statement the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has just made to the House.
We are advised that quotas will be changed by 10 per cent during the winter months, that is, during the season

December 30, 1971
Manufacturing Milk and Cream Policy
when production is at its lowest point. Still, I am pleased that some producers will benefit from it, although it will certainly not be the greatest number. The minister indicates it will be. He has, I am sure, data that I do not have at the present time. If such is the case, I am very happy that it was decided to do something to allow an increase in that production.
I hope that some day-that is the wish that I make-the Canadian Dairy Commission can somehow act as a thermostat in a house. In a house, a good thermostat works automatically. When it works well, it can maintain the temperature that corresponds to the needs of the household. It is automatic. It must be set properly.
I hope that the Canadian Dairy Commission will one day adjust itself to the situation in order to allow an increase in the winter production, so that the dairy industry may operate year round and not only according to the needs of the market. In this connection, I disagree with the Minister of Agriculture, because I always conceive production in terms of consumption needs. However, since consumption is dependent on purchasing power, it happens at a given time, especially in 1971, that the whole purchasing power of the people and families is considerably decreased and the demand is then lower.
I therefore suggest that we should be ready just the same to maintain a powerful dairy industry which will be in a position not only to satisfy the needs of our domestic market, but also those of the international market.
That is why it will be necessary to hasten to apply a policy which will encourage dairy producers to maintain an organization and, at the same time, to follow closely the data made available to the producers concerned, in order to be able to maintain their operations at the required level.
I am hopeful that, following the establishment of the guaranteed minimum annual income, purchasing power will be in line with the needs of the people and, at that time, the dairy industry will be able to develop, and the family farms that have been ill-treated, at least those that will remain, will be able to continue to survive and also to develop.



INFORMATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. Because of the time of the year, and the spirit of co-operation which is being shown today, I believe my motion will commend itself to hon. members, particularly as it is couched in the most amiable and uncontroversial terms.
The urgent and pressing necessity for this motion to be moved is related to the disclosure in the Globe and Mail today that so-called confidential cabinet documents have been revealed. The large number of these leaks and the variety of subjects covered brings into question the need to have legislation defining and clarifying the duty of the

government to provide Canadians with information concerning the conduct of public business.
If consent is given-as I assume it will be-I would therefore move:
That the government, at the beginning of the next session, shall introduce legislation regarding freedom of information for the people of Canada, either in the manner set out in Bill C-250 or in such similar form as may be appropriate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



TABLING OF REPORT ON IMPORTATION OF SWEATERS, CARDIGANS AND PULLOVERS

Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to lay on the table of the House, in both official languages, a report on an inquiry respecting sweaters, cardigans and pullovers.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, and likewise taking into account the publication today of some government documents relating to northern development policy, and living in the same hope as was the hon. member for Peace River, that my motion, being a generous and friendly one, may be accepted by the government, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House commends the government and in particular the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for making available to the public cabinet documents relating to northern development policy and expresses the hope that other cabinet ministers will see the merit and wisdom of such a course of action and thus contribute to a curtailment of unnecessary government secrecy about matters so obviously of value and interest to Canada and its people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have serious doubts as to the propriety of the motion from a procedural point of view, but rather than spend the rest of the day on a procedural debate as to whether the motion should be accepted by the Chair or not, and without ruling whether it is acceptable or not, I will ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
December 30L 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The question cannot be put.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, one which is of interest to all members of the House.
The Chairman of the Public Service Commission is presently being used willingly as a tool of those in government who seek to subvert the merit system in the service and institute in its place hiring practices based on race, language-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows there have been a number of rulings that Standing Order 43 cannot be used for the purpose of making allegations which, by virtue of the nature of the Standing Order, cannot be answered. The hon. member can indicate why there is urgency, why we should dispense with the notice requirement imposed in the usual course by our Standing Orders, and then state the terms of his proposed motion. He cannot argue, or make allegations or accusations.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I am only giving reasons for the motion, as has been done before.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to debate with the hon. member, but he will appreciate that the Chair is placed in a very difficult position. I have suggested on other occasions to hon. members that Standing Order 43 should be used only in special circumstances. Standing Order 43 is there for the exclusive purpose of putting into the hands of individual members of the House an instrument whereby they can dispense with the 48-hour notice period which is ordinarily imposed on the government and others for the protection of the House and of all hon. members. When hon. members think that this protection should not be available in special circumstances, the motion can be put. But the Standing Order should not be used as a vehicle to argue a case, to make submissions or to make allegations which, because of the very nature of the Standing Order, remain on the record and to which no opportunity for a reply is provided.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My remarks will be explanatory, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the motion itself. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission has in many cases played outright favouritism.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: He has brought the high office of Chairman of the Public Service Commission under a cloud-
Public Service


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Selkirk rises on a point of order.


Mr. Rowland:: I rise on a point of order to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. Is any protection afforded by this House to a public servant against unprincipled attacks upon him to which he has no right of reply?


Mr. Speaker:: That is obviously the point the Chair was making a moment ago. I really do not know how we can deal with a situation such as this when an individual from either side of the House, or from any party, seeks to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which contains allegations and accusations against, for example, another hon. member, or a member of the government, or against a civil servant high or low. The motion being under Standing Order 43, there is no possibility of anyone replying. I suppose there is always another side to any story or proposition. I think there is obviously something wrong from a parliamentary standpoint when an hon. member standing in his place makes an accusation which cannot be debated or considered under the terms of the Standing Order. I really have very serious doubts as to whether that can be done.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am coming to my motion, Mr. Speaker. I expect it will be debated very soon. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Code):
That this House do press the government to take steps to remove Mr. John Carson from office as chairman of the Public Service Commission, and to appoint in his place a chairman who will carry out his duties in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the motion proposed by the hon. member is a very good indication that the terms of Standing Order 43 should be looked at very closely by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That committee is comprised of representatives of all parties. It contains very senior members. It is interested in consideration of matters which are important, such as televising our procedure, but, in my view, there are other matters which are even more important such as Standing Order 43. I invite the committee to look at the operation of that Standing Order if it is going to be used in the way it is being used at this time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bell:: I rise on a point of order. May I ask that when this investigation of Standing Order 43 is conducted Your Honour consider the fact that it is now used prevalently because of the absence of ministers under the roster system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that the committee will consider all aspects, including the representation made by the hon. member.
10852

December 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Hees:: There are no ministers over here yet, but just wait a few months.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not appreciate the Whip of the loyal opposition accusing ministers of not being in the House when they have been in the House quite frequently lately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: While the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party are on holidays, we are dealing with the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has the floor. We have reached the period of oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to demonstrate that the opposition will ask adequate questions. Hopefully, we will receive adequate replies. My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister able to give any better assurance than he has in the past that the investigations into the source and manner of cabinet leaks has reached the point where he can undertake that there will be no further leaks?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit the future conduct of any individual. I can re-assert that the government is making an investigation into each one of these leaks. I asked every one of my ministers to look carefully in their department. I told the House last week that with the tons of documents circulating in the government service which are available to so many people, as long as there are crooks and people who condone crooks, this kind of thing will be happening. I do not think the opposition should be complaining.



LEAKING OF CABINET DOCUMENTS-LEGISLATION TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In order that we may have some assurance that something will be done to bring an end to these leaks, is the minister prepared to give an undertaking to the House that at the beginning of the next session he will introduce legislation with regard to freedom of information, a matter which he strongly advocated outside the House?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: There will be a lot of priorities for House time next session, Mr. Speaker.



LEAKING OF CABINET DOCUMENTS-POSSIBLE CLAIM FOR COPYRIGHT

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister seek advice from his colleagues with regard to the Copyright Act so that the government would be prepared to file a claim for copyright against the Globe and Mail when they publish these government documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this would not only be a legal matter, but it would involve a much broader question of social impact. I think the government would have to consider not only the legal aspect of it, but all the other aspects.



CABINET COMMITTEE REPORT ON NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-REASON FOR FAILURE TO PUBLISH

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister say what reason there can be for failing to publish as a white paper or table in the House the cabinet committee report on a policy for northern development in the next decade, so that the public and this Parliament can know and discuss this important policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the public and the opposition want to take cognizance of everything the government is doing when it is establishing goals and so on, we think this would be a very welcome step. You just have to listen to speeches of ministers, statements made by the ministry and the policies we adopt to realize what our general goals are and what objectives this government is trying to pursue. All the time there are documents within cabinet to establish, generally speaking, the goals and objectives of this government. We do not publish all of them. We publish the policy positions and the programs which flow from these objectives. We do have guidelines, and we hope the opposition also have some.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister the reason for keeping secret this particular document which is of such great importance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no reason, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, this particular document and probably dozens and dozens of other documents are of very great interest. I hope some way will be found to make them known to the Canadian public so that they will know.


An hon. Member:: Isn't that lovely?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, isn't that lovely. I am glad I have the support of the lovely member over there.



LEAKING OF CABINET DOCUMENTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Since there have been no less than six leaks in the past six weeks, and since it appears the government has got nowhere in its investigation, I ask the Prime Minister whether the RCMP is investigating this
December 30, 1971

very serious matter or is the Prime Minister simply allowing each department to investigate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the traditional way in dealing with this has been followed by the government, that is asking each minister to ensure that there be a complete departmental investigation before calling in the police.


George Harris Hees: As six weeks appears to be a more than adequate time to reach a solution of this matter, will the government now consider putting the RCMP in charge of this investigation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider that, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for wanting me to put the police on those who publish leaks.



LEAKING OF CABINET DOCUMENTS-POSSIBILITY OF MAKING GEORGE BAIN A MEMBER OF PRIVY COUNCIL

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is considering making Mr. George Bain a member of the Privy Council so he will be sworn to secrecy before he discloses all the rest of the documents he seems to have, or does the government prefer it the way it is?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Was the July 29 policy framework based on any formal and specific consultation with the territorial governments and the native people of the north, and if not, are talks now going to be held to formulate with them a framework for northern development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister principally responsible, as well as various other ministers, are in consultation with the responsible authorities in the north when they have any aspects of policy or programs to implement. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is, of course, in constant communication with the authorities in the territorial governments.



CABINET COMMITTEE REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT POLICY-POSSIBLE CHANGES

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not the cabinet decision made last June on the policy for northern development is still government policy or whether the government has revoked it in the meantime.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
quite sure what policy the member is referring to, Mr. Speaker.


Randolph Harding: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the disclosure in the newspapers, specifically the Globe and Mail, of a northern policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to read that paper to be able to answer the member completely, but my understanding and the explanation I received is that it was not a cabinet decision but a memorandum which was reproduced in part in that paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have supple-mentaries to this question and we will return to this in a moment. In the meantime, however, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Hundreds of Quebec farmers and producers came to Ottawa last week and made representations to the minister regarding the price spread for feed grain between eastern and western Canada. Could the minister tell us if after such representations he will very soon make a statement in the House in that respect?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally agreed that the existence of low or distress prices for feed grains in the Prairie provinces is an undesirable thing for many reasons, including the interests of the Prairie grain producers as well as of meat producers all across this country. It is our hope to find solutions to this problem, not by spreading the distress prices further but by trying to eliminate them wherever they exist.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Does the hon. minister mean that he is in favour of having a difference between feed prices for consumption in the west and feed prices for consumption in the east?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what I was indicating was that the problem of too low a price for feed grains in the west was a matter of real concern. There has been some recent improvement with the record sales of barley and wheat which have bolstered the prices in the Prairies. This has eased, to some extent, the immediate problem. We feel we should look at the problem, however, more broadly. Some of the solutions lie in the hands of the provinces which have jurisdiction over producer to producer sales in the

December 30^1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
provinces, and it will be my hope to have consultations with these governments in an effort to find a solution.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Selkirk has a supplementary to the previous question.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has given consideration to creating, at the next session of Parliament, a parliamentary committee of inquiry into the whole question of the secrecy of government documents, modelled on the committee which was established to look into statutory instruments and which produced such good results.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether such a committee of inquiry will be necessary. The principles involved are very simple. Some operations must be conducted in secret if the government is to receive the best possible advice. This is inevitable. There are other subjects which can be made known to the public. As I was saying to the hon. member for Greenwood, there are some memoranda, when they have passed cabinet and been approved, which could very well be made known to the Canadian public, the publication of which would be in their interest as well as the interest of the government.
But what is lacking in the government is not a desire to make a lot of this material public, it is the time required and the ministerial time required to go through this very voluminous material and decide what should be made public and when. I am very hopeful the day will come when Information Canada will be publishing a lot of the very good work which is going on in the government.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, who has always had a good attendance record, and not just lately. May I ask the minister, in connection with the apparent departure of the convicted murderer Yves Geoffroy, who was released from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary to get married, if the minister or his officials or the National Parole Board have had any consultations on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the question. It is I believe the same question as one asked yesterday by the hon. member for Joliette, although I might say the name sounded a bit different when mentioned by the hon. member for Joliette. The question will be allowed, and if the hon. member for Joliette has a supplementary he may ask it later.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Geoffroy's wedding was authorized according to regulations of the Penitentiary Service, after consultations with prison authorities, social workers and the institution's chaplain who recommended that permission be granted.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he was aware that the best man at the wedding was Raymond Denis, an old friend of the government?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, I was not at all, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe any conclusions can be drawn therefrom.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Prime Minister. With regard to the commission of inquiry headed by Dr. Barber relating to Indian lands, monies and the like, may I ask whether it is the government's intention to enlarge the scope of that inquiry so that the general classification of aboriginal or hereditary rights of the Indians might be a subject matter included in the terms of reference of the commission.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions between Dr. Barber and the ministry on this. The response generally has been, subject to confirmation by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that the terms of reference as set down in the order in council would not be changed but that Dr. Barber was at liberty to interpret them in the way he wanted in receiving representations from the various Indian groups.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would indicate whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has been the gentleman dealing with this matter, could make a statement publicly or to the House, depending on whether the House is sitting at that time, outlining the reaction of the native people toward Dr. Barber's commission, whether there have been any groups which have appeared before him to make claims or whether in fact there has been a commission with no sort of activity because of the terms of reference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly refer the question to the minister and see if there is any statement he can usefully make at this time.
December 30, 1971



HOUSING


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since federal government policy has greatly contributed to stimulating the economy of the building industry in Canada in 1971 and since statistics reveal that the year has been a record one, could the hon. minister indicate in the House whether he foresees a still better year for 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion or make a statement, which should normally be done on motions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he has any information to give to the House on the specifics of the program for the consolidation of small farms as outlined in his small farms policy announced a few days ago.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The general outline of that program was made available to hon. members several months ago. There may be some amendments or modifications following agreements with the provinces with respect to the administration of the program. I will be having a further meeting with the ministers of agriculture in January when, hopefully, we will have a draft agreement or perhaps even a signed agreement on the division of administrative responsibility. But in so far as the manner in which the program will be applied to individual farmers is concerned, that is pretty well outlined in the document which the hon. member has.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Was not the word "adjustment" changed to "development"?


Jack Burnett Murta: Because of the limitations of the small farms policy as broadly outlined by the minister, that is regarding the size of the farms involved in the plan, will the plan for consolidation be directly aimed at Quebec and Maritime farms in the initial phases of the plan?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker; there are small farms in all parts of Canada and those farmers will all have equal access to the program.



PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL FARMERS-METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention to proceed with the legislation to implement the small farms
Inquiries of the Ministry
development program or will the program be undertaken through the existing framework of the policies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The initial stages will be undertaken under the authority that we already have from Parliament through the passage of the estimates for both this year and last year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Six weeks ago today the Prime Minister indicated that within a week or ten days there would be some announcement concerning the publication of the government's policy with respect to foreign investment, the publication of the full Gray report plus other supporting studies. Since we have had no word in the meantime as to when we might expect these important documents and policy positions, I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate whether it is now the plan of the government to publish these matters while Parliament is recessed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have dealt with this question a few times since my statement six weeks ago. I did indicate the technical difficulty which prevented the material from being ready, and I indicated that most likely it would be ready toward the middle of January. As to the question whether it should be made public at that time or whether we should wait until Parliament reconvenes, we have not given complete consideration to it but I would be thankful for the views of the hon. member on that.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will we see it in the Globe and Mail first?



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-EXAMINATION OF POLICY BY COMMITTEE-CONSULTATION WITH ONTARIO

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that apparently the proposal is to recess Parliament for a considerable length of time, and in view of the importance of this document, has the government given consideration to allowing a committee of the House to sit and examine these documents? Has there been any consultation with the provinces on these matters or will any machinery be established whereby there can be effective provincial consultation, particularly in view of the recent report to the government of Ontario with some very important supporting material?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a very constructive suggestion for which I thank the hon. member. Perhaps if the government finds it advisable to publish these documents before the House reconvenes we may arrange to have a group of ministers present at the press conference to be informed of the announcements we will want to make. As to the second part of the question, there has been of course consultation with the provinces, not the least of which was the last federal-provincial meeting of first ministers when the provinces had every oppor-

December 30^J._971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tunity to state their policies on foreign investment in Canada, as well as all opposition parties.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate the fact that we are running short of time. Perhaps if he has a supplementary question which can be answered briefly he could be recognized for that purpose, but we will have to try to move along more quickly.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the purpose of clarification. The Prime Minister used the word "ministers". I presume he meant members. In order for them to be present in a formal sense to examine these documents, before the House adjourns this week there will have to be some reference establishing the right of the committee to sit and examine the documents. I wonder if that can be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is correct. I did say "ministers" when I meant members. The authority which the hon. member requests is one which I do not think the government can give or deny. These documents will be made public and everyone, including the Globe and Mail, will have the authority to look at them.



FARM PRODUCTS-IMPOSITION OF SURCHARGE BY EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-REQUEST FOR STUDY OF IMPACT

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of a report from Brussels to the effect that farm products outside the European Economic Community countries will be subject to an import surtax as a result of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, would the minister advise the House whether or not Canadian farm products will be subject to this surtax?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I read these articles only this morning but I would suppose that Canadian agricultural products entering the EEC will be subject to the same levies as farm products entering from anywhere else in the world.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the minister undertake to make a study and estimate the impact of this surtax upon the Canadian agricultural industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That has already been started.



REGULATIONS TO PROTECT FARMERS WITH CROP STILL IN SWATH AGAINST POSSIBLE LOSS OF QUOTAS

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, on December 7 I asked the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board the following question:

Because of the amount of crop still out in swath in western Canada and particularly in Manitoba, and as this grain will not be combined until spring, and because under the new quota system these farmers will not be able to take advantage of the earlier specified delivery dates, does the government intend to introduce regulations so these farmers will be protected against possible loss of quota under these circumstances?
The minister said he would take the question as notice and report to the House later.


Otto Emil Lang: And I did so.
.



CANCER RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GRANTS

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I would like to ask the
Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the federal government's policy is to provide grants for cancer research to the National Cancer Institute or only to individual researchers for specific projects?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: We are endeavouring to move toward the objective of giving grants for specific projects. However, in relation to the National Cancer Institute-this gives me an opportunity to answer the question also put by the hon. member for Oxford yesterday-my department has granted $250,000 to that institute.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My question is for the Minister of Labour and it is one of which I have given him some form of notice. It has to do with reports or charges that UIC officers in Halifax are leaving their phones off the hook. I wonder if he might correct that.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. It is quite obvious that if any employee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission anywhere in Canada is leaving the phone off the hook intentionally, he will soon be amongst the unemployed. Because of the hon. gentleman's interest in the subject-1 have asked Bell Telephone to ascertain, through a survey over the weekend or early next week, whether or not we have a sufficient number of telephones in the Halifax office. If more are needed, we shall supply them.



MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS-IMPORTATION OF NEW TREATMENT FROM RUSSIA

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National
December 30, 1971

Health and Welfare. Is his department making any arrangements to import a new treatment for multiple sclerosis from Russia? I may say my understanding is that it has been used extensively in western Europe.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take notice of that question and report to the hon. member later.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT- DATE OF PUBLICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some 1,300 men are now working on the James Bay project and contracts are being issued monthly, will the Prime Minister inform the House when the environmental study on the impact of this project, which affects Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, will be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that both governments are discussing the date of release now, and it is likely to be before the middle of January.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the report issued by the Ontario government that in 1971 36 companies shut down or curtailed operations in Ontario costing 4,341 workers their jobs, would the minister inform the House whether his department has made any studies which would establish whether or not those lost jobs in Ontario were directly or indirectly linked to industrial incentive grants given to industries in designated regions?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, each time an application is made to the department, this aspect is taken into consideration so that we make no grant if we believe that this would result in a loss of jobs in another province.


William Arnold Peters: As a supplementary question, would the minister tell the House what is the basis of his contention that jobs created under this program are not affecting jobs elsewhere?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that questions such as this are very wide in scope and normally would be answered by way of general statements on motions.
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE REPAYMENT OF GRANTS BY INDUSTRIES IN WHICH LAY-OFFS OCCUR

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minster of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the government making any attempt to retrieve funds paid out under the regional industrial incentives program to firms that subsequently had substantial lay-offs, and is this matter being reviewed, as I understand that about $1.5 million was paid to firms that subsequently had lay-offs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is to recover grants that have been made and not used for the purpose of creating jobs.
I know that we were slow in doing this in a few cases, because there was some hope that the business would start operating again. The government's policy is to do what the hon. member suggests.



THE MINISTRY


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Since at the end of every year they speak about a cabinet reshuffle, would the Prime Minister consider the appointment of a minister of state for eastern Canada within the Department of Agriculture?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having suggested that we should have an even greater number of ministers and I will consider that suggestion as an urgent matter.



GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR INDUSTRIES SEEKING PROTECTION FROM FOREIGN IMPORTS

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. It is based on the rather interesting document that was tabled today. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if the government has accepted the recommendation made in this document, and is it now government policy that when an industry seeks redress for cheaper imports from foreign countries the government will not grant such redress if in its opinion an alternative method of manufacturing can be economically employed?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of whether serious injury is found or not, and in this instance the investigation showed there was no serious injury. As a result of that, the government does not

December 3U 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
intend to take action except to rescind restraint agreements that were drawn up previously.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister now ascertained from the CBC if it intends to consolidate its activities in one place in metropolitan Toronto, and if it intends to rent the proposed transmission tower and other facilities in Metro Centre?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the CBC has made representations to the government, and particularly to the Treasury Board, regarding developments of this type. I have no detail on this but as soon as final decisions will be taken I shall be pleased to inform the hon. member.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, because of the magnitude of these decisions I take it that the approval or disapproval or qualified approval of the government would have to be sought. I would therefore ask the minister if he has signed such approval or qualified approval now, or if he intends to do so shortly?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to the hon. member that the matter was being considered by the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to ask him whether the Canadian government has sent or will send a protest to Russia over a nuclear test which registered over six points on the Richter scale, similar to protests that it sent to the United States regarding the Amchitka test? Further, in order to prevent my rising to ask a supplementary, may I ask him whether any protests have been received by the Canadian government concerning the Russian test?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has expressed its views very strongly to the Soviet government through ordinary ambassadorial channels, and when Mr. Kosygin was here we also expressed our views strongly. We have made formal protests to the United States about a particular test that was to take place on our doorstep. We also expressed our views for the first time to the Chinese government, after establishing relations with that government. We would have to consider whether it

would be useful to protest again to the Soviet Union, since the Russians are familiar with our views.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It refers to Bill C-256. Has he received any suggestions from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to the effect that they would like to help him redraft the bill and, if he has, will he assure the House that any redrafting will only be done by members of the public service and not by members of the Chamber of Commerce?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The answer to both questions is yes, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
A press release informs us that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has awarded a $1,165,000 grant to a company from Saint-Georges-de-Beauce in order that it may settle in Montmagny, and I wish to thank the minister for that. However, may I ask him when this company will be able to start operating in Montmagny?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe such a question should normally be put on the order paper, but if the minister wants to give a short answer, I will recognize him for that purpose.


Jean Marchand: I believe they may start operations in a few months, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the House whether the government is considering negotiations with the provinces to see whether there can be any arrangement made with respect to some mutual tax credit as a result of the capital gains tax and the extension by a number of the provinces into the succession duties field, or is Canada definitely to have an extra tax with the capital gains tax?
December 30^1971


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the capital gains tax is a new tax. Secondly, the federal government has moved out of the death duty field, and the provinces had to enact legislation to get the amount of money they were getting previously if they still wished to have such a tax. That is the kind of legislation I understand the provinces are bringing forward. So, there will be an over-all reduction in death duties if they just raise the amount of moneys they received previously, because the federal government will not be raising the 25 per cent it received previously.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, does the minister now say that the provinces will be raising their succession duty levies or extending into that field in order to maintain the same level of revenues, notwithstanding the fact that they will get their share of the capital gains tax under provincial-dominion agreements now in existence?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is basically a provincial matter. We moved out of the death duties field. Many of the provinces have moved into it. It is simply a provincial matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That appears to be a matter of debate between the minister and the hon. member. We have a few minutes left before the end of the question period and we should try to move on.



AGRICULTURE


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One short question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In trying to establish the goals of that department, and one realizes that the Government has received about $12 million from the tariff on woollen goods entering Canada, is the minister prepared to assist the sheep industry with some of the money received by the government from the tariff on wools because the industry is going through a very difficult period?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, assistance has been given to the sheep producers in Canada for the last ten or 15 years, and I am most anxious that they maximize their returns from the production of lamb because there is a greater market for that, which I am convinced is not being exploited in the producers' interest at the moment. We are taking active steps to improve the situation in that direction now.


Some hon. Members:: Baa, baa!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question. The minister suggested that they are taking steps to improve the situation by creating a greater demand for lamb. Does he mean that they are going to come out with a subsidy for the sale of lamb?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that is debate again.



HONOURS AND AWARDS


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will agree with me that the passage of time has made it a question of urgency. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the matter of honours awarded by the nation in recognition of heroic acts performed by its people, and specifically to impending awards for bravery to be made to men of Her Majesty's Canadian ship Kootenay, many of whom died performing their duty saving their ship and shipmates from even greater disaster. Could the Prime Minister tell us when these awards will be made or if not, would he use his influence to speed them up as they are now more than two years overdue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the urgency of some action in this matter but I would inform the House that we are trying to deal with the subject in an over-all way by integrating these bravery awards with other awards which are attributed in Canada. This matter has been under consideration by the government for some time, and I hope we will be able to take action in all these regards very early in the new year.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is for the Solicitor General and refers to a question I asked on December 17 regarding an incident at Williams Lake, B.C. and the death of an Indian. Has the minister completed an investigation and, if so, when can we expect a statement from him? In particular, I should like to know whether the officer in question was on duty or not?
[Translation]'


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have received another report from the RCMP Commissioner and I must discuss it with him before taking a decision about the policy to be followed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any reaction, officially or otherwise, from municipalities as a

December 30,1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
result of the suggestion or proposition advanced on December 20 in this House that municipalities serve, in effect, as credit agencies when UIC payments are delayed?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As I mentioned in the House, Mr. Speaker, commencing on January 1, and in conformity with the new Unemployment Insurance Act, in cases of hardship resulting not necessarily from delay of unemployment insurance payments but even resulting from the legitimate four week period, an unemployed person can assign the rights to that unemployment insurance cheque to a local welfare agency and receive assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. Perhaps we might try to have a few more questions before calling orders of the day. Hon. members will appreciate that even the business before us comes under a time allocation order of the House. Before we call orders of the day, we can have a few more questions without supplementaries.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-DECISION ON PROGRAM FOR COMING YEAR

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. Could the hon. gentleman indicate, before the House rises for the long recess, whether the government has yet taken a position or made a decision on the Opportunities for Youth program for the coming spring and summer?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I had stated that the government decisions would be taken soon enough to make an announcement at the latest on January 15. I am pleased to say to the hon. member that the program will be announced on or before January 15.



PENSIONS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the over 200,000 unemployed under the age of 25, is the government considering legislation to facilitate voluntary early retirement for Canadian wage and salary earners through a contributory plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this whole area of early retirement was broached in the government's white paper on income security as a possible thrust for the future, but the government has nothing specific to announce in that particular area at the present time.



STATISTICS CANADA


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Last Thursday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated that he would study alleged abuses of the function of the Official Languages Act in Statistics Canada. Has this study been undertaken and is a statement on the situation going to be made to the House this week?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the study has been completed and I can report to hon. members that there is no evidence of any discrimination. If the hon. member has more specific instances that he would like to give us we would be very happy to investigate them.



ALLEGED DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACTIONS OF MR. AHEARNE-REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and concerns youth in sport. In view of the dictatorial attitude of Mr. Bunny Ahearne of the International Hockey Federation and the far-reaching control he has, even to children of nine and ten years of age playing minor hockey, and his denial of their free participation in sports, would the minister take the initiative in bringing to the attention of the sports bodies concerned the detrimental effect that Mr. Ahearne's actions are having on our youth with a view to effecting his resignation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, many of the organizations to which the hon. member refers have their own well-known views about Mr. Ahearne and nothing I could say would contribute very much.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My question is supplementary and refers to the whole attitude toward hockey in Canada. I would ask the minister if he would try to sharpen his skates, take up his hockey stick, and do a little stick-handling so that we can get out of the international penalty box in time for the 1976 Olympics?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any techniques to handle Mr. Ahearne, I would be pleased to listen to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period but by consent perhaps the hon. member for Assiniboia might ask a question, and then the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
December 30LJ.971



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REPORT OF COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT-ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. William Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. If the minister has had the opportunity to study the evaluation report of the Opportunities for Youth program, prepared by the Canadian Council on Social Development, would he consider adopting the recommendation of the report, namely, that working youth be admitted to the program next year?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I only had enough time to read a press account of that report, but I am anxious to read its entire contents.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in regard to his responsibility for the local initiatives program. Did the minister mean what he said in a letter when he stated that he wanted to co-operate with all members and keep them informed of the progress of those projects? Did he mean what he said in that letter which I have received?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is hardly in order when asked in those terms.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of my House leader, I would ask the government House leader if he could give us the business of the House for tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow-after midnight-Bill C-176.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 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
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1, 5 and 22 (Mr. Horner).
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1, moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It reads:
That 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, be amended by deleting from subclause (c) of Clause 2 all the words after the word 'agriculture' at line 14, page 1.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the motion that was adopted earlier today, in which there was an indication that there might be a further amendment to Motion No. 1, I now propose to move such an amendment to Motion No. 1, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), in order to make crystal clear, if I may borrow a phrase frequently used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that no agency will be established under this bill until a majority of producers want such agency for a particular product.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment has circulated underground for a day or two and is now surfacing in the form in which I will propose it. There were consultations between the hon. member for Crowfoot and hon. members on this side of the House, and especially the chairman of the agriculture committee, and it was basically from this inter-party consultation that this amendment was developed. So with that important and considerable parentage, it ought to have free sailing in the House. I will read the amendment, which is as follows:
That Motion No. 1 of Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. McIntosh, be amended by striking therefrom all the words following the word 'deleting' and substituting therefor the following:
'subclause (c) of clause 2 and substituting therefor the following:
'(c) 'farm product' for the purpose of Part I, means any natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product and, for the purpose of the other provisions of this Act, means
(i)	eggs, and poultry, and any part of any such product, and
(ii)	any other natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product in respect of which the Governor in Council is satisfied, as a result of declarations by provincial governments following plebiscites, or otherwise, that the majority of the producers thereof in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency under section 17 with powers relating to that product:
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that there are several distinct parts to the amendment. The first part simply says that every farm product is a natural product of agriculture, or any part thereof, for the purposes of Part I of the bill. You know that Part I of the bill is that part outlining the function of the marketing council, and it runs through from clauses 3 to 16. This bill will provide the opportunity for the council to examine the merits of establishing an agency for any farm product and to conduct research or hold hearings for that purpose. This ensures that what was in the bill will not be removed, which would have been the effect if the motion, as originally drafted, had been approved.
The next distinct part of the amendment sets out the meaning of farm product for the remaining clauses of the bill. Paragraph (i) deals with eggs and poultry products and other such products, without the qualifications we find in paragraph (ii). Paragraph (ii) deals with other natural products of agriculture, with a significant qualifi-

December 30,1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
cation. That qualification provides that such other products of agriculture do not come under those other provisions of the bill unless the governor in council is satisfied that the majority of producers want an agency.
The amendment indicates how the governor in council is to determine the will of the majority. This must be done through provincial declarations following plebiscites, or otherwise. Finally, it should be pointed out that this requirement was not attached to eggs and poultry products because we have been advised by a number of provincial ministers of agriculture and, directly, by poultry producers that they want an agency. That is to say, agreement has been reached, I understand, with the egg producers, formal meetings having been held over a period of months to this end.
I so move that amendment, Mr. Speaker, to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot. I hope that there will be a measure of agreement in the House, because the amendment is the result of considerable discussion and effort in finding a consensus on this particular part of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I ought to put tlfe motion to the House. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen), seconded by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), moves-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, strange things happen underground and I cannot help reflecting on the last two years of work on this bill. I well remember February 25, 1971, when I pleaded with the members of the agricultural committee to change clause 2 and to make it applicable to the poultry industry only. I solemnly promised that I would assist the committee and the minister to get the bill through the House and, in the following week, to get the bill through the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) at that time said, "No, I want clause 2 to include vegetables." I said, "What vegetables?" He said, "Potatoes". I said, "That is strange; so far as I am aware no potato producers have come before the agricultural committee to argue the case for supply management regarding that industry." To convince the committee that I was in a conciliatory mood on February 25, I said that I would be prepared to have included in clause 2 of the bill the poultry industry and the vegetable industry, and the products thereof. The minister said that no, it was not good enough, because he wanted to include all products.
Today the government has come back to the position of spelling out that, except for eggs and poultry, all other commodities are to be governed by boards set up on a voluntary basis. Why could we not have done that right from the beginning? It is regrettable that originally the government did not treat all products alike.
Why should eggs and poultry be excluded from the general provisions of the bill? Why are the members of
(Mr. MacEachen.]
that industry to have no choice? I claim that the government is interfering with the rights of that industry. Indeed, a commission in Ontario this very day is studying the question whether egg producers in that province want to enter into a supply management scheme. It is trying to determine whether egg producers want quotas, whether in fact they support a marketing bill. Yet this government seeks to override that commission; the national government is saying that eggs need to come under a marketing bill, that the egg producers in Ontario need a marketing bill.
The federal government in this respect is interfering with rights of natural justice. A commission is very much like a court, and a commission is hearing the case of egg producers. Farmers and producers are submitting arguments to that commission at this very time. This government is interfering with a commission in Ontario that, in essence, is constituted like a court.
I am surprised that the NDP members in this House are prepared to go along with this. I suppose they say that these provisions are better than nothing. May I refer to something that was printed in this morning's Globe and Mail. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is reported as saying that his party wants all products to be treated alike, and that is the way it should be. He was referring to the cattle industry, I believe, and the desire of cattlemen to opt out of the provisions of this bill. He said that although he does not like the proposed amendment, his party will go along with it but that they want all products to be treated alike.
He was not being very clear, because this amendment does not treat all products alike. It provides that eggs, poultry and any such products are automatically included. When it comes to the poultry industry, the government knows best. The people who are in difficulty in the poultry industry are the feed manufacturers who have invested large sums of money in various farming families in order to build up big enterprises in egg and broiler production. This bill says, in effect: We know you are in difficulty and we intend to build a great deal of security into your establishments. I say to Your Honour that the Ben Beauregards of this industry will be for ever wealthy after this bill passes. They will be wealthy for as far into the future as I can see, as will their children and their grandchildren, because the government has brought them security. We see the youth of this nation walking the streets and looking for opportunities wherever they may find them. They can go to colleges and universities. They can acquire all the knowledge they please about the poultry industry. But all this will not get them into the industry; to do that they will have to marry a rich widow, or marry into a poultry family. They will need money to get into the industry after this bill has provided for its security.
In British Columbia, if a farmer wants to increase his quota by one dozen extra eggs a week, it costs him $385. Imagine how many years into the future a person would have to sell a dozen eggs a week in order to pay for a quota which cost $385 to secure.
The prices of poultry products to the consumer will rise. Many people have accused me of being motivated during this debate by self-interest. Well, I suppose I should be
December 30,1971

happy if this were the case because the biggest competitor to the beef industry is the poultry industry, and if prices go up in the poultry industry poultry products will be less competitive with beef. As I say, I suppose I should be happy. But I am not happy because as a legislator here I think I should be creating opportunities for the youth of this nation.
The government is proposing to build a feudal system into the poultry industry. The young people of today may be able to clean out the poultry barns for the Ben Beauregards, or be given jobs as truck drivers, hauling the products to market, as long as they bring the trucks back after they have unloaded the rich lord's products.
I hope the producers of the other products listed in the bill in paragraph (ii) do not express themselves in favour of a system of supply management which would create feudal lords in every other area of agriculture. If they do, those who are not born wealthy or who do not marry into a wealthy family will not be able to pay for the quota which alone will enable them to operate successfully. The others will live in a state of serfdom.
Some time ago I was reading Peter Newman's brilliant book "Renegade in Power". The author referred to people who were "well connected" and "well born", and I did not quite understand what he meant. I scratched my head over that one. How does one get to be well born in the country of Canada? The expression came from the old country, and I learned later that Peter Newman comes from the old country. If this bill passes there will be well born people in this country. They will be well born because they will be born into protected, secure empires. I want no part of that in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: People will no longer have an equal chance in the poultry industry if this bill passes. This will be to the shame of every member of the House. Let them live with it. Let the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) live with it. He will not be in politics long. Today, youth may accept the position. They may do so tomorrow, or next year. But in the years to come they will not accept it; they will not accept what this bill is doing.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I was impressed by the flamboyant rhetoric of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). However, I began to wonder while he was speaking whether or not he was speaking against his own amendment. I thought the amendment had been moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot and seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and I cannot understand why he should speak so strongly against what appears to be his own idea. He may have an opportunity to explain this to us later on, because I am sure we are going to hear from him again. And again. And again.
What we are dealing with here is a face-saving device which affects at least three of the parties in the House. The hon. member for Crowfoot and his hon. friends have been able through their efforts to secure the removal of the term "cattle and calves" from the bill and substitute a euphemism known as natural products of agriculture. The hon. member for Crowfoot spoke against supply management, yet there is nothing in the amendment
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
which even mentions supply management. This is but a further example of the technique of setting up a straw man. His argument really had no substance, but it was full of sound and, I also noted, contained a good deal of fury.
The legislation before us is called national farm marketing legislation. I am not so sure that it is. It has all the earmarks of national farm marketing legislation but I suspect that in our compromises, our face-saving, we have severely emasculated the bill. I am concerned about this because the party to which I belong has been four square in favour of national marketing legislation for at least a generation. It is disappointing to us that the bill should come to us in its present form. Incidentally, I do not think the minister himself is too displeased with the decision to remove the term "cattle and calves" from the bill because he represents a cattle constituency. But he and other MPs have been subjected for over a year now to a great deal of static from the poultry industry which wants this bill desperately therefore it is essential that we deal with this legislation with the utmost dispatch.
From the point of view of members of our party, there is a subsequent amendment which establishes the historic trading pattern for an "agency" in the poultry business that contemplates market sharing or a quota system. I, personally, am supporting the bill as I am supporting the amendment before us. I therefore will not speak against the amendment with such force as the mover of that amendment.
I support the bill because I represent a constituency having a large poultry industry. In the past year I have received representations which indicate that the people in that industry desperately need this legislation. They need it because the whole industry cries out for relief from the surpluses created in one region and dumped into other regions in Canada. The defence of that practice was that interprovincial trade barriers were developed by various provinces in order to protect their own poultry industries from out of province threats. Broiler surpluses are not usually caused by the individual farm owner, but by a large integrated operation sponsored in most cases by a wealthy feed company that can afford to lose money on their ultimate product, broilers, in order to make money on feed. They do this through a kind of contractual operation in which the farm owner is really the serf of the feed company. He, his wife and children work to produce this product at times for 10 cents a bird.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) ably pointed out, I am aware that when we support this bill we may well be serving the big integrated interests as well as the independent poultry producers. As the hon. member suggested, we may well be locking them in to lucrative positions for years.
If any issue in this Parliament were black and white, things would be very simple, but they are not. They are not red either.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have to aim for gold.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mark Willson Rose: The difficulty we face in dealing with this issue is that we may serve one interest which we would like to support and at the same time serve another with which we would rather have no part.
In their brief to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on November 22, the provincial ministers took great pains to point out that the independent farm operation is the kind of operation we should be supporting. Independent producers should be getting the benefit of any kind of legislation, subsidy and support, but not the integrated operation or the factory farm operation which needs no help.
I think it is obvious that if we base supply-management quotas on existing production, and if that production or the bulk of it is in the hands of the integrators, supporting this amendment means we are supporting the integrators at the same time. It is not a black and white decision. We take this position on this bill reluctantly for the misgivings I have outlined.
We should be well aware that words of praise for C-176 may come back to haunt us because the bill is not the solution to Canadian agriculture. This is far from the be all and end all to save the particular independent agricultural unit in this country. Bill C-176 may not stop the population drift to the cities. It may not help the marginal operations on which there exist very few opportunities for young people to carve out a career. It may not prevent the drift from an independent, self-reliant family situation in a rural setting to a tenant of the urban high rise.
This bill is very limited in scope. It has an urgency about it because of the state of the poultry industry. That is about as far as we can go. We should also remember that if we pass this amendment and this bill, there are several other steps fraught with danger and barriers to be taken before any kind of marketing agency, or marketing plan resulting from that agency, can become a reality. It will be necessary to have a plebiscite and all ten provinces must agree. If all ten provinces do not agree, constitutionally there is nothing to prevent the province that opts out from insisting on its constitutional rights to ship into the controlled market area. The success of Bill C-176 then really depends on the co-operation of all the provinces if it is to work.
The bill before us was motivated by an attempt on the part of the government to avoid a constitutional crisis created by interprovincial trade barriers. The government dilly-dallied for months rather than assert federal authority against interprovincial trade barriers.
In conclusion, may I remind the hon. member for Crowfoot of one other thing. He is concerned about the trend to bigness in the poultry industry. This trend is not confined to the poultry industry; it also applies to the cattle industry. The greatest objection we have to this particular bill is that cattle are no longer specifically named because of what I regard as an unethical kind of lobby prompted by the big cattle interests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. Pursuant to the order made earlier today, his time has expired.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this amendment apparently

designed to bring some change to the first draft of the bill, but which, in fact, does not change much.
When the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) moved the amendment, I was hoping that it would be more explicit. In that part of the clause with which the amendment deals, we read:
"farm product", for the purpose of Part I, means any natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product and, for the purpose of the other provisions of this Act,
That means that the words "beef", "veal" and "related products of beef and veal" are kept in the bill. In short, nothing is changed. That shows, however, that the act does not use the words "to require that beef producers", "to require that veal producers" be members of a marketing agency, or does not impose a marketing agency on them.
The amendment also says, and I quote:
-any other natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product in respect of which the Governor in Council is satisfied, as a result of declarations by provincial governments following plebiscites, or otherwise, that the majority of the producers thereof in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency under section 17 with powers relating to that product;
The words "or otherwise" are not properly used here. What is meant here, I believe is that, under the terms of the act, a small group of producers who are more active than the others could choose to be governed by a marketing agency even without a plebiscite. In fact, the first amendment proposed by the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) did say, and I quote: following plebiscites.
It did not say "or otherwise" or else I misread it. That does not improve the bill right now, I think, and producers are still liable to fall under the jurisdiction of marketing agencies. Should there appear to be a majority, the producer of a certain commodity will have to fall under that jurisdiction.
I will now refer to eggs and poultry. All hon. members know that this bill will not solve the egg and poultry problem because if ever such marketing exists the legislation under consideration will probably curb dumping between provinces since all of them will have to come to an agreement. However, this will not help the small producer. He will have to produce under quotas and the integrated operator will then come into the picture. Normally, the big producer having enough money to buy quotas will purchase his neighbour's operation because he prepares the feeds, the grain himself. He is in position to do it, he has all that is needed to do it. So, he leaves no profit to anyone but himself; he will buy the operation of the small producers who are in a difficult financial position. He will buy quotas of small producers and this way, big producers will be the only ones in business as is the case for instance in the southern part of the United States where there are exceptionally big hatcheries. The same person produces eggs, runs the hatchery, raises chickens and operates the slaughter-house and the supermarket.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
December 30L1_971

say something on this amendment since I represent a riding in which there is a great deal of livestock production. At the same time it is an area of the country that has had a special experience in the field of marketing legislation inasmuch as the B.C. tree fruit industry has come under marketing legislation for a period of 30 or 35 years.
During that time the people in my area of the country have learned a great deal about marketing legislation. The implementation of this legislation has not always been completely successful but it has served to create an orderly condition of marketing which, in general and by and large, has been beneficial to the fruit growers of British Columbia.
I believe it has also been beneficial to the consumers of Canada in that it has placed before them a high quality product offered under the best of conditions. This product has been marketed under attractive conditions all over Canada and around the world because of the ability to arrange orderly marketing in a way in which individual producers could never do.
However, I have been concerned about the inclusion of livestock in this bill because many livestock producers in my area have expressed their concern to me. After studying the provisions of the bill it has become obvious to me that there need be no real concern. I find it very difficult to conceive of a situation in which livestock producers would be forced into some kind of a marketing scheme which they did not want.
There are too many steps and too many procedures along the way which must be followed in order to make it possible for any group of producers in Canada to force their opinions upon all the producers in Canada. When we examine the steps which must be pursued, such as the hearings, the votes, the provincial approval, the approval of the board and parliamentary approval, I believe it is impossible to conceive of all those steps having been gone through with any sizeable number of producers being opposed to inclusion under the provisions of the bill which apply to livestock and other commodities which might at some time in the future come under these provisions.
I am a little concerned that perhaps the steps and the controls are so rigid that when the producers of some commodity are anxious to be brought under the provisions of the bill the proceedings may be so cumbersome that it may be impossible for them to go through all these lengthy proceedings in time to obtain benefits under the bill. So I am satisfied that the livestock producers of Canada and of my region are very amply protected for that reason, and I believe I can in clear conscience support the bill, particularly as it is amended at the present time.
There has been some suggestion during the course of this debate that this bill would not cure all the farm problems in Canada. I would certainly be the first to say that is true. There is no one bill that would cure all the farm problems in Canada. I want to say categorically, however, that I deny the allegation made in this House during the course of this debate that it is a policy of this government to force people off their farms. That has been said over and over again and I want to say that it is not true.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
It is the policy of this government to assist the farmers to stay on their farms and to provide some assistance to them if they should be forced because of economic conditions to leave. But through such measures as farm credit insurance, crop insurance and many other forms of assistance and the now recently announced programs of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), an effort has been made to make it possible for these people to stay home. Despite all these programs I am concerned that there are still economic conditions which exist here in Canada and around the world pertaining to agriculture which make it difficult for small farmers to stay on their farms.
I should like to see consideration given at some time in the near future to the possibility of establishing something that we have spoken of from time to time, namely a guaranteed annual income in the field of small farms in Canada. Small farms do represent a valuable social unit. They provide a valuable place in life for people who do not want to be forced to adopt city life. I sympathize with hon. members on all sides of the House who have made statements to the effect that many small farmers, because of economic conditions, are being forced into the cities against their will.
Very often, because of age or lack of training, many of these people who have been involved in farming are forced on to the welfare rolls. For this reason I believe it is reasonable to suggest that in respect of these farmers it would be more economic and socially desirable to provide them with some form of guaranteed annual income. It is far better to keep these people on the farms with a small guaranteed income, plus what they may be able to obtain from their farms, so they can lead the kind of life they want to lead. Perhaps it would not be possible for them to live as well financially as their counterparts in the cities, but they would live as well socially. They would have the satisfaction of leading the kind of life they had been accustomed to rather than having to move to the cities. So I should like to propose to the Minister of Agriculture and to the government that some kind of a guaranteed annual income be considered for people on small farms whose farm units are not economic. Because of the economic benefits available to farmers and people in rural areas from the food they produce, and because other costs may be lower, I suggest these farmers could be aided with a comparatively small amount of financial assistance which would make it possible for them to stay on the farms.
I hesitate to suggest a particular amount but I mention the figure of $3,000 a year as a basic income for them. I suggest that with such assistance many more small farmers of Canada might be able to stay in the rural setting which they like so much. I suggest that this would be a valuable thing for Canada because of the social advantage in having the rural communities in Canada populated by people who want to be there.
I find it possible to support this bill, particularly with the new amendments, in so far as it affects the livestock industry. I am most happy to support it in the way it is amended. I am satisfied that the livestock producers of Canada are protected in the way that they have indicated they want protection. I am satisfied that the livestock producers in my constituency will not be forced into a

December 30,1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
marketing plan of any kind unless they are clear in their minds that that is what they want, that conditions in the industry at that time indicate to them that it is to their benefit, and they express such opinion clearly to the government of their province, to their own livestock organizations, to their elected representatives in parliament and to the government of Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, according to the announcement this afternoon this debate is rapidly coming to a close.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Stanley James Korchinski: Somebody said "good". I wish the hon. member would reflect on what this Parliament is passing. The title of the bill is the National Farms Products Marketing Council. I suggest that the title should more properly be "National farm products marketing and farmer control council". What this Parliament will do if and when it passes this bill-and I presume it will pass because of the government majority-is to confine production to a limited few. It will license those who will be in production.
The hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) told us the other day that he has been working on marketing boards and has a quota. That is fine and dandy; but if anybody wanted to get into business once these agencies are set up, he will not have an opportunity to get on a board because the agencies will be set up on the pattern of the Dairy Commission. No one can tell me that the Dairy Commission has not weeded out small farmers, and the denials that have come from members on the other side mean nothing to those who have been put out of business.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made a deathbed repentance. He made an announcement today, as he did several weeks ago in preparation for an election. Before the next election he will tell us that subsidies will be available, but these subsidies will be available only to those people who are still in production.


Mr. Whelan:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said that the marketing boards to which I belong are on quota. This is not so. New producers come on to the marketing board to which I belong and others leave every year. It costs nothing to get in and out of the programs to which I belong.


Stanley James Korchinski: The hon. member himself knows that he is under contract. They will not throw the established people out, or is this the intention? What has happened with the Dairy Commission? Hon. members know that in the last five years since 1966 60,000 quota holders all across Canada have been dropped, 27,000 of them in western Canada.
Why do we protest so vociferously against this legislation? It is because we know what happened under the Dairy Commission. In Saskatchewan 10,000 farmers were dropped, in Alberta 10,000 were dropped, and in Manitoba 7,000. Where will these quotas go? A look at any projection of population trends will reveal that by the year 1980 Ontario's population will increase by one and a half million people. Quebec will have an increase of one million, one hundred thousand and the three prairie provinces will have an increase of only half a million. So where will the 
quotas go? Do we have a western representative on the Dairy Commission? No. Will we have one? No.
Obviously, the production will go where the population is, and that will cause a big argument. It will be argued: Why not save freight? What will happen is that they will go out of business. They want to get the cattle in. Now hon. members can understand why we protest. We have Lift and other programs, and we have quotas under the Wheat Board. If anybody tells me that we will have a quota which will make us suddenly rich, let me tell him that nobody ever sold grain when the Wheat Board quotas were low.
Farmers protested about this and every member here heard question after question being raised, and, had delegations come to him. Only when quotas were raised and those people could sell their products openly did they cease protesting.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) clearly indicated what will happen when this bill passes. If you are born lucky and are in production, that is fine and dandy; but if not, then you will not be able to get a licence, and when you cannot get the licence you cannot get into production. At least with the Wheat Board, if you produce anything over and above the amount it can be sold, but under this bill you will have difficulty selling. Supply management is fine for strawberries in British Columbia. It may be fine for certain products in certain regions. I do not argue that provincial organizations may be able to work well. But when you consider regions such as the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia, or the Kootenays in British Columbia, they will not have the same markets. They do not need national organization because they function very well under provincial organization. This does not bother me in Saskatchewan because my crab apples will fall off the trees anyway, or the kids will eat them up; but I will not be in the business of selling. I do not need an organization all across Canada. With a product like cattle which can be produced all across Canada, there is a diversity of interest. Now both cattle raising and grain growing are restricted. There is work in industries in central Canada, but what will we do in the Maritimes or in the Prairies?
Marketing boards are fine. But when it is suggested that this proposal constitutes a marketing board, I say that that is deception. In fact it is a farmer control board. At no time will I be prepared to accept a ruling which comes from a few bureaucrats. There are several ways in which one can go broke very quickly. The first way is to gamble, the second is to spend money on women, and the third is to listen to experts. Gambling is the quickest way, women are the most fun, but listening to experts is the surest way. A group of experts will tell us, as they told us in the case of butter, that they know exactly what will happen. This year we have had to import butter from the United States, although the experts told us that they knew in advance what the requirements would be. Even with all the manipulation and computers that we have in this country, they could not foretell our needs. Nor could they prod people into production. We had to import. There are no import controls so these people could decide to unload their products here, unless this constituted dumping, in which case there is appropriate legislation to control it. This bill will do nothing for these people. All we will have
D ecem b er 30^1971

is a constant struggle among the different regions in Canada. There will be litigation before one court or another, depending upon whom the minister selects to serve on the council. What say will a small region have in such a matter? What say will a small island like P.E.I. have, even though it is very much dependent on agriculture? What say will it have in comparison with a region that may include Ontario and Quebec?
I can well understand members from Ontario and Quebec saying that this legislation is fine for them. But it is idle for them to talk at the same time about unity. Surely they cannot be that short-sighted. They should be able to see a little farther than 50 or 100 miles out of Ottawa in either direction. They should be able to see clear to the coast, to the west and to the east.
Hon. members opposite argue that agencies will not be established until plebiscites are held. Let them remember there are the words "or otherwise" which must be considered in this context. This might simply mean the minister receiving a letter requesting the establishment of an agency, as may have been the case with poultry and eggs. If the price of a commodity is too low, the authorities may decide to set up a board, and all they will require is a letter asking them to do so. This does not mean that all farmers will have a chance to express their views.
The Farmers Union in Saskatchewan says it represents farmers. I suppose it represents a certain number of farmers. I know thousands of farmers who do not belong to that or any other union. But supposedly this union is speaking for them, and if it writes to say that it wants an agency established, does this mean that the producers have had an opportunity to express their views?
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) suggests that there is some guarantee with respect to the holding of a plebiscite, but I do not see any such guarantee here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, early in this debate I want to deal briefly with some of the comments that have been made because I believe it is a long time since I have heard such vicious terminological inexactitudes respecting the provisions of this bill, from both the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).
The hon. member for Crowfoot said we were cutting the rug out from under the egg producers in Ontario because they are now in the process of deciding whether they want to set up an egg marketing body under provincial enabling legislation that has been on the statute books of Ontario for years and years. Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill does not set up any marketing agency, and those hon. members know it very well. If they want to be the least bit honest they should admit this. This is enabling legislation of the kind which has been on the Ontario statute books for years, and it does not interfere in any way, shape or form with what is taking place there.
I know what the public debate in Ontario has been about, and so does any other hon. member who has taken
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
time to listen. The producers generally are in favour of having a marketing agency, so that they can have some influence on orderly marketing with respect to those products in Ontario, providing that the same marketing system is applied across the country on a national basis. But they are not in favour of setting up a board that will restrict their production and at the same time allow great quantities of the commodity they produce to come into Ontario and not be subject to the same rules. It seems to me it is about time a little bit of honesty was shown by members of the opposition with respect to the provisions of this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We believe in one Canada, not ten.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One point has been made over and over again by the hon. member for Mackenzie. This is with respect to the false allegation that there has been some quota subsidy, or eligibility subsidy quota, transferred from the prairie provinces to other parts of Canada. That is absolutely false.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member, but he should wait until the Chair recognizes him. The hon. member for Mackenzie on a point of order.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should have said on a point of privilege. I did not say that there was any transfer under the Dairy Commission. I said there was a drop in the quota eligibility in the Prairies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears to me that the hon. member for Mackenzie is making an explanatory intervention, and I will hear him for a moment or two.


Stanley James Korchinski: What I did say was that there was a drop of 60,000 eligible quotas all across Canada. I said there was a 27 per cent drop in western Canada. I did not say there was a transfer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the record will show what the hon. member said. A number of producers have dropped out of subsidy quota eligibility, and for a number of reasons. One of the major reasons was because during 1967 and part of 1968, when there were reasonably good returns to grain producers on the Prairies, a lot of farmers dropped out because they fell below the 420 pound minimum. Here again I wish hon. members opposite would state the facts.
The action we took a couple of days ago in reinstating those who continued to ship, even though they had fallen below the minimum quota, in my view is justified. But there are in fact only a very small percentage of those who fell out of the quota eligibility who are still shipping, and of course if they do not go back over the 420 pounds they will not be reinstated.
One of the amusing things about all this is shown in the contradictions in the arguments of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Crowfoot says that after we set up this system everybody who has a quota will get rich. Then the hon. member for Mackenzie comes along and

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
says that anybody who thinks he will get rich under this scheme has another think coming.


Stanley James Korchinski: Anybody who has a small quota.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, this legislation stipulates how agency members will be named. They can be elected or otherwise appointed. It also says that if producers wish to have a plan of supply management they themselves, through their elected or appointed representatives, will decide who gets quotas, will decide the max-imums and the minimums of those quotas, and will also decide the rules for new entrants to the quota allocations. This is what the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) pointed out quite clearly. This is the way it operates. In fact, it is operated by the producers.
What is undeniable is the fact that this bill is going to give those producers of commodities who wish to take advantage of its provisions a new influence in the marketing of their products in the market place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And to hell with the consumer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hon. members opposite are opposed to farmers having a greater say in the marketing of their products. The farmers, across the country are beginning to realize that the kind of action that has been taken has denied them that right to manage their own affairs.


William Arnold Peters: You did not even have producers on the board; the committee was responsible for that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now tell us about the plebiscite.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not want to excite the opposition by pointing out the very, very important and beneficial results that can come from this bill. Let no member in this House forget that we have reached the stage in public debate, not only in this House but all over the country and amongst the provincial governments, where all ten provincial governments agree that this is a good bill, that it is an essential bill and that it ought to have speedy passage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of order.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. minister, I am sure, would like to correct his last remark to the effect that all ten provinces agreed to this bill, that it is a good bill, and that all ten provincial governments of Canada want this bill. Mr. Speaker, they may want a version of it, an amended form of it, but they do not want this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a matter for debate, of course. The hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is a point for debate and, as usual, the hon. member for Crowfoot is wrong because the communique that was issued following the meeting of ministers

referred to the speedy passage of the bill now before Parliament, and that is this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who issued the communique?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is your own communique.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Why don't you call Bill Stewart and ask him if he was there when it was put together? Why don't you ask the minister of agriculture of Alberta if he was there when it was put together? Because he was.
I wish hon. members would be quiet while I finish my speech, Mr. Speaker, as I think I only have three minutes left. It is an important day for the agricultural community in Canada, in my view, when we have all 11 governments and legislators-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a sin and it should hang heavy on your head.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -agree on a bill that will require delegation of authority from both levels of government if it' is to operate to the benefit of all farmers in Canada.
Some of the problems that we have encountered over the past weeks and months with respect to getting to this stage will probably be looked back at in wonder from time to time. People will ask what all the fuss was about. I take the word of the hon. member for Crowfoot that the subamendment before us now will satisfy some producers, but I have to remind him that if he read some of the other sections of the bill he would find that the provisions of this particular amendment appear in one or two other places. The provisions were already there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should know; I put them there in committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All this, of course, will come home to the farmers and they will realize that this bill could have been passed a long, long time ago. The farmers who want it, who need it and can find some benefit from it will fully realize that the delay that has cost them some money-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is your fault.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -could be laid at the doorstep of those people who are responsible-and they are all over on that side, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond rising on a point of order.


Léonel Beaudoin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister agrees, would you allow him to answer a question in order to enlighten me on a few words of the amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would have to ask for the unanimous consent of the House. If there is such consent, if the minister wishes he could respond. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 30, 1971


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, within the terms of the amendment, could the hon. minister say how he interprets the words:
-any natural product of agriculture-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not really believe that I should be giving a legal interpretation of any words in the bill at this point.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is it not crystal clear?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, it is crystal clear to me. The words, "any natural products of agriculture and any part of any such product" mean the products'that are produced in agriculture-any state of being in its natural form, I suppose, before it is processed in any way, whether a little processing or a lot of processing is involved. That is why we use the words "products of agriculture in natural form," plus "any part thereof". This bill was not intended that its provisions were going to follow through all of the products of agriculture in their most refined, processed form. That is why we talk about the natural products of agriculture and any part thereof.


Léonel Beaudoin: Then, would the hon. minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect I hope that all hon. members will remember that we are working under a time limitation, an order limiting speeches to ten minutes. I did ask consent for one question but the Chair would hesitate to ask hon. members to consent again since other hon. members are waiting to speak.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much time speaking on this amendment; I simply wish to move an amendment to the motion already before the House. In passing, however, might I say that I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) use the term "contradiction". I am not surprised to hear him use this word because he is a past master of contradiction. I refer specifically to the promise he made to the cattlemen of western Canada, both orally and in writing, which he did not keep.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, immediately following the word "product" at the end thereof, the words "but, for the purpose of any of the provisions of this act, shall not include cattle or calves;
I am quite sure that if his words mean anything the minister will be pleased to have this amendment. I am also quite sure that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard), who was concerned about cattle and calves, would be prepared to second, third or fourth it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has the amendment of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and is prepared to accept it if there are no objections. I think procedurally we can accept it at this point.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that at report stage no amendments are permitted, unless, as in the case here, an order to that effect is passed.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. Get into your rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I understand it, the Chamber has before it a motion by the hon. member for Crowfoot, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, which has been amended by an amendment in the name of the President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Minister of Finance. We now have a proposed subamendment, moved by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River. In these circumstances it is my understanding that no notice is required.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I was out of the Chamber for just a moment but I am sure Your Honour would realize that this proposed amendment is a sub-amendment to an amendment, which of course is not permissible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, no! Come on!


William Arnold Peters: You are not that dumb. You have been here for a couple of years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, let us not take too much time on this. The motion presented by the hon. member for Crowfoot is not an amendment, it is a motion. The proposition presented by the President of the Privy Council is an amendment to that motion. This, therefore, is a subamendment, and I suggest it is quite proper under the provisions of Standing Order 75(8). I am opposed to its substance but I think we must agree that it is in order to move both an amendment and a subamendment to a motion that has been proposed at the report stage, provided, of course, that it meets the rule of relevancy, as I believe it does.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I rise briefly on the point of order and say that there is no substance to the proposition of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). We have just finished the tax reform bill and we all know that in connection with that bill there were amendments to amendments to amendments to amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order was raised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). The Chair agrees with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We have before us a motion in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot, and an amendment in the name of the President of the Privy Council. So that we now have before us for consideration an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. In the opinion of the Chair that is quite in order. If there are other observations-not on this point I might add, since it seems to me that the point is clear-I will be glad to entertain them. Otherwise I will put to the House the amendment of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of the amendment, although I think it clarifies
__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
December 30, 1971
the situation that has developed. I am surprised that the minister, at this late date, should mount such a vehement attack-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. There are only a few minutes left for dealing with the substance of the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. If there are other points of order to be raised, I will hear them. I suggest that the hon. member should not argue the substance of the subamendment until the Chair has put it to the House.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I thought you had put it to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect, the Chair has not yet put it. The Chair was inviting hon. members to make their comments as to the procedural acceptability of the proposed subamendment. If there are no other comments I will put the subamendment. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) moves:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately following the word "product" at the end thereof, the words "but, for the purpose of any of the provisions of this act, shall not include cattle or calves;"


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment. I am surprised that the minister has been able to add a new dimension to the debate on this bill by remarks of such force and vindictiveness which have been aimed at members of this House who have been seized of this bill for a long time and have made a considerable contribution to the bill. It should be remembered that initially producers were not even considered when the government thought of establishing marketing boards. The valuable changes contained in the bill have been brought about by members of this House.
The amendment introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is different only in that eggs and poultry and products of eggs and poultry are not included in the general provisions of the bill. That means that the producers of those commodities do not need to hold a plebiscite before the establishment of a board governing them.
In other words, this government is trying to establish such boards without giving to the producers concerned any of the protection that is available to any other producers who may wish to establish boards governing their commodities. We support the amendment, just as we supported the original clause, because all agricultural products and derivatives thereof are to be included, with the exceptions I have just mentioned. We have always been in favour of that, just as we have always been in favour of the protection which is to be given to producers.
Although the amendment does not spell this out, the farmers in a province must vote on whether they want a marketing agency and, before a nationwide agency is set up, the farmers collectively in the country in favour of such agency must be in the majority. Each province has taken steps for determining whether the majority of farmers producing any commodity are in favour of establishing a board and, eventually, an agency that will operate on a national basis. In this case the government is flying

in the face of what is happening in Ontario. The minister was only partly right in saying that egg and poultry farmers in Ontario want a national board before they will vote for a provincial board. I suggest that is not correct and the minister knows that is not correct.
The minister is well aware that considerable time has elapsed since the government first asked farmers whether they wanted an egg marketing board. That happened a long time ago. At that time I do not think the farmers were in the least interested in such a board. Ontario egg producers were not interested in what happened in the rest of Canada because, at that time, Ontario was not much more than self-sufficient. It is only recently, when Ontario has been supplying the bulk of eggs in eastern Ontario, and particularly in Quebec, that this has become a major problem.
I am surprised that the minister who agreed in committee that protections were necessary should come before the House and support an amendment which eliminates the right of egg producers to determine whether or not a national agency shall represent them. The provisions of the clause we are considering, and of clause 18, will be put into effect without instructions for setting up an agency coming from the farmers themselves. In other words, the government will be establishing a national egg and poultry marketing agency. I think the minister was considerably less than correct when he suggested that all the ministers of agriculture of the provinces are in favour of the bill. The communique they put out said that they were in favour of this bill only if a number of amendments were made to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: They suggested amendments, and the minister knows that. The minister has been dishonest about their position on a number of occasions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has misled the House.


William Arnold Peters: That shocks me. The minister did not need to say that to get this bill through. He did not need to be dishonest. He ought to be willing to indicate forthrightly what the actual situation is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed in today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the House might not wish to suspend private members' hour. There is only so much time left to finish discussion of the report stage of Bill C-176. Many amendments are to be dealt with and many members wish to speak.
On the other hand, I think I can say that if private members' hour is taken up with considering the private bill that is at the top of the list, there may be considerable debate on it. I think, all told, it might be better if we were to forgo private members' hour and use the time for the further consideration of Bill C-176.
December 30, 1971


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, from the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I take it that the next hour would be unproductive if we proceeded with private members' business. Therefore I will consent to that hour being used for the consideration of government orders.


Frank Howard: You never know. Perhaps the hon. member should try.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Am I-to conclude that there is unanimous consent to forgo private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the source of the statement the minister made was the statement on the development of Canadian agriculture, submitted by the provincial ministers of agriculture to "Hon. H. A. Olson", on November 22, 1971.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not it. The source is the communique from the provincial ministers of agriculture.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. As I say, that was the source.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That was not the source the hon. member referred to.


William Arnold Peters: I presume that the source is the communique I referred to. The general outline on page 11 begins by saying:
Bill C-176 in its present form is unacceptable to the provinces although the principle of orderly marketing and market sharing is acceptable to all.
The minister may give his interpretation of what he would like things to be, but he should also tell us what the facts are. We visited a number of the provinces and found that many of them were opposed to this type of legislation. Quebec, in particular, was opposed to it, on the same grounds as those on which I originally opposed the bill, and still am opposed to it. Quebec saw no reason why it should set up a multitude of boards. Why, it asked, should not the federal government set up the boards, and then Quebec participate?
This is enabling legislation intended to get Bill Stewart's 38 boards into operation in Ontario where he is in a heck of a lot of trouble. This does not mean I am opposed to marketing legislation. It only means that there is controversy in this field and that the minister is being less than honest if he does not present to the House the facts as they are. I suggest he owes the House an explanation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Timiskaming has not stated the fact in saying my point was based on the document from which he read. It was based on a communique issued at the conclusion of the agriculture ministers meeting, a document which I am prepared to read or to lay on the table again. I would refer the hon. member to the second para-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
graph on page two, where it says there was agreement that the legislation was necessary to provide a legal framework for a co-ordinating agency, and that speedy passage of Bill C-176 should be secured.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: There is no question that the ministers of agriculture agreed in accordance with the statement the minister has just read. They are well aware that there is a constitutional problem which means that enabling legislation must be passed to provide for the operation of all the networks of boards in all the provinces. This is what the minister just said. But it is not really what he said earlier. What he said earlier was that they had agreed to Bill C-176. There is no relationship between the statement made in the brief and the statement made in the communique.
I understand-I may be wrong-that the minister said the ministers of agriculture had agreed to Bill C-176. That is not the case, according to the document which I read.
I am not only taking the position outlined in this brief; I am well aware from firsthand knowledge, having listened to all the ministers of all the provinces several times on this subject, that there were grave misgivings about certain clauses of this bill. My interest is the reasoning behind the first part of this amendment before us. I see no legitimate reason why eggs and poultry should have been accorded different treatment from the other commodities. We are all now familiar with the special arrangements under which producers have a right to vote. But under this proposal we would be eliminating the right of plebiscite or determination-


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


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, since March 17, 1970, when the predecessor to Bill C-176 was first introduced to Parliament, right across Canada millions of words, hundreds of representations and dozens of amendments have been offered by farmers, farm organizations, political spokesmen, consumer interests and other concerned associations on this subject matter.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture has met and heard many producer groups here in Ottawa and has travelled the nation to seek and receive letters, briefs and other points of view on this intended farm products marketing agencies act. This process of discussion and debate has been .long and lively, and those taking part have both supported and, in some instances, opposed the concept of establishing national marketing agencies.
As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I have had an opportunity to participate more fully than most in the deliberations on this proposed legislation. Although it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me at this point in time to offer original comment, I do wish to dwell briefly on two points which to me have become abundantly clear in my assessment of this bill. First, there is no doubt in my mind that a significant majority of Canadian farmers see a real need for a national and rational approach to marketing their products. They consider Bill C-176 in its proposed form to be the answer, and thus urge

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
its expeditious passage. Their position is apparently supported by nine of the ten provincial ministers of agriculture, who also have recorded their hope that parliament will deal favourably with this bill as soon as possible. It is therefore generally felt that primary producers should have the opportunity to organize for more orderly marketing of their products.
The second point on which I am clear is that, without exception, to my knowledge, and for reasons real or imagined, the beef producers in my riding, and admittedly a great number elsewhere, do not wish to be included in the provisions of this bill.
I therefore feel I have a dual responsibility in this matter. Recognizing that this bill has general, and in some cases strong, support and that in certain quarters there is a genuine need and desire for this type of enabling legislation, I must urge upon members that this bill pass with dispatch, for I do subscribe to its basic principles.
On the other hand, I feel personally a duty to those of my constituents, the beef producers, who in great numbers have informed me that they wanted no part of this bill. I attempted to explain to them that there was no way whatsoever in which they, as producers of this particular commodity, could be affected by the bill's provisions unless and until they themselves chose to establish a national marketing plan and accordingly voted themselves in. Nevertheless having, as I said, a responsibility to listen to and be guided by the wishes of the beef growers of my area, I was prepared-as I did at the committee stage-to exercise my franchise in this House in support of any amendments which would exempt beef cattle products from the bill.
Alternatively, I was prepared to press, as I have been doing, for any acceptable proposal which would effectively attain this objective. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have such a proposal before us now. I am pleased therefore that this government has seen fit to put forward its amendment which removes any specific reference to cattle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to order made this day the time allotted to the consideration of Motions nos. 1, 5 and 22 have now expired.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed to the amendment to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the order previously adopted, the division stands deferred on the

subamendment, and automatically on the amendment as well as on the main motion.
The next question is on motion No. 5. It is moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner):
That Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by deleting paragraph (ii) of subclause (g) of clause 2 at page 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion no. 5 (Mr. Horner) negatived.
The next question is on motion No. 22. It is moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner):
That Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended
(a)	by adding to subparagraph (ii) paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 18 the word "such" after the word "any" at line 13, page 12 and by deleting from the subparagraph all the words after the word "proclamation" at line 14; and
(b)	by adding to subparagraph (ii) paragraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 18 the word "such" after the word "any" at line 6, page 13 and by deleting from the subparagraph all the words after the word "proclamation" at line 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Accordingly, motion No. 22 is negatived on division. Motion No. 22 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the order previously adopted the House will now proceed to the consideration of clause 18 of the bill.
On clause 18: Contents of proclamation:
December 30, 1971


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion amending clause 18 of Bill C-176. I agreed with the provincial ministers of agriculture that this motion ought to be put forward. I move:
That clause 18 of 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, be amended by adding, immediately after line 38 on page 13 thereof, the following subsection:
"Limitation (3) A proclamation referred to in subsection (1) or (2) that designates a farm product other than eggs or poultry or any part of eggs or poultry shall not set out as a term of the marketing plan that an agency is empowered to implement any term that would enable the agency to fix and determine the quantity in which any regulated product could be marketed in interprovincial or export trade by persons engaged in such marketing thereof."


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion (Mr. Olson) agreed to.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear you ask for unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that we are now placed in difficulty. The unanimity to which the hon. member refers and to which I referred originally was to put the motion. I would not want the hon. member to be placed in a difficult position. I think everything is being done by consent and by agreement between parties. When the hon. member earlier brought to the attention of the Chair that he proposed to make a motion and referred to this particular proposed amendment to clause 18, the Chair indicated to the hon. member in question and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that, in order to be able to propose a motion, unanimous consent would be required. That is why I hesitated before putting the motion and looked in the direction of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), expecting that he or other members would indicate they were not willing to give their unanimous consent. That would be my interpretation of the rules and interpretation of the situation.
We have now reached the position where I have put the motion without objection from the hon. member or from the hon. member for Joliette. I am open to comments from hon. members who might assist the Chair in this difficulty.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, on any occasion that I can remember when unanimous consent of the House was required the Speaker usually asked if there was unanimous consent. If Your Honour did ask it on this occasion, I missed it. That is my point.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken. I indicated to the hon. member that my understanding was that there might not be unanimous consent. The matter having been raised previously today, I expected that if anyone did not wish to give his consent, that would be indicated to the Chair. I assume the hon. member for Joliette is in the same situation, that he is not prepared to give unanimous consent to this motion.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, are we still debating the matter of unanimous consent on the motion moved by the hon. member for-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty that the Chair is facing at this time is that the minister moved an amendment to clause 18 of Bill C-176. Prior to that, it had been suggested to me that neither the hon. member for Joliette nor the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) would give consent to this motion or this amendment moved by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I did not hear any objection at the time I was going to put the motion, and I wonder if the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple has indicated that he was not ready to give his consent in order that the motion be put to the House. Actually, I wondered if the hon. member for Joliette had any representations to make on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is an amendment moved by the Minister of Agriculture. Since he was kind enough to send me the text of his amendment, I shall certainly agree with him.


Mr. Speaker:: In equity and justice I really do not think the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and the House would want the motion be put again. It was understood that there should be unanimous consent and there was unanimous consent. I do not see how the motion could be put formally to the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the point that has been raised is an important one. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) did ask for consent, the motion was put and it was carried. It was only at that point that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) raised his point. Now, it often happens that a proceeding takes place and the member may not be alert to what is occurring. However, it seems to me that the House by a voice vote carried this amendment. It was put to the House and up until the point at which it had been carried there had been no objection raised, even though at the very moment the minister got on his feet he said he was asking for unanimous consent to put his motion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize and recognize the dilemma you are in. I understood the
10874
December 30, 1971

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to say that he realized he would have to have unanimous consent to put this motion. He did not really ask for it. I, along with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh)- and Hansard, of course, will bear out exactly what was said-listened to Your Honour to hear whether or not Your Honour posed the question "Is there unanimous consent for the minister to put his amendment?", and I did not hear it. Although I favour this amendment I realize the dilemma you are in, and I appreciate the graciousness of your decision to acknowledge that the question was not asked.
This is an amendment which all agricultural ministers want. It is an amendment that the Minister of Agriculture wants. It is an amendment which the government wants, and I would assume that if we cannot accept it here it could be placed in the bill tomorrow by the Senate. That august body in the other place could well handle this chore, I believe.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, if it will help you or the House, in view of the fact that there was a misunderstanding I will accept the fact that I was trapped in this regard and I will allow your ruling to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. He was trapped with the Chair. We were trapped together. Certainly I appreciate the hon. member's decision to agree with the position of the Chair and his understanding of the difficulty in which the Chair was placed. I apologize to the hon. member if I placed him in that difficulty. I attempted to explain the situation a moment ago. The hon. member knows I did not do anything to try to place him in an embarrassing position. That being the case it is assumed that the question has been put and has been carried on division.
The next question is on motion No. 27. It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
-That 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, be amended by adding the following immediately after the heading "General" at page 18:
"24. 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."
and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that there is to be an amendment to this motion which will be proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Therefore I shall take only a minute or so to place the motion before the House. In other words, the time for the debate on the whole proposition would more appropriately come after the government's amendment has been moved.
The purpose of this amendment is to include what we regard as a very desirable provision in Bill C-176. If this amendment, is carried, as I hope and I believe it will be, it would provide that before any marketing agency which is established under this legislation can set up supply management plans or set quotas it must consider the distribution of production over the preceding five years. In other words, the purpose of this amendment is to have regard to historic rights, particularly of the prairie provinces, and we feel that this amendment has been worded in such a way that it protects those rights without taking away rights from any other section of the country.
We also feel that with an amendment such as this something can be done to offset the kind of dangers which arose when the provinces set up their own provincial limitations on the import of produce from other parts of Canada. All told we think this is a very desirable addition to the bill. It would write in a new clause 24 in the terms outlined in the amendment and succeeding clauses would be renumbered accordingly. Therefore I have pleasure in submitting the motion for the consideration of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has mentioned that it was proposed I would move an amendment to this particular motion which is in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). The amendment I would propose would accept in large part the motion as it is but would attempt in the last sentence to change the wording, with the purpose of providing the marketing board or the marketing council or the marketing agency with some flexibility in allocating the future growth of market demand.
Therefore I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson):
That Motion No. 27 by Mr. Gleave be amended
(a)	by striking out the words "after the heading General" and by substituting therefor the words "before the heading General"
(b)	by striking out the words "be guided by" and by substituting therefor the word "consider"; and
(c)	by striking out "and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly" and by substituting therefor the words "and by renumbering subsequent clauses and correcting cross-references accordingly".


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there agreement?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this amendment submitted originally by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), who is now enjoying sunnier climes, I hope, I would like to say how much the agreement with the other parties in the House has meant to us. I am certain this will be a very valuable provision for producers in what I call prairie Canada. Most of them call it western Canada, but I who consider myself to be from the true west regard the three provinces as prairie Canada rather than using the larger, generic term "western Canada."
I say at the outset that I am almost speechless because some of the things that I was going to say in support of this amendment have already been uttered capably and

December 30, 1971

eloquently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who obviously had the opportunity to study my press release on the subject.
In any event, I think we can be comforted by the fact that this amendment has substantial support all across Canada. The evidence which I cite is contained in the submission to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) by the provincial ministers on November 22 of this year. The reasoning behind this amendment is to recognize the historic rights and trading patterns of particular producers in certain parts of the country, particularly in prairie Canada, because I think that if we are moving to a new style of agriculture and a new marketing plan it is important that an adjustment period be allowed. The motion indicates that this period be five years, to give the traditional producers an opportunity to adjust to any changes that may take place in the particular trading patterns within our country. From that point of view it is extremely important.
I mentioned a moment ago that I was supported in this contention by the brief which the provincial ministers supplied to the Minister of Agriculture. On page 3 of their submission, under the heading "Constraints affecting Canadian agriculture" they make the following point:
There is a real possibility that multinational corporations will place plants in large market areas (e.g. the European Economic Community) and these plants could process foreign produce which would displace Canadian farm produce from markets that were developed by Canada.
If you substitute the words "central Canada" for "the European Economic Community," and the words "western Canadian producers" for "Canadian farm produce," you can see the fears upon which this amendment is based. There is no doubt that certain factory farm operations which can be readily expanded have a tendency in North America to move very close to centres of concentration of large population. The information which we received on the tour of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was that the fear was that if the situation were to occur where food production took place next to large centres of population, there would be very little opportunity for the prairie provinces to retain their population and to develop the variety of approaches to their economy which they are seeking. From that point of view I think this motion is worthy of support.
Further on in the ministers' brief, at page 5, paragraph (d), they say:
in the event of a sharing of markets, the position established by the producers who presently supply them should be respected;
This, again, is covered in the amendment to clause 24 and, hopefully, with the new wording that we have, the crucial sentence is that in the allocation of additional quotas for anticipated growth of market demand, the marketing agency shall be guided by the principle of comparative advantage of production. This protects those historic market areas which want one and the same thing as the comparative advantage area. Therefore, I think this is another point in favour of the motion.
Further on in the brief the ministers make a point about vertical integration. At page 6 of their brief, paragraph 11, they state:
The provinces are opposed to any extension of vertical integration by non-farm corporations and will attempt to reduce the
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
amount that presently exists. Government programs in agricultural marketing, rural development and farm credit have to be designated to allow the maximum development of the family type farm.
The problem that we encountered in the poultry and egg industries is that by and large surpluses have been created by vertically integrated corporations which have moved into the traditional areas formerly occupied by independent, family farm producers. On page 8 of the brief the ministers go on to say:
Although comparative advantage, properly defined, must be recognized-
That is a little stronger than the present amendment which says "to consider".
-it need not be accepted as the sole criterion for agricultural production.
Perhaps this weakens the case, but it makes it more reasonable. There is no particular formula in this amendment. When the Manitoba government presented its brief in Winnipeg, it suggested that half the growth in the areas of growing population and growing consumption should be allocated to the historic areas, but this amendment does not tie down the board or the agency that tightly. In any event, I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment. I hope it passes as speedily as possible.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long. The motion is a good one, but I think some of the arguments which the hon. member put forward are unnecessary because, as he pointed out, there are other provisions in the bill which complement this motion. I want to see Canadians share in the production of their foodstuffs. People who have taken part in food production should have their rights protected. Those who administer this act will be doing an important job, and as Members of Parliament we will make representations to them if we see them getting out of line.
I come from central Canada, the part of the country that some people seem scared of, central Ontario, which produces nearly one-third of the agricultural production of the nation, and I can say that I do not mistrust the eastern farmers, the western farmers or the farmers of British Columbia. I believe that British Columbia farmers have much the same problems as we have in eastern and central Canada. Farmers in the Fraser Valley produce many of the commodities that we produce in central Ontario.
This bill will provide some protection to producers. The recent surplus in egg, poultry and hog production was created by only 2 per cent overproduction. Such a thing cannot happen in cattle production because overproduction in that industry would take longer to develop than is the case with poultry. I think that what the hon. member is seeking through his amendment is worth while.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time this is an acceptable amendment, but I do not go along with the concept of supply management. I have a great many fears with regard to quota allotment and the whole concept of supply management. In this connection I wish to quote a few sentences from last week's Country Guide:

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
There's no room in the merchandising scheme, he says, for "supply management", the philosophy that better prices can be obtained by artificially limiting supply. "Supply management doesn't solve the agricultural problem because it is a flight away from the mass markets of the world. It dooms us to be content with a shrinking share of the market at prices that become increasingly vulnerable with time."
Those are the words of an agricultural economist. It is an improvement to have the averaging provision that will be provided by adoption of the amendment, but I think it should be a moving average that will escalate to take care of increased demand and increased population.
Mr. Speaker, dealing with turkey quotas in the province of Ontario I wish to quote as follows from a letter which indicates some of the problems encountered during the establishment of quotas:
-turkey growers were allowed to set their basic quota on the highest number of turkeys that they grew in any one of three years, namely, 1966,1967 and 1968.
Growers who grew turkeys in 1966 and have not grown turkeys since then naturally voted for the quota plan, in hope that some day it would have a monetary value. The grower who might have grown 80,000 turkeys in 1966, and 20,000 in 1967, and 20,000 in 1968, voted for the quota system because he would be allowed to set up his quota on the basis of the highest production year, 1966, even though he figured that he would never grow 80,000 turkeys again.
The net result was that they ended up with an unrealistic production of turkeys in relation to market demand. We must look at the allotment of quotas carefully. One of my great fears is that when you establish quotas with respect to a new product you immediately move into the realm of the allotment of quotas, which can fall into either one of two areas, a political allotment or the establishment of a purchase price for quotas. I can give no better example of this than that of the tobacco industry in Ontario, which is an entirely closed shop. A man can send his son to school and if the son has ability he can become a teacher, a doctor or a lawyer. But if he wants to become a tobacco farmer he finds that this is a closed shop unless he has the money to buy into it. This is a major problem with respect to the establishment of quotas and supply management. It cuts down on opportunities for young people.
We must look at the people who represent an industry and who are asking for the introduction of the supply management concept. For example, we must look at the poultry industry. I know that poultry producers have asked to come under this plan. In many cases those who seek the introduction of this concept actually own or control their own quotas. Let me give the example of turkey production. National turkey production in Canada is about 200 million pounds per year. In Ontario there are 50 growers who produce 78 million pounds, and one producer grows approximately 13 million pounds of the 90 million pounds provincial quota. He is one of the directors of the turkey board. That industry is lobbying in Ottawa to come under this plan. There is a list here that I could give which includes Purina and Canada Packers. I do not intend to vote for supply management in any way, shape or form, but I do say that this amendment is an improvement on what is in the bill.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment which was placed before the House by my colleague from Saskatoon-

Biggar (Mr. Gleave). It represents an acceptable approach to marketing plans. I think that some of the provisions we are enacting must be developed within the framework of changes and adjustments that are taking place within Canadian society. The fact is that in recent years we have experienced significant shifts in the pattern of Canadian population distribution. Certain parts of Canada, particularly Ontario, the lower St. Lawrence region and the immediate Vancouver area have become rapid-growth regions. We have not experienced the same degree of population growth in the prairie provinces and the maritime provinces.
The point with regard to production quotas, marketing plans and supply management is that if the entire increase, or a greater proportion of an increase in the marketing quota, or an allocation of new production quotas, is given to an area which is experiencing large population growth, this in fact will contribute to an extension of regional disparities both in terms of income distribution in Canada and also in terms of the rate of economic growth in the different regions. I think it is important that we have some protection for those areas of Canada which are not experiencing the same degree of population growth and, in some cases, economic growth as other parts of Canada.
It seems to me that the motion presented by my colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar will provide a significant degree of protection for some parts of Canada which are most suitable for certain types of agricultural production where the factor of comparative cost and management will come into play if it is allowed to do so. I think it is important that we have this provision in the bill, to be in line and consistent with other national objectives which we must work for at the present time. This amendment is also important if we as a nation are to get off on the right foot in starting marketing plans and are to make use of the concept of supply management.
I think that to accept the principle of supply management is perfectly consistent, in the concept of orderly marketing, with the development and use of marketing boards. That does not necessarily mean that any plan put forward within the framework of the concept of supply management is acceptable. In many cases a particular plan is not acceptable even though the principle may be. A good example is the grain income stabilization plan which was debated in this House. I think most members were prepared to accept the principle of stabilization of grain income in the prairie provinces but objected to the particular plan placed before them for approval.
The same thing applies here. We must have a sound approach to a particular type of plan if it is to be workable and acceptable to the farmers of Canada. It must take into account wider objectives than are at present envisaged. It is fine to introduce the concept of supply management which has as its objective bringing production into line with market demand, but if this is done in such a way as to result in widespread dislocation in the agricultural industry then we have a difficult situation. This approach will not be acceptable to farmers and in the long run will be doomed to failure.
December 30, 1971

One of the reasons many people in farming have been fearful of what is taking place, and of some of the features of this bill, is the recent experience of the House in regard to the supply management principle, An example is Operation Lift which operated in a harsh and brutal fashion toward many farmers in western Canada. It had the limited objective of reducing grain production in the prairie provinces. By itself, that objective has some merit, but the way the plan was imposed upon farmers brought a great deal of hardship in many cases. Farmers were forced to go along with the plan if they were to have any grain quota for the particular year. I suggest this was a misuse of the power given to the Canadian Wheat Board by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This experience soured many farmers on the concept of supply management.
The experience with the Canadian Dairy Commission, and particularly the way in which subsidies for grain producers affected farmers in some parts of Canada, is another example. In my own province of Saskatchewan many farmers had their grain subsidy cut off with no hope of being able to get back into production regardless of the circumstances, and with no hope of qualifying for subsidy in the future even though they had good reason for withdrawing from grain production for a period of time. The result is that the grain quota allocated to the province of Saskatchewan dropped from 15 million pounds in 1967 to about 9 million pounds in the current year. This is a direct result of the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission and of the supply management concept they were using.
The concept of supply management can, I think, be perfectly consistent with the principle of orderly marketing, but it depends on the way it is carried out and upon the acceptance of a wider set of objectives than the limited objective of relating production to immediate market demand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the motion moved by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) for Mr. Gleave, seconded by Mr. Burton.
I invited comments from hon. members a short while ago to ascertain whether hon. members wanted to participate in this debate. If there are hon. members who want to participate in the debate on the amendment to the motion, this would have to be done after the dinner hour. For the moment, I believe the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) rises on a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to tell the
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
House that I have had discussions with members of other parties with respect to terms of reference that might be given by the House to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. This matter has been pending for some time and I thought now might be a good time, if I had consent, to ask that this motion be carried so that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization would be able to do some work during the recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the Standing Orders of the House and procedure in both the House and in its committees with special regard to all the matters that Mr. Speaker has suggested during the twenty-eighth Parliament may require the consideration of the said committee, and to report to the House its views on any facets thereof that may require reform and to recommend what manner of reform may be required;
And that, during its consideration of the aforementioned matters and of the question of broadcasting of the House, the said committee shall be authorized to adjourn from place to place outside Canada provided that such adjournment from place to place shall not take place when the House is sitting;
And that the necessary staff shall accompany the committee.
I may add, Mr. Speaker, that I do not foresee that the Caribbean countries will provide any valuable experience to the committee in reaching their conclusions.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: 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, motion No. 27 (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre, for Mr. Gleave) and the amendment thereto of Mr. MacEachen.
[Stage Direction]
December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, just before the six o'clock adjournment we were speaking to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We were talking basically about quota allocations and where they should be applied once the national marketing legislation has been established.
In the few minutes at my disposal tonight I want to show why western Canada thinks it is important for quota allocations to be spread representatively across Canada. As hon. members of the House may know, western Canada produces much of Canada's agricultural produce. Unfortunately, however, we ourselves do not have the population to sustain that production and in the result we depend on exports mainly to central Canada and to world markets. We export a great deal of our agricultural produce. For example, in 1965 western Canada exported 61 per cent of its beef and veal production. In 1969 that figure had moved down slightly to 53 per cent.
Let us consider pork, a commodity which could come under marketing legislation-in the next year or so. In 1965 about 42 per cent of western Canada's pork was exported. By 1970 that figure had increased to 62 per cent. The same holds true for chickens and hens and for egg production. Western Canada produced about 50 per cent of those commodities for export. By 1969 we had produced 59 per cent of the same commodities for export. The same sort of statistics hold true for butter and honey, although to a somewhat lesser degree. Clearly, in devising any marketing scheme this government must be very careful in the allocation of quotas. It must be especially careful if western Canada is to enjoy a viable agricultural industry and if it is to produce the cheapest possible products for Canadians.
On February 2, 1971, the Carman District Farm Business Association presented a brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The farmers in that association make up a good many of the farmers of southern Manitoba, the part of the province from which I come. At one time I was a member of the association. They presented a brief to the committee when it was travelling through Manitoba. One or two sections of that brief are significant if one is to understand the total picture with which we are dealing tonight. With regard to the production of poultry and eggs, the association says in its brief:
Where supply management is unavoidable the allocation of quotas assumes major importance. Farmers have seldom been specific on the techniques of quota allocation. Quota allocation will vary with the commodity and the agency.
The brief says that these minimum guidelines should be spelled out in any legislation that comes before the House of Commons. It then goes on to say that the initial allocation of quotas should reflect the status quo within the country. I think this is important. When we talk about quota allocations we must remember that producers must remain in production. Not only that, they must be given the chance to expand production. Talking about quotas, the brief goes on to say:
They should in no sense be regarded as provincial quotas. They should be prorated to actual producers on a national basis. It is difficult to suggest how the initial allocation of quotas can fairly represent both the asset structure and production variations due to weather, disease, etc. Rapidly changing technology and market

demands suggest that an average of the past five years' production record would be a reasonable compromise. Special consideration should be given where new facilities have not come into full production at the time of inception of a marketing agency.
That is precisely what the amendment deals with. For the most part I completely agree with its aims. The farmers of western Canada need some basis from which to work, as do farmers all across Canada. That basis should be the quota allocations. I think the minister said that for the most part this amendment would strengthen that position.
We have been talking, too, a great deal about the supply management concept in marketing legislation. It is at this point very hard not to talk about supply management when discussing Bill C-176. We have been talking about marketing legislation for almost three years. We started with Bill C-197, on which I did not have the privilege of speaking, but with respect to Bill C-176 I was able to sit on and travel with the committee to a great extent. So since we are now talking mainly about production control- price control, if you like-and quotas in association with supply management of poultry and eggs, I would like to put on record some of my feelings of hesitation with respect to the supply management concept which we have had to accept at least in part.
All through our negotiations and throughout our tour across Canada last winter, the issue most bluntly put by most agricultural organizations was whether certain commodity producers would be able to survive in western Canada, British Columbia, the Maritimes or, more particularly, eastern Canada as represented by Ontario and Quebec. The question is simply, who is going to continue in the agricultural business? What producers in western Canada are afraid of, and I believe this has been echoed in speeches made by other members from western Canada, is that the weight of political opinion will result in marketing quotas loaded in favour of eastern Canada if this legislation is passed in its present form. This is a very real and legitimate fear, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jack Burnett Murta: Hon. members opposite say no. I hope they are right. But this is a genuine fear which has evolved out of discussions and the exercises we have been going through during the last three years or so, so far as western Canada is concerned. Every time we talk about quotas, Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about supply management because without supply management, or a form of it, we would not be looking at this type of quota allocation. I have heard hon. members on the other side discussing supply management, but for my part at least I think they ignore the need for imaginative marketing programs in their efforts to impose this legislation on farmers. Experience has shown that many marketing boards of the kind hon. members opposite seek to establish-


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


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take the full ten minutes I am allowed, but 1
December 30, 1971

would like to express my disappointment that the government has not accepted the original wording of the amendment of my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). I am not a professor of English, but let us look at the intent of the original suggestion of the hon. member. He said in his motion:
In allocating additional quotas for anticipated growth of market demand, the marketing agency shall be guided by the principle of comparative advantage of production.
Now we find in the amendment introduced by the government a change in the words "be guided by" to "shall consider". Mr. Speaker, maybe we are playing with words, and maybe we are not. As I look at the situation I begin to wonder whether or not there is not a trade-off between the rich provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. It bothers me when I see people playing with words, which is what happens when we get into the back rooms of the House of Commons and talk of tradeoffs. When talking about a trade-off it is easy to play with words.
Motion No. 27 as originally introduced by my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar was satisfactory and I wonder now what is not satisfactory about it. As I look at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) opposite, I begin to wonder whether somebody has been playing with words in this particular amendment. As I look at the words "shall consider", I think of what those words would mean to me were I talking about labour negotiations, Mr. Speaker. They would mean absolutely nothing. "We shall consider" could well mean that we shall not necessarily implement that which we are considering.
As we talk to members from all parties in the House of Commons we realize that considerable time was taken up by the various caucuses of the House playing with words and trying to distinguish whether "shall consider" would be better terminology, as far as this amendment is concerned, than "shall be guided by". The original words "shall be guided by", in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, meant shall be guided by the historical rights that we have known for the last five years. Now the wording has been changed to "shall consider" what have been the historic rights of the producers across this nation for the last five years, and I am inclined to believe that the words we have todav are not what was intended in so far as this amendment was concerned.
As we look at the population growth across Canada I become all the more certain that the words we have before us today should not be in this amendment. When we consider the type, of producers we have across Canada, as we look at the type of control we have in the two main provinces-the population-growth provinces of Ontario and Quebec-and the increased population growth we are seeing in British Columbia, I begin to wonder whether the words we have now, "shall consider", will really serve the purpose which was intended. When we in Canada introduce legislation which should mean something to all of Canada, to all the agricultural producers across this land, then we should not be playing with words. Either we accept an amendment or we do not accept it. In the case before us now, I fear that we may be accepting words in an amendment which may not be in the best interests of Canadian agricultural producers insofar as all their historic rights are concerned.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I wonder, sometimes, about a government which will introduce legislation, such as the Minister of Agriculture is introducing here, when even he himself hesitates to approve certain amendments because they may not be to the liking of his particular constituency. As we see the elimination of the original intent of some of the amendments to Bill C-176, I become very firm in my belief that as far as the government is concerned this bill means absolutely nothing to the agricultural producers of the nation and will mean nothing to the individuals who will be affected.
It is understandable that many Members of Parliament from Ontario and Quebec are here to protect the vested interests of their particular province. As far as I am concerned, I was not elected to represent only the constituency of Moose Jaw but to represent the Canadian agricultural economy as a whole. I do not stand here to suggest that what is happening tonight is in the best interests of the agricultural producers, because it is not. Agricultural producers across Canada will realize that what this government has foisted upon them will do them no good whatsoever. It will be good for the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and possibly British Columbia in the future.
We are here to represent the smallest and largest producers in Canada. We are not here to protect vested interests wherever they may arise. Members of Parliament should know that they are here to protect the agricultural economy of Canada and not to protect only the vested interests of their particular provinces or constituencies. They should be interested in one nation. I shall find it very difficult to support a bill that has been subjected to the type of erosion to which this bill has been subjected. If we are asked to allow this type of tradeoff at the expense of the agricultural economy, it is high time we stood up and said exactly what we think. As far as I am concerned, I am for the agricultural economy of Canada, all ten provinces. I am not here to represent any vested interest.
When we look at this bill and amendments such as the one introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, we must consider whether historic rights will really mean anything in the future. I can only suggest that the people of this country have been taken by a government that is insensitive to the agricultural problems across this land.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the 90 minutes up, Mr. Speaker? If not, I would like to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Has the hon. member already spoken on the amendment?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will not be very long, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the former speaker. There are two aspects of this amendment, the theme of which should be dealt with. Much of the debate of the agricultural commit-
__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
December 30, 1971
tee centred around the concept of allowing regions which have a comparative advantage to continue to have that advantage. This is the only way we can maintain a national, efficient agricultural industry as suggested in one clause of the bill. If this is what is intended, this amendment should be accepted and some changes should be made.
The amendment deals with the question of "over a period of five years immediately preceding the effective date of the marketing plan". I think it would be far better if it were over a period of five years immediately preceding the establishment of changes in quotas. This would allow a moving five-year period and a far slower change in the quota system. As I understand this amendment, after the effective date of the marketing plan the last five years can be looked at and adjustments made accordingly. After first establishing the quotas, they no longer have to look at the previous five years. I do not think this is right.
Members of this House and officials of the Department of Agriculture have long been guided by the price stabilization theme. The minister and this government have abused it. In their wisdom, they have not tried to keep up the prices of agricultural products. That is their decision and they must account to the voters for it at the next election. In that bill there is a moving ten-year period in which agricultural products are priced accordingly at an 80 per cent minimum. In most cases the government has accepted the 80 per cent minimum and has gone no further.
I see the minister slapping his desk, indicating approval. The theme of that bill is a moving ten-year period and it sets an 80 per cent minimum. In setting prices for commodities, the cost of production should be taken into consideration. This bill was debated long before the present government assumed office. They probably do not remember the debate that centred around the cost of production figure that was written into that bill. Therefore, they pay no heed to it. It is regrettable that they do not.
In any event, we should have a moving five-year period in which changes in quota patterns would develop. I do not know why this government is so afraid. They think the agencies will be guided by the principle of comparative advantages of historic marketing patterns. That is why they want to change these words to "shall consider". This definitely weakens the amendment. It makes the amendment hardly worth spending 90 minutes on when our time is so severely rationed. We have to deal with 30 amendments before ten o'clock. I can think of many amendments more worthy of spending 90 minutes on than an amendment that changes the words "be guided by" to "shall consider". It is regrettable that the government has done this. It destroys the best part of the amendment.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on this amendment. I think that we worry too much about the allocation of production quotas, which will be done in due course. We seem to forget that after all there will be a negotiation at the provincial level and that the production quotas will be established with the approval of the provinces.

I would like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) who fears that some members might be tempted to express a provincial point of view. I would be dishonest if I were to say that I do not stand up for the interests of Quebec. Of course, my first duty is to work for my province and I concede to all hon. members that this is also their first duty. I do not consider it honest to claim that one stands up for the interests of Canada by forgetting at the same time to stand up for the interests of one's own province.
Working in the interest of my province is also working in the interest of Canada.
I should not like to dwell further on the matter, nor should I want to miss the opportunity to express my hope that the bill will have favourable results for my province. The province of Quebec, as indeed any other province, can benefit from the bill because of the co-operation and co-ordination between all Canadian provinces it involves.
The concrete results of the legislation are based on co-ordination and on the negotiations which can take place around one table. The purpose of Bill C-176 is to unite, for once, the ten provinces in the setting up of production quotas. Such discussions and negotiations will eventually achieve a control of production, advantageous for both small and medium producers who are now experiencing difficulties.
It is therefore wrong to claim that small producers will suffer hardship as a result of these production quotas. Quite the contrary, when these quotas will be guaranteed to them, they will have the certainty of selling their products ar normal prices and this, I believe, justifies hopes of better times.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment to motion No. 27. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) to motion No. 27 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is now on motion No. 27 as amended. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre, for Mr. Gleave) as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the grouping made on April 27 last, the House will now proceed to the consideration of motions Nos. 2 and 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Motion No. 2 reads as follows:
That Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national
December 30, 1971
COMMONS DEBATES_____________________________
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by adding the following to subclause (c) of clause 2 at line 17, page 1:
"except cattle and calves and products of beef and veal".
Motion No. 3 reads:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to subclause (c) of clause 2 at line 17, page 1:
"except hogs and pork products".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, we are dealing with motions Nos. 2 and 3 together. I do not want particularly to cause a vote or to take up very much time, but I believe an explanation is necessary. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) has already moved a subamendment to motion No. 1 which suggests that cattle and calves should be exempt from the provisions of this bill. I shall not ask for a roll-call vote on motions Nos. 2 and 3, but now that the House has seen fit to limit this bill so that the supply management aspect of it applies only to the poultry industry I see no purpose in the bill applying to the cattle industry.
Some might say that the cattle industry, the hog industry and all other industries can organize national organizations, and that the national organizations can concern themselves with research into producing better products and better marketing facilities. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is a national body. It has a check-off in four of the ten provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. An amount of ten cents a head, or part of it, for every head of livestock sold in those four provinces goes toward the maintenance of the Canadian Cattleman's Association as a national body. Any other association can join and enjoy the check-off privileges.


An hon. Member:: Is that a privilege?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, it is in respect of such a worth-while body. The Cattlemen's Association has done a great deal of work with the Canadian Department of Agriculture in trying to bring about a better system of marketing. This association has involved itself deeply in the marketing of its product. If cattle and calves were included in this bill, this would give food for thought to those who are opposed to the Cattlemen's Association, which is now established, in respect of setting up another national organization.
With two national organizations there could be a dispute concerning where the check-off money should go. In fact, the Cattlemen's Association, which has done so much good work in market research and research generally, would probably end up in a dispute as to which organization the check-off should go. This would probably destroy the Cattlemen's Association and it might take five or six years to get another one back on the road.
There is no need for cattle to come under the provisions of the bill. At the present time cattle are not included in the provisions of the bill, because an application can be made to have cattle come under the provisions of the bill but this will never happen. This is not the case in respect of the hog industry. This industry does not have a national organization. There are provincial organizations and provincial check-offs for some of the provincial organizations, but there is not a national check-off similar to that in respect of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
With that clarification in respect of some of the negotiations of a week or so ago, most hon. members realize there is no purpose in cattle being included and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek might as well be accepted. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) promised a long time ago that he would take cattle and calves out of the provisions of the bill. He has not demonstrated clearly that he really wants cattle and calves excluded from the provisions of the bill.
This amendment and the amendment moved this afternoon give the minister a clearcut opportunity to vote in respect of his earlier intention of allowing cattle and calves to be removed from the provisions of the bill. Without saying any more, I am prepared to not call for a roll-call vote in respect of motions Nos. 2 and 3, and if the House wishes we might proceed to another group of amendments.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to these amendments relative to the exclusion of cattle and hogs from the provisions of the bill, I should mention that there is great concern even on the part of people who have accepted the concept of provisions being included in the bill by means of a national plebescite. Let us look at the provincial figures. I have the figures for the last census, namely, 1966. The farmers who raise cattle, hogs and sheep are grouped together in this listing. In Ontario there are 28,809; in Alberta, 20,418. Dairy farmers are listed separately. There are 21,000 of them in Ontario, which would leave a net balance of about 7,000 beef or hog men. In Alberta, if you subtract 2,000 there are about
18,000	left.
The fear that these people have with regard to a plebiscite is that a plebiscite of the majority of producers in other sections of Canada, other than those where the bulk of beef or hogs is raised, by virtue of the number of producers could very well bring the other portions of Canada under the Sections of the act. I think it is very important when we look at this bill that we identify who shall be classified as a producer. I do not know how we will do that under any concept of supply management, because all the dairy farmer of Ontario or Quebec has to do is keep back his steer calves, feed them out, and he is a bona fide beef producer just as much as the man in the west who does nothing else for his livelihood but raise cattle. He also is a bona fide meat producer.
This is the kind of problem and concern that is worrying people and brings members such as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) to their feet wanting the specific exclusion of cattle and calves. They realize that if it comes right down to the people who are actually raising beef, numerically speaking in any plebiscite they would be at a disadvantage. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a question that has always haunted beef and hog men. I am referring to how a national plebiscite could be conducted. I will quote an excerpt from the Farm and Country magazine of December 21 to illustrate what goes
10882

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
on and how areas of Canada can divide up the market on an equitable basis. It reads as follows:
Some of Ontario's broiler chicken farmers are a little restless. They fear that too much may be given Quebec in current market sharing negotiations. Several have voiced an opinion that the two provinces should serve their own markets. Thus, Ontario with a population of 7 million and Quebec with a population of 6 million would produce a formula split of 7 to 6.
But there has to be some give and take. Currently Quebec has been asking for 39 per cent of the national market, with 35 per cent for Ontario-the two provinces have 74 per cent of Canada's output. "We couldn't get our producers to accept this," says Ontario broiler board manager John Janzen. "It would mean giving Quebec part of the Toronto market".
However, Jansen adds, Ontario chicken growers might accept a 50-50 split. "But there's been a lot of reluctance." A 50-50 split means that Ontario and Quebec each would have 37 per cent of the national market. In effect, this arrangement would give Quebec more than 500,000 consumers living in Ontario-what is known as the Ottawa market.
Here we have two provinces in Canada arguing over how they are going to split up their percentage of the national market. In effect, we have a situation where the two provinces have 74 per cent of the national broiler market with something like 59 per cent of the population. I say that anybody who does not live in one of the more densely populated areas of Canada, who lives in an area where there is considerable production, will live in constant fear of being brought into the ambit of this act against his will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it can be considered unusual for an urban dweller to say something on this bill and in particular on the amendments brought forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Throughout this debate I have been concerned about one thing. I have heard much about the producer, but it seems to me that no one has paid much attention to the consumer. It seems to me that we should be able to give some assistance to the consumer and assure him that costs will not rise. Throughout all the briefs, the underlying theme seems to have been that costs to the consumer will rise. I was very impressed with the brief of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and I would like to quote parts of it.


Mark Willson Rose: You were impressed? I thought it was disastrous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, I was. This brief is dated February, 1971. In it we find the following statement:
The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce is fully cognizant of the need for an improved marketing mechanism at the basic producer level while at the same time taking note of the fact that any legislation affecting this segment of the economy will have substantial implications for the intermediate stages of processing and distribution as well as for the ultimate consumer.
While recognizing the need for an improved marketing mechanism at the primary producer level, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce wishes at this time to re-emphasize the fact that market prices, as determined by normal demand and supply relationships, are an indispensable part of our free enterprise economy. Legislation in this area should be designed to augment the free market rather than circumvent it through artificial restrictions and controls.
It seems very strange to me, when I look at clause 22 of the bill-and perhaps I will be corrected if I am wrong-to find that only one paragraph of the clause refers to the rights of the consumer. I refer you to the clauses entitled "Objects" and "Powers". Clause 22 (b) provides: to have due regard to the interests of producers and consumers of the regulated product or products.
In my view this is only a pious declaration of an intention on the part of the government because it does not spell anything out and it does not protect the consumer. The consumer is not represented. Supply management seems to have been mentioned very often in this debate, and it is not accepted by many people because it hampers free trade among provinces. So far as international markets are concerned, we will be shafted and in the long run it will add to the costs of the producer which will certainly be passed on to the consumer. I should like to put on record that when we deal with legislation such as this, in the long run we must be concerned about what will happen to the consumer. This provision will mean a hidden tax. The consumer will have to pay more for his goods.
It pleases me to note that after some deliberation and consideration the government was able to come upon a solution which allowed the vast majority of producers, except those who in the long run will be able to do as they see fit through enabling legislation, to take advantage of the act. I think there should be more debate on the ultimate cost to the consumer arising from passage of this bill. We would be well advised to think of that aspect of the matter.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser -Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally known that I have always had a great deal of respect for members of the House of Commons who have spoken on agricultural marketing, grain bills, and other agricultural legislation. I have always been amazed at how many experts on agriculture there are in the House, but less impressed with the amount of expertise.
We have just heard from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), a notable lawyer and a very fine fellow. I am sure that when he got out of college and was given a piece of scroll which said, "You are now a lawyer," he did not go downtown and put up a sign, saying he was open for business as a lawyer. No, Mr. Speaker, he went to the legal profession and they welcomed him and told him to listen to them. They told him "When we have decided you are ready, you can go and put up your shingle and say that you are a lawyer, that in our opinion you are prepared to function, to operate, and to charge fees." They call that being admitted to the bar.
The farmer is a little bit better off than that, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that in every industry in Canada, in the United States, and in fact in most of the countries of the world a type of supply management is exercised. You will not find the automative industry building cars without a market. The minute those people realize the potential of the market is drying up they stop building cars. As a matter of fact they have the industry so well organized that they do not even make a car any more until you buy

December 30, 1971

the thing. Yet people expect the agricultural industry to produce and produce.
If it is a perishable product that is produced then that is just too bad. People will say, "Lower the price way below the cost of production, and hopefully somebody will buy it." From my experience in the perishable products industry I can tell you that people do not always buy. And when they don't, apples go in the dump, baby chickens go in the ash can, and eggs are turned into some kind of egg solid. In other words, the farmer is supposed to say to the world, "I have produced this product. How much will you give me for it?"
I would like to be able to go into the office of the hon. member for Hamilton West in the morning and say to him: "I have two houses that I wish to convey today. I have looked at the market price, and the market price for conveying appears to be $87.50 per house. I want this done by two o'clock this afternoon. If you don't get it done by two o'clock this afternoon I shall take my business somewhere else." Just imagine trying to do that sort of thing.
I am not opposing the system by which the legal profession works. I think it is a very fine system. I think it serves their industry. They discipline themselves. They say to certain members of the bar, "You are not doing the right thing. We, the members of the bar, shall discipline you because you are doing the wrong thing."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that we are still on amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The hon. member is making what I would call a third reading speech. Doesn't he want to stay here until midnight? He is the one who is keeping us here so late.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot is well taken. On the other hand, with the limited time available for debate, the Chair generally has given a little leeway to hon. members if only for the purpose of preventing too much time being spent on points of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have from now until ten o'clock to deal with about 20 or 25 amendments, and then we will start to vote on them. The hon. member should deal with this amendment and make his third reading speech later.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the advice of the hon. member. I have never made a speech in this House when the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has not stood up and helped me out. As a relatively new member I appreciate this. He and I sit on the same side of the House, although I am a government member, and I can assure him that I will certainly return the favour.
I was merely responding to statements made by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Whether we are going to eliminate cattle and calves, or eliminate potatoes, the point I would like to make is that this is not new legislation. This is not something that has never been tried. This is not something that is suddenly foisted upon the agricultural producers of Canada. This is simply enabling legislation to assist people involved in the industry, if you like in cattle production, or potato production, or in any other
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
type of agricultural production, to create within their commodity groups a national organization.
For many years we have had provincial marketing boards. My province of British Columbia has been a leader in planned production, in orderly production and orderly marketing. It is a province which has probably been more successful in all types of agriculture than any other province, and its farmers get their money from the market place instead of from the taxpayers, unlike farmers in a lot of other areas. I think we should be concerned to provide this opportunity to all segments of the industry, including those people engaged in the cattle business.
I have never ceased to be amazed at the little knowledge which the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and the hon. member for Crowfoot have displayed with regard to present day marketing boards. I do not believe they have ever actually attended a marketing board meeting. I am not sure they know who the marketing board people are, that they can call the presidents by name; and here I refer to the egg, turkey and butter boards. I do not think they have investigated and discovered what is a contemporary marketing board.
This bill is simply enabling legislation that is being made available to all commodity groups in Canada. The bill makes it very plain that it is not intended to be forced on anybody.
Another point which I wish to make, and make forcefully, is that this is a producers' bill, not a bureaucrats' bill. The producers of Canada-


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


Léonel Beaudoin: I wish to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment before us, which was proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) concerning cattle and calves.
I think it is necessary first to know who wishes cattle and calves to be included in the bill. We all received a letter dated April 15, 1971, which read as follows:
To all members of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada.
First, let me remind you that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is the national organization representing beef producers throughout Canada. Beef producers are also represented by strong provincial associations affiliated with the national organization.
As to the question to which I am going to refer, I can state positively that it received unanimous agreement from the various provincial organizations and from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
The purpose of this letter is to state our position concerning Bill C-176, an act to establish national marketing agencies for farm products, the approval of which we believe is impending.
The intent of this bill, as you will understand, is to allow the enactment of laws to vest the federal government with vast powers regarding the production and marketing of all farm products, except milk and wheat which are already regulated.
It is for strong reasons of principle and sound economic management that beef producers rejected Bill C-176 and asked that their product, steers and calves, namely beef and veal, be exempted from the bill. As responsible Canadian citizens we repudiate
24725-60.',

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
the bill as a whole but we have no mandate to speak on behalf of producers of other farm products.
Following our appeal concerning such an exemption, we were given written assurances by the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. H. A. Olson, that our product would be exempted. However, in spite of three separate appearances before the standing committee on agriculture, the majority of committee members forced the inclusion of our product in this bill.
Our position can be briefly summed up as follows.
When a proposed legislation affects some sector of our society while it was not sought nor wished for by that sector, when it cannot be proven that the proposed legislation is essential to the general interest of society, we consider that government has no right to impose such a legislation to such a sector.
If you agree with this proposition, we suggest that you should admit that the beef industry is entitled to exemption from Bill C-176. We have challenged the supporters of this legislation and the members of the Committee on Agriculture to show us how general interest will be served by the inclusion of our product, and they could not take up the challenge. We have explained that we were not seeking nor wishing for such 'egislation. Therefore, we suggest that our right to an exempt! from this legislation is evident for all those who care for justice; therefore, we call upon you to support our claim for exemption from this legislation.
The beef producers are still strongly attached to democratic principles allowing popular participation in the working out of a legislation and representative government. Although our efforts aimed at exemption obtained consensus among beef producers and their representative bodies throughout Canada, up to now our appeals have not been listened to.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that such a letter is self-explanatory. The associations of cattle breeders in no way want this legislation to apply to them; they do not even want to hear about it. I believe that the House has no right to force upon a group of producers a legislation which they do not want.


Mark Willson Rose: Speaking briefly to this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, while I agree in general terms with my colleague from Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), I must emphasize that there is no truth in the rumour that we are actually relatives.
In speaking for my party I should like to say that we do not support the motion advanced by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I can understand why he and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) feel strongly about this motion, since they represent ridings in which the cattle industry is prominent.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) might be similarly affected by this, but while he did agree, under some kind of pressure of which I know nothing, to withdraw particular reference to cattle and calves prior to the second set of committee hearings on the bill, I think it should be pointed out that it was not he who put cattle and calves back in the bill but rather the committee. It is only fair to state this. I notice the minister smiles. He has not smiled a great deal lately so I do not mind his smiling now.
I can understand the position of the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Battle River; they are concerned because the cattle business is an important industry in their ridings. However, Mr. Speaker, I really could not understand the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I do not know why he was taking part in this debate at all. The hon. member for Crowfoot scowls at me now but it was he who complained bitterly about

the time being taken up on this particular motion on the grounds that we wished to get to some other amendments before ten o'clock. I should like to point out to him that three Conservative members spoke-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West rises on a question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) believes that he has the wherewithal to become involved in a debate such as this. I should like to advise the hon. member that we who have been elected to sit in this hallowed Chamber have every right to discuss any matter that comes before us as parliamentarians. He may think I know very little about agriculture, but I certainly know that when my wife goes to the grocery store to buy foodstuff she is very concerned about prices. All I am trying to do-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor on a question of privilege. It seems to the Chair that if he has such a question he should state it very briefly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member, being a gentleman, should withdraw the remarks that he made questioning my right to take part in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will not insist, but I should like a ruling from the Chair to the effect that whenever a member feels the urge-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -to become involved in a debate in this House, he should be allowed to do so. Qualifications or brilliance are not required; the only requirement is sincerity. I hope the hon. member who has the floor will offer an apology and will, in his usual charitable way, withdraw the unkind remarks he directed at the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, as usual, when the hon. member for Hamilton West rises to make any point or ask a question, his remarks go on for hours.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Withdraw!


Mark Willson Rose: I am usually persuaded by his remarks. Therefore if I have said anything to offend the hon. member certainly I will be pleased to withdraw those remarks.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was close, but not quite good enough.


An hon. Member:: Take advantage of that, Rose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And a happy New Year to both of you.


Mark Willson Rose: I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton West if he does not feel that farmers should be given the
December 30, 1971

same right to protection in the market-place as any other group of citizens. If he does not feel that, he should go back to his riding and tell that to the steelworkers union.


An hon. Member:: And the lawyers.


Mark Willson Rose: Should farmers not have the same rights as lawyers, doctors, dentists and others?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is hogwash. There is no foundation for that statement. The hon. member is wasting time.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) suggests this is hogwash. So far as I know, he has not spoken in defence of the producers of swine. I think anybody who knows as much about hogwash as he does would be up defending the hog producers. Instead, there he sits in his place, picking his teeth.
To get back to the point, much has been made of this business of withdrawing cattle and calves from the bill. Certainly the terms "cattle and calves" has been removed from the bill. I think that was a moral victory or at least, it was a verbal victory and perhaps a euphemistic victory for the hon. member for Crowfoot. If cattle and calves are not included among natural farm products, what are they? So cattle and calves are included in the bill, despite the efforts of the hon. member for Crowfoot, whose efforts I admire. He is a dogged man and doughty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: He is a dogged fighter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the hon. member were a little more doughty he would go a long way, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it quite clear that members of my party do not support motion No. 2 put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot. If there is to be a marketing act in Canada covering natural products, it should be all-inclusive. That is why we are pleased to support the minister's amendment which included all natural farm products.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why are you supporting the motion now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am speaking of the subamendment moved by the minister. Why are you people supporting it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I think you should call for order. In the words of the hon. member's leader, a leader who is not here tonight-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where is your leader? Answer that one.


Mark Willson Rose: -I want-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where is your leader?


An hon. Member:: Where is Alfie?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Withdraw that last remark.


An hon. Member:: Explain.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you, Rose.


An hon. Member:: Where is your leader?


Mr. Mahoney:: They don't know where he is, but they know who he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).


Mark Willson Rose: I was going to ask hon. members on my right who are making catcalls-


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is Alfie?


Mark Willson Rose: -if they would be kind enough to put them in sequence so that the Hansard reporter can get them all down.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is Alfie?


An hon. Member:: Where is David?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, where is David?


Mark Willson Rose: I would suggest to you-


An hon. Member:: There are three NDP members in the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where are the rest? I see five NDP members in the chamber.


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


J. Michael Forrestall: I beg your pardon. There are only four and a half.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, at long last I am pleased to be convinced that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) can actually count. He has demonstrated his ability tonight.


John Leroy Skoberg: He has not got it right yet.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is Alfie?


Mark Willson Rose: If we are to have a comprehensive agricultural marketing bill, a national marketing bill, I think it will be necessary to include in it all the products of agriculture. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment that is before us. It appears, on the one hand, to judge from what we learned in Edmonton hearings, that the cattle producers say they want no government interference. They want a continental market. On the other hand, they want tariff protection against Australian and New Zealand beef and they want the cheapest leased land they can get for their product. It seems to me that there is a basic inconsistency in this. So I suggest that the House should not accept this amendment. I think, in view of the agreement that has been entered into and the subamendment that has been moved to clause 2, motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot is redundant.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is Alfie?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing this question for months. I would also like to oppose this amendment. I submit that this bill should include all farm products, and I cannot refrain from objecting officially to an amendment aiming at excluding veal and beef.
The honourable member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) mentioned earlier that in certain provinces existing organizations do not feel the need for national legislation. When will it be understood that Bill C-176 leaves producers entirely free? These organizations will always be able to operate under this legislation if they so desire.
Now, obviously if these beef and veal producers were satisfied with current results, they would not have asked the federal government to pass legislation concerning their production. One never knows if those organizations will continue to work as well but this Bill C-176 is available to all categories of producers producing a certain item. So I wonder why there is still obstruction or discussion about the fact that in Bill C-176 some words were taken out of clause 2. As far as I am concerned it is a matter of interpretation. The fact remains that by virtue of the wording of the amendment introduced by the minister it is clear that beef and calf can still be subject to quotas if the majority of the producers involved so asked.
I appreciated the remark made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when he spoke of consumers and protection of the consumers. I think this bill is also aimed at protecting the consumers. In fact, we know quite well that the policy of supply and demand that prevailed up to now brought ups and downs to our producers. Overproduction would result in inadequate prices whereas underproduction would bring about an increase in those same prices. The consumer has always been subjected to those ups and downs and has never experienced any stability or assurance. Orderly production will allow the setting of reasonable prices for producers. It is imperative that the consumer should permit the producer to obtain such reasonable prices. Briefly speaking, the consumer will be protected inasmuch as the farming industry in Canada will be sound and healthy. It is a protection for the consumer to have legislation which will allow all producers in Canada to earn adequate income.
I was both surprised and disappointed at the argument brought forth by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) when he said he was in favour of excluding cattle and calves. I fail to understand how an hon. member, especially and Easterner, could favour such an exclusion. Of course, I would have wished that the honourable member for Richmond would have been in favour of the inclusion in this bill of all farm products while obviously he did not understand this amendment, since it is very clear. Should it be said once again that most of the producers will always be free to be governed by bill C-176?
I am coming back to what I said a couple of days ago that Bill C-176, under this amendment as all the others, is

only providing a service that will be useful to the farming community.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that motion No. 3 was not formally put to the chamber. It might be well to put it now, before I put the question on motion No. 2. Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. Hees, moves:
That 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 be amended by adding the following to subclause (e) of clause 2 at line 17, page one: "except hogs and pork products".
The question is on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are two very minor and inconsequential housekeeping amendments to which I should like to refer. One would change the number five to the number seven. The other relates to the Revised Statutes of Canada. I would be prepared to move them and to give a very brief explanation, if the House would give me consent to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.

December 30,1971

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To my knowledge, these two amendments were not on the bargaining table, and they should have been if the minister wanted them. Since they were not on the bargaining table I do not give consent now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a rule in the book that when legislation is passed it is supposed to make sense and hold together. I do not have the exact wording, but there is such a rule. The Minister of Agriculture did show these two amendments to some of us. One of them is intended to change the number of a section of another act to which reference is made. If this change is not made, the' legislation we pass will be incorrect in that it will refer to the wrong section.
The other has reference to the Revised Statutes of Canada. The change has to be made because the Revised Statutes for 1970 have been proclaimed since this bill was drawn up. It seems to me that these amendments ought to be allowed in the interest of drawing up a bill that makes sense.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the point of order, may I say that the proposed amendment dealing with the Revised Statutes of Canada is one which deals with Revised Statutes which came into force on July 15. Where has the minister been since July 15? I have no sympathy with him and I must withhold consent.


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Very intelligent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You keep your mouth shut.


Marcel Lessard: I would prefer to keep my mouth shut rather than make a statement like that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Chair has to make a determination on the basis of Standing Order 75(7). I will read it, and then ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could give the Chair notice of the amendments. The Chair has no notice of the amendments at present, but if the minister would give notice I would be in a position to make a ruling.
Section (7) of Standing Order 75 states:
An amendment in relation to form only in a government bill may be proposed by a Minister of the Crown without notice, but debate thereon may not be extended to the provisions of the clause or clauses to be amended.
There is a note following the section which I will also read:
The purpose of the section is to facilitate the incorporation into a bill of amendments of a strictly consequential nature flowing from the acceptance of other amendments. No waiver of notice would be permitted in relation to any amendment which would change the intent of the bill, no matter how slightly, beyond the effect of the initial amendment.
If the Minister of Agriculture would give notice of the amendments he proposes, the Chair would be prepared to make a ruling on the basis of the Standing Order I have quoted.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the House proposed a motion, a time allocation motion, which stated the House could take 90 minutes to discuss amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 22, 90 minutes to discuss amendment 18 and 90 minutes in debating amendment No. 27; and that in the remaining time between now and ten o'clock hon. members would deal with the other 25 amendments. No mention was made of these two amendments which the minister now proposes. We are spending ten minutes now dealing with amendments which are new to us. I regret very much that an amendment that has been necessary since July 15 should be brought forward at this point, without a word having been said about them previously, although negotiations have been going on for two weeks. I regret very much having to put back in the farthest corner of my mind the suspicions that lurk there following actions such as this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that these two amendments do fall into the category you mentioned. One is intended to substitute a seven for a five, because the reference number in the Aeronautics Act has been changed. The reference is to exactly the same clause in that act, but it now has a different number.
As far as the other change is concerned, we hoped to delete clause 39, which was for the purpose of co-ordinating this bill with the Revised Statutes of Canada. As far as I am concerned, clause 39 no longer serves any useful purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think this is an important point. The concern of the Chair, and I shall have to make a ruling, is that the amendments can only be accepted with the unanimous consent of the House. I read previously Standing Order 75(7). The explanatory note was obviously put there for the guidance of the Chair and hon. members.
I will read it again:
The purpose of the section is to facilitate the incorporation into a bill of amendments of a strictly consequential nature flowing from the acceptance of other amendments.
That is probably the point on which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) may founder. Unless hon. members or the minister can convince me that the amendments which the minister proposes flow from the acceptance of other amendments at this stage, I must rule they can only be proposed with the unanimous consent of the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will bring them in at the next session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House now has before it for consideration motion No. 4. The motion, moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), is as follows:-
That Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended
(a)	by deleting from subclause (e) of clause 2 the words "regulation and control" at lines 6 and 7, page 2; and
(b)	by deleting paragraph (iii) of subclause (e) of clause 2 at page
2 and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
10888__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
December 30, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House now has for consideration motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8. These motions are grouped together for the purpose of debate. Motion No. 6, moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore), is as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting from subclause (1) of clause 3 the words "at least fifty per cent" at line 5, page 4 and substituting therefor the words "a majority".
Motion No. 7, moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), is as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting from subclause (1) of clause 3 the words "pleasure" at line 8, page 4 and substituting the following:
"good behaviour for a term not exceeding 7 years but may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council at any time."
Motion No. 8, moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), is as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding the following as subclause (2) to clause 3 immediately after line 8 at page 4;
"(2) The Governor in Council shall be able to re-appoint council members who have served their full 7-year term."
and by renumbering subsequent subclauses accordingly.
The question is on motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Motion No. 6 needs very little explanation in view of the fact the bill only concerns producers. If producers are going to control their own marketing agency, they must have a majority of members on that agency. That is all my amendment seeks. That is the only explanation I need give, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As hon. members know, these three motions are grouped for the purpose of debate. If hon. members wish to speak to the other motions, they should do so at this time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to speak to motion No. 7, Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief. Most major statutes have the phrase "good behaviour" in them with regard to appointments. The National Transportation Act and the CRTC Act come to mind. When the committee dealt with this question I pointed out what I consider to be four major acts of Parliament. I refer to the National Transportationn Act, the act which controls television,

radio and the media, and the Canadian Wheat Board Act. There are two or three others. They all spell out that appointments are made by the governor in council to hold office on "good behaviour."
Clause 3 of this bill states that members of the council will be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure. We in this House have witnessed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) from time to time. We understand very well what the words "during pleasure" mean. They mean during the minister's pleasure. If the minister does not like the fellow, or if he is not doing what the minister wants, he goes.
I do not believe a council should work for a government. It should work for the producers and the good of Canada. The council should not necessarily be the tool of the minister responsible for reporting its actions to the House of Commons. Therefore, I ask all members of this House to accept the amendment which changes the words "pleasure" to "good behaviour". If a man is doing his job, even though it is not to the minister's pleasure, if it is for the good of the country and the producers and the marketing of the product concerned, he should be allowed to keep that job.
I will be requesting a recorded vote on this question because, Mr. Speaker, as I have suggested, four major acts of Parliament already have the words "good behaviour" in them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment is worthy of support by all members of the House. There was considerable discussion in the committee as to how our various acts operate. Because we made changes in this act in relation to members of the council being, in the majority, producer representatives, it is very important that they have a definite period of time. With respect to a number of government agencies people are appointed at pleasure. They have been moved when they have become unpopular with the government of the day. It is almost like the case of a roads commissioner. A change in government means a change in the roads commissioner, not because he did not do a good job but because "at pleasure" in the legal sense usually means that he moves. He may have done a good job, but he was on the wrong side of the fence.
There should be in a council as much continuity as possible. Provided a person behaves himself, seven years will serve much better than "at pleasure", which indicates an appointment for a political purpose and one not necessarily in the interests of continuity and impartiality. Now that we have made the change and put producers on the council, I think most members would agree that some freedom should be given to them. Really they operate their own business. They operate on behalf of the other producers who join them, and seven years seems to be a reasonable length of time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments before us would certainly tend to guarantee certain rights to the producers.
It is proposed, first of all, to alter amendment No. 6 by deleting the words "at least 50 per cent" and substituting
December 30, 1971

therefor the words "a majority". I think we should all agree that if marketing agencies are established, it is for the purpose of marketing farm products. Under the circumstances, however, I think that a majority of producers should control these organizations.
With regard to amendment No. 7,1 will say that it would be quite reasonable for the minister or the Governor in council to have the right, under this bill, to remove a member of the board who does not discharge his duties adequately, because it would not be in the best interests of the producers to have on the board a member without good behaviour. This bill should therefore provide for dismissal of anybody who does not carry out his duties satisfactorily.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the said motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Moore) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the relevant standing order the division will be deferred until later this day.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the said motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Horner) negatived.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The chamber has before it now the consideration of Motion No. 9. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) moves:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of clause 6 immediately after line 17, page 5:
"(a) to submit to the minister, at the commencement of each production year, a list of prices which shall be paid for a regulated product for that year, such prices to be compensatory for the cost of production of such product;"
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity and am grateful to the House for having dealt with the previous amendments in such haste so that I might utter at least a few words in support of this particular motion. I moved this motion in the committee after having had the assistance of various law officers of the House of Commons who advised me that it was in order. Later during the committee proceedings I was advised by the chairman that my motion was not in order. After bringing it to the House I now find apparently that it is now in order.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to my motion because I believe it is germane to the whole bill. I believe the hon. member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Harding) mentioned that lawyers, doctors, plumbers and so on have a closed shop organization. They know precisely what they will get as a result of their negotiations. Whenever a union in this country negotiates it does so from the position that the members know next year precisely what they will get. If the producers of this country are to be regulated to the point where they will not be in a position to produce any more and are told so by a council, then they must have a price which is compensatory in respect of the cost of production.
It seems to me that we cannot have it both ways. If the producers are expected at any particular time to produce cheap food, and if a cheap food policy is to be incorporated in this bill, then all the small producers will suffer. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made quite an issue about there being some big people who will make fortunes out of this bill and I pointed out that there will also be people who will go broke. This is true. The people who have the quotas, the haves, will get richer and the have-nots will get poorer. The have-nots will be expected to produce and to produce at a price which is not economically feasible. They do not have any negotiators working on their behalf.
Mention is always made of the people who are the leaders in every community. They are the big fellows who come forward. They are the people who have made a success in a certain area and therefore are considered able to make a success of endeavours in another area. Because they are the people who have the lower cost of production it is considered that they are the people who should do the negotiating.
That does not necessarily follow. There are many smaller producers who will not have bargaining power. We are told that General Motors cuts down its production when it

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
does not have a market. However, when they bring out their 1972 models they also set the price.
I believe that a producer who is expected to put in a crop in the spring should also know what he will get for it. He does not, because many factors are involved, such as weather and other conditions which he cannot predict. He should also take into account that he is producing a commodity that is necessary but which will be regulated on the basis of the requirements of this country, which is a narrow way of looking at it. But it should be possible for that producer to know where he will financially be at the end of the year. He should be able to sit down with pen and paper and calculate how he is going to meet his expenses. If the whole principle of supply management is at all valid, which I doubt very much, that is how it should be.
I am always looking for greater efficiency on my farm. We are always struggling hard, looking for short cuts and economy. There are certain fixed expenses which cannot be avoided. I would like the House at this stage to take into account all the factors which enter into the cost of production. This amendment deserves consideration by members on both sides of the House.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to support this amendment and to indicate that while there is considerable difficulty in establishing a guaranteed forward price for a commodity, if we are going to have marketing agencies that are successful and that will produce what farmers expect of them-which is a fair price for a commodity having regard to the cost of production-prices will have to be negotiated by the farmer himself.
It is quite true that when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) speaks of an annual forward price he is referring to a commodity which can be calculated on that basis. I think the minister will find that there are other commodities which fit into a production cycle, and the guaranteed price will be based on that cycle rather than annually.
Everyone agrees, I believe, that unless a forward price can be established there is little opportunity for the ordinary farmer to continue production of that commodity. It is true that when the feed companies are vertically integrated they can lose on the production of broilers and at the same time make considerable money in processing and converting their feed into broiler production. If they do not make anything on the broilers, they make it up on the feed, or vice-versa. So long as production is vertically integrated it will be very difficult for large producers to establish what will be a reasonable forward price.
It is for this reason that some of the farm organizations in Canada are asking that they be allowed to negotiate. The hon. member for Mackenzie pointed out that no union would start their work for the year, whether that be the contract year or some other designated time, until they knew how much they would get paid, which price would be negotiated. Obviously the farmers should be in a position to do the same thing.
The farmers union has suggested that they should bargain on behalf of the farmers across Canada, and other organizations have said that they are the people who should bargain for the farmers. I do not think it is enough to leave it to the agency to decide what the price will be on

a day to day or month to month basis; but if the operation is successful, some forward guaranteed price will have to be established which will take into consideration the cost of production and profit. Anything less will mean, as it has in the past, that if the marketplace is the deciding factor the big ones will get bigger and the small ones will disappear from the scene. The Liberal government will then have accomplished one of its major aims, namely to get rid of the small farms across Canada.
I believe that negotiations will produce a guaranteed price on behalf of the individual. This is a collective operation on the marketplace, and anything less will be unsatisfactory so far as the small producers of any given commodity are concerned.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think that amendment No. 9 meets a need which is becoming more and more obvious-as is clearly demonstrated, for instance, in the case of the Canadian Dairy Commission. Around the beginning of March, all industrial milk producers ask themselves questions and put pressure on members of Parliament and on the Minister of Agriculture in order to know, as early as April 1, what is the minimum price they will receive for the current year.
As I see it, producers would be best to manage their production according to the minimum prices which they expect to receive. So, if the policy which has been applied has improved the situation, it should, I feel, be applied to marketing boards. And I think the substance of the amendment is very appropriate. It reads as follows:
-a list of prices which shall be paid for a regulated product for that year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the question is to be put in just a few seconds. Maybe the hon. member would end his remarks within 10 or 15 seconds.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do so within 10 seconds. This allows one to end a sentence better. I was quoting:
-such prices to be compensatory for the cost of production of such product;
So the cost of production should be taken into account in order to give producers a chance to make reasonable profits.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, in accordance with the order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt the debate and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-176. The Chair proposes to put first the motions which have not yet been put to the House so that we may determine which will be subject to a formal division.
The question will first be put on Motion No. 9. Mr. Korchinski moves Motion No. 9 as follows:
That Bill C-i76, An Act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of Clause 6 immediately after line 17, page 5:
December 30, 1971
COMMONS DEBATES_____________________________
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
"(o) to submit to the Minister, at the commencement of each production year, a list of prices which shall be paid for a regulated product for that year, such prices to be compensatory for the cost of production of such product;"
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.- All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred according to the Standing Order.
The question is on motion No. 10. Mr. Horner moves Motion No. 10 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting from paragraph (o) of subclause (1) of Clause 6 the words "efficient and competitive" at line 22, page 5 and substituting the word "viable" therefor.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make it clear to hon. members that by rising they are calling for a formal vote. This vote will be deferred.
Mr. Mazankowski moves Motion No. 11 as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 6, immediately after the word "industry" at line 23, page 5:
"to the end that the economic and social viability of farm communities in Canada shall be enhanced and improved".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred.
Mr. Murta moves motion No. 12 as follows:
That 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, be amended by inserting "(a)" in subclause (2) of clause 6 after the word "shall" at line 32, page 5 and by adding immediately after line 40 the following:
"(b) interpret and construe the provisions of this section upon the principle that, having due regard to the establishment and operation of agencies under this act and to constitutional requirements, implementation of a marketing plan or regulation of a farm product must not be of such a nature as, directly or indirectly, to
(i)	affect prejudicially any comparative advantage inherent in the location where a farm product is grown, produced or marketed, or
(ii)	constitute an undue obstacle or restriction to the interchange of a farm product between a province or region of Canada where no agency in relation to such product is established and any point elsewhere in Canada or to import or export trade in a farm product between such a province or region of Canada and any point outside Canada."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Murta) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 13 as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding to paragraph (g) of subclause (1) of clause 7 the words "and make all such findings public" immediately after the word "trade" at line 34, page 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 14 as follows: .
That 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, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of clause 7 immediately after line 34 at page 7:
"(h) shall study the effects of imports on the price quantity of products grown in Canada and make recommendations to the minister;"
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
10892__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
December 30,1971


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred. Mr. Horner moves motion No. 15 as follows:
April 19, 1971-That 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, be amended by deleting from subclause (2) of clause 7 the words "or in the region of Canada" at line 31, page 8.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division. Motion No. 15 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Baldwin, for Mr. Ritchie, moves motion No. 16 as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding to Clause 7 thereof, next after line 33, page 8, the following:
"(3) Reports of the council to the minister under subsection (1) and reports compiled upon enquiries made or studies conducted under that subsection shall be public but where information that is in its nature confidential, relating to the business or affairs of any person, firm or corporation is given or elicited in the course of any enquiry or study, the information shall not be made public in such a manner as to be available for the use of any competitor or rival of the person, firm or corporation."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. Baldwin, for Mr. Ritchie) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 17 as follows:
That 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, be amended
(a)	by deleting from subclause (1) of Clause 8 all the words at line 34, page 8 and substituting the following:
"Public hearings shall be held by";
(b)	by deleting from paragraph (c) of subclause (1) of clause 8 the words "a public hearing" at line 9, page 9 and substituting the words
"public hearings"; and 
(c)	by deleting from subclause 2 of clause 8 all the words at line
11, page 9 and substituting the following:
"Public hearings may be held by".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 18 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 8 all the words after the word "agency" at line 37, page 8.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 19 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting clause 10 and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly-
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 19 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Southam moves motion No. 20 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting
December 30,1971

from clause 11 all the words after the word "Capital" at line 5, page 10.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Southam) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 21 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting from subclause 2 of clause 17 the word "may" at line 29, page 11 and substituting the word "shall" therefor.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred. Mr. Horner moves motion No. 23 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting from clause 22 all the words after the word "powers" at line 14, page 15 and adding the following thereto:
"having due regard to promoting the greatest opportunity to the
largest number of producers to acquire a standard of living
comparable with organized segments of society."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 24 as follows:
That 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, be amended by deleting
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 23 the words "of the same kind as" at lines 25 and 26, page 15.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Horner) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Horner moves motion No. 25 as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of clause 23 immediately after line 38, page 17:
"(n) not broaden its authority unless granted in the terms set out in the original proclamation for an agency which the majority of producers supported;"
and by relettering the following paragraph accordingly.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred. Mr. Peters moves motion No. 26 as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to clause 23 immediately after line 17, page 18:
"(4) An agency shall negotiate with those farm organizations representing a majority of the producers of any commodity regulated by that agency in order to establish the forward maximum and minimum prices which the agency shall be allowed to accept for the product marketed in domestic and export trade.".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred. Mr. McKinley moves motion No. 28 as follows:
-That Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by adding thereto immediately after clause 36, the following:



&quot;APPEALS

[Stage Direction]
37. (1) Where any person deems himself aggrieved by any order, direction or decision of an agency he may appeal to the agency by serving upon the agency a written notice of appeal.
(2)	Where any person deems himself aggrieved by,
(a)	any decision of an agency on an appeal under subsection
(1); or
(6) any order, direction or decision made by the council, he may appeal to the council by serving upon the council written notice of the appeal.
(3)	Every notice under subsection (1) or (2) shall contain a statement of the matter being appealed and the name and address of the person making the appeal.
(4)	Upon receipt of a notice under paragraph (a) of subsection
(2), the council shall forthwith notify the agency and the agency shall forthwith provide the council with all relevant documents and other material, of any kind whatsoever, in its possession.
(5)	In any appeal under subsection (1) or (2), the council or the agency, as the case may be, shall within seven days after the notice referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is received, serve notice upon the person making the appeal of the date, time and place at which the appeal will be heard.
(6)	The council or the agency, as the case may be, shall hear any appeal under subsection (1) or (2) within thirty days after the notice of appeal is received but the council or the agency may adjourn the hearing from time to time for such reasonable period or periods of time as the council or the agency deems just.
(7)	At any hearing under this section, the person making the appeal has the right to attend and make representations and to adduce evidence respecting the appeal either by himself or through counsel.
(8)	At any hearing of an appeal under paragraph (o) of subsection (2), the agency has the right to attend and make representations and to adduce evidence respecting the appeal either by its officers or members or any of them or through counsel.
(9)	Upon an appeal to the council under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the council may, by order, direct the agency to take such action as the agency is authorized to take under this act and as the council deems proper, and for this purpose the council may substitute its opinion for that of the agency.
(10)	The council or the agency, as the case may be, shall within ten days after the hearing is completed, serve notice upon the person making the appeal of its decision.
(11)	A proceeding that is in substantial compliance with this section, is not open to objection on the ground that it is not in strict compliance therewith.
(12)	Where a notice is served under this section, it may be served personally or,
(o)	Where the notice is served on the council or an agency, by mailing the notice to the address of the council or agency, as the case may be, at its usual business address; or
(b)	Where the notice is served on a person making an appeal, by mailing the notice to the address shown in his notice of appeal.
(13)	After the council or an agency has decided an appeal under this section, the council or agency may reopen the hearing on its own motion and make a new decision, and the procedure for an appeal under this section applies to the rehearing."
and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.
It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 28 (Mr. McKinley) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Rose moves motion No. 29 as follows:
-That 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, be amended by adding thereto immediately after line 34, page 23, the following:
"38. (1) Where any person, with the agreement of any five other persons, deems himself aggrieved by an order, direction, or decision of an agency, he may appeal to the agency by serving notice to the agency a written notice of appeal.
(2)	Where any persons deem themselves, aggrieved by,
(a)	any decision of an agency on an appeal under subsection
(1); or
(b)	any order, direction or decision made by the council, they may appeal to the council by serving upon the council written notice of the appeal.
(3)	Every notice under subsection (1) or (2) shall contain a statement of the matter being appealed and the names and addresses of the persons making the appeal.
(4)	Upon receipt of a notice under paragraph (a) of subsection
(2), the council shall forthwith notify the agency and the agency shall forthwith provide the council all the relevant documents and other material, of any kind whatsoever, in its possession.
(5)	In any appeal under subsection (1) or (2), the council or the agency, as the case may be, shall within seven days after the notice referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is received, serve notice upon the persons making the appeal of the date, time and place at which the appeal will be heard.
(6)	The council or the agency, as the case may be, shall hear any appeal under subsection (I) or (2), within thirty days after the notice of appeal is received but the council or agency may adjourn a hearing from time to time for such reasonable period or periods of time as the council or agency deems just.
(7)	At any hearing under this section the persons making the appeal have the right to attend and make representations and to adduce evidence respecting the appeal either by himself or through counsel.
(8)	At any hearing of an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the agency has the right to attend and make representations and to adduce evidence respecting the appeal either by its officers or members or any of them or through counsel.
(9)	Upon an appeal to the council under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the council may, by order, direct the agency to take such action as the agency is authorized to take under this act and as the council deems proper, and for this purpose the council may substitute its opinion for that of the agency.
(10)	The council or the agency, as the case may be, shall within ten days after the hearing is completed, serve notice upon the persons making the appeal of its decision.
(11)	A proceeding that is in substantial compliance with this section, is not open to objection on the ground that it is not in strict compliance therewith.
(12)	Where a notice is served under this section it may be served personally or,
(a) where the notice is served on the council or an agency, by mailing the notice to the address of the council or agency, as the case may be, at its usual usual business address; or
December 30, 1971

(b) where the notice is served on the person making an appeal, by mailing the notice to the addresses shown in the notice of appeal.
(13)	After the council or an agency has decided an appeal under this section, the council or agency may reopen the hearing on its own motion and make a new decision, and the procedure for an appeal under this section applies to the rehearing."
and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be deferred. The question is now on motion No. 30. I might mention that there is some doubt as to the procedural acceptability of this motion. I do not think we should at this point embark upon a procedural discussion as to whether the motion should or should not be put. I am sure hon. members want me to put the question.
Mr. Downey moves motion No. 30 as follows:
That 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, be amended by adding the following immediately after clause 38 at line 43, page 23:
"Consequential amendment
39. Section 5 of the Export and Import Permits Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
'(2) Where at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council on a report of the Minister of Agriculture made pursuant to an inquiry by the National Farm Products Marketing Council in the fulfilment of its duties that a natural product of agriculture of any kind is being imported or is likely to be imported into Canada at such price, in such quantity and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers of a like or directly competitive regulated product within the meaning of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, any product of the same kind may, by order of the Governor in Council, be included on the Import Control List in order to limit the importation of such product to the extent and for the period that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is necessary to prevent or remedy the injury.'"
and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 30 (Mr. Downey) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question is on motion No. 1. Motion No. 1, moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), reads as follows:
Division
That 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, be amended by deleting from subclause (c) of clause 2 all the words after the word 'agriculture' at line 14, page 1.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) moved an amendment to motion No.-l as follows:
That Motion No. 1 of Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. McIntosh, be amended by striking therefrom all the words following the word "deleting" and substituting therefor the following:
"subclause (c) of clause 2 and substituting therefor the following: "(c) "farm product" for the purpose of Part I, means any natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product and, for the purpose of the other provisions of this act, means
(i)	eggs, and poultry, and any part of any such product, and
(ii)	any other natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product in respect of which the Governor in Council is satisfied, as a result of declarations by provincial governments following plebiscites, or otherwise, that the majority of the producers thereof in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency under section 17 with powers relating to that product;
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), moved an amendment to the said proposed amendment as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately following the word 'product' at the end thereof, the words 'but, for the purpose of any of the provisions of this act, shall not include cattle or calves;'
The question is on the subamendment.
The House divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. McIntosh) which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Alexander	MacDonald (Egmont)
Alkenbrack	MacKay
Baldwin	MacLean
Beaudoin	McCutcheon
Bell	McGrath
Bigg	McIntosh
Cadieu	McKinley
Carter	Marshall
Code	Mazankowski
Crouse	Moore
Danforth	Murta
Downey	Nowlan
Forrestall	Paproski
Godin	Rondeau
Grills	Ryan
Hees	Rynard
Horner	Schumacher
Korchinski	Scott
Lambert	Southam
(Edmonton West)	Stewart (Marquette)
Lundrigan	Tetrault-41.
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Allmand	Basford
Anderson	Bechard
Andras	Beer
Badanai	Benson
Barnett	Blackburn
Barrett	Blair

December 30, 1971
Blouin
Borrie
Boulanger
Brewin
Broadbent
Buchanan
Burton
Caccia
Cafik
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote (Richelieu)
C6t6 (Longueuil)
Crossman
Cullen
Danson
Deachman
Deakon
De Bane
Dupras
Duquet
Faulkner
Forest
Forget
Francis
Gendron
Gibson
Gillespie
Goode
Goyer
Gray
Groos
Guay (St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Harding
Hogarth
Hopkins
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Howard (Skeena) Jamieson Kaplan Knight
Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre) Lachance Laflamme Laing
(Vancouver South) Lajoie Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) L'Heureux
Division
Messrs:
Lind
Loiselle
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
McBride
Mcllraith
McNulty
Mahoney
Major
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo) Matte Murphy Ny strom O'Connell Olson Orange Otto Ouellet Pelletier Penner Perrault Peters Portelance Pringle Prud'homme Reid Richard Richardson Roberts Robinson Rochon Rock Rodrigue Rose Rowland Roy (Laval)
Saltsman
Sharp
Skoberg
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane)
St. Pierre Sulatycky Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting-132.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost.
(Mr. Speaker.]


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried. The question is now on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay. I declare the said motion, as amended, carried.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Horner), as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 7. Moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner):
That Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by deleting from subclause (1) of clause 3 the word "pleasure" at line 8, page 4 and substituting the following:
"good behaviour for a term not exceeding 7 years but may be
removed for cause by the Governor in Council at any time."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 9. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) moved:
That Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of clause 6 immediately after line 17, page 5 (a) to submit to the minister, at the commencement of each production year, a list of prices which shall be paid for a regulated product for that year, such prices to be compensatory for the cost of production of such product;"
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on motion No. 10. Moved by Mr. Horner:
That 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, be amended by deleting from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 6 the words "efficient and competitive" at line 22, page 5 and substituting the word "viable" therefor.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on motion No. 11, standing in the name of hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That 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, be amended by adding the following to paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 6, immediately after the word "industry" at line 23, page 5:
"to the end that the economic and social viability of farm communities in Canada shall be enhanced and improved".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hogarth
Hopkins
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Jamieson Kaplan Lachance Laflamme Laing
(Vancouver South) Lajoie Langlois Laniel


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to motion No. 14. Mr. Horner moved:
-That 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, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of clause 7 immediately after line 34 at page 7:
"(h) shall study the effects of imports on the price quantity of products grown in Canada and make recommendations to the minister;"
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
L'Heureux	
Lind	
Loiselle	
MacEachen	Alkenbrack
MacGuigan	Baldwin
Mackasey	Barnett
McBride	Beaudoin
Mcllraith	Bell
McNulty	Bigg
Mahoney	Blackburn
Major	Brewin
Marchand	Broadbent
(Langeller)	Burton
Marchand	Cadieu
(Kami oops-Cariboo)	Carter
O'Connell	Code
Olson	Crouse
Orange	Danforth
Otto	Downey
Ouellet	Forrestall
Pelletier	Godin
Penner	Grills
Perrault	Harding
Portelance	Hees
Pringle	Homer
Prud'homme	Howard (Skeena)
Reid	Knight
and by relettering subsequent paragraphs accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now proceed to motion No. 25. Mr. Horner moved:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to subclause (1) of clause 23 immediately after line 38, page 17:
"(n) not broaden its authority unless granted in the terms set out in the original proclamation for an agency which the majority of producers supported;" and by relettering the following paragraph accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now proceed to motion No. 26. Mr. Peters moved:
That 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, be amended by adding the following to clause 23 immediately after line 17, page 18:
"(4) An agency shall negotiate with those farm organizations representing a majority of the producers of any commodity regulated by that agency in order to establish the forward maximum and minimum prices which the agency shall be allowed to accept for the product marketed in domestic and export trade.".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now proceed to motion No. 29. Mr. Rose moved:
That 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, be amended by adding thereto immediately after line 34, page 23, the following:
"38. (1) Where any person, with the agreement of any five other persons, deems himself aggrieved by an order, direction, or decision of an agency, he may appeal to the agency by serving notice to the agency a written notice of appeal.
(2)	Where any persons deem themselves, aggrieved by,
(a)	any decision of an agency on an appeal under subsection (1); or
(b)	any order, direction or decision made by the council, they may appeal to the council by serving upon the council written notice of the appeal.
(3)	Every notice under subsection (1) or (2) shad contain a statement of the matter being appealed and the names and addresses of the persons making the appeal.
(4)	Upon receipt of a notice under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the council shall forthwith notify the agency and the agency shall forthwith provide the Council all the relevant documents and other material, of any kind whatsoever, in its possession.
(5)	In any appeal under subsection (1) or (2), the council or the agency, as the case may be, shall within seven days after the notice referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is received, serve notice upon the persons making the appeal of the date, time and place at which the appeal will be heard.
(6)	The council or the agency, as the case may be, shall hear any appeal under subsection (1) or (2), within thirty days after the notice of appeal is received but the council or agency may adjourn a hearing from time to time for such reasonable period or periods of time as the council or agency deems just.
(7)	At any hearing under this section the persons making the appeal have the right to attend and make representations and to adduce evidence respecting the appeal either by himself or through counsel.
(8)	At any hearing of an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the agency has the right to attend and make representations and to adduce evidence respecting the appeal either by its officers or members or any of them or through counsel.
(9)	Upon an appeal to the council under paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the council may, by order, direct the agency to take such action as the agency is authorized to take under this act and as the council deems proper, and for this purpose the council may substitute its opinion for that of the agency.
(10)	The council or the agency, as the case may be, shall within ten days after the hearing is completed, serve notice upon the persons making the appeal of its decision.
(11)	A proceeding that is in substantial compliance with this section, is not open to objection on the ground that it is not in strict compliance therewith.
(12)	Where a notice is served under this section it may be served personally or,
(a)	where the notice is served on the council or an agency, by mailing the notice to the address of the council or agency, as the case may be, at its usual business address; or
(b)	where the notice is served on the person making an appeal, by mailing the notice to the addresses shown in the notice of appeal.
(13)	After the council or an agency has decided an appeal under this section, the council or agency may reopen the hearing on its own motion and make a new decision, and the procedure for an appeal under this section applies to the rehearing."
and by renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Gibson:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because I was paired with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who is vacationing in
Guadeloupe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: That was cheap. You are without honour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. We do not know whether the hon. member is here or not. We do not miss him.


Edgar John Benson: What! You do not miss your own leader?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that 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, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now, by leave?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, is the minister about to speak? I take it that he is not. Consider-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
able effort has been made on all sides of the House to pass this bill-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) has the floor. If hon. members want to conduct conversations or conferences, perhaps they might do so behind the curtains.


Harold Warren Danforth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have almost passed a bill which will be of major importance to the entire agricultural community of Canada. I sincerely believe that members on all sides of the House have made an honest effort to provide as good a bill as possible to meet the interests of agriculture. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that it will bring about the results for which all hon. members of the House sincerely hope.
We have been considering this bill for two years and in our positions on it we have travelled almost full circle. When the government first introduced the bill they were prepared to accept it as it was and pass it. Because the opposition dared to criticize some aspects of the bill, we were charged, after some ten hours of debate, with filibustering.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Harold Warren Danforth: We were charged with obstructing a measure that would help the agricultural community of this nation immeasurably. Mr. Speaker, the minister assured us when he brought in this bill that he had the full cooperation of all farm leaders for this type of measure. He suggested that he enjoyed the blessing and full co-operation of all ministers of agriculture across this country.


Mr. Faulkner:: Where do you stand?


Harold Warren Danforth: He suggested that there was unanimous agreement and support for this type of legislation. Yet, after we dared to criticize some aspect of this measure and it was proposed that the bill should go to committee, the government began to lose credibility. We discovered that there was not unanimous agreement and support for the provisions of the original bill. Farm organization after farm organization and commodity group after commodity group came before the committee and said, "No, we cannot accept the bill in its present form. There must be amendments."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: That happened after we had been assured that the bill was entirely acceptable and that the farming community unanimously supported this type of legislation. And what happened? When the committee travelled across this country we found that the ministers of agriculture of the provinces were not in full accord; they did not all support the bill. After receiving assurances in this House that the ministers favoured the bill, we found that it just was not so.


An hon. Member:: Are you supporting it or not?


Harold Warren Danforth: You are going to find out. I am not going to support this bill. I cannot support it because it will not help the farming community, and I will explain why.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
10906

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Harold Warren Danforth: We were assured that all commodity groups had been canvassed and that they supported this measure.


James Hugh Faulkner: What are you against now, Harold?


Harold Warren Danforth: When the cattlemen of this country voiced their objections, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) assured them that if they did not like the measure they would not be included within it. Only a few weeks later, when the committee was conducting its examination, it turned out that the government was not prepared to stand behind its own assurances. That is when we began to lose faith in the assurances of the government and that is when the government lost even more credibility.
The government brought this bill in two years ago. In one of the opening speeches we in the opposition said that this bill was not what it ought to be because there was no provision for producer representation on the agencies. The opposition proposed amendments and now there is producer representation on the agencies.


An hon. Member:: Then vote for the bill.


Harold Warren Danforth: We did not like the supply management aspects of the bill, and you will find that those supply management aspects have been removed from it. In the original bill there was no provision for appeal procedures; appeals were to be diverted to the minister. Now that position has been amended and appeal procedures are available.


James Hugh Faulkner: But you still oppose the bill, do you not?


Harold Warren Danforth: Even more so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Roberts:: You want nothing, Harold.


James Hugh Faulkner: You are making it worse and worse.


An hon. Member:: The Tory party favours the big farmers.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair finds it difficult to hear the hon. member.


Harold Warren Danforth: I do not mind the interjections of hon. members opposite. Throughout the history of farming it has been the man without knowledge of agriculture who has tried to tell the producer what to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Men like the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride).


Harold Warren Danforth: Every time there has been government intervention in the marketing field, chaos has resulted. The government intervened in the affairs of the sugar beet industry of Ontario with supply management, and we no longer have a sugar beet industry. The government held up the National Dairy Council as a model when it

introduced this bill. It is the model they asked us to accept. What has happened? So many dairymen have been forced out of business by the operations of the Council that we have moved from a position of over-supply to a position of under-supply.
I cannot support this bill and hon. members opposite are no doubt curious to know why I cannot do so. It is because the entire principle upon which this bill is based is fundamentally wrong. The whole principle of this bill supposes supply management, which means that the government cannot sell the products of agriculture and therefore intends to control production through regulation. Not only that, but in every instance where those responsible for provincial marketing schemes have tried desperately to ensure strong markets the government has allowed products to come in indiscriminately from other countries to take advantage of markets developed by the boards.
Yesterday in the House my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) showed how some of these marketing schemes were not operating to the advantage of farmers generally. He spoke from experience, because here in Ontario we probably have more experience of marketing agencies and schemes than other provinces. We know that marketing control is not the answer to all agricultural problems and that it never will be.
I can understand why some hon. members opposite want this type of bill. I know the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) well and I respect him. I can understand why he would want it. Everything he produces comes under a marketing agency and a bill like this is perfect for a man in a comfortable pew, because any competition to his production will be stopped by government regulation.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is not what Bill Stewart says.


Harold Warren Danforth: They say this bill will help the little man, but nothing could be further from the truth. In the actual operation of any type of supply management based on quotas the little man cannot survive economically on the quota allotted to him. In the second place, the only man who can buy that quota is a man who is already well established. So the man with the large quota gets greater production and the small man goes into oblivion. Hon. members opposite are building up monopolies by the very legislation they are asking us to pass tonight. It will not help, it will hinder.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Harold Warren Danforth: Those who say nonsense ought to have sat on marketing boards, as I have. They ought to have directed marketing agencies as I have.
No matter in what form Parliament passes this legislation, it will not and cannot work. It will be impossible to administer, and I will tell the House why. Though the government is asking us to pass legislation which is national in scope, it is not really national. It cannot force the provinces to give up their powers to the central government. Therefore any province can opt out with respect to any commodity, and when this happens that is the end of a national marketing agency.
The second reason the legislation will not work is that the government has not tied into this bill any means of controlling imports. It is all very well to say that imports
December 30, 1971

can be controlled by another department. But if the ten provinces are not tied into a marketing scheme, imports into a province taking part in the scheme cannot legally be controlled. If imports are allowed into any region, this marketing act will not and cannot work. Members of the government would not listen to the opposition when we put this proposition to them. They preferred to rush into the formulation of legislation which will not work.
Right from the outset we suggested a certain course of action to the government. The poultry producers were actually the designers of this principle the government has adopted. If hon. gentlemen opposite had set a scheme up for the poultry industry there would have been no opposition from this side of the House. If the people who produce the commodity want this, they should have it. If this had been done, if our advice had been taken, the legislation would have been passed. It is the government which must take the blame for the delinquency of this legislation, not the opposition. If the government had taken our advice and provided for supply management in the poultry industry, and if it had worked, if it had solved the problem, the other commodity groups would be beating at the doors of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) asking them to bring in similar legislation. But they declined to do this. They wanted to bring in an all-encompassing bill. Mr. Speaker, there is no agronomist in this country who believes it is possible to make an all-encompassing bill work when there is such diversity in regions, jurisdictions and commodities as there is in Canada.


An hon. Member:: You are being negative now. Try to be positive.


Harold Warren Danforth: You talk about my being negative. I am trying to suggest to hon. members opposite that this is not a red letter day for farmers: it is the beginning of the greatest disaster the farm economy of Canada has ever experienced. It is the beginning of the end for thousands and thousands of farmers. If this bill goes forward the small farmer, God help him, has not got a chance.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That means you guys from Quebec. Remember that. You are going to get it in the ear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I invite hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and the House and let the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) complete his remarks.


Harold Warren Danforth: There is one other point hon. gentlemen of the government have completely missed. It is this. Whenever quotas are established by regulation, they immediately obtain a capital value. When these quotas obtain a capital value, the cost of production of every unit increases to the extent of that capital value. There are only two places this increase can come from, the profit margin of the farmer whom the government is trying to help, or the consumer of whom the government is the champion. An added tax will be placed on every unit of either one or both of these segments of society.
The government is not going to help either the agriculturist or the consumer. We can foretell what is going to
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
happen. As soon as the government finds that the cost of an item of food is affecting the index, it will allow in imports to offset that increase. What will happen is the quota to the farmer will be reduced by the amount of the import. We will find that the agricultural economy in Canada will be travelling in an ever smaller and smaller circle until it is completely garrotted.


James Hugh Faulkner: What about the industrial milk shippers?


Harold Warren Danforth: We know about them. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) asked about industrial milk shippers. I will tell him. Under this government, the industrial milk shippers in our area have been reduced from 440 to 72. That is what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: The only ones left are those who had a nice comfortable quota to start with. This gave them the money to buy out the man who had a small quota, one who was trying to start. He just could not make it. That is what happened.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but according to the order accepted previously today his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Some hon. members suggest that the hon. member for Kent-Essex be allowed to complete his remarks. That can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks for the courtesy of all members of the House in allowing me to continue. I shall not transgress on Your Honour's patience. I conclude by saying that I do not impute motives to any member of this House. I am sure every member has tried to bring a bill out of this House which would help agriculture. This is a complicated measure and hon. members on the government side did not understand its implications. We in the opposition must show our displeasure, disfavour and feelings by voting against this bill which will spell doom to the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) started off by saying we have passed a bill which is of major importance to Canadian agriculture. Then he alleged provincial marketing boards were not the answer. We never said they were. He then contradicted himself by stating that the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) is sitting pretty; all his crops are protected by provincial marketing boards. The hon. member for Kent-Essex could enjoy the same protection. He knows full well they are voluntary. Years ago, the opposition used the same argument in opposing the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member for Kent-Essex is running in the same circles tonight; he stated we had the Wheat Board.
24725-61',

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Bill C-176 will establish a national farm products marketing council, will authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products and will allow producers to participate in national farm marketing if they so desire. Farmers have been demanding this legislation for years.
I have never listened to a debate where the issues involved were so completely misunderstood by members opposite. They prefer to forget that a majority of the producers of a particular commodity have to agree to be placed under this marketing legislation. The Standing Committee on Agriculture held 83 hearings on this bill and its predecessor, heard 301 witnesses and sat for 211 hours. I well remember the long examinations carried out by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) during the all-night session when he was unable to elicit any evidence which would support these amendments. I doubt if any hon. members opposite sent the transcript of that 11-hour committee meeting home to their constituents with an accompanying letter stating, "Look what I have done for agriculture".
The first speaker on Tuesday afternoon, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that the bill- -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-
He also stated:
-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 full flow of goods and property from one part of the country to another.
I suggest that the hon. member has misapprehended the rationale of the case. It is true that Mr. Justice Rand did say, at page 638, "this country is one economic unit", but he went on to say:
When the exaction is looked at in its true character, as an incident in the administration of a comprehensive extraprovincial marketing scheme, with its necessity of realizing its object in the returns to producers for all production except for local purposes, interference with the free current of trade across provincial lines disappears.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) also misread the case when he said that what is at stake in discussion of this bill is the question of free trade among the provinces. The Murphy case did not set out any such conclusion. It was an appeal by the appellant Murphy who bought grain in Manitoba for the purpose of shipping it to British Columbia in defiance of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and he lost his appeal. This case is not an authority for the proposition enunciated by hon. members. I suggest that hon. members are criticizing the bill not for what it is but for what it is not.
[DOT] (midnight)
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) was very critical of marketing boards in the province of Ontario yesterday afternoon. He said in this House that:
-so far no concrete evidence has been put forward to show that marketing boards have in fact improved the situation for the farmer.
I differ with the hon. member and say that for many years facts show that there has been widespread support

for marketing boards in the province of Ontario. Such statements lead me to the conclusion that the hon. member is unfamiliar with the history of marketing boards in the province of Ontario.
For example, when the Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario was first passed in 1937, it had certain deficiencies. As the year passed it has been amended to become a useful piece of legislation. Bill C-176 may not be perfect, as is usually the case with any piece of legislation when it is first drafted. However, it is a good start. I believe commodity groups can proceed to establish national marketing boards under the act and as the years pass these will progressively change and develop as agriculture develops.
In Ontario there are now 19 boards formed under the Farm Products Marketing Act and the Milk Act. I suggest that the consensus would be that the lot of the farmer has improved as a result of the implementation of the provincial marketing boards. Whatever the imperfections of these boards may be, they represent the highest common measure of agreement in the farm community. The advantage of the boards is manifest. The only marketing board that has been abandoned is the Ontario onion producers marketing board, and obviously the Ontario sugar beet marketing board when the only sugar manufacturer in Ontario closed its factory.
Organized marketing in the province of Ontario is well established. The total output of agricultural products in Ontario this year is in excess of $1,300 million and it is most significant that approximately 60 per cent of this agricultural output went through marketing boards. Any time a new marketing plan comes into existence or a major change is made the farm products marketing board of Ontario conducts an expression of opinion among the producers whereby a majority of two-thirds of those voting must be in favour.
We are told by hon. members opposite that farmers are opposed to regulation. If that is so how is it that the farmers have not taken opposition to the 19 farm marketing boards which are in operation at the present time in the province of Ontario? I suppose there is nobody in this House who would be bold enough to go to the farmers and advocate the abolition of these marketing boards. Take, for instance, the Ontario milk marketing board. It buys all the milk in Ontario from the farmers and resells it to the processors. It fixes quotas and prices. It is a full marketing agency. It has complete control of the milk from the time it is picked up by the milk transporters until it is delivered to the dairies
The Board has rationalized transport and has substantially increased the price to producers from what it was before the board came into operation. The Ontario broiler chicken producers marketing board allots marketing quotas to producers and sets the live price of broiler chickens each week. The Ontario turkey marketing board allots marketing quotas. The Ontario pork producers marketing board, formerly the Ontario hog producers marketing board, has authority to set the price of pork but actually uses a very sophisticated teletype auction system which ensures that the small producer with 20 hogs to sell has the same chance on the market as the large producer. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent suggested that it was an indictment against the hog producers
December 30, 1971

marketing board that the price of pork rose little in the years he chose in relation to the rise in the price of cattle. The hon. member failed to explain that the real reason for today's pork prices is a supply one resulting from surplus grain, and that the same situation exists in the United States where there is no pork producers marketing board.
Perhaps the best illustration is the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board which originated in 1957. The board acts on behalf of all flue-cured tobacco growers in Ontario to market and control supply. It sets production quotas each year which is a type of supply management. The board sits down with the trade and establishes how much product is needed and allocates the acreage required to produce that amount of product. On the whole, the system has worked well, has protected the small farmer and ensured his survival. Without such controlled marketing, the small tobacco farmer would have been swallowed up and would have disappeared.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) should have examined the record of this board before making such bold assertions in this House on Tuesday as "goodbye to the family farm" and also that "we are not interested in eliminating the family farms in Canada". So too might the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) have re-examined the statements he made such as the following:
-this bill will strangle the opportunity of young people and old who wish to engage in the business of agricultural production-
-the government's answer to this is simply to help the big operators get bigger and to heck with the small fellow.
The Ontario flue-cured tobacco grower's marketing board is effective because all Ontario flue-cured tobacco is controlled and marketed by the board. It has been extremely successful when compared to commodities which are not regulated by marketing boards. The board is even more effective because 95 per cent of Canada's tobacco is grown in Ontario. If this were not so, a national marketing scheme with supply management to stabilize prices paid to the producers would be necessary.
This is well illustrated by the recent situation with broiler chickens. When the total Canadian market was oversupplied prices fell to loss levels. As a result of this experience broiler producers across Canada are now negotiating to establish market sharing agreements among the provinces. Not all commodities are as fortunate as tobacco in having almost all its product concentrated in one area. In the case of tobacco the provincial marketing board is sufficient to do the job. In other cases, with crops grown throughout the nation, national marketing legislation is necessary because the authority of a provincial board extends only within the province.
Since the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board was established there have been great advances in the technology of growing tobacco. Yields per acre have more than doubled, from 1,100 pounds per acre to 2,400 pounds per acre, and the necessity to run a two-year crop rotation has disappeared. It is now possible to grow tobacco continuously on the same land. It was inevitable, therefore, in this situation, with a fairly constant market demand, that acreage allotment would have to be reduced. The important point, however, is not the acreage allotment, but the total amount of tobacco sold off each farm and the price received for this tobacco, for this
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
determines the farmer's income. The premise of the hon. member for Lainbton-Kent that a cut in acreage somehow establishes the failure of the board is incorrect and his conclusion does not apply.
I cannot agree that Bill C-176 should be amended so that a group wishing to come under national marketing legislation would have to wait until a bill is passed in this House. With all due respect to this House, our parliamentary procedure is such that a group might have to wait a very long time for such legislation to be passed, particularly if this bill is any example. I do not want the producers of this country to go through a procedure like this every time they want to become part of a national marketing program. If the commodities are set out in the bill, Parliament cannot be blamed for holding up the farmers' demands.
As I have already pointed out, marketing plans in Ontario have been very effective in regulating the marketing of farm products within Ontario. A national marketing act is essential to enable a similar system of farm marketing to operate successfully in interprovincial trade. It is plain that today there is less chance for the survival of the rugged individual. The purpose of this bill is to provide the machinery for the farmer to regulate his own industry through the medium of national marketing if he so desires. Bill C-176 will not obstruct the free flow of goods across this country: it will give every farmer an equal opportunity to get the price that the market can supply, and a better chance to sell his product at a price which will bring him a reasonable return.


William Arnold Peters: It is often the case in Parliament, not only with regard to agriculture but in many other fields, that there is considerable delay between the time when something is necessary, desirable and useful to a segment of the population and the time when legislation is brought forward. This delay often creates a considerable dilemma for those who are committed to a particular philosophy.
Those of us who were in the CCF and are now in the NDP have been always committed to the idea of national marketing legislation. We have also been committed to two or three other fairly basic philosophies, one of which is that the central government should be as strong as possible and that if necessary we should push the provincial authorities in all fields. In fact, a socialist government means a fairly high degree of centralization. Most of the members of the CCF who came from a rural background in the early days were committed to what they considered to be the family farm unit and the free enterprise system which existed within that unit.
Most of the complaints that have been made about this legislation are all true. It is too broad, it is not specific enough, and it allows intervention by the provinces, government agencies and all kinds of civil service bodies before it reaches down to the producers. If we had had this bill 20 years ago we would be talking in my area about something like 2,000 farmers. It is true that it is not a large area, but there were 2,000 farmers who were able to make a living off the land and live in that rural economy.
December 30, 1971

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Today, the small farmers who could have participated in the marketing legislation and who would have been able to avail themselves of this legislation, as they did of the co-op movement, are greatly reduced in number. Only one-fifth of that number is left. There are only some 400 farmers in the area and some of them are as wealthy and productive as farmers in any part of the province of Ontario. We have a viable dairy industry. This has been brought about to some extent by the advent of the milk marketing legislation in the province with which my family has been connected for many years.
Twenty years ago when there was no marketing legislation the farmers got together and decided that this is what they would like, that this is what they expected to get out of it. But what is happening today? We have a piece of legislation which most members do not understand and which I do not understand. We have supply management in this bill, and we are making an exception for eggs by saying that the proclamation will take place when the bill is given royal assent. When the small farmers in my area or any other area of Canada-this is particularly true of the province of Quebec, and I am surprised that the Quebec members do not realize it-first became aware of the need for this legislation they discussed what they could get out of it, what they had to put into it, what the market in the area was and what transportation could be provided. They could then make a decision which would be best for all of them.
That is not the way it is done today. I am sure that in the province of Quebec there are thousands of hog producers. We went to see one hog producer who has 5,000 sows. They produce six or eight litters of pigs every day, but that farmer does not raise the pigs. Under any type of marketing legislation which we might have under a provincial or national plan we will find that the votes will depend entirely on the size of the operation. The little farmer who used to sit around the box-stove in a rural store and make decisions as to how he and other farmers should co-operate does not exist any longer. The fellow who has 5,000 sows farrowing every six months is the one who makes the decisions, not the farmer who has two or three sows.
The party to which I have the honour of belonging has been in a real dilemma since we started discussing this legislation. We firmly believe that there should be a federal marketing legislation. This legislation can be directed at industry rather than agribusiness. It should be possible, if there is a motive to do so, to draft marketing legislation which can work for the individual farmers. But I suggest that in many areas we are 20 years too late and that this legislation will do nothing in most commodity areas but eliminate all the small farmers and small farm organizations.
There is a member here who has been doing a lot of talking from his seat in the last few days. I have made inquiries about what kind of farmers he has in his constituency and I found that his farmers work in a factory. They live on the farm but they drive 30 or 40 miles to the industries surrounding their communities. That is the kind of farmer he has been talking about. He does not need marketing legislation to put them off the farms; they have done this already by themselves.

I am sure that there will be people interested in operating this legislation. I am sure Mr. Stewart will be very happy tonight. This, of course, amuses me because it appears that the Conservatives are not in tune with Mr. Stewart, and Liberals on the other side, particularly the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford), and others, seem to have the ear of the minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario. He has problems with these boards. He even has problems in the dairy industry where we have a national marketing agency. He has difficulties because a board is already set up, as it is in Quebec and other provinces. Neither Ontario nor Quebec want to lose the board because they have people running it, but they are almost at the stage at which they could pool their operations with the Canadian Dairy Commission. This would save a lot of money and eventually some of it would trickle down to the producers. However, there will be fewer and fewer small producers. There will be fewer opportunities for farmers in the Canadian agricultural industry.
We look at this legislation from a nostalgic point of view. For years we have been committed to the idea of marketing legislation, but we have also been committed to the retention of the rural agricultural economy, of a way of life, of social conditions that have existed in a large portion of this country. And we have been unhappy to see the displacement that has taken place through normal attrition. Many of us are of the opinion that this attrition will now take place at a faster rate.
In other countries, farmers themselves-not the cows, not the hens and not the pigs-have done the initial negotiating for the commodities in which they are interested. They have been able to establish a bargaining position ir countries that have a central government. But I believe our federal government has the necessary power as a result of the Manitoba court case and other cases. We do have the power to establish central marketing in Canada. We must allow farmers to have a voice in the decision of agencies, not on the basis of the units those farmers represent or of the shares they hold but on the basis that they are members of a rural economy engaged in a particular industry. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That Bill C-176 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the purpose of reconsidering clause 23 thereof.


Mr. Perrault:: You are a bunch of reactionaries.


William Arnold Peters: An hon. gentleman over there says we are a bunch of revolutionaries.


An hon. Member:: "Reactionaries."


William Arnold Peters: Oh, reactionaries. The difference is only one of degree. In his area, where there are a lot of working-class people, he does not object to them organizing on the basis of one man, one vote. But I presume when the vote is taken on this amendment he will support the idea that chickens should vote and that, for example, the man in Ontario who owns 500,000 hens will be able to have 500,000 votes against the guy across the road who has only
December 30, 1971

10,000	hens. I am sure he will vote that way, because he is a Liberal.
I suggest that the idea of allowing the farmer to negotiate a forward price is a revolutionary step. However, this whole bill is out of date by many, many years and I see no safeguards being provided on behalf of farmers just because they are farmers. I hope hon. members will agree that this clause should be returned to the committee so that consideration can be given to the principle of allowing a farmer to seek the establishment of a forward price which will take into consideration his needs, his costs of production and his ability in conjunction with his neighbours and friends to negotiate the price of the commodity on which their very existence depends.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the calm of night, I should like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-176 to make my colleagues up and at the same time to analyze the bill very seriously and to ask the government, and particularly the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to consider certain weaknesses in the bill.
In my opinion, these weaknesses will bring about economic divisions which will require court decisions for the National Marketing Council will not have enough authority to decide on contentious issues that will inevitably arise between the marketing agencies in the various provinces.
The first objective of this bill should be to enable Canadian producers to get better organized in order to market their production in an orderly way in Canada, so as to ensure an equitable income for themselves, without removing from the consumer the privilege of choosing the product that suits him best.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is always the same in agriculture. I wonder if a solution will ever be found to do justice to farmers but, in any event, I should like to quote an excerpt from the report of the 18th Conference of IFAP held in Paris in 1971. The analysis of this report will reveal that what goes on here also happens elsewhere because it is still called "agriculture" elsewhere. Everything remains to be done. From time to time, some would like to alter the situation, improve it, so that those who live off agriculture might have some security. Now, here is what we find in that report:
The key problems agriculture now faces are the following: ensuring better income and a higher standard of living for farmers; achieving more balance between supply and demand; improving the methods of distributing food products; adapting agrarian structures; and achieving a positive and more rational use of the resources.
This is a worthwhile aim indeed. Most of the organizations which represent the farmers of the world must stress the seriousness of the financial crisis now facing the farmers.
I go on with the quotation:
Since the Tokyo Conference, the gap between the incomes of farmers and of other professionals has tended generally to widen, in spite of the efforts made in certain countries to adjust supply to demand and in spite of an improved market balance of the main basic products.
In my opinion, it means that the countries which have attempted to adjust production to demand regardless of
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
the consequences for the producers concerned, have met with failure.
I continue to quote:
For 2 years, the cost of essential commodities for farmers has often been increasing much more quickly than at the end of the sixties. The higher prices were not enough to offset increased costs. In some countries, the problems facing many groups of producers are not as much due to inflation as to other factors-for example, an inadequate access to markets. At all events, the absolute value of farming incomes has either decreased or has not increased enough to offset the general trend of currency depreciation. It follows that, in real terms, the farmers have not succeeded in securing an appreciable share of the benefits due to their increased productivity.
Which means that, while production has increased, we have not succeeded in doing justice to this category of workers, even when trying to impose systems which, at first glance, seemed promising. The same applies to our country. I continue to quote:
That is surely the basic reason why, in many countries, the farm community, usually the sector having the most respect for the law and the most stable-
And I believe that it will be recognized that the rural population has an innate respect for the law. These very stable people endeavour to maintain freedom and order in our society. So, these rural communities have, and I continue to quote:
resorted to certain forms of protest in order to make themselves heard. One cannot but regret the need for such forms of action, but often enough they have represented the only way of fighting the people's-and even the government's-indifference and apathy.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the same thing is happening in Canada. A few days ago, a demonstration was held here by a large delegation of producers from Quebec who came here to meet the Minister of Agriculture Mr. Olson), who is the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and to make representations for equality of opportunity in the food industry in order to be able to produce at a cost comparable to that prevailing in other Canadian regions. And these people who came here to give their sincere support to their members left without getting much satisfaction. They wanted to use that sort of pressure in order to have their rights acknowledged and to try and obtain justice.
To be really fair towards all areas of Canada, the government will have to assure the eastern producers that they will be able to get their grain supplies at the same price as western producers, so that their production costs will not be higher, thus allowing them to make about as much profit as is made in other parts of the country.
I consider this as a necessary first step if we really want Bill C-176 finally to bring favourable results. But we shall have to make a good start by providing all Canadian producers with equal opportunities.
In my opinion, the marketing of grain at uniform prices throughout Canada would be instrumental in achieving better conditions for the establishment and operation of marketing agencies, failing which conflicts of interest would arise between economic areas. This point has been raised many times during the debate by hon. members representing various regions of Canada who did so, I believe, quite sincerely in order to press the government to bring forward likely to promote better understanding

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
and achieving equal economic opportunities throughout the land.
If such action is not taken, marketing conflicts will continue to emerge even after Bill C-176 has been passed. There will still be pilgrimages of Eastern farmers to Ottawa to make representations to the government, seeking to obtain fair treatment, even though such representations, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard), are tantamount to intimidation manoeuvers which the government does not fear.
After parading on several occasions in recent years before federal ministers and various officials and failing to convince ministers of the validity of producers' grievances, the leaders of producers' unions and farmers' organizations then decided, as I was just saying, to make massive representations. Those people have to spend money-of which they have too little as it is-in order to come and make representations; but in face of need, in face of their leaders' insistence on their taking the trouble to travel in order to try and make their point, they still accept to make this sacrifice. In other words, they go back thinking that the ministers listened to them but were not determined to act upon their valid grievances. Each of them then goes home thinking that the federal government does not act and is not fair to them.
For this reason we see groups which aim at regionalizing Canada spring up across the country, be it in eastern, western, or central Canada. Having promoted this concept, they still fail to improve the situation. So we see separatist movements being born everywhere, and I am afraid that unless the situation is improved at the roots- at the economic level-far from improving, it will go on worsening.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of all those situations, I am extremely upset and I appeal to all hon. members. I am aware that my appeal may mean nothing, but in any event allow me to express at least one wish, as this is the last day of the year and I think we are going to use it properly. At the rate at which we are going we will be fit to start the year 1972 on the right foot. Anyway, here is my wish: even if Liberal members boast about exerting pressure within their party, the fact remains that they fail to bring about many changes in this government's grain policy. In fact, if I may refer to a government member who said that he barks very loud inside his party, a producer once said quite rightly that he could not bark any farther than the leash which restrained him. I thought it was a marvelous remark, Mr. Speaker.
a.tn.)
If we take into account the events that for several years have taken place in this House, we find that such comments have been very often made. This is why I suggest that the institution wherein we are gathered tonight is a very special place for the people's representatives because they can express opinions and make effective representations.
Finally, I believe that the proceedings in the House of Commons and the official positions that are defined are the best means of exerting pressure, and I think that when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marc-hand) met with the producers of Quebec last week and
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).l
apologized for leaving the delegation, he rightly stated that he had been elected to the House of Commons to work and that it was his duty to be there. I also agree with this opinion of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I still believe that Parliament is the most suitable public place for an elected representative to effectively defend the people's interests be they at the farm producers' or the Canadian consumers' levels.
The bill-and it is an important aspect-should provide that when it is necessary for Canada to import a designated farm product, this product be marketed by marketing agencies as would be a farm product produced in Canada. This procedure is not new because it is already implemented in regard to alcoholic beverages. We all know that imported alcoholic beverages are marketed in Canada through provincial liquor boards and nobody complains. This would not entail any reprisals against any country because they would be domestic boards, and that has nothing to do with external policy.
The minister already said that there are other bodies responsible for issuing import permits. I admit it but that is beside the point. We have to include in the bill a provision to the effect that when a farm product is imported with a permit that product be marketed through marketing agencies in that category. I think we will have very serious problems and producers in Canada will have to fight competition on the domestic market if importers sometimes unknown to the public try above all to make money even if it should be detrimental to the producers in Canada.
A moment ago the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) emphasized this and he was right when he said that producers in Canada will sometimes have to suffer from price setting which will not in fact take into account the production cost because of uncontrolled imports which could bring about a decrease in the prices which should benefit the producers in Canada. Such a policy would not be advantageous to farm producers in Canada.
This is why I ask that any imported natural farm product be subject to the same marketing rules which apply to Canadian products, and I do so because clause 3 of this bill is seriously deficient. In fact, although it says that the majority of the members of the National Marketing Council will be primary producers, the fact still remains that they will be designated by the government. So they will be political appointees and I blame the government for not allowing the farm organizations concerned to designate their representatives to this council, and I think that this might place agriculture under the dependence of the federal government.
This is why earlier, through an amendment at the report stage, if I may point this out, Mr. Speaker, an appeal was made to the government for the officers that will manage these agencies to be mostly farmers and producers, so that they will have this additional protection which they absolutely need.
Clause 19 leaves the government entirely free to appoint the members of marketing agencies. Again, I fear that those directly concerned, that is, the producers, will not have an opportunity to control the marketing of their own production. If I had had time, I should have liked to deal
December 30, 1971

with the question of quotas. In any case, this question was analyzed rather at length and everyone expressed his opinion on that subject.
I think I must conclude, Mr. Speaker, by proposing a motion that I consider reasonable. Perhaps I will be accused of delaying adoption of this bill. They will say that I want the bill referred to the Committee on Agriculture so that its adoption takes even more time, but that is not the question. I do this because under the Standing Orders I did not have the opportunity to move a motion at the report stage. Under those circumstances one must accept the procedure and I have an opportunity on third reading. Here is my motion.
Seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) I move:
That Bill C-176 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, with instructions to amend clause 2(c) of the said bill in order to include any imported natural product of agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to advise the hon. member that since an amendment motion has already been introduced, his motion cannot be accepted at this moment. However the hon. member may have the opportunity, later on during the debate which has barely started, of presenting his amendment motion.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the House of Commons is living a rather historic moment this evening in that we have gathered here in Ottawa, this week, quite an impressive number of members from right across Canada. In view of the time of the year, between Christmas and New Year's, I believe this is a precedent, since we have worked exclusively for Canadian agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill which we all hope will become law tomorrow, we are for the first time introducing into our Canadian statutes a great principle which will be recognized nationally; this, I feel, is a new start for the Canadian agricultural industry.
Of course, this legislation is not perfect, as it has been mentioned. Indeed no legislation is perfect. However, it is a beginning and I am confident that this government or the following ones will amend it, when experience has shown that it is necessary to do so.
During the lengthy debate on this bill, we had the opportunity to hear all kinds of views, proposals, assumptions and suspicions to the effect that the government wanted to destroy the small farms and control Canadian agriculture. Indeed, this was stated a while ago by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. However, I find it curious that a bill which is so bad has practically been approved by a member of the opposition who is precisely one of those who have been leading the debate against that bill for almost 18 months. Indeed, on April 27, 1971, when we undertook consideration of that bill, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said, as can be found on page 5294 of Hansard, and I quote:
As I understand it, this is basically enabling legislation or, at the utmost, permissive legislation. Nobody will be involved unless he wishes to be. This is enabling legislation which will encompass no
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
part of the agricultural industry unless it really wants to be encompassed.
How come, Mr. Speaker, that this official spokesman for the opposition has been able to claim all through the debate, which lasted 18 months, that this legislation is a yoke, a threat to Canadian agriculture, while he himself, if he is an expert as he claims to be-and I think that he really knows agriculture-made, on April 27, the statement that I have just quoted?
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic party has also moved an amendment asking that consideration of the bill be postponed or that the bill be referred back to the committee for further study.
Mr. Speaker, I have personally attended every meeting of the committee and there have been many. I am not ready to support such a proposal, because nothing would be gained by referring the bill back to the committee. At any rate, the present session will end in a few hours. Obviously, the motion of the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) is completely out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this is a permissive measure, which means that the bill authorizes groups of producers to make use of delegated federal and provincial powers to market their products. Some say that this will mark the end of the small farms. It is possible that some small farms will disappear, as thousands have disappeared over the years but not because of that bill. They will disappear for many other reasons, just as all kinds of industries and undertakings disappear and others are born every day, every month.
This bill will strengthen the whole Canadian agriculture. As for those who fear for it the detrimental effect of imports, let me reassure them and tell them that marketing agencies are the best tools to honestly control imports since imported products will be put on the market in provinces where there will be such agencies and that an imported product will have to go through that kind of agency before being put on the market if such product is controlled in the province in question. So, there is no reason for fear in that sector.
As for those who are making all kinds of interpretations regarding this bill, I will answer them that some people said that the government had retreated, that it had accepted compromises, it was said that this was bad legislation, that we had to accept scores of amendments. On the one hand, when we introduce a bill, we are told: If you do not accept amendments, you are obstinate. On the other hand, when we agree to amendments, we are accused of bringing in bad legislation and of not knowing whether we are coming or going.
People will have to make up their minds one of these days and know what they want. Or the government will present unalterable bills and then we, government members, will not agree because we want to have the right to discuss and amend proposals when we feel it is necessary. And this is precisely what has been done in the case of several other bills that were passed.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the measure before us is good. It is the best that we could pass in the circumstances.
It is my personal conviction that producers now facing marketing problems of eggs, poultry and related products
10914__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
December 30, 1971
will almost immediately avail themselves of the benefits of the legislation.
As far as other products are concerned, the legislation will be available to producers who want to resort to it, since it will be included in our statutes as of tomorrow.
The legislation has been described as "permissive" and it will be up to producers, and to them only, to determine whether or not they want to avail themselves of it. The decision will be that of a majority of producers, as is specified in several places in the bill and again today in an amendment to clause 2, which eliminates the designation of products while effectively excluding no products. Products will come under the bill as and when required by the producers. The bill is at their disposal and I am convinced that it is good. Of course it will not solve all problems. Nobody thinks that. It is a tool to solve our problems.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) mentioned earlier the representation made by the farmers last week in Ottawa and the fact that, as parliamentary secretary to the minister, I have stated that these pressure groups could not intimidate us. Such groups do not intimidate us. When groups come to make objective representations and express themselves respectfully, there is no problem and they are welcome. But when individuals, members of a group, use language which I do not tolerate and do not use, I have a right to object to their using such language, and that is what I said to one or two individuals in that group. And I am not afraid to take such a stand.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) was speaking yesterday on behalf of his party-I presume that such was the case-when he stated as recorded on page 10833 of Hansard and I quote:
-And a great number of those remaining will go the same way with the coming into force of Bill C-176-the most infamous bill ever proposed to a nation. We are dragging farmers out by the neck. Whether they like it or not, they will have to follow, (it is) dictatorship.
I completely disagree with this statement of the member for Compton. There is absolutely no dictatorship but true democracy, since they will decide themselves, through a democratic vote, whether to use this legislation. It is not an infamous legislation, but one that was requested by the farming associations over the last 30 years, and unanimously by the people of the Quebec C.F.U.
If they claim to represent the farming people, the Social Crediters were entirely mistaken in taking their present position with regard to Bill C-176. I think the farmers will know who are their true friends in Ottawa. They are not necessarily those who are barking, as the hon. member for Bellechasse said earlier. It is not by barking that results are achieved, but through sustained work done here by scores of hon. members in committee and in the cabinet, in co-operation with the ministers. Those are the ones who do the work in the background, not some brilliant demagogic work intended to make the head-lines, but some constantly constructive work. That is what we are trying to do and what we will continue to do, whatever may say those who are trying to degrade us here in this House.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see the end of this long debate tonight and in concluding my remarks, I should like to thank sincerely all the members who have helped us in every way, especially those from the government
[Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).l
party who supported us during the numerous committee sittings; I want to thank them because it was not easy and I know it. I want to thank, for their presence, the 115 government members who were here tonight.
When they hear that the leaders of the opposition parties would not even come here tonight to take part in this debate and vote on this bill, the farmers will know which members are really concerned about the agricultural community.
In concluding, I wish 1972 will be a year of prosperity for the farmers and for the Canadian people generally.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the culmination of a debate which has lasted for years. It was a disappointment to us to find that after Bill C-197 in its original form had died on the order paper following major criticisms by producers across the country, instead of remodelling the measure on the lines requested by the producers, the minister saw fit to bring it back in substantially the same form. This led to the controversy which has taken place and to the changes for which we have fought so hard and so wearily in the months since Bill C-176 was brought down.
I do not think anybody in the country is against marketing boards as such. My concept, and I think the concept held by most producers, is that of producers banded together to negotiate on the best possible basis, to research the world to find markets for their products and bargain on the most advantageous terms. This is my concept, and I think the concept of the majority of those in this House as well as all the producers of the country, with regard to marketing boards. The hang-up comes from the supply management aspect. Supply management cannot help but be inward looking. It is a withdrawal from the markets of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: It has to be inward looking. Supply management in any country, Canada in particular, cannot work without import controls. We all know that to the degree we depend on export we cannot have import control because we will ruin our total export base. This is the bind we are in.
Supply management becomes impractical when you look at it in terms of designated quotas and this type of thing. This is where we run into trouble. Maybe we should look at the motives of those that seek supply management.
In response to the remarks made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) said this afternoon: "You do not know anything about marketing boards. You do not know a member of one of those boards. You do not know what they are like at all."
I want to read a profile of an individual who is pushing quotas and supply management in this province and a profile of an individual who presented evidence at the egg inquiry in Ontario. I will not name the gentleman. He has been chairman of the egg board. He is or has been a director of many of the poultry organizations in the country. This is the way his record reads. He is the biggest
December 30, 1971

Purina feed dealer west of Toronto. He owns a turkey hatchery and a turkey processing plant. He has about 50 per cent of the Ontario quota, which amounts to about 7 per cent of the Canadian turkey quota. He has over 100,000 hens, a broiler quota and 500 head of beef cattle. At the time he was going around Ontario campaigning for quotas and supply management, he had buildings under construction in order to increase his quota. I have pictures of those buildings under construction. When this was brought to the attention of the court, he backed off and stopped building. That is a portfolio of one gentleman seeking supply management in this country.
I have another portfolio of an individual who appeared before the present egg inquiry in Ontario. This lady was only two weeks out of hospital after having a baby. She has seven or eight children. She told how they scraped and saved in order to keep their family going. Yet they stayed in business against the large integrators. I quote one small section from her brief:
In the proposed marketing plan the producer-grader is assured of being able to continue his present operations. However, in the same plan it also clearly states that the board shall have control of all eggs. I haven't been able to obtain from any board director quotas at any meeting I have attended or a clear direction as to the board's intention. Therefore, we cannot help but be apprehensive when we see what happened to producer-graders in Quebec under Fedco.
It is only logical that if producer-graders are allowed to continue under the proposed plan, they will become very quickly a thorn in the side of the board. They can undersell, and, most important, they have quality and the personal touch many people appreciate. Once again referring to Fedco, it was not only the price differential that caused the black marketing of eggs, it was quality. Droves of Quebeckers came to Ontario seeking fresh eggs and what did Quebec become but literally a police state; raiding stores, stopping and searching trucks and even individual cars. Democracy?
That is what one person has to say about supply management. She went on to talk about the fact that the farmer feeder can still compete against the large integrators. This was borne out in the evidence time and again at the egg inquiry in Ontario.
It is the large integrator who is worried about what is happening. He wants to maintain the price with supply management. We run into cases where people tie themselves up in order to increase their quotas to feed companies and integrated operations of this type. Even though they are producers of grain and have grain on their farms, their contract which enables them to borrow the money to carry on states that they must go to the mill to buy their feed. They cannot use their own feed. In effect, they cannot function as farmer feeders any longer because of this credit requirement. It is these people who depend on the integrators. It is the integrators who are pushing the concept of supply management.
On top of that, we still have inherent in Bill C-176 the clause that relates to anyone involved with the bill not being liable to prosecution under the anti-combines act. What value is the competition act to the small producer looking after himself in a situation where he is competing against the integrator? The fact is that in many cases quotas represent a great deal of money. I and others have spoken of what happened with the tobacco situation in southern Ontario. We have the same situation here with regard to the egg quotas where quotas are worth $3 a bird.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I have people on my list who have 250,000 or 300,000 birds. A quota is worth over $1 million to these people. We are trading in very large figures here. This is what is happening today with the concept of supply management.
There are various other factors that enter into this bill which have been well covered today. I was disappointed when I listened to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford). I hesitate to mention this when the member is not in the chamber, but he spoke of the success of the Ontario hog board and how it set price. He spoke of oversupply and of the great things that boards like this do.
This country is the next door neighbour of the United States. How much of the total hog production do we have? Is it 5 per cent, 7 per cent? I think it is around 7 per cent. Whether we produce or do not produce, they will come in and fill the gap. It means nothing if we reduce our stocks or capacity to produce, because somebody else will just step in and fill the gap.
We depend a great deal on the supports they have in the United States in respect of their agricultural commodities. It is true this might work against us in respect of horticultural crops, but in respect of grain and oilseed crops all the production in the United States which has support on crops works to our advantage, because it maintains the price at a certain level below the border and the benefits flow over to us. So we cannot afford to think about import controls even though import controls would be inherent in any successful supply management situation.
I shall not go any further than that; I know the hour is late. It seems rather in keeping with the way the government has conducted itself on this bill that it sees fit to bring in third reading on such a bill some time after 11 o'clock at night the day before New Year's. The minister had the opportunity at the time Bill C-197 died on the Order Paper, as he did when Bill C-176 was introduced in this House, to make all these changes we have been talking about over the months, instead of making them at this time and place. I think it does the minister very little credit to have this situation develop at this point in time.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now for four years and I do not think there has ever been an occasion so auspicious as this night when, at 15 minutes after one o'clock in the morning, we are in the middle of a debate on third reading of a major farm marketing bill which will do a great deal to improve agriculture in Canada.
As a person who has been heavily involved in agriculture, and in the dairy industry primarily, as one who has spent many late hours on problems involving cows calving or general farm work, who has had the privilege to attend the same institution as the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) as an agricultural representative in Eastern Ontario in the very historic counties of Prescott and Glengarry, as a person involved in dairy farming, as one involved in the agricultural industry as a professional agriculturalist, as a graduate in animal husbandry from the Ontario Agricultural College, and as one who has worked more in agriculture than many members far older than myself in this House, I have never had an opportunity to work into the small hours of the morning doing
24725-62'.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
something that is more rewarding and beneficial for farmers than taking part in this decision-making process in the House of Commons which brings into fruition this marketing bill.
Let me assure the hon. member for Kent-Essex, a man whose personal integrity I respect very much, that surely he will be fair enough to recognize that no one on this side has ever said-at least, I have never heard it said by anyone on this side-that this bill would be a panacea and solve all agriculture's problems. It will provide the framework under which the provinces or groups of agricultural producers could, if and when they wanted, get together to direct the marketing of their own products. No one says that somehow this would solve all the agricultural problems in Canada in total. Obviously this is not so.
If the hon. member were here-he may have been- when I had the privilege of addressing this House on Tuesday he would know I was one of the members who pointed out with all the emphasis at my disposal that we must be doing more than just passing this single, admittedly limited, bill. I am one of those who has been very critical and very impatient with some members of the opposition who have attempted to hold up the bill which, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex has correctly pointed out, is only a very modest step in the direction of improving the situation in the agricultural industry in Canada, and therefore one which I cannot see deserves any opposition at all. It should have gone through long since.
One reason for my entering the debate tonight is to make sure that the remarks that are on the record in my name from Tuesday are reiterated especially for the benefit of producers of beef in order-to use the phrase of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- to make it crystal-clear that never at any time was there any possibility of the beef producers being forced into a bill which they did not want.
In other words, there have always been since this bill came before the House at the report stage, and long since as the amendments came before the committee, adequate and complete assurances that no commodity group would be brought in until that commodity group wanted to be brought in.
I think this bill lent itself to being the victim of scare tactics because it was possible to say to people that somehow there is a massive scheme afoot, as the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) implied, to create a kind of total supply management situation in Canada and thereby place under a bureaucracy the determination of how much or how great a quantity of any agricultural product could be produced and marketed in Canada. This simply is not the case, it has never been the case, nor could it be the case. Surely every member in this House familiar with the agricultural industry or with how our country is made up and governed knows that many of these responsibilities and authorities are within the provincial realm.
Such members would know, therefore, that the federal government could not accomplish this kind of act even if it wanted to do so. The truth is that the federal government never wanted to and never intended to. Certainly the bill never indicated that the government intended to impose any kind of supply management on any group of producers.

Another point which should be emphasized is the simple fact that in Canada we have thousands of producers producing products for a very small number of purchasers. This results in the simple situation that if the producers over-produce their product-and since we have very good farmers in Canada and good technology in agriculture we will automatically over-produce in respect of almost every agricultural product-they will find that there is a greater supply than demand. This can result in one of two things. It can result in chronically depressed prices with a downward spiral on income for farmers, which could be helped by the government, in some kind of autocratic, dictatorial sense, nationalizing the agricultural industry out of sympathy for the desperation of the farm community.
By way of an aside I would remind the House that I have really hardworking farmers who when I go out to talk to them say that the time has come when there is no hope of ever getting agricultural producers together, and the day has long since passed when there should be nationalization of agriculture. My response is that I do not favour it and the government in power in Canada today does not favour it either.
This leaves us with only one alternative, which is that we encourage farmers-that is not a good way to run human beings because some do not encourage very well, some will always oppose and some will block what you want to accomplish-but we must encourage farmers to bring some order to the marketing of their products themselves. That is the sum and substance, the aim and purpose of the bill before the House tonight. We want to encourage farmers to organize themselves so that they are not always the victims of the few purchasers; so that they do not always need to suffer because they know how to farm better. The situation in agriculture in Canada today is that farmers are suffering more because they are doing their job better. That suffering must stop, and the purpose of this bill is to give one more, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) says, inadequate, limited and imperfect but at least one more tool that can be used if the people of Canada who are farmers want to use it to attempt to accomplish what one member said could not be accomplished, in other words, some sort of rational coordination of agriculture across this nation.
Some people say, for instance, that Canada is a country that cannot be governed. One speaker earlier in this debate suggested that you cannot have any kind of marketing plan in Canada because of the diversity of regions and areas, and that it is hopeless to assume that some order can be brought to the marketing of a product in Canada. I am not so pessimistic. I do not believe that it is hopeless to have co-operation in this nation. I am not convinced that the people of Newfoundland, of P.E.I. and of Nova Scotia are interested only in their own provinces.
I hope that what I say in this House does not give any hon. member a foundation to believe that I am working only for eastern Ontario, and I speak of eastern Ontario because it is such a huge province that we tend to be a bit regional even within the province of Ontario. Surely the time has come when those of us in any region of Canada must be concerned about the national good, and in this case the national good of the agricultural community.
December 30, 1971

I believe firmly that if there were legislative machinery whereby the provinces or commodity groups were encouraged to sit around a table to discuss their differences which are so real, so deep and almost impenetrable in some instances but which they could at least confront, we could at least make some progress. None of us, and certainly not myself, would disagree with the hon. member for Kent-Essex when he says that there will be mammoth problems in implementing this bill. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would agree with him on that. Nobody has minimized the difficulties of governing this country or of establishing national schemes of any type. It is no different in agriculture. But surely the hon. member for Kent-Essex would have to recognize that if we took the logic of his argument one step further than he took it, one would have to argue against such institutions as the Canadian Wheat Board because one would have to say that any attempt to plan or to bring together producers is a hopeless endeavour in the first place. But even he agrees that the Canadian Wheat Board is of vital importance to grain farmers.
The other point that the hon. member made and which I thought was a very good one concerns imports. It seems to me that this bill will be a great aid in attempting to do something more about imports of agricultural products into Canada, because the producers of any commodity will have an opportunity for the first time in Canadian history, if they are smart enough to take advantage of it, to get together and come before the Minister of Agriculture and other officials of the government officially and say that they are speaking for the hog, or egg, or beef producers, as the case may be and the minister will know that that is correct. They do speak for a commodity.
The problem in agriculture is that farmers have always been divided amongst themselves and while one group was working for one goal, another group was working for another and often opposite goal. So this bill will also encourage the hammering out of differences within the agricultural community. Producers will then speak with one voice. I ask the hon. member for Kent-Essex whether he does not think that any minister-and let us for a moment not be partisan or political about this-to whom representation is made by a commodity group would find that the fact that they are speaking with one voice would bring far better results than any representations that could be made in any other way. I think that one of the best things that could happen in Canada, if we are to take seriously the threat to Canadian agriculture from imports into Canada, would be for every commodity group to set up an agency, for the purpose of dealing with the import of their commodities into the country, if for no other reason.
I have been convinced for a long time that this bill had within it plenty of guards to prevent anybody from being forced to do what they did not want to do. Therefore I have been somewhat critical of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and of other organizations which in my view continually say to us that we are telling them lies, we are not telling them the truth when we say that they have an escape-hatch, that we are not in any way forcing them under this bill.
I will go one step further and say that I have resented that attitude on the part of that organization and I have
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
said so publicly both inside and outside the House. I have felt that their concerns were met, that they were provided for. Yet the organization has insisted that more should be done. But the main concern that I have had about this bill is that when you come to discuss the idea of whether you are going to have the big or the small producer, the big or the small farmer, the fact remains that in any collection of opinion or in any plebiscite that may be held, the small people, just like the poor people in any culture, will outnumber the rich, and the little farmers will outnumber the big farmers. So the vote will inevitably be more in favour of the small producer than of the large producer.
For that reason I cannot understand why members like the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), whom I respect as an individual though I do not always hold his opinions in high regard, keeps reiterating, as do others like him such as the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) who is just as bad on this point, that somehow this legislation will be hurting the small producers and helping the big producers-because he knows, or should know, that there are many more small producers of any commodity, if we get this legislation through soon and into effect before the situation which exists in Canada results in all small producers being obliterated, who could easily form the majority. And the majority which will be the smaller farmers will always control the decision. Therefore, this bill can greatly assist small farmers. Given that situation, I reiterate what I said on Tuesday, that there is nothing to fear in this legislation. The fact that certain organizations have continued, for political gain or other reason, to insist that somehow-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Come off it.


Murray Arndell McBride: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) may or may not know anything about dairy farming, when he condemns the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, I do. I know a hell of a lot more than you do. I know the difference between a cow and a bull- and all you are giving us is a bunch of bull!


Murray Arndell McBride: We are certainly hearing some bull over there now. The fact remains that without the Canadian Dairy Commission the dairy industry would be in desperate straits today; for instance, in as bad a position as the egg industry and the hog industry were experiencing. I find it difficult to believe that people like the hon. member for Edmonton Centre can imply, by statements like the one he just made, that somehow the Canadian Dairy Commission, and going further, the Canadian Wheat Board, are not working for the benefit of Canadian agriculture. Just because you have some individuals who have a grievance against the institution, or against how the act is administered in a certain case, does not mean that in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not of benefit to the farmers.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What has happened to butter?


Murray Arndell McBride: Surely the hon. member ought to know that when you produce milk you get a lot more powdered milk from your production than you do butter, and if you

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
produce more powdered milk than you can sell on world markets, that results in losses for farmers. If the hon. member wants to stockpile powdered milk, like we saw a few years ago at Granby, Quebec-


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is poor marketing.


Murray Arndell McBride: It would be poor marketing if we dumped it on world markets at depressed prices. The hon. member ought to know that the major portion of the $130 million that goes to the Canadian Dairy Commission is going into the dairymen's pockets now, and that the average dairy farmer is better off than he ever was previously. The hon. member is displaying his lack of knowledge.
When I heard the hon. member for Kent-Essex say he was going to vote against the bill on third reading, it startled me to realize that what he was really saying was that he wanted a position in agriculture whereby the big man can become bigger and the small man could be squeezed out. Where there is no control then we will overproduce and overproduce and prices will have to be deflated. Jungle law will exist in Canadian agriculture and farmers like those I represent in eastern Ontario, where there are many marginal farms, will be the first to be squeezed out of the industry.
Farmers do not get a pink slip to notify them that they are laid off. They are simply starved out economically, which is the cruellest way to be laid off from any type of employment. If that is what the official opposition want, it is not what I want, and I am very grateful that it is not what the government wants. That's the reason this is a valuable bill for Canadian agriculture.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am neither a farmer nor the son of a farmer, but I am encouraged to participate in this debate, something which I had anticipated with some trepidation, by having been here tonight and heard a lawyer from London, a school teacher from Peterborough and a preacher from the Ottawa Valley. I have not seen anything like it since Hon. Paul Martin made his famous soybean speech in the House a few years ago.
I come from a province that is agriculturally deficient, yet there is concern in Newfoundland over this bill. I hope to set out the reasons for this concern, and to set out the reasons why I am concerned. Among other things, I am concerned about the propensity of the government to add to an already growing bureaucracy. That is precisely what this bill will do with the supply management concept. It will create a greater bureaucracy. It will restrict competition. It will prevent young people from entering the agricultural industry, and in my province where we are hoping to build up an agricultural industry, that is cause for concern. What is of even more concern is that the bill will eventually mean increases in food prices to the consumers. That is something which should be of concern to all members of the House.
While recognizing the need for improved marketing mechanisms at the primary producer level, in my view supply management as proposed in this bill is not the answer. Supply management will only create quotas on a

national basis and as a result these quotas will ignore the need for competition because those who have them will have an economic advantage. The result will be a monopoly that will greatly affect the over-all efficiency of agriculture. Not only am I concerned about the prospect of a growing bureaucracy; I am also concerned because the bill violates the letter and the spirit of the BNA Act. I intend to state arguments to prove that fact. Section 121 of the BNA Act provides:
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.
This is one of the fundamental aspects of confederation; it is the sheet anchor of confederation. If confederation is to mean anything in this country, it has to mean a common market for all Canadians. Without this very important provision of the BNA Act Canada would not be a country as we know it. Instead, it would be an association of balkanized states. That is one of the things which this bill will bring into being. Clause 31 of the bill, which deals with federal-provincial agreements on marketing agencies, will provide an opting-out formula for the provinces. There is already an indication that Newfoundland will not be a party to such an agreement.
We have an egg marketing board in Newfoundland. Although we may be agriculturally deficient in most areas, we do produce a surplus of eggs. One of the reasons we produce a surplus of eggs is that we have large egg producers. One of the largest producers of eggs is the present caretaker Premier of Newfoundland, and someone suggests that there are a few rotten eggs in that basket. I would like to ask the minister, what will be the legal position of an egg marketing board in Newfoundland, which has already been declared ultra vires of the constitution by the Supreme Court of Canada, if this clause of the bill comes into effect? Under clause 31, if the province of Newfoundland decides to opt out or stay in, does that mean that it is still denied access to the greater Canadian market in the area of egg production? That is precisely what it means. It means that this bill will not protect the people of Newfoundland from the illegal egg cartel which exists in the province today.
I remember directing questions to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in this House regarding the legality of the egg marketing board and he answered, "Why doesn't the hon. member encourage his colleagues to pass Bill C-176?" Now I find that at this late hour we are going to pass Bill C-176 with that escape clause, because that is what clause 31 is: it is an escape clause which will permit provinces such as Newfoundland to violate the constitution of this country with illegal marketing boards which will deny our people access to the greater Canadian markets. It is outright violation of our constitutional rights as a province of Canada. What will be the effect of that, Mr. Speaker?
I do not expect to touch the hearts of hon. members opposite because if I did this bill would not be going out of here in its present form. The province of Newfoundland has the unique distinction of having the highest per capita cost of living in the country and the lowest per capita income. It means that the people of Newfoundland will
December 30, 1971

continue to pay an inflated price for eggs which is established by an illegal cartel which resists the ordinary laws of supply and demand and keeps prices up by dumping eggs. The people of Newfoundland, the consumers, will have to pay for this escape clause, clause 31 of the bill, notwithstanding the assurances the minister gave me in this House when I raised the matter at the time of the establishment of the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board a few months ago.
I hope that the minister will address himself to that argument, because as I read clause 31 that is precisely the result and the effect of it. It will mean that provinces which do not decide to be a part of the marketing council to be established by this legislation will be able to continue operating their own illegal marketing cartels notwithstanding the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada and notwithstanding section 121 of the British North America Act.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a sad day for Canada when we allow the constitution of the country to be violated by legislation passed by this House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Boy, is he ever mixed up.


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask the minister what the position of the marketing boards already established in the provinces will be if this bill passes in its present form. For example, if they decide to opt out and not be a part of the over-all marketing council, will that then represent de facto recognition by the government of the right to exist of that provincial marketing board? If that is the case, then this bill violates the law of the country. It violates the constitution and denies the provinces free access to the common market that is Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there is nothing that I nor anybody else can say that will change this bill at this late hour. The government will have its way. But that does not take away from us our responsibility, indeed our right, to lay these arguments on the record because there is concern across the country. This country is much more than the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The country must be a common market if it is to be anything.
I am concerned with this bill. I think it is unfortunate that not enough arguments have been addressed to the effect that it will have on production in Canada and the effect that it will have on the consumer. I was examining the records and I was rather disappointed at the small input by consumer groups when the bill was before committee. I believe the various consumer associations are concerned, but I do not believe that they realized the full impact of the bill. I think one consumer group appeared before the committee but I do not think they fully realized that this bill would permit removal of the protection afforded consumers and producers by the constitution of the country, by the various judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the provincial courts of the land-an assurance of free access to the markets of Canada, which is the best assurance we have of keeping down prices to the consumer. I believe that instead of having access to the free market that is Canada we will now have a bureaucracy that will be able to dictate prices of produce, restrict the flow of trade and halt the ordinary laws of supply and demand which would govern the price for the consumer in this country.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
In view of the late hour, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be as well if we all decided to cash it in and sing "Auld Lang Syne" because this is New Year's Eve. I am glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his place tonight: he has to get used to late nights from now on. As the father of six, I can speak with authority on that subject. Perhaps it might be as well to close debate with "Auld Lang Syne," not only on this bill which has been before the House for the last two years but for the free market that was Canada.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take too long. As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture since 1968 when we were first elected, I feel it my duty and obligation to say something about this bill which has taken so long to culminate-we hope-at this very late hour. When the last speaker was suggesting that we sing "Auld Lang Syne" I could not help doubting whether even the Tories would want to sing it for such a speech as he gave.


An hon. Member:: He meant "Old Arthur Lang".


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My dear friend, you are a perfect example of why we should legislate birth control. With an example such as you, we should make it retroactive. You do not bother me at all, because I am used to professionals and you are not one of those. If it comes to a battle of wits, you haven't even half a chance.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the agricultural committee for the last three years. In this respect I want to compliment members of the Conservative party, and particularly the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). In my opinion he has done much to bring this bill to culmination.


An hon. Member:: That is the kiss of death.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I think that he has represented the farmers of Canada along with government members, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Social Credit party from Quebec. The time had come when we all realized that something had to be done for the agricultural industry of Canada.
No matter whether high school teachers in Newfoundland or Toronto, engineers in Montreal, politicians in Ottawa, Toronto or St. John's or nurses think they are at the low end of the totem pole, the people who get the thin end of the wedge are those in agriculture in this dear Canada, of ours. I remember 17 or 18 years ago, when I first got into politics, thinking that even if it were the last thing I would do, I would try to improve the condition of the people in my area involved in agriculture.


Mr. Bigg:: What took you so long?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I say to you with bowed head, those people are worse off now than when I started.


An hon. Member:: Because you were elected.


Colin David Gibson: Why don't hon. members on the other side let their members speak? He is a better speaker than many members on that side.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


An hon. Member:: Be quiet.


An hon. Member:: Hoot, hoot!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I did not hear my hon. friend from Newfoundland. I think he is emphasizing that we should have had birth control before he was born.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend from Newfoundland does not realize that although he does not agree with me, many people in his party do agree with me and would, if they could, say what I am saying. My friend from Newfoundland is in the wrong.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the hon. member talking about birth control, or this bill?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member is in the wrong league. He is in the international league, and I do not think he will be back here after the next one begins.
Let me return to the agricultural industry. I pay my compliments to the members of the official opposition who in my opinion have done an excellent job in making Canada aware that the agricultural industry is not getting a fair shake in this country. I listened especially carefully to the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). He was the official speaker for the Conservative party and he said that this bill is no good. But he did not present any alternative. He did not say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is for this bill. He did not say that the Farmers Union is for this bill. He did not say that the little producers of Canada are for this bill and that we, as Liberals, are going to give them this bill tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. This is the second time in 14 years that I have risen on a question of privilege in this House, and I do so now because of misrepresentations. The speaker who just preceded me indicated that I did not say that the Federation of Agriculture supported this bill and that I did not say the Farmers Union supported this bill. The hon. member did not say that both those groups when they appeared before the committee said that they would support this bill only if their suggested amendments to it were accepted.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not a question of privilege.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let me tell my friends on the other side who are listening to me that I agree with what the hon. member said. The Farmers Union and the federation said that they would not accept the bill unless there were amendments and, Mr. Speaker, we have given them amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: And, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not say tonight that the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Hon. W. A. Stewart, now supports this bill. He did not say where that minister stands on this bill, because that minister believes we should have put it through one year ago, not tonight.


Harold Warren Danforth: But he still has his reservations about it.
[Mr. Gibson.l


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The agricultural industry of Canada-I say this with bowed head-has not had a fair chance. And I say with bowed head that they have been asking for national marketing legislation for many years.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You people have been in power for seven years. Why did you not introduce it sooner?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Why didn't Dief do something about it?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just wait until the competition bill comes up. You will be next.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help from the other side but I do not want you to think I need it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps because we have reached a late hour, hon. members want to make their speeches at the same time. I think the hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to speak.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The farmers of Canada asked for an amendment that would give them the opportunity to run their own show. Actually, the Conservative party helped in this regard. They were helped by government members, because they could not have done it on their own. Under our democratic constitution, the government had a majority of members on the committee and we agreed that farmers should represent at least 50 per cent of the people running these agencies.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Why not 51 per cent?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Well, if the board consists of three members, and the requirement is for at least 50 per cent to be farmers, that means that two of those members will be farmers. It means that six out of nine members will be farmers on a nine-man board. Clearly, more than 51 per cent of the representatives in those cases will be farmers.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Why not take a six-man board?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Because there are not to be six at any time.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: How do you know?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I know, and it is obvious that you do not know. My advice to my friends, because they are my friends, is that they should keep quiet. They are getting into difficulties. They are digging their own graves. Actually, they are jumping in. In any event, we have given the agricultural industry the right to run its own show.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You have had seven years to finish the job.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It will not take me more than three minutes to finish with you, my friend. The point is, we have given agriculture something it has asked for. I say to my friends on the government benches, many of whom come from great cities like Toronto and Montreal and many of whom may not be familiar with this bill, that once and for all we will give the agricultural industry of this country a chance to run its own show. We are to give the industry, agencies and councils, or whatever you want to call them, that will be comparable to the great unions running organized labour in this country. I am not like my
December 30,1971

friend from Newfoundland. I do not fear higher consumer prices. The farmers, regardless of prices that will be charged-prices within reason, that is-are to get a fair shake. For once they will get a fair return for their hard work in producing our food.
One of my hon. friends said tonight that he was afraid this bill does not control imports. May I say, because I want to be fair, that I am also a bit leary about that point.
I feel that for the sake of the agricultural industry in Canada, just as we control, for example, the importation of textiles coming into Canada, sooner or later we have to take a stand to make sure that our farmers, whether wheat farmers from Saskatchewan or dairy farmers from Quebec, get a fair deal. I think we should to some extent control imports of agricultural products.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Then why not put it in the bill?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: We do not put it in the bill because there are other bills which cover it. It is so obvious. I have all the answers, but I am worried about your questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I simply say this, in conclusion. It has taken a long time to give the agricultural industry the things it has requested. We are doing so here and now, not just the government members but those to my left too, despite all the opposition they have put up. All of us are involved. I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) here tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He is doing his best for those in the agricultural industry. I have heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) say on numerous occasions that farmers should be given a better deal. But where is he tonight when we are fighting for the agricultural industry? Somebody told me where he might be. I have no idea. Somebody suggested he might be in Malta. The British are supposedly moving out of there, and somebody else is moving in. I do not know what the hon. member for York South is doing, but one thing I do know: he is not looking after the farmers of Canada.
Then again, I note the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is not here. I say this very respectfully because I think he is a fine gentleman. The other night I sat by my television set all by myself and heard him condemn the government for letting Parliament go away for six weeks instead of looking after the business of the country. I ask this question with all respect: Where is he tonight when the agricultural industry is demanding his attention?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: In case the hon. member for York South thinks we need him here, in case the Leader of the Opposition thinks we need him here, I want to tell them this: the members of the government side are here and we are here to look after the farmers.
For too long have we let them down, and I include myself in that category. For too long have the Tories, the Grits and the social democrats let them down. But we are
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
not going to let them down any more, starting tonight. I look around here at the front benches. There are more on the front benches of the rump than there are on the front benches of the rest of the parties. Very soon this debate will be ending. Very shortly the farmers of Canada will have the opportunity of getting something for which they have been asking for years and which they should have received earlier. Regretfully, they were not given it in the past. But, proudly, I tell Your Honour that as of tonight, because of the actions of the present government, they will get something which for the first time in history will give them an opportunity to go forth together with the other economic forces of this country.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, even though it is late, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this bill which to me is of extreme importance.
First of all, I should like to say that I was very happy indeed to sit on the Committee on Agriculture since I was elected to the House. I may indeed have been the only member to sit in two capacities on that committee.
I should add also that Bill C-176 had some bearing on a decision I had to make at one point. Concerned about respecting my commitments toward my electors, particularly the farmers, I had to make a decision because I believed and still believe in the value of this bill which was introduced some 18 months ago.
I do not wish to miss the opportunity of taking part in this debate, because as several other members I am clearly under the impression that I have things to say. The work in committee has indeed enabled me to understand the legislation better and I had realized for a long time that agriculture needed some governmental solutions.
A lot has been said about this legislation and since the beginning of the debate many serious charges have been laid by both sides of the House. I would like just the same to congratulate those who took part in the discussion, as well in committee as during the report stage and on third reading.
For several, the legislation is the source of much concern. Anyway, I think that the bill will be valuable inasmuch as it is applied by the responsible persons, the producers and different provincial authorities.
Amendments have been brought forward, some of which were very sensible. Others were not so brilliant. To say that the bill is, in any way, perfect would probably be exaggerated, because a perfect bill would be something like a miracle, and I do not think that anyone in this House could have proposed a miraculous solution. But between doing nothing and contributing something which seems interesting and most valid, one had to bring out a bill truly inspired by the difficulties which agriculture is facing in this country.
It has been regretted that this bill does not provide more money for farmers. I think that the marketing agencies will be able to establish a certain relationship with decent prices, which is what farmers are still expecting.
The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) was saying, yesterday, that in the name of liberty, he was
December 30, 1971

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
going to vote against the bill. I still fail to understand how one can make such statements. In the name of freedom, it seems to me that it has been proved for a long time already that this legislation guaranteed this freedom to this group of producers.
Furthermore, some suggest that the legislation could be helpful to trusts. In my view, nothing more than these marketing agencies can bring such trusts to heel. There is always the fear that some small producers will disappear. In fact, some take pleasure in saying, again and again, that, in the last ten years, thousands of farmers have gone out of business, and one sees also that trusts have been established, because of the lack of marketing agencies, as a result of which production has not been well-planned, while this legislation appears to ensure the opposite.
So, it is difficult to understand the arguments put forward by some hon. members who are determined not to see the good effects of this legislation. Surely they could see how the legislation works.
Yet, it is clear that changes were necessary and the government has decided to bring them in.
I was, like many others, quite impressed by the comments of the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). I think that he has been able, as usual, to express his opinion quite judiciously and I was left with a good impression. Besides, I know that he is competent enough to give valuable advice to hon. members.
I would also like to deal with imports which apparently have been a problem for quite a while. It is clear that the government has the responsability, especially at certain times of the year, to put a limit on imports. But we will have legislation based on marketing agencies as a National Council to administer these agencies. It appears to me that this legislation is more valuable than all the agencies we have known to restrict imports which at certain times of the year are quite a problem.
That fear and those imports that are too often responsible for the difficulties of several categories of producers should gradually disappear as a result of the establishment of a national council, and of a provincial agency well structured by a national policy.
I should like also to recognize that the bill seems to ensure there will be no infringement on provincial jurisdictions, contrary to some opinions that have been expressed in the House. It seems quite clear that the provinces will have the opportunity to sit at the same table. They will have the responsibility of distributing production.
Earlier I heard an hon. member from Newfoundland say that this province produced more eggs than it consumed. I am sure that the provinces will get together and accept to some extent that Newfoundland be allowed to keep on distributing its surplus in other provinces, the same as Quebec and Ontario presently have the possibility of exporting their surpluses to other provinces.
In view of the past experience of Quebec and Ontario, where it was realized there were difficulties, it seems those marketing agencies headed by a national Council should bring us some security and make us more optimistic than some have shown to be to this day.
Of course there must be agreement to ensure that negotiations between provinces and good faith of all those involved will always be necessary.

It is inconceivable that the government will have settled everything through this legislation. Our farmers will always have to show some creativity and good faith and I believe that such good faith to all intents and purposes will bring about fruitful negotiations beneficial to the whole country.
Nor do I admit, as was suggested yesterday, that up to a certain point the province of Quebec sought to impose its demands. It is stupid to claim such a thing and as a representative of the province of Quebec, I, along with members from other provinces indeed have long dreamt of nation-wide negotiations for the purpose of more equitable distribution in the interest of all producers.
Do I need to repeat that this legislation becomes a tool, a service to producers who, in all freedom, will be able to use it properly.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that changes and progress demand a minimum of efficiency. We are preoccupied with the disappearance of a number of small producers. I think it is equally important for the government to do all it possibly can in order to ensure the continuity of family farms.
I think that those marketing boards will allow for the continuity of family farms, for, as well as providing a livelihood for family heads, they may encourage a farmer's son to go on living on a farm, as it has been clear for too long that the reason our farmers' children chose not to follow on their fathers' steps was that they knew the problems which their fathers were faced with-and the proposed legislation is certainly going to increase the chance of safeguarding family farms.
We must not think that it is going to protect all small producers. I think that progress demands a degree of efficiency. Whether we like it or not, I think that progress is a natural phenomenon which cannot be escaped. There again, the establishment of those marketing boards will allow a grouping of a number of middle producers to survive and to stand up to those monopolies or cartels against which they are at present completely helpless.
There was some talk about an amendment aimed at establishing a reasonable price. It is of course desirable that, inasmuch as possible, the government be able to establish reasonable prices which would generate hope and enable farmers to meet their commitments.
I was saying that the farmer should be more creative than ever and the government and provincial authorities should be more open minded and more understanding than ever in regard to the implementation of such a bill. Negotiations will not be reduced and large organizations will have to multiply if we were to seriously establish these marketing agencies.
I shall ask leave, Mr. Speaker, and express once again the confidence I place in hon. members who have participated in this debate. The effects of such a legislation will anyway equal the honesty displayed by all members and by those who will be entrusted with the management of this National Council and who will endeavour to meet the provincial authorities and various organizations in order to establish offices for each commodity.
December 30, 1971

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
On behalf of Canadian farmers, I would like that the responsible people in this House and the members demonstrate, in the coming year and in regard to our debates, the realistic approach which the public is so eagerly awaiting. May 1972 bring upon us the objectivity and sincerity that are so much desired so that our laws take into account reality as well as difficulties and that they may continually improve the present situation of agriculture.
I will restrict myself to those few comments, in repeating that I support this bill and I would rather see the government introduce a bill than limit myself to expressing criticism without offering a better alternative.
As far as the arguments which were put forward are concerned, I said that some of them were good. The government has accepted a number of them. I am not convinced that a better solution than the government's has been submitted by other parties. In those circumstances, I prefer to support a bill which attempts to bring about better conditions and allow farmers to regroup and receive through those agencies more adequate incomes and thus providing some hope for the future of farming in this country.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the exchange that took place a few minutes ago between the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) with regard to the stand of the farm organizations in respect of this bill and some of the changes which they proposed. I took note of the comment of the hon. member for Bruce to the effect that in fact the government had adopted the changes requested by the farm organizations. I would have to go along with him to some degree because I think it must be acknowledged that some of the changes requested by the farm organizations have been adopted, However, I should like to draw to his attention that there is before us at this very moment a motion to refer the bill back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the purpose of making a change which was requested by a major farm organization and which was not included in the amended bill.
I refer to the motion moved by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to refer the bill back to the committee so that a change could be made in order to give farm organizations and farmers a voice in setting prices that would give them some bargaining power in dealing with the board and marketing agencies which might be established under the bill. This change, however, was not adopted by the government. I would commend to hon. members that we give favourable consideration to this amendment because I think it constitutes a very important feature of this legislation. I believe its importance should not for a moment be underrated. It is for this reason I wanted to take part in the debate.
I certainly favour the amendment proposed by my colleague. It seems to me common sense that we should make adequate provision for the voice of the farmers, not only in the establishment of a plan for marketing agencies or in giving farmers a voice in terms of one or more members on a board, agency or directorate but also in giving them some say in the day-to-day operations of the
plan-because it is not in the structure of the plan that we run into hang-ups and problems, but in connection with the operations the agency carries on from day to day, week to week and month to month. Farmers must have more say in respect of agencies which have a critical and important effect on their livelihood and well-being.
For this reason I would hope the House, even at this late hour, would agree to make this change because I feel it would be in the best interest of agriculture. I feel it would be in the best interest of the successful operation of this bill when enacted into law. Therefore. I hope the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and other members of the House will give it favourable consideration. When we take a look at this matter, I think we must take into account the history of marketing boards. I think it is known that members of the New Democratic Party and members of the CCF which succeeded the New Democratic Party long argued for the principle of marketing and marketing boards in order to deal with agricultural products and the many problems that arise in connection therewith. This idea emerged during a stage of Canada's history when farming was for the most part conducted on an independent basis and when our farmers could be said to be the only group in our society which operated with a classical free enterprise voice.
That was a classical case and the only such case in our history for a long period of time. In fact, they represented a true definition of what constituted an independent entrepreneur operation on a private basis. In other words, one operator or even a combination of operators could not significantly by themselves influence the structure of the market and the operations of the market. Within the framework of this situation, why were marketing boards proposed? Why was the marketing board idea brought forward? I suggest there were three basic reasons for this. One was in order to give the farmer and the agricultural industry as such some bargaining power in the marketplace, and to give them some marketing power in relation to their relations with the balance of the economy.
Second, it was for the purpose of introducing a greater measure of stability in the agricultural industry in order to iron out some of the severe fluctuations which had a detrimental effect on the industry. Third, it would have the effect of introducing a greater measure of internal equity within the industry so there would be fair and equal treatment for all farmers who were dealing with one product, or group of products, and there would not be a continuation of the situation where one farmer would get a break and another farmer, often for reasons completely beyond his control, had to take a poor market situation because he had no other choice.
Down through all the years when this need was pretty obvious to many people and when farm organizations were asking for the adoption of this idea, what was the Liberal party doing? We found that by and large it was rejecting the idea. Some members put the idea forward, I suppose sincerely, but for the most part the members of the Liberal party rejected the principle of orderly marketing and marketing boards during the years when it could have been of great value to the farmers of the country.
During the time when they could have done something through this particular method of handling affairs, changes were taking place within the industry. We saw the
!0924______________________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
introduction of vertical integration; we saw the integrators move into the picture. This began to play a significant role in many areas of agricultural production. The processors came on the scene and began to take part in the picture. They began to make arrangements with others to get into production and to make market arrangements. Along with them we had the agribusiness getting into the processing business in a large way. During these years fundamental changes have taken place in the agricultural industry, and the passage of this bill will not stop that process.
Now we find that the Liberal party has made an eleventh-hour conversion, or possibly a five-minutes-to-twelve p.m. conversion. I noted with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Bruce and I commend him for his sincerity and frankness in owing up to some of the past sins of omission and commission of the Liberal party in not having taken action in this field before now. I commend him for his frankness and for placing his cards on the table in that regard. But then he said to the House, "Look at what the Liberal party is doing now. Even the Prime Minister is here tonight".
It is very nice to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) here tonight. It is quite a change when the Prime Minister comes to the House in the dying hours of the debate to see what is going on. He might learn something. Possibly he might avoid some of the mistakes and comments he has made with respect to agriculture. Maybe he will not make any more such statements as, "Why should we sell wheat for the farmers?" I hope he learns something about agricultural affairs by being present in the House tonight.
I do not think the Prime Minister has been conspicuous by his attendance at any time during this debate.
I am proud of the record of the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) on agricultural affairs. He has spoken on this subject on many occasions in the House, and I am prepared to place his record alongside that of the Prime Minister at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: How are things in the Mediterranean?


John Stratford Burton: He has said more to help solve agricultural problems than any member across the floor tonight. I also note that the Progressive Conservative party has found itself in serious difficulty over this bill. They seem to be hung-up on a number of features of the bill. I suppose one might say that their big beef is that they want to take cattle out of the bill. Some of their members wanted to see the bill scrapped altogether and others were reluctantly going along with it.
In dealing with the bill and the amendment before us I think we have to take into account the situation that we are facing in the agricultural industry and in the rural communities of Canada where real fears exist with respect to this legislation. Why are there such fears? I suggest it is because there is a fear on the part of independent farmers, who have been able to survive, that this legislation will help the integrators and the agribusiness more than it will help the small, independent farmer.
It will leave the independent farmer out in the cold.

I am not passing judgment as to whether those fears are are entirely well-founded. I think there is justification for the fears and I think only experience will prove the validity of some of the claims been made in this regard. I think we must recognize that there is this problem with respect to the reaction of the farm community in this respect.
I suggest that some of the concerns that exist apply particularly to the concept of supply management which has been discussed already this evening. As I indicated during an earlier stage of the debate on this bill, most of us in the House will agree that so far as the principle of supply management is concerned, it is certainly acceptable. It is possible that the acceptance of that principle can be of benefit to farmers and to the agricultural industry. It is consistent with the principle of orderly marketing and with the idea of establishing marketing boards.
But we have to do more than that. We have to do more than simply go along with principles. We have to devise a plan and an approach that will work. That is where the difficulty arises. We have to devise a plan that will help farmers. We have to make sure that to the extent that supply management is used it will be based on wider objectives than those of simply restricting production or relating it to immediate market demand. This idea must be developed within the framework of a total look at rural society, if it is to serve a useful purpose. We must look at the whole picture, at the well-being of farmers and their total situation.
One of the reasons for the fears of the rural community with respect to supply management, however commendable the principle might be, has been the experience of farmers in some parts of Canada with limited application of the concept of supply management over the past couple of years. I make particular reference to two programs as they affected my own province of Saskatchewan. First of all, I refer to Operation Lift, the infamous program where large amounts of public money were spent in a way which, I suggest, had only a minimal effect on the stated objective of reducing wheat production. I suggest that the effect of the stated objectives when the plan was announced was minimal. In effect, the use of the funds was such that they did not go to farmers who most needed them. I suggest, as well, that it was directly in conflict with the principles of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This plan made use of the quota system to force farmers to go along with the plan which has been devised by the federal government. Farmers are very leery of what else may be in store for them as a result of their experience with Operation Lift.
I might also refer to the operations of the Dairy Commission. Here I will restrict my Comments to the effect on the province of Saskatchewan where the major area of concern has to do with the effect of the program on cream production. In contrast with some other parts of Canada, a significant portion of the dairy production in Saskatchewan has always been concentrated on the production of cream for shipment to creameries and other such plants. In 1967, prior to the introduction of the Dairy Commission plan, there were some 23,000 cream shippers and producers in the province of Saskatchewan.- At that time all of them were theoretically eligible for a quota subsidy.
Through the plan that was developed by the Canadian Dairy Commission, many of these farmers found that
December 30, 1971

they were simply shut off from any possibility of ever being able to take advantage of the subsidies offered by the Canadian Dairy Commission. Thus, the number of cream producers was cut down sharply at a time when there was already a severe reduction of farm income in Saskatchewan. In fact, the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture reports today that, rather than there being
23,000	cream producers in the province there are only 15,000, and of those 7,500 are eligible for any form of subsidy as a result of the particular plan brought in by the Canadian Dairy Commission.
At the same time, we had a recent announcement by the Minister of Agriculture that he was going to back up payments to March 31, 1970. If I can use an agricultural term at this late hour, this is like closing the barn door after the horse is stolen. This will not improve the situation for dairy producers and cream shippers in Saskatchewan. Their experience with the dairy subsidy will make them very leery of what is in store for them in the future under tne supply management proposals in this bill. These are some of the fears that exist. Farmers hope that this situation will not occur. I would ask hon. members to consider this seriously.
If the marketing boards established once this bill is passed are to succeed, the farmers must have some say in the determination of marketing plans and in the operation of the boards. There must be some degree of farm bargaining power. Farmers must have a voice, not only in the plans but in the day-to-day operations of the agencies and boards. For this reason the bill must be changed so that workable plans can be produced that will have some chance of success.
For these reasons I commend the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming. There is one further point with which I would like to deal, and it is in reference to a comment made by the hon. member for Bruce. He said these marketing boards were being set up so that farmers could run their own affairs and could do things for themselves in terms of an organized plan. This is a very commendable idea, but I suggest it comes too late in the game to have any hope of success.
If marketing plans, boards or agencies are introduced as a result of this legislation, they will require a significant and adequate degree of public support in the marketplace if they are to benefit farmers. This was one of the issues under debate on the grain stabilization bill. It was an important question, acknowledged by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I did not see that minister here during the debate. He admitted that one of the important questions concerned the amount of money that the federal government was going to put into the plan and would be available for the grains industry.


Mr. Francis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, have not the hon. member's 20 minutes expired?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has just expired. The Chair was about to point out this fact.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a bad bill, and when passed-as I
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
presume it will be this morning-it will represent a major step toward the complete socialization of the agricultural industry. To my hon. friends in the NDP I wish to say that in so far as they are socialists they are merely pikers compared with the government. There is a further difference. The NDP members have their theories but they will never have the responsibility for enforcing them. Members on the government benches just do not know any better, Mr. Speaker.
I predict that after this bill is passed many government members will regret their support of it, particularly members who represent agricultural ridings, just as they now regret their support of the official languages bill that was passed in this House a couple of years ago. I understand that there are several members from the city of Ottawa who now repent that they supported it. I predict the same thing will happen to members opposite who represent agricultural areas.
Further, Mr. Speaker, just like the official languages bill, I suggest that this bill is unconstitutional. It is contrary to the provisions of section 121 of the BN A Act. In this respect I agree with the statements made tonight by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I would like to substantiate further our contention that it is contrary to the provisions of section 121 of the BNA Act by quoting two or three statements made in this debate by our House leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), when he said:
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. .. 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."
This may not mean very much to government members because this is not the first time that they have forced unconstitutional legislation through this Parliament. I recommend to my constituents, particularly livestock dealers, that if they run into trouble with this bill they should take their case to the Supreme Court of Canada. I only hope they do not have the same trouble that a former very high member of the bench is having in trying to take his case on the official languages bill to the Supreme Court because of the obstruction of the government. The hon. member for Peace River went on to say:
-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.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
That is exactly what is being delegated to a council if this bill is passed. We now know that the Canadian public is asking, why was it necessary to have this unusual sitting of Parliament between Christmas and the new year to debate this issue? This is an unusual sitting of the House of Commons. In the history of our Parliament since confederation I do not know if this has ever happened before. Why is it necessary? I think maybe this time we should let the cat completely out of the bag and give the reason.
.50 a.m.)


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Where is your leader?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the real reason was revealed in the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) when he spoke on this bill on Tuesday, December 28, as reported at page 10799 of Hansard, and in remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner), whom I do not see here tonight, when he spoke yesterday as reported at pages 10837 and 10839 of Hansard.
When the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) was speaking on Tuesday, he said:
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.
This is referring to Bill C-176. At those remarks the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton rose and said:
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.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake never implied .that, but that is why we are sitting here today. The member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton let the cat out of the bag, as did the hon. member for Peterborough at page 10837 of Hansard when he said, in part:
-and then the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) claimed that the Quebec farmers were attempting to foist it on the western farmers.
He made no such claim, Mr. Speaker.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Read a little more.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will tell you a little more in a few moments. At page 10839 he said:
-somehow this bill was being foisted on western, farmers by Quebec farmers.
Further on he said:
It has nothing to do with Quebec farmers foisting something on us.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are sitting here today. In a few moments I wish to document some facts to support my contention. We now know the source and the reason for the pressure put on the minister to pass Bill C-176 at this time without the exclusion of cattle and calves which the minister himself promised to livestock men. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected as leader of the Liberal party, and subsequently as the Prime Minister of Canada, there was much rejoicing in certain parts of the country. The statement was made time and time again that he would put Quebec in its place. Little did the people

realize at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister meant "first place"-and that is precisely what he is doing.
Statements have been made by members of the government during the last couple of days that must not go unchallenged. They sounded very familiar after hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he first introduced this measure under the title of Bill C-197. He said many times that members of the opposition were not telling the truth about the bill, and that there was no sustained opposition to it. Similar remarks were made by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) as reported at page 10801 of Hansard. These remarks must not go unchallenged either. He said:
It is not an eastern or a western bill because it affects the whole range of farm products and I would not like my bon. 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.
I have in my files, Mr. Speaker, a petition of 14 pages of names sent to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Agriculture protesting the implications of Bill C-176.1 am sure that every member of this House knows the number of coupons the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture received protesting this bill. I think the record should be put straight. The minister is aware that with very few exceptions the cattle and calf people are not in favour of the bill.
The real motive behind the introduction of Bill C-176 is to further appease the demands of the province of Quebec who have been allowed to opt out of other measures which apply to the rest of Canada-the Canada Pension Plan, the medicare plan and, I understand, the UIC bill which the minister is going to put before the House. Apparently they consider that their nurses, school teachers, and so on, are civil servants.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Wait till the bill passes.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The bill has passed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It does not make any difference, Mr. Speaker, because the same thing has been admitted by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) with regard to grants given to that province-40 per cent of all grants given by this government go to the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: You are prejudiced.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I may be prejudiced, but these are the facts. One must assume that an election is in the offing and that the government intends to use all its efforts to pass the marketing bill as one of the issues in its election campaign in Quebec in an attempt to hold the seats it now has in that province. Many Canadians are asking why, if the province of Quebec is so insistent that cattle and calves be included in the bill when the province produces only 15 per cent of their own requirements. The answer to that question is spelled out by the Minister of Agriculture for Quebec, who said:
Quebec would be interested in the bill only if it included all products.
December 30, 1971

The exclusion of cattle and veal would take away from Quebec one of Quebec's main negotiating tools in the eventual distribution of product quotas, because Quebec is in a shortage position in this particular area
Quebec cannot give such marketing agencies any authority unless there is control of production.
Time and time again I have heard the minister say there is no control of production in this bill. Everybody knows it except the minister. The Minister of Agriculture for Quebec also said:
If you are going to sell in Quebec, then you will produce-or offer for sale-according to Quebec's dictates
Quebec's main negotiating tool is the distribution of production quotas.
On the other side of the coin we can ask this question, Why do those engaged in the cattle industry want to be excluded from the provisions of this bill. I am sure that many members on the other side of the House do not know why the cattlemen want to be excluded from the bill. They do not know how great a percentage the cattlemen and calf breeders are of our agricultural industry. Traditionally, cattlemen have opposed the philosophy and principle of controlled marketing and production quotas. Ever since they have been organized they have opposed that principle.
Many people are not aware that the cattle industry represents almost a quarter of the total farm production of Canada. It is the single, most important facet of Canadian agriculture. The beef producing industry is, by a substantial margin, the largest single segment of the Canadian agricultural economy and surpasses both the wheat and dairy product parts of that economy. The Canadian beef industry is completely free of special subsidies, and in the present troubled agricultural economy suffers fewer problems than most other sectors of the industry.
In view of the successful record of the cattle industry, one questions the motives of this government in attempting to control this industry. Those are the two sides of the coin. This bill is before the House now because of the dictates of the government of Quebec which have influenced our Minister of Agriculture. That minister is trying to impose this bill on a segment of agriculture that has never needed it and does not want it. I say that this will be a major step towards socializing the whole industry. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey):
That 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, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture with an instruction to amend paragraph (c) of clause 2 of the said bill by adding thereto, immediately following the word 'product' at the end thereof, the words 'but, for the purpose of any of the provisions of this act, shall not include cattle or calves;'


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I say with respect to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) that there is now an amendment before the House, and unless hon. members can convince the Chair that we should receive another amendment I feel that we cannot receive this amendment. I recognize the Parlia-
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
mentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney).


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, my objection is probably superfluous now- I was wondering if it would not be desirable for the hon. member seconding the motion to be in the House when the motion is proposed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Come off it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I indicated, there is an amendment before the House in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). It is seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The House is considering that amendment, and until it is disposed of I suggest we cannot deal with another amendment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I say as emphatically as I can that I cannot support the bill and will vote against it on third reading. The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) cited a number of reasons why I and other members of my party cannot support the bill. I concur wholeheartedly with his remarks and do not intend to repeat what many have said this evening.
I want to elaborate on one or two points dealing with the bill to which I took particular exception. I object particularly to a point, consistently made throughout this debate, to the effect that the bill will help stimulate small farm enterprises. That was just a lot of garble from the other side of the House. Hon. members opposite tried to leave the impression that this bill will be the salvation of the small family farm.
I am disappointed because hon. members opposite failed to accept one or two amendments that we proposed this evening. One amendment, if accepted, would make sure that the council would be dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the economic and social viability of the family farm and the farm community. To the extent that this government has supposedly focused its efforts on helping the small family farm unit, one would think that hon. members opposite would welcome our amendment. For if this bill represents indeed their new approach and outlook on the subject of farm policy, the amendment would certainly be consistent with their over-all approach.
There has been developing for the past few years a situation which in my opinion is most undesirable. A trend is developing in this country which is resulting in the depopulation of rural areas. This affects not only those who are engaged in farming but also, and equally, the rural farm communities which depend largely on surrounding areas for support. Many say that present developments are inevitable, that they are the product of our times and life-style and are a form of progress. To my mind, this development represents a retrograde step in the development of Canadian society and a retrograde step in the development of the kind of life that Canadians want, be they in urban or rural Canada.
I say that, firstly, because many in this country still are desirous of maintaining and sustaining a healthy and viable life in a rural community. They want to live in a rural community. However, many programs and policies which have been developed have deprived many people of that privilege. We are still experiencing a mass exodus of people from the country to the city. This is adding to the

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
difficulties of our cities, difficulties involving overcrowding, pollution and unemployment. More important, though, these people are being forced into a life-style they are not prepared to accept. The result is a degree of frustration and anger of unparallelled proportion. We know that because many farmers find it difficult to make a living on the farm, they are apprehensive. Indeed, many face the prospect of foreclosure by mortgage companies and farm credit corporations. In his press release concerning the small farms development program, of December 6, 1971, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said in part:
Economic studies and practical experience suggest that the family farm is the best type of farm, and it is in this context that we have developed a comprehensive program to help the small farmers of Canada to develop profitable family farms-
If that is a pledge and a reaffirmation of the idea that we must develop strong family farm units, then certainly I submit that we should include in this bill a categorical declaration that we are dedicated to that idea and that the council should be dedicated to reaching that objective.
I do not believe this bill will assist small farm units very much. Presumably this is why hon. members oppposite decided to reject the amendment which was proposed, an amendment which would have made a simple addition to the duties and powers of the council, whereby the council would advise the minister on all matters to the end that the economic and social viability of farm communities in Canada should be enhanced and improved. But nothing has been done to direct attention toward the need to preserve the rural environment and economy.
This was the situation in which I proposed an amendment designed to obtain this objective. If adopted, it would have had the effect of rounding out the bill and would have given formal expression to the concept of preserving and enhancing the rural life-style. The bill before us will not assist in the development of viable family farm enterprises. I believe it is designed to help the big operator. The small operator will be vulnerable to the integrator and the corporate structure. I believe the bill will produce a locked-in effect: those with vested interests will find their interests preserved. It will increase capital requirements.
I note the following in the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce newsletter for November-December, 1971. In 1969, capital investment in Canadian farming amounted to some $23 billion. By 1980, total investment in the industry is expected to amount to $55 billion. Much of this increase arises out of new capital considerations to which attention must be paid by those wishing to engage in farming. I quote as follows from the bank newsletter:
This situation is the result of the growing trend toward the introduction of production quotas in agriculture as a means of allocating the right to supply a portion of the market. In some cases the quota right is tied directly to the farm assets themselves and its work is reflected in the value of such assets. In other instances the quota had a separate value in itself and may be traded independently of farm assets.
The right to produce milk for human consumption in Ontario provides an example of the latter and necessitates the possession of a group one pool quota which trades at about $21 per pound at the present time in southern Ontario. Hence, except under certain conditions and with certain limitations whereby existing industrial
IMr. Mazankowski]
milk and cream producers can obtain the quota without payment, the purchase or establishment of a dairy farm capable of supplying a daily quota of 1,000 pounds of milk would involve an additional investment of $21,000 over and above the cost of land, buildings, equipment and livestock.
The bill before us will encourage the type of development to which I have just referred. Capital outlays will be increased as we improve our technology and production methods, in addition to the added burden of quota costs. This, too, will increase costs but along with this there is a corresponding increase in productivity. I believe this bill will make it more difficult for new people to become established because of the amount of money involved. Ability or desire will not be a factor but, rather, it will depend on the amount of money they are able to put into the business.
Supporters of the government tell us they are doing all this for the sake of orderly marketing. But what better example of orderly marketing could one single out than the marketing of beef and beef products? This is simply because the beef market has been free of government intervention, free of restriction or impediment. It has been established in the free marketplace. Cattlemen want to keep it that way. This is why they want no part of the bill we are considering.
The government says it is dedicated to preserving the family farm, but I am sure the bill is patterned on the basis of the same philosophy as that which led to the abolition of the unit quota system in relation to the delivery of grain in western Canada. This system was the salvation of the small farmer but it has been abolished by a government which acts greatly to the detriment of the viability of the small farm. This bill reflects the same philosophy as that which led to the destruction of the small creameries as a result of the discriminatory actions of the Dairy Commission. Its inspiration is similar to that behind Operation Lift in which less than 50 per cent of the farmers, and in particular the small farmers in Alberta, were not able to participate, or the small farm adjustment program now renamed the small farm development program, though the contents of the program are basically the same-it is a program of consolidation and adjustment designed to do away with the small farm operator.
Farm operators will be burdened with yet another cost under the terms of this bill since the agencies will have power to impose levies. This will only increase further the cost of production, though we know that farm income has declined drastically over the last three years and this trend will continue if we accept the forecasts emanating from the Outlook Conference held in Ottawa some time ago.
Government policy as manifested in the programs I have mentioned has added to the deterioration of our rural areas and of our rural life-style. This has resulted in many of our small communities dying and rural communities becoming ghost towns. If the government is determined to reverse this trend it should put some teeth into legislation such as we have before us. This would reaffirm that it was serious in its expressions of concern about the need to preserve, develop and enhance the small family farm and rural communities generally. There should not be one piece of legislation designed for agriculture which did not include this principle.
December 30, 1971

There are other amendments which I feel should have been accepted, for example, amendment No. 23 proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot which, again, affirms the principle to which I have referred, namely, that the efforts of the council should be designed to pay due regard to promoting the greatest opportunity for the largest number of producers to acquire a standard of living comparable with organized segments of society.
A government which claims to be committed to assisting the small family farm unit, if it were dedicated and seriously committed to that objective would have no objection to accepting an amendment of that nature or the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), which reads:
-to submit to the minister, at the commencement of each production year, a list of prices which shall be paid for a regulated product for that year, such prices to be compensatory for the cost of production of such product;
If this bill is indeed going to help the small farmer and assist the producer, what is wrong with accepting an amendment of that nature? There are many others. There are amendments such as those which would provide adequate provisions for appeal. We have asked for safeguards in many clauses. These have been refused. As far as I am concerned, there is far too much discretion left to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There were many shortcomings in this bill when it was introduced. There are still many shortcomings as it stands this evening. Many of the refinements that have been incorporated into the bill were a result of pressure by the opposition. I agree with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who stated that the opposition party did a fantastic job in trying to patch up a piece of legislation that was ill-conceived and ill-advised.
The bill was presented in a distorted way. It was to have been a producers' bill. In the first instance it turned out to be a bureaucrats' bill. We attempted to change that. In the original instance the producer was not even mentioned in the bill. The producer was only mentioned in the clause dealing with penalties. This was to be a perfect bill, brought in after much consultation and penetrative study. Yet we have had to incorporate something like 30 or 35 amendments. Instead of being a perfect bill, we received a bill that set out to make agriculture nothing more than a public utility based on the philosophy of a cheap food policy. This was to have been enabling legislation, yet the submissions of the United Grain Growers, the Cattlemen's Association and the Palliser Wheat Growers Association called it a monolithic monster. They did not agree this was enabling legislation.
The Saskatchewan Hog Producers Association said that by their interpretation this is not permissive legislation. It invests unlimited powers in an act which may or may not represent the producers. On that basis they said they must voice opposition to the bill. The cattlemen said this bill represents a very severe erosion of the rights of producers to control their own destiny within the larger laws of society of Canada. The Cattlemen's Association is an independent group. They said it is their right to shape the
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
future of their own destiny. The Palliser Wheat Growers Association said that the bill was completely devoid of reality and totally unnecessary in the prairie region where exports are an absolute necessity-


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Those of us who were interested just heard an excellent speech by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). What he had to say was very important with regard to the bill before the House. Because of the importance of the debate on this bill I ask Your Honour, with great respect, to implement the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) and ask members opposite to please maintain a little decorum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I promise hon. members I will be very brief. I wish to make two very important observations. First, marketing boards-not those that may be formed in the future but existing boards in Saskatchewan and Alberta and, in fact, marketing boards representing growers in the constituency of Vegreville-for some reason or another have telephoned me. I do not know why they do not have confidence in their own member. I was telephoned today and asked for assurance that this bill would be passed shortly because they will be having a meeting in Winnipeg in the very near future. As a matter of fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is rising on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to hear the speech of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). I ask Your Honour to enforce the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) and ask members opposite to pay respectful attention at least to one of their own members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is the second time the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has raised this point of order. The Chair has considerable sympathy for the hon. member. I do not want to be critical of members on either side of the House, but hon. members who want to make a contribution to the debate deserve the courtesy of a hearing.


M. Ervin Pringle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make this point because the very people I am talking about are small family farmers who are represented by successful, existing marketing boards operationg with head offices in Regina and Edmonton. They require Bill C-176 on an emergency basis so that they will be able to join with other marketing boards across the nation and arrange a co-ordinating program which they have ready and with which they want to proceed. Apparently the members from Saskatchewan and the member for Alberta are not interested in working with their own people and their own marketing board.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
These farmers presently operate under provincial legislation. They have been successful in maintaining family farms and have effectively stopped the proliferation of vertical integration in both provinces. I ask the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) whether he really knows there is a group of integrated medical doctors in Saskatchewan. Does he know anything about these people who are presently endeavouring to take over the turkey industry to the detriment of family farms? If these people had not been bailed out of a particular program they would be creating a problem now. I would suggest that the hon. members opposite should talk to the small farmers in Saskatchewan who require this.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that he should speak to the people in his area who have been operating for many years successful marketing boards and who are asking for a co-ordinated operation such as would become effective through Bill C-176.
I said I would be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say one more thing. The hon. member quoted a letter from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Let me tell this hon. gentleman that I operated in the city of Edmonton for a number of years and I can recall, before there were marketing boards, a time when the very farmers I am talking about could not even go into a bank. Now they can go into the Canadian Bank of Commerce to borrow money because of the viability of the industry created by the operation of the provincial marketing boards. So I say that if these members from Saskatchewan and Alberta have really any concern for the small family farm, for heaven's sake they should learn a little about what is going on. If they would do that, they would realize that what they say is nothing more than hogwash. This is not inclusive legislation; it is exclusive legislation. The cattlemen will have to fight to come under the provisions of the bill if they want to do so. However, for the benefit of the people who want to operate in that way, I say the sooner this bill passes the better, because these people would tell these members opposite a few things about the benefits of marketing boards for the agricultural producers of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson).


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) if he is trying to indicate that the turkey producers are being goosed.


M. Ervin Pringle: All I can say is that the last time I was in Edmonton there was on the streetcar a goose who is a person.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Crowfoot.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, there is a stranger in the press gallery.


An hon. Member:: There is a stranger in the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I readily admit I have not been in the House of Commons for the past couple of hours. I have been resting and therefore perhaps do not appreciate all the noise previous speakers have engendered. I might just say that the interchange between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) which I have just witnessed convinces me that very few members of this House of Commons really know what a turkey saddle involves.


An hon. Member:: Your leader does not know.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let him speak.


J. Michael Forrestall: Joe, if you have something to say, come in here and say it and do not stand out there like an idiot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege I should like to bring to your attention the fact that there is no one in the front bench of the loyal opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They do not have any front bench.


An hon. Member:: Move up, Jack.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think hon. members should give more co-operation to the Chair and should be fair enough to let the hon. member for Crowfoot make his speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I feel like somebody who has arrived late at a New Year's party and realizes that no matter what he says or does, he cannot catch up with the others in what they are involved in doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What I was referring to with regard to the turkey saddle exchange was merely an expression quite well used in the turkey industry which very few people realize. I used that expression only to exemplify beyond a shadow of doubt that few Members of Parliament from the very beginning of the famous Bill C-176 knew anything about it and here, at the climax and end of the debate, one can still use the same expression. And well do I know the member for Fraser Valley East knows what I mean. I can still use that same expression and very few members know what it means.


M. Ervin Pringle: Would the hon. member permit a question?
December 30, 1971
COMMONS DEBATES____________________________
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When 1 am through speaking, Mr. Speaker. 1 have only 20 minutes. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East has on many occasions deferred my questions until he was through, and I extend to him the same courtesy which he has extended to me on those occasions. I only wish to show to you, Mr Speaker, and members of the House, the difficulty of Members of Parliament from time to time in attempting to point out the many serious implications of this bill on the producer, on life, on the provinces and on unity in this country of ours. The hon. member for Crowfoot has been-


An hon. Member:: Who is he.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -often acclaimed, often discredited and often mocked. His motives have often been misinterpreted as those of a man who was self-motivated and has been working for a few of his cronies. I have gone through all my files in search of something that could perhaps explain what motivated the hon. member for Crowfoot to launch a bitter fight against this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the House wishes to outshout me, let me tell hon. members that I am known in the Crowfoot constituency as a moderate man, not prepared to outshout anybody and always prepared to listen. At this time I would like to read into the record a poem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: Not at this hour.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know the hon. member for Larxark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) has little patience. Nevertheless, I would like to read this poem into the record. Perhaps it might explain to hon. members what motivates the member for Crowfoot and in his desire to serve his constituency and Canada. The poem is entitled, "When Stockmen Congregate" and it reads:
The stockmen held a meeting To discuss the pro's and Con's Of all the bovine species From buffaloes to fawns They dealt with Brucellosis And Blackleg met its fate Most anything can heppen When the cow-men congregate.
They came with spurs a-jingling
And big ten gallon hats
From hills and plains and valleys,
From river brakes and flats They felt all but forgotten By the boys who Legislate And the air got rather humid When the cow-men congregate.
With freight rate soaring upward And machinery on the ike One industry gets settled and Up comes another strike With all this vicious circle They wonder at their fate You hear some rangeland parlance When the cow-men congregate.
In the halls of Legislation,
Where the laws of man are made
We need a few old cow-hands
Courageous, unafraid
Who rear up on their haunches
In caucus or debate
And tell the world their troubles
When the M.P.'s congregate.
That poem was written in 1953.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: By none other than a person by the name of "Ferg" James, of Hanna, Alberta. If anybody wants a copy of it, I suggest that they subscribe to Hansard tomorrow. There are a few other things that I want to put on the record tonight.


An hon. Member:: Not another poem.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Many people have suggested, and some newspapers have proclaimed, that this is a great victory for the government, that they have all they wanted. It is a long time since Bill C-197 was introduced to the House of Commons. Not too many people have read it recently, and in fact before C-197 went out of existence the Queen's Printer stopped printing it and the Minister of Agriculture stopped producing it. We could not get it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Because they were so ashamed of it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now I would like to speak of the real changes that were made in the agricultural committee. Reference was made to the two years of sittings of the committee.


Murray Arndell McBride: Why don't you rhyme, Jack?
10932__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
December 30, 1971


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where is your minister?


Murray Arndell McBride: We have four in the front benches. Where are yours?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to announce the number of changes that were made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If all this catcalling and hollering goes on, I would like to have it deducted from the time allotted to me, Mr. Speaker. I do not care what the hour is right now. I once remember speaking at 7.30 in the morning, not of my desire but at their request. If I cannot have order, I will sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure that some hon. members, as well as the Chair, are interested in listening to the remarks of the hon. member. I think he should be permitted to complete his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) had entered this House at the beginning of the debate with his mind as open as his mouth, he might well have learned something and he might well have been more knowledgeable than he is now.


Mr. Schumacher:: You are scared of television, are you not?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, of the major changes that were made in the committee. First, we had a bill called C-197, which became C-176, which is to appoiht a council at the wish of the minister or the governor in council. We saw this happen in the task force report on agriculture. There were nine members of the commission, four of whom reported for eastern Canada and knew nothing of agriculture, two of whom were from Ontario and knew nothing of agriculture, two of whom were from Quebec and knew little of agriculture, and one was a person by the name of Clair Gibson from Manitoba, a university professor who while his thinking was warped perhaps did know something about agriculture. What are the facts? The first amendment accepted by the agricultural committee is this, that the council will be composed of from three to nine members, 50 per cent of whom must be producers. It is pretty hard to divide nine into two, or to divide three by two. I do not know how they will do this, but I think that five of the nine members should be producers. That is what we asked for in June when this bill was first brought forward.


An hon. Member:: Speak louder.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can easily outshoot or outshout any member in the House, but when it comes to a bunch of jackals, how can one outshout or outshoot them? I will take on any one of them, or the whole bunch of them, in either contest, shooting or shouting, if that is what the House of Commons has become embroiled in. Is it an outshouting match or an outshooting match? Which do they want? Which are you going to request, Mr. Speaker,

from your prominent position in the House of Commons? Will it be outshooting or outshouting? I believe that you should request a little decorum in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will take them on either way, but I grew up in a family that believed in democracy and freedom of speech. I would like to think that in this particular place one could have freedom of speech no matter what the hour of the day, and I hope I am in no way casting reflections on your ability to occupy the seat that you do, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying anything that should particularly offend anyone over there, but apparently at this hour they are sensitive about this bill. As I said, I can talk until 7.30 in the morning.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on, Jack.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should mention that if this debate continues until tomorrow it will be January 1, 1972, and this session will have lasted for three calendar years, mainly because of the administrative incompetence of the government.


An hon. Member:: And obstruction from your party.


Gerald William Baldwin: And if it does last until 1972, it will be because hon. gentlemen opposite are not providing the courtesy of allowing members of our party to speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order so that what I say now will not be deducted from my 20 minutes. I have not interrupted anybody in the House of Commons for the last three hours.


An hon. Member:: That's garbage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is your responsibility to impose the Standing Orders on the House, and there is Standing Order 12(3) which says that a member has a right to speak without interruption. I suggest to Your Honour that you should impose that Standing Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members on both sides are aware that the Chair cannot apply the rules of the House unless it gets the co-operation of hon. members. I am asking the co-operation of hon. members on both sides of the House. Unless the Chair gets this co-operation, whether for one speaker or another, it will be impossible to be fair to everybody. I hope that all hon. members who seek the floor to give an expression of opinion in this debate will have the opportunity to do so and be heard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East-


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that I personally know the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). When he asks that hon. members listen, he is right, for he has never caused the committee or the House to waste a single second.
December 30, 1971

I would therefore ask hon. members to listen to the hon. member for Crowfoot, for I know that he has interesting things to say.


Murray Arndell McBride: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show that as recorded at pages 10783, 10784, 10785 and page 10786 of Hansard I was prevented from making a speech by the same hon. member on Tuesday of this week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is not here to judge the past actions of hon. members but is presiding over the debate which is taking place at this time. I think at this late hour, and because of the importance of the debate, hon. members should co-operate with the present occupant of the chair and allow the hon. member for Crowfoot and any other hon. member who is interested in participating in the debate to express his opinions on this legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: According to my timing, Mr. Speaker, I have used about five minutes of my allotted 20 minutes, and before I reach the end of my 20 minutes I am prepared to move that this House do now adjourn. That would precipitate a vote. All I am asking is to be heard for 15 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think they should at least give me some kind of attentive hearing. If they cannot give me that, then I ask them to step out behind the curtain and have a smoke. But for heaven's sake, let us keep some decorum in this House, or adjourn it and come back next year to deal with this bill. I have had enough of this guck.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair invites the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to co-operate with me. I think hon. members are not being fair to themselves or to the House if all the time they invite in one way or another others to provoke them. We will not make progress in this debate unless we get some good will from everybody. The Chair asks that hon. members abide by the rules of the House; that is all I can do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I had read out one of the major amendments which the committee achieved, dealing with the composition of the council of three to nine members, 50 per cent of whom must be producers. I thought this was a major achievement of the committee. The second	major	amendment	that	the	committee
achieved was to stipulate that the chairman or vice-chairman of the council must be a producer. That was not written into the old bill, C-197, or into this one, C-176.
The third	major	amendment	that	the	committee
achieved was to stipulate that there be regional representation on the council. The committee travelled all across Canada. Vie went to Nova Scotia, to Halifax, to Quebec City, to Toronto, to Winnipeg. Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver. At every one of those locations we heard representations that the council should have regional representation on it. I am grateful to the committee for finally supporting an amendment to that effect, stipulating that a third of the appointees should come from western Canada, a third from the central provinces, and the
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
remaining third from the Atlantic provinces. I thought this was a major breakthrough, and it allayed a lot of the anxieties expressed at the eastern and western extremities of the country.
Another major amendment which the committee achieved changed the original proposal in the bill that the governor in council could establish an agency when a significant number of producers in a region requested that a national agency be set up. This was changed to read that a majority of producers in a region would have to request an agency before one could be established. The bill as now amended states that before an agency can be set up there must be a majority of producers across Canada in favour of setting up such an agency, and that a plebiscite may be taken by the council in order to satisfy itself that a majority is in favour of a national agency.
This is one of the most significant amendments that the committee established, and that after months of heated argument. The other major amendment achieved by the committee was that an agency will consist of not more than 12 members and that the majority may be producers who will be elected, and that agency members may elect a chairman and vice-chairman. It follows that if it is the general desire to have a producer as chairman or vicechairman, it can be achieved.
Naturally, I was not satisfied with all the work of the committee but I should like to say a word of appreciation for the chairman of the agricultural committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Sometimes the chairman and I had violent arguments such as the one which took place on March 12, 1971. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you witness arguments in this chamber, but I am sure you have not witnessed the heat and venom expressed in the agricultural committee. However, the chairman withstood it all and came through with flying colours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He did a tremendous job. We could not have reached the conclusions that we have today without the understanding and conciliatory attitude of the chairman. While I do not like to hand out bouquets to any member on the opposite side of the House, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I cannot help doing it. I understand the difficulties he had, and I appreciate his work.
Mr. Speaker, you are apparently anxious to rise and limit my time, but I want to caution you that I was interrupted on many occasions. I do not feel that I have had 20 minutes, and I should like to continue for another five minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time expired at four o'clock and he was given an extra five minutes to take into account the points of order, interruptions and questions of privilege. It is always difficult, without a stop-watch, to determine exactly what time has been taken up. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed another five minutes, which would give him an additional ten minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 30, 1971
__________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is one other quotation I would like to put on the record. We now have an agricultural bill in which supply management is limited to poultry and poultry products unless the other producers want to be included. On February 25, 1971, I made the following suggestion to the committee, as reported at page 44 of the committee proceedings:
Mr. Chairman, just before we get into the depth of the committee's studies, I would like just to put forward a suggestion to the committee. Here again the suggestion being one which I think would facilitate the passage of this bill through the House. In fact I can foresee this bill being passed by this committee today. I just throw this out as a suggestion. I would be prepared to withdraw my subamendment if the mover would be prepared to withdraw his amendment and that clause 2(c) be changed to read:
'farm product' means any natural product of poultry and any
product derived therefrom.
I went on to say:
If that definition were accepted, we on this side particularly could see a situation where we would be through with this bill today and it could go back to the House. We could deal with it early next week. It could become law, as far as we are concerned, before the end of next week. I just throw that out as a suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman, to show some degree of a spirit of co-operation to facilitate the passage of this bill.
I said that in all seriousness. The minister, who was a witness before the committee, said at page 25:45:
Mr. Chairman, there are other groups representing other commodities-and a most outstanding other example that comes to mind is the potato industry-who have been seeking ways and means for a long while to have an orderly marketing of their product and to have a co-operative effort set up between the provinces to put that in place.
He continued on page 25:46 as follows:
What would happen as a result of Mr. Horner's suggestion, if the bill was amended that way. would be that we could deal with a crisis situation such as the broilers and eggs at the present time; but I have to say this, and I say it with all the kindness that I can muster, that I have heard on many occasions, members of the opposition, including Mr. Horner, accuse the government of not dealing with problems until they get to a crisis situation.
The minister went on to say that he wanted potatoes to be included in the bill. We have heard nothing about the potato industry today. I said at page 25:47:
Mr. Chairman, and correct me if I am wrong, I could be wrong, but did we have any potato producers appear before the committee?
I was in a conciliatory mood. The fact of the matter is that I was agreeable to including vegetables in the bill. I recommended that clause 2(c) be amended to read:
(e) 'farm product' means any natural product of poultry or turkeys, and vegetables and any product derived therefrom.
I suggested that that amendment would include within it potatoes. I will not read everything I said because my time is limited. I said that I would move that amendment so that clause 2(c) would apply to the poultry and vegetable industries and products thereof. The minister said no, he wanted everything included in the bill.
I hope hon. members of the House realize that this bill does not really apply to any commodity except to eggs and poultry. If the egg and poultry producers want to come under the law, they must so signify. If they want supply management provisions to apply to them, the government of the day-and I do not think it will be the government opposite-will have to come forward with an

amendment. It will need to introduce another bill which will say that the supply management concept shall apply to the product of that industry. So in closing I want to say that in the climax of this debate the members of the opposition have made most constructive suggestions and moved constructive amendments to this bill. It was only through heated, long-winded and very detailed debate that we were able to accomplish what the country wanted with regard to this bill dealing with the marketing of agricultural products.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I cannot shoot or shout as well as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), but I will do my best for a few minutes. It seems strange that not long ago the stabilization bill was before this House, and now we are considering Bill C-176. The official opposition has tried to be all things to all people and the hon. member for Crowfoot, in particular, is trying to take the credit for what has been accomplished. The hon. member suggests that through his efforts the bill will do exactly what he wants. It is only proper to say that an amendment brought forward by my colleague for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), which was not accepted, spelled out that any natural, agricultural product ought to be included in the bill. Surely the hon. member for Crowfoot should realize, even though he was not in the House when the amendment was moved, that he should not crow about what this bill accomplishes. He was not alone in suggesting what should be included in the bill.
* (4:10 a.m.)
I also noted that a short while ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) mentioned the fact that he was in the chicken industry in Edmonton, and I would like to tell the House that my parents happened to buy chickens from Pringle Hatcheries in the city of Edmonton and as I look at the bill now and realize that the hon. member is also involved with Maple Leaf Feeds at this time I am wondering whether this bill is designed to protect the individual producers or whether it is to protect Canadian Packers, Maple Leaf or Ralston Purina. These are the areas of concern we should have, Mr. Speaker. These are the areas which we should examine to determine whether or not the bill the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has brought in is really intended to protect the producers, or whether it is in reality intended to protect the large corporations.
A short while ago the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) referred to the absence of some hon. members from the House. I do not see him in his place now, but I would suggest-


Some hon. Members:: He is there.


John Leroy Skoberg: Oh, yes, I see he is in his seat, Mr. Speaker. He is in his stall. The hon. member suggested that unless the various leaders of the parties were in their places in the House, it meant very little. I would like to respond to him by saying that we in this party are able to delegate authority without any problem whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
December 30, 1971


John Leroy Skoberg: And as I looked across and saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his place for a few short moments, it reminded me of the tokenism which is so evident in this bill. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this bill is straight tokenism and means very little to the agricultural producers.
I also understand that the Prime Minister pretty well took the whip to his people, and as we look across the chamber tonight we note that this is probably the only reason that many of the hon. members on that side are here tonight. It is a clear indication that unless the Prime Minister himself is present he cannot rely on too many of his members to be in their places to defend the policy which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has brought forward. It is also clear that the minister himself is not all that confident in so far as this legislation is concerned.
I am particularly interested to note that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is with us at this time, at 4.15 in the morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: I am very confident that the amendment introduced by my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), with regard to the type of bargaining which should go on with respect to products, is something with which the Minister of Labour should be fully familiar. It seems to me he knows a little about industrial democracy, he knows a considerable amount about collective bargaining and he knows well that individuals who are affected by any type of legislation, collective agreement or any managerial prerogative should have the opportunity to express themselves as to the type of changes which may come about or which may, in the future, be either to the detriment or benefit of that particular class.
I am equally confident that if the Minister of Labour were to have his way he would be only too pleased to stand in his place and support the amendment which is now before the House, because it is really collective bargaining. I can well understand some of the people opposite who ask, "Who will be the collective bargaining agent representing the producer?" This is obviously a situation in which they are trying to cloud the issue, because that is something that would be resolved by the producers. They themselves would determine who that collective bargaining agent would be. Surely, when we do come to a vote on the amendment and ask the committee to take another look at this clause, the Minister of Labour will want to support the principle of collective bargaining. Surely before then the Minister of Labour would like to rise in his place and defend the principle of collective bargaining. Actually, this is all the amendment means. If the minister were really concerned about the kind of representation and changes being made to the betterment of the producer, this amendment would be accepted.
The main factor to consider in this bill is whether it provides for proper marketing or for the manipulation of production. The crux of the matter is whether the large corporations are going to manipulate production in this country. Members on all sides of the House are really concerned about the small producer. When I look at the token amendments that have been offered, I wonder whether the producer will really be protected from
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
manipulation. This is one area we should be greatly concerned about.
This bill does not offer anything. It gives an illusion. That illusion is anyone's guess. We will be creating a false impression for the people of Canada if we say that the debate being carried on at this time of the morning will result in any betterment for the producer. The Canadian farmers have been sold out by the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues by this bill. There is nothing in it that can be of any benefit to them. The real issue at stake revolves around the provision that there be something in the bill to give the farmer and the producer some bargaining power. The amendment moved by my colleague would do something along this line.
I was amazed when the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said that the National Farmers Union was in complete agreement with this bill. 1 understand a news release has been issued by the president of the National Farmers Union in Saskatoon which spells out that they are not in agreement with it. I suggest that the hon. member for Bruce look at the press headlines tomorrow. He will then see whether the National Farmers Union has agreed to this bill.
We are trying to do something that will be agreeable to all producers in this country. The hon. member for Crowfoot suggested that he had received what he wanted. I believe the Minister of Agriculture would like to have seen the bill pass in its original form. In that particular text it would have included all commodities in the agricultural field.
When this bill comes to a vote we will realize that we must include some form of bargaining for the producers. My colleague stated this evening that every chicken, pig and cow has a vote. If the ball is tossed to the smaller producers, it will not be in existence very long. It will be a sorry day when everyone in Canada realizes that, after the other place looks at it, we have passed a "nothing" piece of legislation. The people expected more, after two years of debate and all the horse-trading. They expected something that would include all commodities, not to end up with the situation we now have.
Surely the Minister of Labour would like to stand up and tell us about his experience with management over the years he has been Minister of Labour, and about his experience in the field of proper representation for people who are affected by adverse legislation. Surely he would like to explain to the House how he believes in industrial democracy, and how he would in this particular case plead that the producers have a real say in the bargaining process. It is only by the adoption of the amendment and referred back to the committee that the hon. member for Timiskaming has suggested in his motion that this can come about.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I realize you are very cosy in your chair and I would very much like to be in similar circumstances. However, the former speaker simply begged someone to make a few comments in reply to those he uttered. He mentioned that it is the official opposition which has straddled the fence. Let me tell my friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) that if

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
anyone has been straddling the fence it has been the member himself, because over the years I have always heard members of the New Democratic Party preach about the need for a national marketing board and so on. Yet at this particular time, when they have an opportunity to vote on that very issue, he suggests that we had better go back to the committee and study the bill all over again. If what we should have is a national marketing board, they have it and will have to live with it. Let me tell that hon. member and the NDP that for years they have sold the people on the idea, and as a matter of fact have sold it so well that they have sold it to the Liberal party.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member now speaking has misinterpreted the motion that is before the House. It is a motion to refer one portion of the bill back to the committee. There has been no suggestion that the whole bill be referred back, but merely the part that was under discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The point raised is merely an argument or a point of debate. I think the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) should be allowed to continue.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I accept the member's explanation. Now I know that he stands four-square in favour of this stupid bill. Neither I nor my party are in favour of this stupid bill which would in no way solve any of the problems in which people engaged in the agricultural industry find themselves. For God's sake, what is the Farm Credit Corporation all about? Has it not been promoting the enlargement of farms, and so on? How can one promote greater efficiency and at the same time restrict production? How can one restrict production and obtain the same amount of return?
The member who spoke did not want a net return which would be compensatory to the cost of production. He has to explain it somehow to his people, and I would like to have his explanation so that I can carry it through to the next election. I want to know the stand of the NDP. I should like to hear it now and have it on the record so that I can carry it, not only to my constituency but to every other constituency. Every NDP'er in this country stands four-square for control. This is true. I know for a fact that in Saskatchewan they did not want people to control their own land. At least the former Liberal government in Saskatchewan allowed the people an opportunity to buy up some of the land. It gave them 20 or 30 years to buy up that land.
However, this was not part of the NDP philosophy, and that is why they do not want this to go through, because it will implement some of their stupid philosophy and they know it will not work. I cannot quite understand why the government was so insistent on trying to get it through. Now that we are so close to the vote I do not understand why they insisted on this type of legislation which has always been part of the NDP philosophy, because it means dictatorship, it means control.


Frank Howard: Shame!


Stanley James Korchinski: I agree with you fully, because it is not going to work. There is no way in which you can restrict production and at the same time increase production. You
(Mr. Korchinski.]
can control production, but you will not be able to control the cost of production and there is nothing in the bill that would suggest that this is possible. Only one thing can happen, the small farmer will be drowned out and that will be "b.s." for him, if that is what you suggest. There is no way in which any man can survive under this type of legislation.
I am wondering why the NDP are beginning to stall. It must be because they are afraid. This is the result of a push that they have given to the Liberal government, and the Liberal government has swallowed it because they thought this would be the salvation. There is a left-wing element over there. Today I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) an interesting question the implications of which were perhaps not understood by many members. I asked him whether we did or did not make a protest to Russia. Another factor is that the leftwing element in this country will protest to the United States but will not protest to Russia.
These protest groups, vociferous as they are, will work in one direction but not in another. So they have sucked in this government to the point where the Gallup poll shows that they got sucked down the drain. If you expect that the people are stupid, blind or naive, then continue in that direction. I suggest that the two parties might as well form a coalition. The party to my left are really Liberals in a hurry, but they will speed up the destruction of the Liberals. I say to the government, listen to them, keep listening to them. All these years the official opposition has been instrumental in bringing about greater changes in the bill. Every member who sat on that committee knows that we did it with sincerity. Government members fought us as sincerely as we fought them, and government members on the committee were changed when necessary in order to fight for a particular clause that we were seeking to amend. Now hon. members opposite find themselves in this situation. Are they going to listen to this type of suggestion from the NDP?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then I am quite prepared to see you go down the drain. I have no reservations at all about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you know a better drain, go to it.


Stanley James Korchinski: An hon. member said that farm unions have requested this type of bill. At one time I used to belong to a farm union group. I did my darndest to cultivate it.


An hon. Member:: In the Palliser triangle?


Stanley James Korchinski: No, we are away off the Palliser triangle. We grow Christmas trees in my constituency. We tried our darndest because we were small farmers. We were struggling to exist. And do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Because of the fact that we have to struggle for existence, if we take on another job to help out, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) will say that we cannot deduct our farm expenses any longer for income tax purposes. This is another problem that we should discuss with the government.
December 30, 1971

Division
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) says that farm unions have advocated this kind of legislation. I know that the NDP have advocated it. I know that there was a request for an egg board in Saskatchewan and it was turned down. The farmers knew what was right for them and what was not right. They did not think a simple bureaucracy was the answer for them. I do not think it is the answer for them. This bill will not solve anyone's problem. If a producer has a quota he will be in a good position. If he does not have a quota, then it will be too bad for him. This bill, I repeat, will not solve the farmer's problems. Certainly all farmers want to become more efficient and increase their production. To this end they buy fertilizer, introduce new strains, grow new vegetables and do everything they possibly can.
This bill will not guarantee prices for farmers' produce. I suggest that the NDP is deceiving the House and the country by throwing out red carrots.


An hon. Member:: In the sunset?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: Well, a red herring. If the government accepts the solution to their problems such as is offered by the New Democratic Party, then let them ponder whether this country needs this type of advice.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, once again, on this night which is the last in 1971 and during which I feel all the hon. members worked eagerly, I thank you for having allowed me to deal with Bill C-176 entitled "An Act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products".
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-197 was discussed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would invite the hon. members to allow the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) to continue his speech.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-197 was debated and given the six months' hoist. The government then introduced Bill C-176 which is an exact copy of Bill C-197.
Having the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I can assure the House that we had all sorts of experiences: endless discussions, trips throughout Canada, never-ending sittings, speeches and briefs, some interesting, others much less so. I even went to Washington with some of my colleagues for a week of study, in order to meet American officials or the Undersecretary of Agriculture.
I am convinced that we have met the representatives of over a hundred organizations of farm producers in Canada. For two years, they explained to us personally what they thought of the bill. We have received as many if not more briefs written by individuals or organizations which could not appear before the Committee on Agriculture.
So much has been said that I think that we have discussed for at least 10 full minutes each important word appearing in some 25 pages of the bill on marketing of farm products.
My good friend the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and many others have moved dozens of amendments which, for the most part, were acceptable.
To my knowledge, the government accepted at least 32 amendments and refused the others.
For my part, whether in committee of the whole or at the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I believe that I Jiave pointed out to my colleagues all aspects of the bill that seemed suspect to me or at least difficult to apply.
[DOT]	(5:10 a.m.)
In my opinion, this bill ought to provide a control of imports, if we really wish to help the agricultural class, because Bill C-176 does not provide the National Council and marketing agencies with the required tools to regulate imported products in the same way as Canadian production.
If we want this legislation to be efficient, I think we must take into account the agricultural production of our neighbours, as well as their future import and export problems. Canadian producers' associations will have to attempt to enable their members to supply a product of [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
similar or, if possible, better quality. They will have to produce at competitive prices and perhaps at cost prices lower than those of their competitors, namely American producers or those from any other friendly country, whether they import our commodities or export theirs to Canada.
During the study week on agriculture, which I had the honour to attend with some colleagues in Washington, between November 28 and December 5, 1971, we heard several lecturers, all of whom were American civil servants and real experts in that field. One of them, who submitted a brief, I now remember: he was Mr. Ioanes, Under-Secretary of Agriculture in the United States. Mr. Ioanes had just returned from a trip around the world ans was talking about his forecasts in the agricultural field. He told us, in reply to one of my questions, that Canadian beef would sell at a good price as long as the United States would import beef and veal from Canada, but that it was always possible that the United States would reduce the volume and value of Canadian imports, because that country was already supporting American producers through all kinds of subsidies totalling $3.5 billion a year. He added that it would not be fair to make too much competition to American producers by importing too many similar farm products in Canada.
Mr. Ioanes also said that in future American producers would arrange to have cattle ready for slaughtering at an earlier age. So the only horned beasts of two years and a half and over in the fattening stations will be breeding cows, which will mean a higher productive capacity.
In the United States, there are now in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, California and Mississipi alone about 152,000 fattening stations. Almost all have been built since 1960. But the under secretary for Agriculture foresees that beef production will increase by at least 5 per cent in 1972 and that the rise will continue in the future.
Mr. Speaker, in the United States this year, 75 per cent of slaughtered calves came from those fattening stations. A very high percentage of beef producers are landless and I believe the same situation will prevail in Canada by the 80's.
Canadian producers will be increasingly specialized and, like those in the United States, will produce ever larger quantities and consistantly improved quality products. It is therefore essential that Bill C-176 provide free movement of all agricultural products between Canadian provinces: feed grains as well as beef, veal, hogs, poultry, eggs, etc. so that production costs are practically the same throughout Canada.
Mr. Ioanes has told us that the Federation of American Agricultural Co-operatives has called on the U.S. government to pass legislation on the marketing of farm products as early as possible, including control of imports and exports. I consider that in view of their climate, which permits large grain crops and their immense production capacity in all fields of agriculture, Bill C-176 should also include provisions whereby imported farm products are also subject to quantity and quality controls by the National Council and the marketing agencies to be created.
December 30,1971

Mr. Speaker, I have personally held seminars where I have had the opportunity of meeting almost all the farmers in my riding and discussed with them the long and short term effects of this bill. I believe therefore that my constituents and all those who read the reports of the standing committee on agriculture-and God knows how many pages they contained-and Hansard, know my position.
I can also state that it has been unchanged since I first took part in the debate on Bill C-197. The more I discuss it, the more I hold on to my opinion which is shared by others.
Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to the fact that in the first speech I made in this House on the then Bill C-197 which is now Bill C-176, I expressed some misgivings because it did not provide any means of control on imports and exports.
I was saying a few moments ago that we have visited all the Canadian capitals to hear the briefs that were submitted. I shall give you a summary of the results obtained. We have been to Washington, Quebec City, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver and have had the opportunity of meeting the spokesmen of 78 producer associations representing more than 90 per cent of Canadian producers. Of these 78 associations, 4 were undecided in respect of the bill, 31 were against and 43 were in favor. It should be noted that with some exceptions, all the associations which have replied affirmatively maintained their position provided amendments were introduced to the bill.
I think the same situation prevails among most members concerned with this subject. There is a fundamental difference between the government outlook and mine and that of many of my colleagues.
In my mind, the essence of the bill can be summed up in the four paragraphs appearing at pages 558 to 560 of a document entitled "Proceedings of the Canadian Agricultural Congress". That convention was held in Ottawa from March 24 to 27,1969. If I may, I should like to call the attention of my colleagues to recommendations Nos. 104, 105, 115 and 116.1 quote:
104-	In this stage, which is simply a logical progression from Stage III, governmental control increases to the point where agriculture operates as centrally regulated monopoly. Government planners decide the types and amounts of production, regulate selling, set prices and rationalize marketing channels.
105-	In return for submitting to a high degree of regulation the farmer gains almost total security in wages and rates of return on investment which are set by government organizations or appointed commissions as in the case of other public utilities. Although this would entail a high degree of regulation, the farmers would still retain ownership of land and resources and exercise a managerial function in regard to operating aspects that did not come under direct government control.
115-	The relationships of government, farmers, and farm organizations in either system is somewhat ambiguous and in practice, authority and responsibility are not clear.
This is still the farmers speaking.
I continue to quote:
Both systems seem to result in much confusion as to objectives, policies, and programs. Examination of the trade-offs indicates the following generalizations:
116-	If farmers want additional security they must give up a certain amount of freedom.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
That is the part I do not like, Mr. Speaker.
The quotation goes on:
If farmers want a guaranteed annual wage and return on investment they cannot have high profits.
This is exactly what Mr. Ioanes said in Washington in the month of November.
And further on:
If farmers want government control, they must serve consumers and taxpayers.
That is obvious! It goes on to say in the final paragraph: If farmers want a high degree of government control, farm organizations will have to give up a large degree of their potential power, initiative and responsibility to government.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is not what is required by the farmers in my constituency. As I pointed out earlier, I have met almost all the farmers of the Richmond constituency and they object to the bill being passed in its present form. I have received hundreds of letters of protest of which several dozens come from my constituency. I would like to draw the attention of the House to one of them which summarizes rather well my constituents' views. It was sent by the Ferme Manasan Limitee, Aber-deen-Angus Enregistres, Danville, Quebec and I quote: Dear Mr. Beaudoin,
Needless to tell you that I have been quite disappointed to see your committee insisting on beef being included in Bill C-176. I cannot understand why your committee caused its members to waste so much time and spent so much money to travel throughout Canada to hear the "people's voice" and finally take no account of unanimous requests about the products involved.
If this is the modus operandi of politicians who believe they have been directed to protect the people against their own foolishness, it is easy to understand why the producers have little confidence in the committee's statement to the effect that agencies be created only at the producers' request.
To increase our fears, as Quebec beef producers, our minister says that he is insisting on beef being included so that he may use this as a tool in negotiations with the other provinces. Surely, you have enough imagination to see in what position this would put us.
Beef cattle producers are now setting up a provincial association which will start operating on May 17 next, and then it will be possible for us to speak with one voice, without having to submit to the censorship of our elected representatives.
And I must add, let us hope that it is not too late-
Sincerely yours,
Robert Laberge
Mr. Speaker, this letter is self-explanatory. I believe that the majority of Quebec farmers share to some extent the views of Mr. Laberge, of Danville, one of the most specialized producers in my constituency. For my part, I believe in free enterprise. I have worked hard all my life, and sometimes in difficult conditions, in order to remain my own boss. By far I prefer the individual freedom enjoyed by our farmers to a promise of uncertain and vague stability that could be the lot of some of them, especially the bigger ones, and the sure death of the small producers.
In principle, I have much greater admiration for the wild horse, free to eat what it wants, than the thin plug which eats whatever it is given and is obliged to haul a cart led by a driver who does not know where he is going.
I believe that many of our agricultural producers do not realize that the government control wagon will be very hard to pull for a great number of them.
24725-63'.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I admit that for certain classes of producers, such as poultry and hog producers, this bill can be acceptable, because it amounts to a lesser evil than a catastrophy, but the exception proves the rule!
In conclusion, I want to tell the House that this is my position and it will not change. I think I have fulfilled my duty as concerns this bill, and if the majority of us has not yet been informed of what will happen if this bill is passed in its present version, we shall remember it in five years from now if on account of this legislation, we have to take special measures to help the small farmers who will have moved to the cities and will be state pensioners, living on welfare benefits. Thank God, I will not be responsible for that because I shall vote against the bill in its present version. With your permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) the following motion:
That Bill C-176 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, with instruction to amend clause 2(c) of the said bill in order to include any imported natural product of agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House has before it for consideration the amendment. It seems to the Chair that the referral back of the clause may be in order and the Chair could accept it. However, I have some concern about the direction that is given in the motion.
I wonder if the mover of the motion would consider deleting the instruction that is given in the motion, which the Chair could then accept. I have to admit some difficulty in dealing with the other official language, with which I am not very familiar, but it would seem to me that if the mover of the amendment were to delete the last part, and if members were to give me their indulgence, it would be acceptable to the Chair if it is acceptable to the hon. member who proposed the motion-

-in order to include any imported natural product of agriculture. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that unless there are other objections, the Chair would be prepared to accept the amendment. I now have an English translation which assists me in considering the amendment. With the indulgence of hon. members, and using the English translation, perhaps I could suggest that if there were a change that this be referred back to the committee on agriculture with a suggestion that it be amended, it would be acceptable to the Chair. If the hon. member is prepared to accept the amendment in that way, that would be acceptable to the Chair.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your remark. I believe the last three words are precisely the substantial part of my motion. In fact, we want above all to mention in this motion the natural products of agriculture that are imported.
If you want the clause to be referred back to the committee for study, we are ready to withdraw our amendment. We are ready to withdraw the part that seems

ambiguous to you from the point of view of procedure, except however the last three words of the amendment.
Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is before the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to rise at this point to support the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). I assure Your Honour and the House that I intend to be brief. This subject matter has received wide and full discussion in the committee and it is one of the reasons why I was prompted to file motion No. 14, which has already been voted upon, which in essence suggested that there should be an amendment to clause 7 which I suggested should be lettered subclause (h). It would then have read:
-shall study the effects of imports on the price quantity of products grown in Canada and make recommendations to the minister-
The success of the application of supply management really depends upon the amount of the product coming onto the market. The experts who believe that the application of supply management domestically within Canada can regulate production to the degree that they can control the amount of a product coming on the market, and thereby provide greater stability within the industry, fail to take into consideration the important part that imports can play.
I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is still in his seat and he can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I recall that there was a loose arrangement or agreement made with regard to the egg market, egg supply and distribution within Canada, about four months ago. Provinces tentatively agreed to produce so many eggs and sell so many eggs in other provinces. According to an article which I read in the Magazine Country Guide, the minister accepted responsibility for controlling imports of eggs into the country so that this arrangement could have some chance of success. However, I understand that since that time the arrangement has broken apart. I do not think it has been successful.
But to bring the significance of this to the attention of the House I must refer back to Bill C-215 respecting the Textile and Clothing Board, and in particular to clause 9. That bill was basically designed to set up a board to regulate the clothing and textile industry. It is a highly vulnerable industry, in fact something like the egg and poultry industry to which the supply management concept of Bill C-176 will apply. Clause 9 of Bill C-215 provides:
The board, with respect to the importation of any textile and clothing goods,
(a)	may, on its own initiative, or on receipt by the board of a
notice of complaint filed pursuant to section 8, or
(b)	shall, on receipt of a written request from the minister,
conduct an inquiry in order to determine whether the textile and clothing goods that are the subject of the inquiry are being imported at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to the production in Canada of any textile and clothing goods.
December 30, 1971

This is basically what I sought through amendment No. 14. and basically this is what the hon. member for Richmond seeks now. He recognizes that the poultry industry is in a very vulnerable position in the sense that the slightest influx of eggs or poultry from outside the country would upset things greatly. This is why the minister acted four months ago with respect to the importation of eggs, and why we have a tariff on broiler chickens coming into Canada of something like 5 j cents to 6 cents a pound.
Under the present bill, supply management applies solely to the poultry industry, and I wholeheartedly support the suggestion put forward in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richmond. We must give the council set up under this bill power to inquire into the importation of poultry products to Canada and the effect which such importation has on the concept of supply management.
I defy anyone in this chamber to quote any professor, economist or other authority who says supply management will work in any country or any region of a country without due regard being paid to the effect of imports. Anybody who knows anything about this subject knows it is an economic truth that supply management will not work unless due consideration is given to the effect of imports. Take the example of hog production. I know I am getting away from the poultry industry, but the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) made some caustic remarks about my attitude to the hog industry and said I had not spoken once about it tonight. He also made some very derogatory remarks about the cattle industry and how it had lobbied with some irregularity-


Frank Howard: Unethical.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -irregular manner. This is certainly false. He also said that I had not spoken-


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my name is being bandied about by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and I would like to assist him since he seems to have difficulty in pronouncing "irregularity" or "irregular." What I actually said was that I felt pressures by the large cattle interests were unethical.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I always appreciate such assistance. The hon. member and I worked closely in the committee and I have no trouble recalling his exact words about the unethical manner adopted by some cattlemen. After he made that remark I went to see him behind the curtains, to see if he really meant it. I asked him what he meant and he replied, "Oh, those newspaper ads!" I asked him, "Did the cattlemen publish those newspaper ads?" He replied, "I don't know whether they did or not, I think they did." I do not have absolute knowledge of how those ads got into the papers, but I do know more about them than the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there were hog men who paid for those ads, and poultry men, and there might have been a few cattlemen. Why accuse only the cattlemen of being unethical? I think he is prejudiced against them, and his prejudices are showing this evening.
Let us suppose that supply management could raise the price of pork in Canada today. In 1970 we provided 19 per
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
cent of the pork imported by the United States, but 35 per cent of their imports come from Denmark. If we increase our price we only create a bigger market for the Danish pork farmers. This is the retrograde step that supply management will effect unless we control our borders.
Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late.


An hon. Member:: It is early-early in the morning.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to tell hon. members that I have to catch a plane at 7.50 a.m. so I will not be speaking much longer. Mr. Speaker, supply management is wrong and it cannot work unless we pay close attention to imports. We are only fooling ourselves and the poultry industry if we pass this bill without referring it back to committee. I would hope that the committee would implement a section in the bill similar to clause 9 of Bill C-215, the textile bill. These products share a vulnerability with regard to imports.
In spite of the desires of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), this bill will not serve any useful purpose for the poultry industry if they disregard the effects of imports. This government pretends to pay attention to agriculture but has not solved any of its problems. I hope that some government in Canada, some day will put its mind to solving these problems.
Unless the government accepts the suggestion of the hon. member for Richmond this bill is only window dressing. Part of my riding is in Calgary and I do not neglect that part, but I still care, perhaps too much for this modern society, about agriculture. This bill does not solve any problems but just touches upon them superficially. For these reasons I shall gladly vote against the bill because it is not an answer; it is merely a cover-up by this government for its neglect since it has taken office.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, at various points in the progress of this bill through the House my colleagues have tried to get me to participate in the debate. Now that we are apparently prepared to see the old year out and the new year in with the continuous companionship we have had in this House, I suppose I might be permitted to say a few words. I might discuss the oyster farmers in my constituency or the three farmers who were brought into the debate a while ago, but I shall try to confine my remarks to the amendment before us. I am not going to attempt to compete with the thunderous oratory of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) or the frenzied hysteria of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).


An hon. Member:: Give us your own brand of nonsense.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have agricultural producers in my constituency and so I try to maintain some acquaintance with the progress of agricultural legislation through the House. I support the principle of the amendment before us and I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot that the considerations involved in this amendment are vital to the success of a national marketing scheme of any kind in this country. Sooner or later the principle will have to be incorporated in the operation of farm marketing in Canada if the claims made for the approach in this bill by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) are to bear fruit.

December 30, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
I do not intend to deal with the matter extensively, but I feel that the issue contained in this amendment is of great concern to many agricultural producers in the province of British Columbia. At the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's thirty-eighth annual conference, the president, Mr. R. A. Blair, put the blame on "low-priced imports and international trade that does not take place on a fair and equitable basis". He said:
Tree fruits suffered another year of low prices, potato growers didn't even recover costs of production-
From correspondence I have received from potato growers in my constituency, I know that this has been a bad year for them. He went on to say:
-strawberry growers were forced to take a big price cut and poultry groups found their income levels being eroded away.
President Blair then said that his fellow farmers favour international trade and understand that trade is a twoway street. The next part of his report says:
What we cannot understand, and cannot accept, is that the mechanism of trade should be 'greased' with agricultural products.
We are tired of being told that agricultural products from Mexico must be given unencumbered entry into Canada or Mexicans won't buy our wood products ... that we must continue to accept agricultural products from countries which erect artificial barriers against ours ... and that we cannot impose a surtax of US fire-sale priced goods because they might retaliate against us.
According to my knowledge of the agricultural situation in British Columbia, that is a fair statement of a position which has been worsening increasingly for many years. It has been recounted in this House on more than one occasion that at one time there was a viable canning industry on the lower mainland of the province. It was purchased by American interests and phased out, and now American canned goods are coming in bearing the label of genuine and well known Canadian brands. The labels are put on after the cans reach Canada, yet the small print says, "Produce of the USA". This has been repeated in other parts of Canada. I was told, on visiting the Niagara peninsula, that the same kind of thing has happened there.
This amendment has raised an important and vital point that we must consider when considering the future welfare of the farm producers of Canada and the establishment of a viable, equitable and orderly marketing system across this country. I took those few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to enjoy celebrating what will be, hopefully, a happy New Year.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for long. I want to put two facts on the record in speaking in support of the amendment moved by my friends to my left. The government believes that when a commodity is under a quota it can, under this bill, curb the importation into Canada of that commodity. It thinks the legislation can do that in cases where the import is sold in Canada at prices lower than those charged in the country of origin. In theory, such goods would be dumped in this country. I wish to cite two examples to show how such a provision in the law is being contravened legally. Great hardships are being worked on producers. The government is placing great reliance on the present law, but I wish to show that the statute in question will not

solve the problem that my friends to my left have brought to the attention of the House.
I cite an example that affected me personally. At one time we were in the celery business, and when we had to compete against American celery brought into Canada we laid a charge. We said that the American celery was being dumped here, and we felt that we were on safe ground. Nevertheless, Californian growers were obtaining in California the same price that their celery was fetching in Canada. Why was that, Mr. Speaker? Their freight costs from California to Toronto, plus the cost of containers, were less than our freight costs from Chatham to Toronto. Therefore, it was not a question of dumping but of freighting that we had to examine.
My second illustration involves tomatoes. Not long ago we faced a problem involving canned tomatoes, an important commodity in southwestern Ontario. Those tomatoes were being landed in our eastern ports at sale prices which were lower than those our processors had to pay for the empty containers themselves. There was a real problem in that connection. I cite these two examples to show why this type of study with regard to this bill is so important.
We are dealing with supply management.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Harold Warren Danforth: I cannot understand why this government thinks it can introduce, under any bill, the concept of supply management when in 1963 Mr. Freeman, then the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, with the full backing of the U.S. government, of the United States commodity groups and of the U.S. treasury, brought in supply management. That lasted three years only, because he found that it was absolutely impossible to administer supply management. It was the most impractical step that the United States Department of Agriculture had ever taken. He found, as we shall find when we impose a quota on any agricultural commodity, that to survive farmers will grow something else. They will grow a commodity not under quota. When there is a surplus of that and a quota is put on, they will produce a third product.
So the program will be impossible to administer when we have put quotas on every commodity produced by agriculture. I do not see how this government can accomplish something that the United States government almost eight years ago confessed was impossible of accomplishment and impossible to administer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment and the suggestion to refer the bill back to committee. I want to add something that I do not think has been said. When a board has to make a decision regarding the domestic consumption and export potential of any given commodity, it will find that most commodities are being imported at a certain price. The example of the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) concerning celery could be repeated for other vegetables such as lettuce. The Americans claim they do not dump lettuce in Canada. Their production is three or four weeks ahead of
December 30, 1971

ours, and their peak production of lettuce coincides with our initial production.
Any government-established agency which could control total export and domestic production using supply management and other tools available to it would have to be in a position to make recommendations, probably in a very direct manner. Under the arrangements now existing, producers ask the government to place a restriction on certain imports and perhaps four or five weeks later restrictions are applied. The government, for its part, will need to exercise some overriding control beyond the power of the board.
I presume we have given the Dairy Commission the kind of control I have mentioned and that the commission exercises it in an organized way. The commission assesses the potential in the export market and in the domestic market and has imported directly in the last few years. It seems that the estimate made by the board has not placed us in a surplus position. I am using examples which are national in scope. I imagine the Wheat Board is armed with regulations which prohibit the importation of grain. There may be some arrangement under which, if we were short of wheat, particularly of seed for example, importation could be authorized. I am sure such a decision would be made by the board itself and not by virtue of tariff arrangements. The point I wish to make is that this question should be referred back for further consideration. It is not all black and it is not all white.


Mr. Major:: Two more years!


William Arnold Peters: Well, we have been waiting for this for a long time. I am sure the hon. member could mention a number of commodities whose production is not controlled and where imports are a major factor. Wine has been mentioned as an example, with particular reference to Quebec. The province of Quebec has established a Liquor Control Board. If an individual wishes to import wine from France he would find, if he made inquiries, that he is not allowed to do so because it is the board in Quebec which decides in what circumstances alcoholic beverages can be imported. The hon. member shakes his head. Maybe somebody, in some circumstances, can import directly. I suppose there is some importation from St. Pierre and Miquelon. But in the main the board which controls distribution also wishes to have some say as to what is imported in that field.
If the government does not see fit to accept the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) it will still be obliged to give consideration to the idea behind it. Even in the field of eggs and poultry the problem raised is an immediate one. I am told that if the duty on eggs were to drop by a cent and a half, there would in a very short time be no egg producers in business in the province of Ontario. The industry is operated almost entirely behind a tariff preference of U cents per dozen. If we gave four or five major companies the right to decide what could be imported, being competent businessmen they would no doubt say, "Let us raise the tariff some more, and the price is bound to go up still further." So the prospect of competition would not keep prices down at all.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
The threat of importation is a deciding factor where prices are concerned. Whether the government accepts this amendment or not, it will not be able to avoid considering some type of control, whether indirect, based on a recommendation from the agency to the government, or more directly by a direction to the agency to regulate importation.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, since it is 6.10 a.m., I have no intention of delaying the House. I think however that this amendment is very important.
I have always been very much concerned about these imports that glut the market in Canada, and I shall not accept that the bill be referred to the committee, but on the other hand, it is very difficult to support this amendment. I think that most producers definitely need this bill, and it would be very difficult for me to support this amendment. However, before it is put to the vote, I should like the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to tell the House what will be the responsibility of the Marketing Council with respect to imports.
I certainly hope the marketing agency will have the necessary power to prevent the oversupply in our Canadian markets we have witnessed for a long time. An explanation on the part of the Minister of Agriculture could help me make up my mind about the amendment; but, in any event, the bill is of such importance that surely I could not agree to support the amendment, in view of the fact that the farmers expect its passage.
I would very much appreciate the Minister of Agriculture giving us his point of view on the potential advent on our markets of imported products and on the powers of the marketing agency with regard to those imports.
I trust the Minister of Agriculture will be able to enlighten us before the question is put.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the minister would accept the invitation of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), but I would still like, for no more than two minutes, and while supporting the motion of my hon. colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), to explain once more than objectives which we are pursuing.
We do not want to control the import of farm products at all. This is not the point. What we want is for import licences which will be granted to compel importers to subject imported farm products to the same control as Canadian farm products.
Yesterday, I think-we can now say yesterday indeed!- my hon- colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) gave a striking example in this connection concerning the import of wines and spirits.
We want the same thing in regard to imported farm products. We are not trying to prevent or limit imports of farm products, but we do not want imported farm products to come and invade Canadian markets at lower prices.
If imported farm products are not subject to the same regulations as Canadian farm products, this act will be void and useless. If the amendment which we are proposing is passed it will protect consumers as well as producers. We know that until now some importers have had

December 30, 1971
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill
no qualins about importing certain agricultural products at the time when Canadian production was ready to be delivered on the consumer market.
That is why we want the bill to be referred back to the committee. We do not want the committee to consider the whole bill, but only one particular clause to amend it so that it be more efficient. Having read the minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I know that this suggestion has been made to the committee and to the government.
Since the minister did not react to that request we want the bill to be referred back to the committee so that it may consider that point which is very important for the producers as well as-


Mr. Corriveau:: You never did attend the sittings of the committee and you never will.


Gérard Laprise: I would like to tell the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) that I was not a member of that committee and that is why I did not attend the sittings of the committee. However I have read the minutes of its proceedings in order to be informed.
If the hon. member for Frontenac carries out his duties as well as I have done until now, he will not need to give me any advice.


Léopold Corriveau: You did not even vote tonight.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Frontenac blames me for not voting on the amendments submitted at the report stage. He is giving me the opportunity to justify my action. I did not vote because, in my view, Bill C-176, as introduced by the Liberal party, is the most anti-agriculture legislative proposal ever submitted until now-


Léopold Corriveau: That is an excellent statement.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, that is why I did not vote to amend a bill that was bad initially.
I support my colleague from Richmond who asked that the bill be referred back to the Committee, so that consideration be given to the very specific proposal regarding the control of imports, in order to protect both the farmers and the Canadian consumers.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments about the remarks of my very good friend, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I listened with a great deal of interest to what he said. I agree with him. That is the extent of the remarks I would like to make about what he said. I was very much impressed by the force of the remarks of the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), as well as the remarks of the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) about the effect that might flow from not having a provision of this sort in the bill.
While listening, I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who sometimes is not as attentive as at other times while in the House, in this particular instance

on this subject matter was completely attentive. He was all eyes and ears. He listened to what every member said. Obviously, from the look on his face, I thought he was favourably impressed. Inasmuch as he had been invited to speak by two hon. members, although on one occasion he walked out, I expected that before this matter came to a vote the minister would inform the House of the position of the government on this particular question and not leave the matter without any government comment.
Because of the value this matter may be to farmers, I thought that if the minister did not say anything he was giving tacit and silent consent to the arguments without refusing to accept them. I hope the minister will make a few comments fully endorsing the proposition that has been put forward. If he has any reason why he cannot accept them, because of experience or otherwise, I hope he will let the House know where he stands.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising to take part in this debate is very simple. I want it to be recorded that it is 6.20 a.m. This is an agriculture bill. I am a fisherman, and I am in the House at 6.20 a.m.


An hon. Member:: Good for you, John.


John Howard Lundrigan: Take your time. I also want to send out a few copies of Hansard. When a fisheries bill is before the House, we want members from all parts of Canada to give us the same support as members from eastern Canada have given this agriculture bill. My friend who is with me this evening, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and other hon. members will want to take part in the debate as it continues. I hope we will not be here all night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin).
Mr. Beaudoin, seconded by Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) moved the following amendment:
That Bill C-176 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for further consideration of section 2(c).

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
December 30, 1971

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT]	(6:40 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Benson, moves that the House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock today-in just a few hours.


Some hon. Members:: Friday, December 31, 1971