1971-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House express its anxiety concerning events in East Pakistan and urge that the government of Canada take such steps as are feasible toward assisting the reduction of human suffering and the forestalling of widening hostilities;
That the government take the lead in bringing about the shipment of medical supplies for the relief of the suffering of the East Pakistan people and that the House indicate its willingness to depute some of its members to act as observers in the area of conflict and suffering if such a role should be deemed helpful in this crucial issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Therefore the hon. member's motion cannot be put to the House.



PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE ACT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-241, to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, to
amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and an act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-243, to amend the Judges Act and the Financial Administration Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Orlikow: What estimates has the government received for 1971 for the value of lost production as a result of unemployment as compared with what production would have been in 1971 if there were full employment, namely, only 4% unemployed in the coming year?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Attention is directed to Hansard, page 3326, dated February 12, 1971.


ESTIMATED UNEMPLOYMENT, 1971
Mr. Orlikow: What estimates has the government received from departments or agencies as to anticipated unemployment month by month for the year 1971-either actual or seasonally adjusted rates?


James Alexander Jerome: See the reply made this day to Question No. 638.


AIR CANADA-CHECK OF BILINGUALISM
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Was an employee of the Language Commissioner or any department employed to check bilingualism among Air Canada

April 28, 1971
Questions
employees in Ottawa on December 14, 1970 and, if so, on whose direct authority was this done?
2.	Were tape recorders used without the knowledge of Air Canada employees being checked and, if so, were such tape recorders in plain view at all times of those being investigated?
3.	What disciplinary action has been taken against those involved?
4.	Have steps been taken to see that there is no recurrence of this either in Air Canada or in any other level of government?


James Alexander Jerome: The Language Commissioner reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him privately.


REMOVAL OF PAGES FROM &quot;FOREIGN TRADE&quot; SUPPLEMENT
Mr. Crouse: 1.	With respect to the answer given to Question Number 512 at page 2806 in Hansard, January 27, 1971, regarding the removal of pages one and two from "Foreign Trade", what was the content of the two pages?
2.	What were the statements that might have been misleading?
3.	Will the government table the two pages in question?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. These pages contained (1) the text of the joint communique issued by the Government of Canada and the People's Republic of China recording agreement on mutual recognition of the establishment of diplomatic relations and (2) a resume outlining the purpose of the special issue.
2.	Release of the joint communique was simultaneous in Ottawa and Peking and page 1 of "Foreign Trade" indicated the release date as being October 13, 1970. The release date in Peking was October 14 because of the time differential due to the international dateline. Also "Foreign Trade" reported that Canada and China released the communique in Stockholm where the negotiations had taken place whereas, in fact, separate announcements had been made in their own capitals.
3.	Yes.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What variables are considered in calculating the Consumer Price Index?
2.	Is any regional allowance made in reaching the calculations?
3.	Is the index considered valid for all of Canada and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Are only certain urban centres considered and is any consideration being given to including additional centres?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. The Consumer Price Index for Canada is designed to measure the effect of changes in consumer prices on the cost of purchasing an unchanging or equivalent basket of consumer goods find services. The only variable which is considered to cause movement in the index is price change. The basket of consumer goods and services in the index is designed to reflect the spending pattern of a broad middle-income group of urban families of two to six persons.
2.	In the Consumer Price Index for Canada the prices used are collected in 33 cities across Canada. Also, the index basket itself is a composite of spending patterns in Canada for urban middle-income families. Thus, regional movements of prices are incorporated in the Canada index in proportion to their importance in the basket.
3.	The Canada index is an average or composite for the population group specified in 1. above. It is considered valid for that group as a whole and because of the homogeneity of spending patterns within the group, the index is considered reasonably valid for any significant components of it.
4.	As indicated in 2. above, prices from 33 cities are now included in the Canada index. Periodic reviews are carried out to up-date the basket and price samples for the index and such a review is underway currently. Separate Consumer Price Indexes for 10 regional cities in Canada are prepared, but these indexes measure percentage change in consumer prices from one period to the next within each city and cannot be used to compare levels of prices between cities.


CBC-COVERAGE OF PRIME MINISTER'S ASIAN TOUR AND COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many personnel were sent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to cover the Prime Minister's Asian tour?
2.	How many CBC personnel covered the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference?
3.	What was the total cost of the coverage of the Prime Minister's tour and at the Commonwealth Conference to CBC and, what was the total amount of coverage provided on the French and English networks, radio and television?
4.	How many personnel from CTV were included in the Prime Minister's press group on the Asian tour and at the Commonwealth Conference?
5.	What was the total amount of programming provided by CTV network on the tour and at Conference?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1. and 2. A total of five for English language radio and television services; seven for French language radio and television services, two of whom were sent from Hong Kong. The same teams covered the Commonwealth Conference, the English language group being augmented for coverage of this event by two additional personnel, one of whom was sent from Hong Kong.
3.	Combined English and French language radio and television coverage totalled approximately eight hours. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose individual program costs. However in the case of the above events, numerous reports and commentaries of varying duration were aired over a three-week period on several programs on the English and French CBC networks and the shortwave International Services. A reasonable estimate of the over-all cost would be in the range of $45,000.
4.	Two.

April 28, 1971

5.	Information regarding CTV programming is not available.


NEWFOUNDLAND-ASSISTANCE UNDER FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT. 1970
Mr. Carter: 1.	How many applications for loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act were received from Newfoundland in 1970?
2.	How many loans were approved and the total amount of money involved?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. Loans under this program are made directly by the chartered banks and other designated lenders to whom applications are addressed. No data is maintained centrally as to the number of applications received by a lender which do not result in a loan being advanced.
2.	During the first nine months of the 1970-71 program year (April 1-December 31) 14 loans were advanced totalling $39,757. The figures for Newfoundland for the year ending March 31, 1971 will be published in the Annual Report for the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act later this year.


PEI-ASSISTANCE UNDER FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT. 1970
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	How many applications for loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act were received from the Province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	Of the applications received during 1970, how many were (a) approved (b) rejected?
3.	What was the total amount paid during 1970, by way of loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 2 and 3.
Loans under this program are made directly by the chartered banks and other designated lenders to whom applications are addressed. No data is maintained centrally as to the number of applications received by a lender which do not result in a loan being advanced. During the first nine months of the 1970-71 program year (April 1-December 31) 65 loans were advanced totalling $122,466. The figures for Prince Edward Island for the year ending March 31, 1971 will be published in the Annual Report for the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act later this year.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW EAST-WEST RUNWAY
Mr. Goode: 1.	Will tenders be called for construction of the proposed new East-West runway at Vancouver International Airport and, if so (a) on what date (b) when is construction on the runway scheduled to begin (c) when is the runway scheduled to come into use?
2.	Are any criteria applicable to the distance between operating runways and land occupied for residential purposes at Vancouver International Airport and, if so, what are they?
3.	Does the Department of Transport, at this time, own all the land within the boundaries prescribed in such criteria?
Questions
4.	Does the Department of Transport, at this time, own all the land within the boundaries projected for the new East-West runway in accordance with the criteria?
5.	Does the Department of Transport plan to construct a large cargo terminal north of the proposed East-West runway at Vancouver Airport and, if so, when is construction scheduled to start?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Final decision on construction of a new East-West runway at Vancouver International Airport has not been made.
2.	Yes, as described in the official zoning regulations for Vancouver International Airport. These are height restrictions, which indirectly dictate the distance required between runway threshholds and any structures, including those for residential purposes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	No, but land is being reserved in the area for that purpose.


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-COFFEE SHOP
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What is the name of the company which operates the coffee shop at the Ottawa International Airport?
2 What amount does the holder pay yearly to the government?
3.	When does the present agreement expire?
4.	What opening hours of the coffee shop are called for by the present contract?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Golden Totem Restaurants Limited.
2.	The coffee shop is operated as part of a combined coffee shop, dining room and cocktail lounge concession. The rental formula is as follows: (a) For the coffee shop and dining room: 10 per cent of the gross revenue per annum (excluding liquor sales) up to and including $200,000; and 12 per cent of the gross revenue per annum (excluding liquor sales) over $200,000 and up to and including $300,000; and 14 per cent of the gross revenue per annum (excluding liquor sales) over $300,000. The amount paid to the ministry for the coffee shop and dining room for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1970 was $54,761.00. (b) For the cocktail lounge the rental is subject to annual review. For the calendar year 1970 the rent was $15,000.
3.	July 31, 1975.
4.	The contract provides for operation of the coffee shop starting daily at 7:00 a.m. but the service may be commenced earlier at the option of the concessionaire.


PEI-TRAFFIC STATISTICS ON FERRY JOHN HAMILTON GRAY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,179
Mr. Blouin:: During the year 1970, what was the traffic in (a) number of passengers (b) number of cars and trucks (c) number of railway cars on the ferry John Hamilton Gray between Cape Tor-mentine, N.B. and Borden, P.E.I.?


Gérard Duquet: (a) Passenger statistics are not main-

April 28, 1971
Questions
tained by vessel, (b) Number ol cars and trucks carried during the year 1970 totalled 159,671. (c) Number of railway cars carried during the year 1970 totalled 28,054.


CUSO-SOUTHERN AFRICA LIBERATION MOVEMENTS
Mr. Robinson: Is the government aware of a resolution passed by CUSO at its annual meeting "that CUSO take the position that the Canadian Government recognize the legitimacy of Southern Africa Liberation Movements" and, if so (a) does the government endorse such policy (b) does the government intend to provide further funds to CUSO?


James Alexander Jerome: The government is aware of the resolution in question. It should be noted that such resolutions are an expression of opinion on the part of the CUSO membership and have no binding effect on the organization, (a) While respecting the justice of the cause espoused by the Southern Africa liberation movements the Government does not believe that armed conflict will bring beneficial results to either the black or white communities of Southern Africa, (b) Yes.


CUSO-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has financial support been given to CUSO by the government and, if so, how much each year to date?
2.	What is the criteria for CUSO to be entitled to apply and receive federal funds?
3 What departments of government sponsor CUSO at the present time?
4.	How many members of CUSO are former members of CYC?
5.	How many members of CYC at any time were former members of CUSO?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Canadian International Development Agency and the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. Financial support has been provided to CUSO by the Canadian Government as follows: Fiscal Year 62/63, $3,294; 65/66, $458,750; 66/67, $742,776; 67/68, $1,678,250; 68/69, $2,374,360; 69/70, $3,260,000; 70/71, $4,250,000.
2.	CUSO is a qualified Canadian non-governmental organization under the criteria for eligibility for financial support of non-government organizations in the field of development assistance. Financial support by CIDA is provided in the form of yearly contracts with CUSO to send Canadians to work in developing countries in accordance with the objects of CUSO as contained in the Supplementary Letters Patent granted to this organization.
3.	Financial support is provided to CUSO by the Canadian International Development Agency through the nongovernmental organizations program.
4.	As CUSO is primarily interested in the ability of its members to carry out the job in hand the personnel records maintained are not oriented to automatically retrieve this type of information. As far as can be readily ascertained by CUSO two people who are now members
of that organization were previously associated with CYC.
5.	To the best of the CYC's knowledge, two members have been former members of CUSO.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO CURB ILLEGAL STRIKE ACTIVITIES
Mr. Soulham: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to curb wildcat labour strikes and other illegal activities similar to that recently passed in Great Britain?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The intentions of the Government with respect to industrial relations legislation will be made known in due course. It should be noted, however, that existing legislation defines the circumstances in which strikes or lockouts may take place legally.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: (a), (b), (c) and (d) No income is derived from computer services.


POST OFFICE-DEFICIT ON VARIOUS CLASSES OF MAIL
Mr. Mather: 1 Did the Post Office Department lose money on first class mail (a) in 1969-1970 (b) 1970-1971 and, if so, what was the amount?
2.	What was the amount lost by the Post Office for the same periods on second class mail?
3.	During the same periods, did the Post Office lose or profit by third class mail?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: The Post Office Department maintains an accounting system whereby total costs are apportioned to classes of mail giving consideration to labour time factors, weight and physical characters of mail, space requirements, etc. Using this method, deficits were attributed to the operations of various classes of mail as indicated in the published Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, as follows: 1. Yes. (a) 1969-70 (actual), $360,000; (b) 1970-71 (forecast), $35,075,000.
2. 1969-70 (actual), $28,209,000; 1970-71 (forecast), $33,946,000.
3. 1969-70 (actual), $20,120,000; 1970-71 (forecast), $33,847,000. As final figures for the fiscal year 1970-71 will not be available for some time, the above forecast is offered as the most current information available.
[Mr. Duquet.)
April 28, 1971


VALCARTIER MILITARY BASE-ERECTION OF HOTEL
Mr. Godin: Does the government intend to erect a hotel at the Valcartier military base, which hotel would be available to all Canadians visiting parents or military friends?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: No, at the time the current base development plan was being reviewed by CFB Valcartier, members of the local Non-Public Fund organization drew up a list of suggested personnel support program proposals, one of which was an NPF operated hostel. This proposal was never accepted as part of either the public or non-public Valcartier program.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-MARRIED QUARTERS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many married quarters, by type and location, does the Canadian Armed Forces have (a) on what dates were they built (b) what was the total and per unit cost?
2.	Concerning recuperation of cost, when will each be paid for and how are they written off at each site?
3.	What was the average, yearly rent in the past 10 years, 5 years, 2 years at each site and for all PMQs on CF bases?
4.	(a) How does the government deal with the maintenance and renovation costs of these units (b) is there anything in the nature of a policy that establishes guidelines re: the time and amount of renovation and/or maintenance that may be carried out and, if so (i) what is that policy (ii) specifically, is there any proportion of these costs born by the residents and, if so, what proportion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. The Canadian Forces have approximately
24,000	married quarters of various types throughout Canada, most of which were built during the period 1950-1960. In addition, 4,400 are leased or rented in Canada, and 3,880 in Europe. Insofar as (a), and (b) are concerned the requested information is not readily available in Headquarters' records and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary data.
2.	All original construction costs were funded from departmental appropriations during the year or years of construction and there is no procedure or policy for the recovery of these costs.
3.	Up to 1968 the cost of married quarters to occupants was related to an allowance in accordance with occupant's rank, regardless of the type and size of quarter occupied. As a result it is not possible to determine the average rental allowance paid for married quarters prior to 1968. Since 1968 the rental charges for all federal married quarters have been based on a CMHC appraised rental system. See Hansard dated 6 April, 1970, pages 5492-3.
4.	(a) The maintenance and renovation costs for married quarters are budgetted annually by each base and included in departmental appropriations; (b) The general policy and guidelines for the maintenance and renovation of married quarters is published in Canadian Forces Construction Engineering Manual (CFP 120) which is
Orders for Returns
held by all Base Commanders and Engineer Officers; (i) to keep married quarters in good repair subject, of course, to the availability of funds; (ii) no.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of External Affairs (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned the reply is none.


Mr. Anderson: 1.	By month, for the period October 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971, how many (a) employees of (b) apprentices in the Ship-Repair Occupational Groups were released or have quit at the Naval Dockyards (i) in Halifax (ii) in Esquimalt?
2.	In the same period, how many employees in the Ship-Repair Occupational Groups at the Naval Dockyards died (a) in Halifax (b) in Esquimalt?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a) Employees	(i) Halifax	(ii) Esquimalt
Month		
Oct. 70	8	24Nov.	6	74Dec.	4	68Jan. 71	17	39Feb.	24	42Mar.	2	65Total	61	312(b) Apprentices	Dec. 70	1	Nil2. Employees	(a) 1	(b) 7
* * [DOT]



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Foster: What amount of financial assistance has been made available by the federal government to each accredited university in the Province of Ontario for each of the past five years for (a) operating expenses (b) capital expenses?
Return tabled.


MONEY ALLOCATED TO CANADIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	From December, 1961 to October, 1970 how much money has the federal government allocated to university students in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec?

April 28, 1971
Orders for Returns
2.	By year, what was the amount received in the case of each university in 1965 to 1970 inclusive?
3.	What are the specific purposes, if any, of such scholarships or grants?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF SUGAR INTO CANADA
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	(a) What countries are the sources of sugar imported into Canada (b) what companies in Canada do the importing, and in what quantities each year since 1960?
2.	Were Canadian Sugar Refineries convicted under the Combines Act in 1960 for operating a cartel to suppress importations of Cuban refined sugar to Canada in favour of an agreed upon allocation of raw sugar and, if so, what were the details of the judgment at that time?
3.	Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received information that Canadian Sugar Refineries are operating a cartel to maintain high domestic prices on sugar and, if so, what action has been taken?
Return tabled.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS-HIRING OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS AND TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	For each year 1965-66 to 1969-70, how many consultants outside the Public Service of Canada were retained by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
2.	What did these services cost?
3.	What are (a) the names of the firms or individuals retained (b) the reasons in each instance for retaining the service (c) the costs in each instance where a firm was involved (d) the fee and expenses in each instance where individuals were involved?
4.	For each year 1959-60 to 1969-70, what was (a) the total annual budget of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics (b) the total number of continuing (full-time) employees and the number of term employees (c) the total annual expenditure for salaries and wages (d) the total amount expended for professional and special service and the nature of these services?
Return tabled.


SALE OF MAILING LISTS FOR COMMERCIAL USE
Mr. Goode: Does any government department, agency or Crown corporation sell mailing lists for commercial use and, if so, by department, agency, or Crown corporation involved (a) when did this practice begin (b) to whom were such sales made during the past fiscal year (c) what were the proceeds from each such sale (d) what restrictions are placed on the use of lists sold?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to be as difficult as the hon. member from a Nova Scotia constituency was concerning his question as to the use of a certain Jetstar aircraft, but question No. 79 has been on the order paper since October 8. It was also on the order paper in the previous session. It has to do with the use by the Prime Minister's office of outside consultants. I do not think it should be difficult to answer, and I wonder if I could get
[Mr. Fortin.)
some indication of when the answer might be forthcoming?


James Alexander Jerome: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of questions on the order paper involving this same general subject, the use of consultants' studies, with which there was some difficulty in making responses. We have now solved that problem and in the last few days have in fact tabled a number of responses in that general area, although not specifically to the question of the hon. member. I am very optimistic that we will be able to table an answer to his specific question very soon.


Mr. Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, last December a $160 million loan fund was established to help the provinces in their programs. On February 3 I asked a question. I am sure the government has the answer. I cannot see why the government has not answered because this program has been in effect.


James Alexander Jerome: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 156 and 212.



CORRESPONDENCE BY MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING TO BANKS, LOAN COMPANIES AND INSURANCE COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 156-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all memoranda, correspondence, etc. by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing and presented to chartered banks, loan companies, and insurance companies at meetings held at the end of September, 1970.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing held a series of meetings with representatives of the approved lenders at the end of September, 1970. The presentations at these meetings were oral. Since memoranda or correspondence were not presented to the representatives of the approved lenders by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing at the September meetings, I would request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I guess I have to accept that, unless there were any tapes. Maybe they could be produced.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
April 28, 1971



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JULES DEMICHER AND GOVERNMENT CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT AND DISCHARGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 212-Mr. Nowlan:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between Jules Demicher and the government regarding his employment in, and his subsequent discharge from the federal Public Service.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the government
wishes to advise the hon. member that as this matter is now the subject of an inquiry it would be inappropriate to table any such documents at this time. I therefore request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nowlan:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


James Alexander Jerome: X ask that the remaining Notices of Motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. It is based on a statement attributed to the right hon. member that in no way would Ontario be able to opt out of federal-provincial shared-cost programs and receive fiscal equivalents like the province of Quebec. Will the Prime Minister make a statement to reconcile this firm stand under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act with the fact that just a few weeks ago an item was slipped by the government into Supplementary Estimates
(O -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That obviously is not a question. The hon. member is making an argument now and I suggest that the question as asked is not in order. If the hon. member is seeking information, he should ask a question. I appreciate that he has invited the Prime Minister to make a statement but, even when an hon. member does that, the question should be asked in a way that cannot be considered as argumentative from the point of view of the Chair.


Harold Warren Danforth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps Your Honour will allow me to rephrase the question. I ask the Prime Minister if the $1 item that was placed in Supplementary Estimates (C), which extended this very privilege to the province of Quebec and other provinces, did not include the province of Ontario?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no difficulty in explaining this, if the House will bear with me. As I explained yesterday, the offer was made under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act in 1964. It was offered to all provinces. At that time only one province accepted. That was the province of Quebec. When we brought in tax reform in 1969, we explained that the tax points would no longer have the same meaning under the new taxation laws and therefore the same offer could not stand. In the meantime, Quebec, having accepted this temporary arrangement, was pressing to have the temporary arrangement made permanent. We said to them, as we are saying to Ontario: We cannot make it permanent until we know the value of a tax point; therefore, let us extend it temporarily on a yearly basis. After tax reform, we can then sit down and see whether we are going to have the same opting out or different provisions and how they could be made permanent and how they could be made available to Ontario as well as Quebec, and to any other provinces which wished to exercise that option.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Would the Prime Minister assure the House that the extension to the province of Quebec for two years involving the sum of $25 million will not be resumed after that date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is presuming that we shall be here in two years to make that decision, I accept the premise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada stated that in the view of the Council inflation may be a problem for decades in Canada, that full employment would take three years to reach in the best of circumstances and that the economy is losing $3 billion a year in terms of production. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the appraisal of the Economic Council is shared by the government or, if it differs, in what way is that difference reflected?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is a very interesting one, but it seems to me he has raised large issues and that he is inviting the Prime Minister or someone on behalf of the government to make a very general statement of the kind which ought to be made on motions. Perhaps the question might be rephrased.


Max Saltsman: May I just ask the right hon. gentleman whether the government has set a date by which this country will return to full employment?

April 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member could state a percentage which he considers to be full employment I might be able to answer the question.


Max Saltsman: Although 4 per cent is not considered full employment, when does the right hon. gentleman think Canada will reach an unemployment rate of 4 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question asked in those terms is in order.


Max Saltsman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that my question is somewhat unusual but it was put in that way in response to the question directed to me by the Prime Minister. I would hope the Prime Minister asked his question in all sincerity and that he will now be prepared to give an answer as to when the government anticipates we can return to a level of 4 per cent unemployment in Canada.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway has not been completed in an important part of Quebec, namely that which is located between Montmagny and the New-Brunswick border, has the government of Canada received a request for financial help from the government of the province of Quebec for the purpose of completing the construction of this highway as soon as possible? If so, what was the government's reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such request having been directed to me. I will consult with the Minister of Transport to ascertain whether he is aware of any such request.
[DOT] * *



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week I asked him whether by the end of April he could tell us when he intended to present his budget and whether that budget would include the income tax changes that have been forecast. Is he able to do so today?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. We shall have to extend the end of April by a few days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will not be here at the end of April. Can he tell us whether he intends to let us have this information next week, because there is a great deal of uncertainty in the country and a great deal of anticipation about what is going to happen?


Edgar John Benson: I can assure the hon. member I shall make the House aware of these facts at the earliest possible opportunity.



PROVISION OF SPECIAL CREDITS FOR MUNICIPALITIES IN BUDGET-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Whereas the Canadian Municipal Union has asked the federal government to allot credits to municipal projects and whereas the budget is forthcoming, would the minister be in a position to advise whether special estimates will be allotted to such projects and whether there will be talks with the provinces in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it would not be proper for me to indicate what is going to be in the budget before the budget is presented.



AIRCRAFT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the House as to the present state of Air Canada's orders for the Lockheed Tri-Star aircraft, whether these aircraft will be equipped with Rolls-Royce RB-211 engines, what delay there will be in delivery, and the effect, if any, on subcontracts which will be let to the Canadian aircraft industry?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the question briefly. The decision whether or not to proceed with the tri-jet program, that is, the decision by Lockheed to employ Rolls-Royce engines, has not yet been resolved. However, negotiations at the highest level are going on between the United States and Great Britain and the information, both public and private, is to the effect that these negotiations are progressing favourably. If agreement is reached between Lockheed and Rolls-Royce or between the two governments and the aircraft is therefore manufactured, it is anticipated that Air Canada will maintain its order for the tri-jets. This, of course, would result in the work already committed for in Canada in terms of subcontractors being carried on, as was the case before the Rolls-Royce troubles developed.

April 28, 1971


John Angus MacLean: Has the minister any indication of what the delay will be in delivery time and in contract work that will ensue if his forecast is correct?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, assuming an early resolution of the current negotiations-and there have been reports today that they have made further progress-the general feeling, I believe, within the industry is that the delivery schedules for all carriers will be delayed by from nine months to one year. Since Air Canada was anticipating taking delivery of its 1011's at the end of the current year or early in 1972, I assume it is reasonable to suppose that it will now be late 1972 or early 1973.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It concerns relations between Canada and Mainland China and a long-neglected matter of common interest between the two countries. Is the government giving consideration to recognizing the birthplace of Dr. Norman Bethune at Gravenhurst, Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for notifying me that he was going to ask this question. I am informed that the matter will be discussed within a month by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board; I believe they are to take it up next month. Hon. members know that this board is the body which is authorized to make recommendations regarding such proposals. As an old China hand myself, I must say it is somewhat surprising to see this great Canadian recognized more in China than in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I suggest to the hon. member and to the right hon. Prime Minister that this kind of question should normally be put on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment. The question has been asked and the answer given, but I would not want this kind of question to be considered a precedent.



INCOME SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of criticisms of the government's white paper on income security by the National Council on Welfare, which says that it is only a redistribution of poverty, may I ask the minister whether the government is considering revising its white paper on income security?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, without at all agreeing with the
Inquiries of the Ministry
comment by the council or by the hon. member that this is redistribution of poverty, I would indicate, as I have done on many occasions here and outside the House, that we welcome proposals in respect of beneficial changes that can be made in the suggestions put forward in the white paper. That offer still stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in
light of the comment just made by the minister, may I ask whether he and the government will give consideration to the request of the Canadian Council on Social Development that the government recast its family income security plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have also indicated previously that we are reconsidering aspects of the family income security plan, and we continue to welcome suggestions in this area.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the urgency and very obvious difficulty involved, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can now clarify some of the confusion in respect of the air traffic controllers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the investigation to which I referred yesterday, and which I ordered immediately the news items appeared, is still continuing. It not only includes conversations with representatives of the air traffic controllers but also a thorough examination of the procedures we are following in relation to the FAA in the United States. I have two interim memoranda from various officials who have been going into this matter. I realize, of course, that it is impossible for me at this stage to give a totally definitive answer, but I believe that two short excerpts may serve to clear the situation as it is now.
I have been advised that the officials have not been able to find any substance in the allegations in safety report No. 2 that on two occasions aircraft safety was jeopardized. I repeat, they have not been able to find any substance in it.
On another point, it has been established that Boeing 747 performance data and airspace separation data dictated by turbulence criteria were communicated to ATC units in January, 1970, and in fact Boeing 747 aircraft have been making use of Canadian airspace under Canadian control since approximately that date.
One final very brief observation I should like to make, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, is that officials of my department have reported to me that yesterday they asked the executive of the Air Traffic Controllers Association how the committee of consultation was working-I refer to the one I established and announced to the House two years ago-and the air controllers reported that they were quite pleased, that the meetings were much better than they had been in the past.

April 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
I can only say that the three things I put forward now to allay any fears will be followed up and I will make a full report to the House just as soon as the investigation is completed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we welcome that statement but I feel it is hardly enough in view of the many procedural errors and confusion in recent years. May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In order to avoid this type of confusion and the apprehension that arises when this type of error occurs, will the government now consider establishing an independent inquiry into matters of transportation rather than just air transportation alone? The Prime Minister has indicated he is willing to reply to the question in respect of the establishment of an independent inquiry. Perhaps he might be allowed to give us the benefit of his thoughts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not answer immediately because I was consulting with the minister. The answer to the question is no. We feel the situation is under control and there is no interest to be served by stirring it up, as might perhaps be the intention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AIRPORTS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the apparently continuing confusion among the air traffic controllers at the Toronto airport because it would appear that the airport is surrounded by so many housing units, when will we have some information on where the new Toronto airport will be located? The present situation pinpoints the importance of constructing a new airport remote from present highly developed areas.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without trying to shirk answering the question I can say, with respect, that it might more properly at this point be directed to the Minister of Transport for the province of Ontario to whom I have communicated the details of a specific proposal. I am now awaiting a response from him.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the minister's announcement that he has made a single site proposal for a second Toronto region airport to the government of Ontario, I should like to ask when this proposal was made and how long he is giving the province to comment on it before the proposal is made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I did not set any deadline. To the best of my recollection the proposal was made about four weeks ago. The new Premier of Ontario asked
for time to consider it. He wants to consider it himself and have it considered by his colleagues. I should think it reasonable to ask them next week how far they have progressed.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Roberi McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport when a reply will be made as to what steps the government is taking, if any, regarding the eight specific recommendations of the judicial inquiry into the crash of the DC-8 at Malton Airport, Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question and perhaps a supplementary question by the hon. member for Don Valley, and then recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me if I would prepare a report at the time our estimates were being considered by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. This work is being done but because of the Easter recess I must confess I do not know what stage it has reached at this time. I will make some inquiries and get a reply for him as soon as possible.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Does he intend to give a favourable answer to the request made by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that a credit body be created to finance cities and municipalities?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did reply to the mayors and municipalities at the time of their submission and indicated that generally our view was that outside the number of programs we have set up over a period of time to assist in the financing of municipalities, we felt that the basic responsibility was within provincial jurisdiction. Some of the provinces have set up institutions to do the borrowing for their municipalities.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime

April 28, 1971

Minister. Does the government agree with the projection made by the chairman of the Economc Council of Canada that it will take three years for this country to reach full employment calculated on the basis of 4 per cent unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the question.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his commitment to the House that the government's intention in respect of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act would be made known prior to its expiry on April 30, does the government intend to let the act expire on Friday next? Will he give us that assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my promise to the House was that an announcement would be made before the end of the month, and that commitment still stands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At the same time, and prior to the end of the month, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is his intention to accede to the request of the premier of Quebec for permanent legislation, or can he assure the House now that the government is not going to proceed with permanent legislation and that present legislation on the statute books is adequate to deal with any situation which may arise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not my understanding of what the premier of Quebec is requesting. Therefore I cannot answer the hypothetical question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Prime Minister said on March 12, in response to a question, that before the end of April the Parliament of Canada would be seized with this particular matter, is it his intention to limit government action in this matter to a statement only and, if so, will there be two statements, one by the Prime Minister and one by a spokesman for the rest of the cabinet?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and arises out of what the Prime Minister said. Has the premier of the province of Quebec asked for an extension of this act or for permanent legislation? If so, what has been the answer of the Prime Minister and the government to the premier who seems to be waiting for a reply to his letter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the premier is not really as worried as the hon. member. He wrote me several days ago asking what we were going to do. I have had some telephone conversations with him and my understanding of his position now is that he is not necessarily asking for the immediate enactment of further legislation.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Arising from that answer, as the premier is not asking for permanent legislation has he asked for an extension of the present act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding he is not asking this but his statements have been made publicly and he has said nothing different publicly from what he has been telling me privately, and that is that he is not now asking for an extension of the present act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or any other act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Joliette on a supplementary. However, I bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running out of time and a number of members are anxious to ask questions. I would seek the co-operation of the House in relation to supplementaries.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he is prepared to accede to the Quebec government's request concerning this legislation and whether his government is in favour of extending the present legislation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As for my government's position, Mr. Speaker, I have already said a statement will be made in the House before the end of the month. However, it is rather strange that opposition parties, primarily the Progressive Conservative party, have expressed no opinion in this regard. We should be very pleased to know their views, if they have any.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth-Wilmoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the federal government yet prepared to introduce legislation to reform the family allowance system? If so, can the minister assure the House that the legislation will be introduced in time to be enacted by September of this year?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we are welcoming proposals now. We indicated in the white paper that we hoped to have legislation before the House by April, I believe. I do not believe that is possible now, but it is our hope, as expressed, that we will have legislation as soon as possible and as soon as we have had ample opportunity to consider all views.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the co-operation of the hon. member, perhaps the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot might be allowed a supplementary.
5312

April 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jay Waldo Monteith: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I take it then that the legislation will not be enacted in time to have it take effect in September?


John Carr Munro: I do not think that would be possible.
# * *



POLLUTION


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the emphasis presently being directed toward environmental protection, as indicated by the minister's speech in Kamloops on April 24, will the minister indicate whether any funds have been made available for the hiring of students this summer for pollution control work and studies by the Fisheries Research Board?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that key employees of the Department of National Revenue are to be given two-week courses on tax reform, can the minister state if this instruction is based on the principles originally set out in the white paper on tax reform or is it on an amended version?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, any instruction in this regard will come after the bill is before the House.



CANADIAN KENNEL CLUB


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that many complaints are being received that it takes a year or more to obtain registrations, transfers of ownership, and so forth from the Canadian Kennel Club and that this organization seems to be going to the dogs, can the minister advise if any investigation is being made into the operations of the Canadian Kennel Club and is he having his officials oversee their operations and enforce the legislation for which he is responsible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's incisive and biting question should be placed on the order paper.



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
EDMONTON-DECISION ON CONTINUED USE OF INDUSTRIAL AIRPORT BY 737s
Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonlon-Siralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport when a decision will be made by his department in respect of the continued use of the Edmonton industrial airport by 737s.


An hon. Member:: When you are next back in the House.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the decision to which the hon. member refers can be made within the next week or ten days. There is a necessity for consultation with the city of Edmonton on this issue and such talks, which have been going on for some time, will be resumed on Monday, I believe.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. This seems to be his day in the House. My question relates to the study that has been taking place now for several months by the minister and his officials and the premiers and officials of western Canada in connection with the excessively high freight rates prevailing in that region. Can the minister indicate whether this problem is reaching a resolution and, if not, when does he anticipate it wiU?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the matter of freight rates in western Canada or in any part of Canada will never reach what the hon. member calls a resolution, but some easement or improvement of the situation I hope will result from the current talks. As to the timetable, I am afraid I cannot be specific other than to say I hope it will be within a matter of weeks.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he indicate to the House what possibilities there are for Information Canada to lower the prices of books sold to students in order to make it easier for young students who would like to use these books to get information?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secreiary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member directed his question to the wrong minister.
April 28, 1971



FINANCE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to make representations to the government of the United States with regard to the recently announced tightening of their anti-dumping rules which could have a very serious effect on some Canadian businesses?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this question is presently under review in my department. The rules are being looked at.



TRANSPORT


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is like unto a question I asked him on March 23. Are we now able to be assured that the ferry, John Hamilton Gray, will be returned to the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick service in the fall, winter and spring of each year?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply along the lines I did on March 23 and assure the hon. member that this service by the John Hamilton Gray will be preserved during the fall and winter months.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport like unto the first question I asked him after he assumed his portfolio. Can he tell the House when something will be done about straightening up the mess of the small harbours administration on the Pacific coast along the lines of the report of Dr. Tom How?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can only hope soon. There have been some complications with regard to the transfer of authority. As you know, we have been having conversations on the whole matter of port administration. While unfortunately in the past I have had to delay the time of announcement frequently, on this occasion I hope I can say I will be able to make it within a month.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



OIL SPILL AT ANACORTES, WASHINGTON-ACTION TO PROTECT CANADIAN BEACHES

Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Now that it has been established that the oil spill which took place at Anacortes, Washington, yesterday is some 40 times as great as it was reported to be yesterday, what steps has the government taken to prepare for what is now the very likely probability that this oil spill will cross the international boundary and wind up on Canadian beaches?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our task force on the west coast has been alerted, but the oil slick in question is still within United States territorial waters and some considerable distance away from Canadian territory.



FINANCE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has the Department of Finance undertaken to store its computer data on the Canadian economy in data banks in the United States and, if so, is the minister going to make a statement on this subject in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the first question is the type which should be asked at this time, but the minister might indicate whether he is prepared to make a statement on motions, as suggested by the hon. member.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter, but to my knowledge this is not the case.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Are talks again under way between the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, and has the Department of Labour advised the Canadian Wheat Board to develop any contingency plans regarding a possible mid-June strike?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In answer to the latter question, no, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the question whether talks have resumed, the answer is yes. While we are busy setting up a conciliation board as requested, both sides have agreed to resume negotiations and have been negotiating continuously since yesterday.
24081-55J

Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
April 28, 1971



INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF NEW AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES-EFFECTS OF ACT ON NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he now prepared to announce when new agreements with the various provinces will be signed and, in particular, will the agreement with the province of Newfoundland take into account the present discriminatory effects of the Regional Development Incentives Act on that province?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a speech would be needed to answer that question. If the matter deals merely with the renewal of the agreement, I hope that this will be done shortly, but I do not yet have any date in mind.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has already sought the co-operation of hon. members regarding supplementary questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for one supplementary and then call on the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


James Aloysius McGrath: I repeat my original question. When will the new agreements be signed-new, not renewed-and will the agreement with Newfoundland take into account the discriminatory effects on that province of the present Regional Development Incentives Act? It is a very simple question.


Jean Marchand: That is not a simple question, Mr. Speaker. I am not at all ready to say that the department's present programs discriminate against Newfoundland. Therefore, I reject that part of the question and refuse to answer it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who reports on pollution matters and who comes from British Columbia. In connection with the representations being made to the United States regarding the potential pollution threat to British Columbia shores from the carriage of Alaskan oil down the west coast by tanker, is the government giving consideration to renewing its representations to Washington opposing the large underground nuclear tests scheduled to take place in the north Pacific?


John (Jack) Davis: understand the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. However, that question might better be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns to the House shortly.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question either to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of National Revenue, whichever one sees fit to answer it. Have any key employees of the Department of National Revenue been transferred to Ottawa for training courses with regard to changes in income tax in anticipation of the introduction of such changes by the Minister of Finance? Will these officials then be sent to various centres across the country to teach other officials, and to what extent have they been given instructions to follow the proposals set out in the white paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, plans are being made to train staff once the bill is made public and also when the decisions of the House are available. So far as the exact timing of this work is concerned, I would be happy to inform myself further and then advise the hon. member.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Are officials of his department carrying on ecological studies of the St. James project and, if not, why not? If so, will he assure the House that there will be a statement made in the House that no adverse affects will occur to the St. James area if certain developments proceed?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries and answer the hon. gentleman as soon as I get a reply.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State about another question I asked the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday.
The National Film Board made the motion picture "On est au coton" in Magog, Coaticook and Sherbrooke, about the problem of textile products. Since the showing of the film has been delayed, I would like to ask the hon. Secretary of State if it is true that some members of his staff have seen the film which would have been forbidden or censured because of its content?
[Mr. Mackasey.l
April 28, 1971


Gérard Pelletier: I am not
aware, Mr. Speaker, of any preview of this movie by anyone from my office. I do know, however, that the distribution of this movie has been withheld by National Film Board authorities who have taken this decision on their own. I do not know whether this is a final or temporary decision, but I know that it has been taken by the authorities of the Board.


WHEAT-PROPOSED ACREAGE PAYMENT-AVAILABILITY TO PRODUCERS WHO FAILED TO OBTAIN PERMIT BOOKS
Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It is in regard to the proposed acreage payment of $1.40 per cultivated acre as shown on last year's permit books of the producers. Will the minister ensure that there is no discrimination against those grain producers who, for different reasons, failed to take out permit books last year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which will soon be before the House indicates eligibility for payments for permit-holders who had their permits by March 1.


Harry Andrew Moore: Would the minister not agree that a different basis could be used, because is it not true that there is no law which says that a producer must take out a permit book?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's supplementary is in the form of an argument and a submission.


RAPESEED-RELEASE OF OILSEEDS COMMITTEE REPORTS ON STUDY TO INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether the reports on the rapeseed study undertaken by the oilseeds committee set up under his department, or parts of those reports, have been released to any individuals or organizations other than to the members of the committee?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can he tell us whether new funds will be allocated for the Opportuniites for Youth program this summer?

I would also like to ask him whether all applications have been processed now, and whether late applications are still being considered?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet able to answer the first question. In reply to the second, I must say that what projects are now reaching us are late. It may be that they will be considered, but this is not a certainty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. However, the hon. member for Battle River has been trying to ask supplementaries on a couple of occasions. Perhaps he might be allowed to ask one supplementary, after which the Chair will call orders of the day.


WHEAT-PROPOSED ACREAGE PAYMENT-AVAILABILITY TO PRODUCERS WHO FAILED TO OBTAIN PERMIT BOOKS-APPEAL PROVISION
Mr. Cliff Downey (Bailie River):: My question is supplementary to the one the hon. member for Wetaskiwin asked of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It concerns the possibility of an appeals provision being established in regard to the matter of qualification for the stabilization fund payments of producers who, in the past, have not had occasion to have permit books and who have been growing grain but in effect have been feeding it to livestock. Will an appeals procedure be set up for them?


Otto Emil Lang: None is anticipated. I think it should be understood that the transitional payment is related to the stabiliza.ion fund which itself will be related to the marketing opportunities for grain, and therefore it is intended for those producers who are in the grain selling business.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Otto Emil Lang: Not as far as I know, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore on a point of order.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASES IN AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED-PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, based on the reply given to my question by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. He indicated that funds would be made available for the summer training of students by the Fisheries Research Board. I have evidence before me which indicates that no funds have been made available for this type of training, and I would ask the minister to clarify this situation so that students-

April 28, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that a supplementary question might be asked tomorrow. I bring to his attention that a number of hon. members did not have an opportunity to ask their questions. Perhaps the hon. member might be given priority tomorrow to raise this matter by way of an original question.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackasey that Bill C-228, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it understood that the minister's being called now will close the debate? I believe there was discussion in the House yesterday with regard to this matter. If there is no further discussion on the point, and the minister speaks now, he will close the debate. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to thank the members of the opposition for permitting me to close the debate at this time in order that we may go on to other legislation before six o'clock.
As is customary with legislation dealing with labour, Mr. Speaker, the debate has been marked by very constructive criticism of changes and additions to the Labour (Standards) Code as well as suggestions on how the bill could be improved at the committee stage. It has been noted by most speakers that while the bill does not amend or change to any great extent the standards that are incorporated in the present legislation, nevertheless in many areas the proposed changes are breaking new ground in this country.
I might recall for members who have not been present during the debate of the last couple of days that for the first time in the federal field we will be providing for severance pay, group termination, individual notice, maternity leave, equal pay for similar work and protection for workers against loss of employment as a result of garnishment of their wages. The differences of opinion, which were valid, of course, did not centre on whether we should include those features in the legislation which the House is being asked to adopt in principle but whether the changes proposed go far enough.
There has been criticism of the whole approach of the government to labour and I am not certain that these criticisms were expressed at the proper time on second reading. I might remind the House once again that a
companion piece of legislation will be introduced later in the session which will deal with industrial relations; that is, it will deal exclusively with what we tend to call the organized sector of labour.
As I mentioned earlier in the debate, I think we all too frequently forget that approximately 60 per cent of the work force in Canada, and certainly more than 50 per cent in the federal field, is made up of workers who for the most part depend upon the standards and mini-mums-I emphasize the word "minimums"-that are introduced and passed in this House, rather than upon trade unions, craft unions or any other form of protection at the bargaining table.
In other words, the minimum wage, hours of work, conditions for drawing overtime and all the new provisions that I mentioned are now available to people in the unorganized sector of the economy as a result of leg sla-tion and not as a result of collective bargaining. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that the standards we are introducing and the standards we are amending, particularly in the minimum wage area, are meant to be precisely that-standards and minimums. It is not the intent as a general principle to run ahead of collective bargaining because that would be very unfair to the employer and to some degree unfair to those employees who do have the right to bargain collectively for conditions of employment.
There was some talk yesterday, Mr. Speaker, of the effect the minimum wage could have on our export position, but I have been unable to trace any such effect. As a matter of fact, in preparing this bill and in preparing myself for debate on various occasions, not only in this House but elsewhere, and considering the effect the minimum wage would have on the economy through the work force and its possible effect on employers and industry, I have been surprised, and disenchanted to some degree, at the lack of material available on the effect not only of the minimum wage but of termination, individual notice, and so forth.
There has been mention of the textile industry. Speaking for myself and not necessarily the government, I agree with the concept raised by some members of the House that labour should not resist technological change. I have always been an advocate of the concept that for our industries to remain competitive in the export field, labour and management must accept technological change, innovation and new methods of automation. While these may have the short-term effect of reducing a particular work force, in my opinion the end result is a more competitive industry. The studies which I have read, which are available in any library, indicate that our real competition in the textile industry-Japan and Korea-stems not primarily and exclusively from inexpensive labour in those countries but, rather, because these countries have taken advantage of the latest technology.
Having said that, and recognized that labour is on shaky ground in rejecting technological change, I think employers are also on shaky ground when asking labour to accept technological change for the good of the coun-

April 28, 1971

try, for the good of their children and grandchildren because change sometimes prevents the disappearance of an industry. I think employers should be prepared to minimize the effects of technological change and to give labour as much advance notice as possible of its introduction, with an opportunity to appreciate the end result. Labour should have a voice in the decision-making when technological change is to be introduced.
I was not aware of the effects on our Unemployment Insurance Department a year or two ago when it was found necessary to introduce computers into the operation because of the workload resulting from an increased work force. At first glance it meant the elimination of 800 jobs. But when I insisted, quite properly, as the minister charged with the basic responsibility in this area that positions be found for these 800 people, positions were found because the officials realized that they had to help in retraining those people on the job and to look after them in the sense that they had to be reclassified and helped with mobility grants. As the result of a little hard work and co-operation on the part of the work staff, all 800 people were absorbed by the unemployment insurance staff. When we reorganized our unemployment insurance structure in the future in order to improve the service to the people of this country, I hope this again will be the pattern-that we will not reduce our over-all strength but, on the contrary, we will probably add to it.
Without delving too deeply into the philosophy of minimum wages may I say that according to studies I have undertaken increased minimum wages, at one time or another, force companies into making bad decisions. They must decide on occasion whether they will pay increased minimum wages and remain inefficient, or reduce the work staff and introduce a greater degree of automation, thus placing their industry in a more competitive position. The result may be that the company concerned not only may remain in business but may expand its business. This is the concept I have alluded to and essentially I think it is an honest one.
May I say at this point that I agree that labour ought to accept technological change. I also believe that management has a responsibility to consult and negotiate, when it has arrived at a decision to introduce technological change, with the representatives of the work force and as a result of the ready acceptance of technological change labour may be redistributed, absorbed elsewhere or in some cases reduced. I think companies which have adopted this realistic approach have in most instances found labour to be very receptive and co-operative and I think the end results have been encouraging.
In going through some of the research material relating to the effects that minimum wages have on certain labour-intensive industries we usually find that one of several things happens. Surprisingly, one effect of the minimum wage is that it brings about greatly increased managerial competence, which results in higher productivity. Higher productivity makes it easy for the employer to accept or absorb the increased minimum wage. I am
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
talking about industries which have traditionally depended upon inexpensive labour for their survival.
The increase in the minimum wage is quite often offset by increased managerial responsibility and efficiency. This usually results in increased productivity. Sometimes it results in a conscious decision on the part of management to automate plant in order to make it more efficient. As a result, the work force may be reduced temporarily but the economy is better off. In short, I have very little sympathy for businesses which are able to exist simply because there is a pool of cheap labour at their disposal. You will usually find that these industries hide behind high tariff walls. That is unfair to some parts of the country and does not strengthen our position as an exporting nation.
I am sure that when we get to the committee stage there will be the usual well-meaning amendments suggesting 1hat the minimum wage be increased beyond the proposed $1.75. Perhaps what I am about to say will contradict what I have said previously. Having said, on the one hand, a minimum wage is most beneficial, I am also saying paradoxically that in increasing minimum wages in a federal state such as this I must be conscious of the effect that action will have on all the provinces. Our minimum wage law affects industries under federal jurisdiction that can better afford to pay the new, higher minimum wage than other industries. Here I am thinking of chartered banks, radio and television stations, trucking and industries like that. I am therefore not unmindful of the problems of the provinces.
It has been suggested that I am interested in raising the minimum wage because I want to become more popular. I suppose if I were to follow the logic of that argument I could become even more popular by bringing forward a minimum wage of $2, $2.25 or even $2.50 as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has been suggesting. I have a sense of responsibility which prompts me to take into consideration the problems of the provinces, particularly the Atlantic provinces where many small communities still engage in labour-intensive industries. Those industries do not lend themselves easily to automated methods of production or to technological change.
While I might like to see the minimum wage raised to $2, $2.25 or even $2.50 an hour if we were legislating in isolation from the other ten jurisdictions, nevertheless that cannot be done. I feel responsible for what happens in the provinces and I have a responsibility to the Ministers of Labour of the provinces-this has nothing to do with political backgrounds-not to distort beyond a reasonable limit wage patterns in industry. In other words, although traditionally industries under federal jurisdiction have paid higher minimum wages than in other industries, we do not want to go ahead so far ahead of the pack as to create embarrassing problems for some communities. That has been the experience in Manitoba. I do not wish to deal too stringently with the things that province has done because the debate so far has been moderate.
The government of Manitoba was elected because of its pro-labour concepts and its concern for people. Neverthe-

April 28, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
less, that province has had to set its minimum wage at a realistic level. They set it on the high side, which brought about the very real possibility that industries might move from Manitoba to other provinces where the minimum wage is considerably lower or where the distribution of goods is easier than in Manitoba. It is Utopian to set the minimum wage at $2, $2.25 or $2.50 an hour, but one cannot do that realistically and one must take into account the particular problems of each province.
Having said that, I am pleased to say that our minimum wage legislation has had the effect of forcing some of the more conservative members of the business community- I spell conservative with a small "c"-to realize that the minimum wage is really an instrument that can be used in the alleviation of poverty. It has been properly pointed out that you do not get rich if you are paid the minimum wage and it is very difficult, no matter how thrifty you are, to accumulate savings on a wage of $50 a week. Frequently wages paid are so low that people cannot live on them. Low wage rates encourage inefficient businesses and the continuation of cheap labour for certain employers. By permitting low wages we are really subsidizing those employers because their employees, not being able to live on their wages, need help which is often given in the form of supplements of some kind or welfare. Thus the taxpayer is made to subsidize those employers. In this way we are indirectly subsidizing inefficient management and underpaid labour.
Having said this, I propose that we stick to the minimum wage of $1.75 despite the eloquent arguments which have been advanced from all parties, including my own, for the minimum wage to be set at $2. The cost of any increase must be considered. A ten-cent increase in the minimum wage will bring about an additional cost of $2 million. To raise the minimum wage to $2 an hour would cost about $20 million. In reality we are proposing to increase the minimum wage from $1.25 to $1.75 in two stages and in a rather short period of time. On July 1 last the minimum wage was $1.25 and soon it will be $1.75.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Would he indicate whether the cost figures he referred to just now represent the cost to society as a whole or the cost to the government?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, speaking subject to correction because I do not have the figures in front of me, it is anticipated that this would be the increased cost to employers who would be asked to absorb the increase in the minimum wage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mostly private employers.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I have no particular brief for chartered banks, radio or television stations. If I have any reluctance to increase the minimum wage to more than the $1.75 it is because I am not unaware of the problems of the provinces, includ-

ing the province of Manitoba, which at some point become realistic and appreciate the effects of minimum wages. Certain provinces may have many labour-incentive industries.
We discussed methods of an adjusting formula. At one time I said, when bringing in the minimum wage of $1.65, that I was hopeful of finding a suitable formula. We can discuss in the committee an acceptable formula that will not be too rigid. The problem is that these formulas have a tendency to work in two directions. Despite the amount of research and effort we in the department have put into it, we have yet to come up with a suitable formula. We have made it possible for the Governor in Council to make increases on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour to his colleagues. Some people have quite properly and gently pointed out the political ramifications of the power given to the Minister of Labour through the Governor in Council to increase the minimum wage a month before an election. I will be quite prepared to accept an amendment at the committee stage which will limit the amount I could increase it by, if someone from the opposition would like to introduce such a formula into the bill.
I will deal very briefly with the hours of work because this is one of the areas where there is a legitimate difference of opinion. This is one of the provisions in the old labour code. Part I basically states the concept that nobody in Canada should work more than 40 hours a week, and if he is obliged to work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week he should draw time and a half. That is a basic concept which I endorse and a philosophy which most people in my party endorse.
Employees can work as many as 48 hours a week without being in violation of the code. The problem is in particular industries-the running trades, the field of transportation, railways, shipping and airline industries. While this concept is Utopian and desirable, it is not practical. It is all right for members opposite to say that the code should be rigidly enforced. The first people who would complain if the code were rigidly enforced would be the trade unions of this country. I know this from representations which they have made.
What we are proposing to do with the new code is introduce a large degree of flexibility, as mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) in his very useful contribution. This bill will permit me for the first time to treat one segment of an industry different from another. In other words, there is no real logic in the shop crafts in the railways not being protected by this basic philosophy of eight hours a day, 40 hours a week. Their pattern is fairly uniform. This is true of a mechanic in the trucking industry who goes to work at eight o'clock and comes home at four or five o'clock, depending on the work pattern. There is no reason why the code should not be stringently enforced in these areas. Because it is virtually impossible to apply the code so narrowly in other areas of the trucking industry we have been unable to apply the code in those areas where it makes sense. The built-in flexibility in the bill will permit me to do precisely that.
April 28, 1971

One of the aggravations of the Minister of Labour, as was quite properly pointed out yesterday by members of the New Democratic Party, is that I seem to spend all my time signing exemptions from the code. After one more inquiry in each industry we propose to set up practical standards for the industry, that is, practical in the sense that if 60 hours is practical, then after representations from employees and employers this will become the standard of that segment of the industry where it makes sense. We must remember, of course, the necessity and importance of the companion piece of legislation, the safety code, where regulations are finally coming to completion after much prodding by interested members opposite.
We have to weigh the number of hours we will permit the transportation field, the trucking industry, to work. We have to couple this with the responsibility to society to make sure that a driver is working under the safest conditions and not running on pep pills or falling asleep at the wheel. The two must be balanced. Under the proposed legislation, which we can discuss in greater detail in committee, this will now be practical. This meets with the approval of the strong unions. I use the word "strong" numerically.
If one looks at the latest representations made by the association representing the railway employees he will see that on one page they recommend complete endorsa-tion of the code and on the next page they say, "But we don't want it applied here". In other words, they would like to have their cake and eat it too. Any member who says that we should limit everyone's work week to 40 hours a week, eight hours a day, is not being realistic. I hate to say this. It may be desirable but it is not realistic. Nevertheless, the introduction of the code in 1965 and the adoption of the basic princ pie by this House has been good. In every industry, with one or two exceptions, we have been able to move from the practice that prevailed in 1965 to a much more enlightened and realistic position in 1971. In the airline, shipping and trucking industries we have been able to reduce the number of hours a person can work without sleep, etc. Rather than the exercise being considered futile, it has been very useful.
There have been many favourabe comments about the concept of equal pay for similar work. Some members more knowledgeable than I, know that legislation introduced in the late fifties attempted to do this. The weakness in that legislation was that the onus was on the alleged aggrieved person to instigate an investigation. Few people were that brave, especially when jobs for women were, and still are, scarce in many industries. Women were reluctant to bring to the attention of the department a formal complaint of alleged discrimination in the field of equal pay for equal work. This will now be rectified. That act will be eliminated and this facet of labour legislation will be introduced into the code.
The basic change will be the added responsibility assumed by our inspectors. They now visit employers under federal jurisdiction and check on wages, hours of work and other features of the code. They will have the added responsibility and duty of digging out these forms of discrimination as indicated by the payroll. By using
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
the term "similar work" we are reducing the possibility of the odd reactionary employer to circumvent the law by saying that the work done by females is not quite equal.
Some hon. members delved into the area of general discrimination against women in the work force. This is more properly treated under the fair employment practices bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is nodding his head, recognizing his own contribution about the possibility of discrimination in an industry predominantly male or female. He was in reality talking about the provisions that should be included in the fair employment practices bill which will be before the House perhaps this fall and certainly no later than next spring. It will be a companion piece of legislation. The two pieces of legislation cover equal pay for similar work, which will be in the present code, and the fair employment practices bill which will eliminate discrimination practiced against anybody, not just women, discrimination against race, colour, creed or sex.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As long as you
are working on it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The government is working very hard on it. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) referred to the question of public servants. In our department we are working very closely with the appropriate minister and officials in the public service to make certain that this change in the labour code and the present fair employment practices act is applied a little more assiduously and with a little more vigour than has been the case in the public service in the past. As has been mentioned in the debate, Mr. Carson and others who are knowledgeable of the public service have admitted that perhaps we have not been as assiduous as we should have been, but if any of them are listening now they may take my word that we intend to increase our activities in this field and make sure there is no discrimination being practiced in the public service, at least in those areas over which we have jurisdiction.
I do not intend to get into a discussion on equal pay. We can do this when we get to committee. As to the question of annual vacation, let me say I never ridicule the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We admit that his suggestions are based, usually, on his convictions and they are usually reflected in the private bills he has brought into the House for many years. He has urged that rather than make provision for two weeks' holiday after five years' employment, the figure should be increased to three weeks. This sounds like a very simple change, but I have approached the whole concept of standards in its relation to the organized sector of the work force.
I happen to be one who thinks this country would be better off if more of the work force were unionized, and for this reason I am not anxious for labour standards to destroy collective agreements or run ahead of the results of collective bargaining. A study of collective agreements carried out by our research branch discloses that less
5320

April 28, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code than 25 per cent of the workers covered by such agreements are entitled to three weeks' holiday after five years. If we were to introduce such a requirement across the board we would be destroying collective bargaining.
Those who understand the collective bargaining process know that a group will often settle for two weeks' holiday rather than three weeks or four weeks in return for something they believe to be more beneficial, perhaps better sick leave arrangements or higher rates of pay. Nothing in a collective agreement can be studied in isolation, so I am reluctant to accept an amendment such as the hon. member proposed, for the reason that it runs contrary to provisions in many of the collective agreements. Moreover, the whole bill is based on minimum standards. The same is true of general holidays, although I am not convinced I am on as good a ground statistically here as I am in connection with the three weeks' holiday proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So we can
count on your support on that one.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not say that. It is just that my mind is a little more open on that one. The concept of maternity leave has been well accepted by everybody in the House. Again, it fits in nicely with the proposal in Bill C-229 amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. The period of time, 17 weeks, is of course identical with the provision made in the Unemployment Insurance legislation when one counts the two weeks' waiting period and 15 weeks' insurance.
The proposal here is that the employer be obliged to provide maternity leave for 17 weeks. This is one of the reasons we are definite about the way in which those 17 weeks are to be made up. Some speakers have suggested the arrangement ought not to be so rigid. We are not providing a holiday. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act we are interested in providing income to more than one million women in the work force who work because they have to work, because their wage or salary means the difference between poverty and a decent income.
Here we are seeking to provide maximum protection for the mother and the child. We would be defeating that purpose if we allowed a woman to determine herself how the 17 weeks should be broken up-whether it should be two weeks before confinement and 15 weeks after, or whether it should be 15 weeks before confinement and two weeks after, for example. The studies which have come out of the ILO, carried out in conjunction with the medical profession, indicate that the ideal circumstances for people in general-not, of course, for every individual-are those provided in the formula we have proposed, that is, the nine weeks and the six weeks. Of course, we have added two extra weeks so as to be consistent with the provisions of the unemployment insurance legislation. We cannot leave it up to the mother to decide how these 17 weeks should be broken up if we are to be consistent in our concern for her health and the health of what one might call the new addition.
One of the areas in which I found a real scarcity of information and research involved the question of group
termination. I do not intend to take too long discussing this question. One document which I would recommend to all hon. members who are interested in the subject is a document which was published recently by the research department of the Western Business School and the Ontario Department of Labour. To my surprise-this shows I do not know everything-I find it was financed in part by the federal Department of Labour. It is worthwhile reading.
What these researchers have done is to study objectively the effect advance notice had on a particular group of employees in London, Ontario. Hon. members may recall the decision by Kelvinator to cease operations in Canada entirely. Advance notice was given and there was also severance pay. One of the conditions of receiving it was that workers were to remain on the job despite the fact that advance notice had been given. In the event, the workers did stay on the job in order to get the severance pay.
I shall not even read the conclusion of the report because it would take too long, but summarized very briefly the conclusion was-and this is substantiated by similar studies undertaken in the United States-that advance notice is really meaningful provided the full services of federal and provincial manpower departments and other agencies are given an opportunity to take effect. The irony of this is that the unions, despite many of their statements, are hardly progressive in this field. They failed in this case to co-operate with the departments of manpower, federal or provincial, in the attempt to find work for those affected during the advance period, or to arrange for retraining.
I would appreciate it if some of the labour critics in the House would look at this short but important study. It would indicate that measures to deal with the results of group termination of employment are much more effective if both sides involved, management and employees, accept the services of the proper agencies in order that the people concerned may find new jobs more easily.
One of the sections of the report speaks of the hardship caused by shutdowns of this type to a predictable group of people in the work force, persons over 50, persons whose skills are no longer required. They are virtually paralyzed, without any real chance of being reabsorbed into the work force. This means that the government must assume its responsibility-as I think we have in the case of the textile industry to a limited degree-to provide some income for those who are out of work often for reasons over which they have no control, perhaps as a result of a decision by a corporation whose headquarters are a thousand miles away to close down a branch plant in this country. There has been legitimate criticism with regard to the amendment specifying 50 employees. I believe that in the course of honest discussion during the committee stage we could perhaps vary the figure in such a way as to relate it to the size of the community in which a lay-off takes place. I am flexible in this area and look forward to the observations of hon. members.

April 28, 1971

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) made a very effective speech yesterday. He was a little concerned, as he had the right to be, about the powers at my disposal through the regulations made pursuant to the bill. I have just outlined one of the reasons I need these regulations, in order to make these provisions as flexible as possible-not to help the employer but to make the bill as practicable as possible, something that perhaps was not provided for in 1965.
With regard to individual termination, I think the two weeks that we have suggested is quite in order with private bills that I have studied and quite in order with the findings of the study to which I have made reference, and is sufficient advance notice to enable Manpower to look after the problems of one individual. Taken in conjunction with the provisions of holiday and severance pay, the period is certainly long enough and pretty much in line with the provisions in collective agreements.
Severance pay provisions have been criticized because some hon. members felt they did not go far enough. I suppose such criticism is logical in that in the eyes of some people we never go far enough. I do not mean this sarcastically, but the important thing here is not so much that the provisions do not go far enough but that we have them at all. To the best of my knowledge this is the only Labour (Standards) Code in North America that includes provisions relating to severance pay. So that while hon. members may say the five-year qualifying period is too long, or that the provision of two days' pay for every year's service is insufficient, the fact remains that we have broken new ground with this piece of legislation and we can study it again in depth in committee.
Finally, in discussing garnishment, there is no use belabouring the point. I suppose the general feeling in the House is that in all probability we should have made provision for this a long time ago. I understand that more than one suggestion has been made that another minister look at the concept of garnisheeing wages with a view perhaps to obliterating this social evil entirely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question so as to make clear one point that has not been referred to at all in the course of this debate? In view of the fact that the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, which were tabled a few days ago by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) include a consolidation of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, ihe Canada Labour (Safety) Code, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and three or four other labour acts into one massive statute called the Canada Labour Code, may we assume that at the end of the process this bill will in fact amend that consolidated Canada Labour Code?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to assume anything. The hon. gentleman is asking me a question regarding an area he is much more knowledgeable about than f am. This could be the end result and I might
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill presume that the question is really the answer. I can find out if I can enlighten the House.
Yesterday one hon. member on this side made a contribution in the wrong debate. I do not endorse anything he said. The hon. member said we had no labour policy in this House. Our policy is one of fair play to all Canadians no matter whether they are in the work force or on the employer's side. I am prepared to debate this with my colleague when the appropriate piece of legislation is before the House later this session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 27, consideration of Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Horner).
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to resume the remarks he was making last evening in connection with the motion now before the House, I might make some brief remarks in connection with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Crowfoot in regard to the possible grouping of the motions.
The hon. member suggested that motions Nos. 1, 5 and 22 be grouped as one and that debate on motion No. 1 cover at the same time motions Nos. 5 and 22. Though it had not appeared to the Chair originally that this might be the logical way to debate the matter, on reconsideration and after studying the argument made by the hon. member last evening this would appear to be a reasonable suggestion and I can see no objection to the grouping suggested by the hon. member for Crowfoot. I believe he also suggested that there be a separate vote on each motion, and with that the Chair is prepared to agree.
It has also been brought to my attention that it has been suggested that motion No. 26 not be grouped with motions Nos. 24 and 25, as had been proposed by the Chair. Again, I would think that this suggestion would be a reasonable one and that motions Nos. 24 and 25 which stand in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot be considered as one, that motion No. 26, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) be considered separately, and that there be separate votes on each of these three motions.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicating that he would like to comment on this suggestion of the Chair and I will recognize him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,
my comment is very brief. I simply wish to say that with the change Your Honour has suggested regarding motion
24081-56a

April 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill No. 26, the entire line-up of these 30 motions which you have set out meets with our approval.


Mr. Speaker:: Then that is agreed and so ordered. I might suggest to the House that the voting procedures will have to be changed in that motions Nos. 5 and 22 will have to be called with the first group of motions on which there will be divisions. It had been suggested by the Chair that the vote on motions Nos. 5 and 22 be taken later. Are hon. members agreeable to this suggestion?


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I do not know whether it ought to be raised now or when we reach motion No. 9. On reading Hansard I noted that the comment was made that all of the amendments were considered to be in order with the exception that some reservation was expressed about motion No. 30. I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention that motion No. 9 was in fact moved in the committee and declared to be out of order because it exceeded the recommendation of the Governor General. I wonder whether you would take that point into consideration in deciding whether motion No. 9 is in order here.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister recognizes, of course, that the Chair is not bound by a ruling which may have been made in committee. If when motion No. 9 is reached the minister wishes to raise this point, he can reserve the right at this time to raise it by way of a point of order and the decision might then be taken whether the motion should be put and debated. For the moment the Chair is required, under the rules, to put motions Nos. 5 and 22, which are to be considered together with motion No. 1.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) moves motion No. 5 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 paragraph (ii) of subclause (g) of clause 2 at page 3.
The motion will, of course, be put later. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) also moves motion No. 22 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 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.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks last evening I drew attention to the fact that I did not want to proceed with this item at a time when neither the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) nor the chairman of the agricultural committee were in attendance. I felt an important bill such as this should not be proceeded with unless one of the authorities responsible

for bringing it before the House was present to take part in the debate or to at least listen to the remarks of hon. members.
One hears a great deal about Bill C-176, particularly that it is an all-powerful piece of legislation which takes much of the decision-making from the farmers and gives it to the government. It is interesting to note what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a Liberal party meeting back in 1963. He said that power is what they are interested in. The only kick allowed is that which comes from a donkey. Some say it does not matter. He also said at that time: Say anything and think anything you like, but put us in power because we are best suited to govern.
As a result of this bill in the name of the Minister of Agriculture it is interesting to note how quickly the Prime Minister has changed from an NDP supporter to a Liberal supporter. He wants power and he does not want anybody to interfere with this power. When the Minister of Agriculture attempted to interfere by removing cattle from the coverage of this bill he was not allowed to do so because the Prime Minister did not want it. Last night I referred to proceedings No. 7 of the committee, page 18, where the minister is reported as having said:
On September 16, 1970, I quote:
12.	The first ministers also considered current problems which were being encountered in the interprovincial marketing of certain agricultural products.
13.	The conference received a report that Bill C-197, the farm products marketing agencies bill which is at present before Parliament, would enable national marketing boards to be established which could help to meet the marketing problems being encountered. It was noted that the bill would provide for delegation of both federal and provincial authority to the marketing boards. It was observed also that while Bill C-197 had been generally agreed to by provincial Ministers of Agriculture, the federal government was ready at this time to consider suggestions which provinces might wish to offer for amendments to the bill. It was the consensus also that it would be appropriate for the bill to exclude beef cattle from the jurisdiction of such marketing agencies.
I emphasize these words to make it abundantly clear that the provinces agreed to this bill under certain conditions. One of the conditions was that cattle would be excluded. In my amendment I suggest that all products be excluded from the provisions of legislation until such time as the provinces agree. This would then in a true sense be enabling legislation: it would be there for use only if the producers wanted to use it.
The Prime Minister stated quite clearly in his Winnipeg speech that there must be agreement with the province regarding jurisdiction in marketing under this legislative proposal. There is no unanimity by the provinces regarding this bill. Representatives of Newfoundland informed the committee that this bill was ultra vires and they wanted no part of it. Mr. Thatcher said that so long as he was in office in Saskatchewan no part of Bill C-176 would be used in that province. Mr. Strom of Alberta suggested that red meat should be excluded from the bill. Manitoba is taking the whole matter to the Supreme Court of Canada which has now agreed to hear the case, and other governments have until May 21 to file their arguments in support of Manitoba's case.
April 28, 1971


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In other words then it may not be all that permissive.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well it is permissive to the extent that I have explained previously.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, to the extent that you have explained previously, but not completely permissive. If a province does not want to go in, it may well be affected by others going in.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, quite obviously if a number of provinces agreed to a national marketing plan to regulate the product within that region that some other region could not be expected to have complete free access to that market outside of the marketing agency.
In other words, he admits that if an agency is set up to encompass a portion of Canada, then the produce from the unregulated area cannot move into another area. This immediately sets up regions within Canada. As recorded at page 67 of committee proceedings No. 35, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who was pursuing a certain line of questioning the minister said:
Mr. Chairman, the provisions for what Mr. Mazankowski has raised are provided in clause 18 which is, indeed, the contents of the proclamation establishing an agency and giving that agency the powers by an act of the Governor in Council. Of course, if every province in Canada wants an iron-clad guarantee that they can opt out of the plan if a plan is in effect and still sell all of their products into any other part of Canada without any obstruction at all is the position that they would be in in the event that no province had any marketing legislation. We know that the situation is that the provinces have and some of them are exercising their authority very severely now.
He is quite correct. The report continues:


Mr. Mazankowski:: Is it constitutional, though?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course, that is an argument that the courts will decide.
He immediately admits that the courts must decide this question. Why are we occupying time in the agricultural committee and in this House on a matter which will be decided by the courts? I understand the arguments have to be filed by May 21. We should not be proceeding with this matter. We all know there has been a great deal of debate on this bill. What does the report of the agricultural task force say about this? This passage appears at page 320:
One posible kind of national marketing board is a national producer-controlled agency created by provincial marketing boards.
This is exactly what this bill attempts to do. The report goes on to give an explanation of how it might work:
A formula might be devised to share expansion in each provincial market, perhaps according to growth in population or to give greater self-sufficiency provincially.

April 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
It continues:
Economically, this system is likely to be a disaster. Balkaniz-ing the economy into ten sub-economies and preventing the shift of production to those areas in which it can be carried out most cheaply and most profitably.
This is a very interesting statement. This is exactly what the bill is doing: it will balkanize the country and create regions and barriers within the country. It is interesting to note what the newspapers have to say. Here is an item which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press Weekly of February 13. The headline reads: "C-176 not for producers". Here is another in the Western Producer of February 11: "Western groups list objections to national marketing bill terms". The article lists the number of people who are opposed. The Manitoba Cooperator states that Bill C-176 in its present form is a document that could perpetuate and accentuate regional differences and destroy the basic economy of Manitoba. What did the minister say at Purdue University, Indiana? 1 have here an editorial which appeared in the Country Guide for April, 1971. It reads as follows:
Federal agricultural minister H. A. "Bud" Olson, speaking at a meeting at Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind.: "Reduced to its simplest terms, the legislation would allow provincial marketing agencies to delegate their powers to a national agency. By the same token, the federal government could delegate its authority, including the power to control trade between provinces, to the national agency.
Is the province of Quebec prepared to delegate its power to a national agency? Is Bill Stewart, the Minister of Agriculture, prepared to delegate his power to a national agency over which he has no control? I doubt it very much. Today we see the provinces trying to protect that which is theirs. The national government, under this power-hungry Prime Minister, is seeking more and more power: the Minister of Agriculture admits it in this article.
Is the federal government really delegating its power to a national agency? It is not. It is appointing the national agency, so, actually the agency is part and parcel of the federal government. Therefore, the federal government really is not delegating its power, but the provincial governments will be delegating their power. If in June the Supreme Court should uphold the Manitoba case to the effect that there shall be free trade in Canada and that no province can interfere with it, there will not be one province which will agree with this bill. Why should they? Their trade would then move and no one could interfere with it. I say this bill should be held up and not debated until we know exactly the situation in respect of interprovincial trade. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East had something to say about this as recorded in the Canadian Poultry man for January, 1971. He said:
The government presented a poorly-drafted bill.
Never was a truer word spoken by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. The article continues:
The producers have succeeded in preventing more comprehensive amendments.
The matter is being discussed in the courts and by people all across Canada. It is being discussed by the

apple growers in British Columbia and by the apple growers in Nova Scotia. The bill should be held up until the whole question is settled. I have endeavoured to understand the government persistence. As I said earlier, the only rationalization I can find for the government's persistence in this regard is that it wants power: power is the only thing the Prime Minister and the government want. He is now a full member of the Liberal party as he saw it in 1963-power-hungry, reaching out for more power and taking power from the provinces through this legislation under the guise that he will then regulate everything. It is something like a farmer telling his son, "I will give you no money. Leave all the money with me and I will dole it out wisely." This never satisfies the son. When the provinces really understand this legislation they will not be satisfied with it either.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill C-176, particularly on the first amendment that has been moved following its return to the House from the standing committee. However, I am in a bit of a quandary because it seems to me there were assertions made about motives and that sort of things respecting certain witnesses, and indeed certain hon. members, in connection with things which it is suggested took place during the committee hearings.
I am not sure whether it is appropriate for members of the House to reflect on what has taken place in committee, particularly in that respect, because if this is to be a practice that is undertaken by some committees I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would agree it is open to all members of the House to take the same position with respect to that kind of procedure. I am not raising a point of order about it now, but I take it from the comments made that we will probably get into that situation and I think it will be regrettable if we do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the committee proceedings, the committee
studied a bill and its proceedings then became available to all members of the House. Many hon. members may have wished to take part in the debate in the committee but were not able to do so because of prior allotment of their time to other committees. Therefore it behooves me to suggest that what the minister is saying would disallow discussion on what took place in the committee. Surely it is the duty of committee members to enlighten all members of the House on what went on in the committee and the arguments raised in the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has completely missed the point. I think it is one of the longstanding rules of the House that no member may reflect on the vote or indeed on the motives of any other hon. member, whether the member was voting in the House or in committee. But in any event I am not going to raise a fuss-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret interrupting the minister, and I know he did not raise this as a
April 28, 1971

point of order. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer), and both hon. members have indicated some concern. Frankly, the Chair was not very concerned about the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot because I do not think that in them there was a reflection on decisions made by hon. members in committee or a reflection on the motives of hon. members. If such had been the case, I think the hon. member for Crowfoot would have been out of order. My impression was that he made some comments on the evidence given to the committee and I think he was generally in order. I thank the minister for raising this point and I know hon. members will wish to keep it very much in mind.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has received very extensive consideration in the agricultural committee. You will recall that there was some consideration of essentially the same bill in the last session of Parliament. Something like 37 agencies appeared before the committee to give their views, and then of course there were meetings across the country. The evidence taken and the record of the committee proceedings runs to almost 3,000 pages. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that 36 amendments were accepted by the committee since Bill C-176 was referred to it by the House.
Now I wish to make one or two general comments. In so far as the need for the provisions of Bill C-176 is concerned, the argument has been made in this House and in many other places across the country that the bill will contribute to the balkanization of the country and, indeed, to setting up trade barriers between provinces. I say, with great respect and deference to those who make that assertion, that the whole purpose of Bill C-176, the desired end result and the objective are exactly the opposite of that suggestion. The purpose of the bill is to provide a means whereby the provinces can in fact get together and work out a plan that is acceptable to all the provinces, bearing in mind that all the provinces have legislation on their books dealing with the orderly marketing of farm products, and to make it possible for the federal government to delegate some of the authority it has with respect to the interprovincial movement of agricultural products so that marketing orders, wherever they may be made, will be applied uniformly on all sides of provincial borders.
This argument ignores one very essential point, and that is that all the provinces now have this legislation on their books. And indeed we cannot ignore what has happened in the past few months, the application of such legislation on the books not only by Ontario and Quebec but by many other provinces respecting the two commodities with which there is presently the greatest difficulty, eggs and broiler chickens. This has now happened and we cannot ignore what has happened and what is likely to happen.
Indeed, Ministers of Agriculture meeting more than two years ago indicated they were afraid that unless concerted action was taken across the country under the aegis of federal legislation, the situation in which we find ourselves today respecting some agricultural products would arise. What is more, Mr. Speaker, within the last
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
few days we find further indications of an escalation of this situation by the passing of more severe marketing orders respecting these two products, as well as an indication by some provincial officials that the situation will probably escalate to other products and will not necessarily be confined to agricultural products.
That is the problem with which we are faced, and for hon. members or members of the public generally to suggest that Bill C-176 is going to balkanize the country, when that is exactly what is going on now in the absence of a national marketing act that will provide the legal basis upon which a co-operative framework can be laid, is a contradictory argument. Without saying anything more about that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing some advertising that has been taking place.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) referred to some advertising. I note that he has also been responsible for getting some advertising into a number of papers across the country. One of the ads-this is the one which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on April 22-carried the same format as a number of others that have appeared in other papers. The advertisement states-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister but I am informed that he said I was responsible for some ads being placed in papers, particularly in the Ottawa Citizen. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not in any way responsible. I consulted no papers. I know of the ads he speaks of because my office is being bombarded with coupons, and I am glad to serve the farmers in any way I can. I am not responsible for the ads at all. I am not financing them, nor am I in any way responsible for their wording or their being placed in the papers. I want to make that abundantly clear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the ad I hold in my hand is dated April 22, the Ottawa Citizen. After many other things appear the words: "Mail to Jack Horner, MP, Ottawa".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot has indicated to the minister and hon. members of the House, if I can paraphrase him, that he was not responsible for the ad. The Chair does not assess the significance of it, but I think hon. members will accept the word of the hon. member for Crowfoot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know from my experience in campaigning that when an ad is placed in a newspaper it has to be stated somewhere in it who is responsible for it. The minister has the ad before him. In order to clear my name-I find my name in the newspapers a lot these days; sometimes I wish it were not, but in this case I am glad it is there because I am prepared to serve the farmers in any way I can-I wonder if the minister would read who is responsible for the ad.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am prepared to table the ad, Mr. Speaker. It does not say anywhere who is responsible for it. The

April 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill headline reads: "All Ontario Farmers!'' It deals with a lot of erroneous arguments and at the bottom it says: "Mail to Jack Horner, MP, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa". There are some other names but it does not say who they are or what they are doing. It doesn't say that they inserted it or that it is being sponsored by them. There are the names, "Maurice McCallum-Carp" and "Omer Beriault-Green Valley", and it says: "Representing a group of farmers". It does not say who put the ad in the newspaper or that they sponsor it. Anyway, I accept the hon. member's assertion that he is not responsible for these ads.


Mr. Ricard:: You tried it and did not succeed, Mr. Minister.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will give you the coupons.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a few coupons too. I want to deal with the substance of the ad, if I may. It reads that this policy "inevitably leads to total and arbitrary government control". The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the bill provides that no agency will be established unless a majority of the producers of the commodity wish it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How is that majority determined?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is specifically stated in clauses 7 and 17 of the bill which provide a wide range of the type of agencies, from those solely involved in promotion to those which come under provincial legislation to control production-that is, under the delegation of provincial authority. The nature of the agency will depend upon the plan that is negotiated between the provinces and the federal government. Producers will decide whether they like a plan, because Bill C-176 itself does not provide for production controls. This bill does not give authority for production controls in any way, shape or form. It says what the marketing agencies may administer, but no attempt is made to give authority to those marketing boards nor to give them the right to control production. The reason is that this is entirely under provincial authority-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read clause 2(d) of the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -and at the present time all provinces have acts that provide for this. Dealing with the amendments before us now, in motions Nos. 1, 5 and 22 there are no exemptions from provincial legislation of any specific commodity whether it be beef, pork, apples, potatoes or anything else. Another point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, concerns the statement in this ad that "government appointees shall set prices of farm products without negotiations with farmers." The bill provides that the make-up of the agency will be as set out in the plan; thus, it could be by farmer election or any other method that is accepted in the plan. Indeed, there are other places where the committee did in fact strengthen it. We knew it was going to be that way without it being articulated, but the committee spelled out that there must be a majority of producers both on national council and in the marketing agencies.
The next point I wish to deal with is where the ad asks: "Why are there no import controls in C-176? Because imports are the regulator of the farmer's price..." Mr. Speaker, import controls are not provided in Bill C-176 because ample authority exists in other legislation. There are other matters I could deal with in this respect, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not take up any more time on it. I hope that my remarks convey to some degree how inaccurate the assertions in this ad have been and the extent to which they have misled farmers all across the country. I hope these people will realize that they have done a very great disservice to the farming community.
The amendment before us would place in jeopardy the meaning of an agricultural product since it proposes to delete all the words after "agriculture". I do not believe I can accept this amendment because it would remove those words which are used to clarify but not to restrict the term "farm product".
Amendment No. 5 which is also before us would delete paragraph (ii) of subclause (g) of clause 2. If this were accepted, in effect it would allow an agency authorized to operate within seven provinces to exercise its power in all ten provinces. We made it very clear that we do not intend to impose this and indeed I am not even sure that we could if a province did not agree. This paragraph was introduced to ensure that the agency could only exercise its powers, (a) with respect to production produced within the area of its jurisdiction, and (b) within its area respecting production produced elsewhere in Canada outside its jurisdiction. I think there is need for the latter power because it is only with respect to entry into the region, and only then should circumstances arise which would make it evident that there was an attempt to circumvent the purpose of the agency within the designated region. There has been argument about this with respect to amendment No. 5. I suggest that it would completely frustrate the purpose, and that is one of the main reasons why provincial legislation by itself has been insufficient to cope with the situation.
When the marketing orders and the application of that legislation is confined to a very small area or a restricted area, then of course there are ways of circumventing and therefore frustrating the purpose of the provincial government. We want to make sure this does not happen. The argument that some provinces other than those which have joined in a marketing plan ought to have open, complete and free access to the market that is being regulated under a plan agreed to by other provinces completely negates the purpose or some of the solutions which Bill C-176 is designed to correct.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since I suspect that there will be several other opportunities to speak on the amendments before the House may I say a word or two about the other amendments included in the group which we are discussing. The amendments contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of motion No. 22 seek to inhibit the successful operation of an agency. They propose that an agency may not be given authority to protect its opera-

April 28, 1971

tion from those who are outside the designated area and operating in a manner that is designed to circumvent that scheme.
I think it must be appreciated that this subparagraph of clause 18 is written in such a manner as to provide authority to the Governor in Council to set out in a proclamation whether or not an agency shall have authority to deal with products from outside the designated region. Written in this fashion, it allows the Governor in Council to give or to withhold such power. Furthermore, it gives the Governor in Council the opportunity to indicate to what extent such authority may be given respecting products produced outside the designated area. So, Mr. Speaker, we must be vigilant.
In bringing forward a plan that will work for the orderly marketing of the particular product of a majority of farmers, we must be vigilant in case we leave loopholes by which other farmers may benefit as a result of circumventing the purposes of the act or its administration, thereby being put in a favourable position because they are able to do their marketing in isolation from conditions which the overwhelming majority of farmers have approved. Having made these comments may I say that so far as I am concerned I do not think we should accept the amendments in the group now under discussion.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, the proposals in this bill received a great deal of amendment and consideration in the standing committee over a long period of time. They were first considered when introduced in the former bill and were subsequently considered when introduced in Bill C-176.
At the outset may I say that one of the unfortunate aspects of the situation is the time when the bill was presented to the House for consideration. By that I do not mean that the government deliberately picked the time; I do not know whether they did or not. The fact is that the bill came forward to Parliament and to the standing committee for consideration when agricultural marketing in this country was in a turmoil and when the marketing of agricultural products was being interfered with by provincial governments and agencies of provincial governments.
This had the effect of stirring up a great deal of fear and misgiving in the provinces concerned and among the producers of some products who found their free access to certain markets to which up to that time they had undisputed access, interfered with and curtailed. That drastically affected their incomes. The point I wish to make is that no matter whether this bill is passed or is rejected, this situation exists.
The government expects a great deal from this legislation if it thinks that the legislation alone will correct the situation which exists. The most serious charge that can be brought against the government has nothing to do with what is in this bill; it is that they did not move immediately to establish the right of free movement of farm products across Canada and to any market in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I said this in committee when we first met to consider Bill C-176. The government's lack of action and its lack of concern for action has been the cause of much of the fear that has been engendered in the country. I have seen some advertisements similar to the one the minister spoke of. They reflect the fear to which I allude. Those remarks are by the way; I am merely alluding to the circumstances under which this bill has come forward for consideration.
I think that at least the federal government should associate itself actively with the undertaking which the government of Manitoba has under way to bring this matter before the Supreme Court. This government ought to offer assistance to the government of Manitoba and leave no doubt that they are concerned about establishing the right of farm products to move freely back and forth across this country. Unless that right is established I have grave doubts whether this legislation will be able to accomplish what is hoped of it.
This is enabling legislation. The amendments before us, if passed, would probably restrict the legislation to some extent or make it less effective than it otherwise might be. My thought is that if we are to have such legislation, let it be effective and workable. If it is not, it will hold out a hope of effectiveness to participating producers which does not and will not exist. If we do not want to pass effective legislation, it would be much better for us not to pass any legislation. If we do not want to give the producer a vehicle that will work, it would be much better if we were to give him no vehicle at all. At the same time we must establish a climate, if we want the legislation to work, in which it can and will work.
Mr. Speaker, when I have listened to arguments on this subject I have sometimes concluded that some people think that farm marketing legislation is a brand new idea. The farm organizations of this country, the Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, have asked for national marketing legislation for years. I can show you briefs which they submitted to the government, and you will find such requests in those briefs. The first legislation to establish marketing boards was passed in the 1930s. At that time there was a different government than now sits in this House. Further legislation was passed by a succeeding federal government. Perhaps enabling legislation is not the correct term, but it permitted a sharing of power with the provinces. It was passed by a forerunner of the present government.
The legislation now on the books of provincial governments was probably passed, amended or changed by gov-erments of every stripe and political hue that we have had in Canada. I find it strange that it should come as a great shock that we are asked to consider this type of legislation, since the principles are not new. In the final analysis, this is the government's legislation. They are responsible to see that it is effective legislation and to establish a climate in which it can work. One reason why we had some difficulty with this bill is that it was not well-drawn in the first instance. It did not provide for sufficient participation by the producers on the regulato-

April 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
ry bodies. Much of that has been corrected by the members of the committee, including opposition members.
I wish to deal with the protection or lack of protection which it will or will not give to the producers. As the bill has been changed and amended, there are plenty of safeguards. It is abundantly clear that in the case of each product the majority of producers have to be in favour before an agency can be established. That is an important point. It is important because we were asked to accept certain exclusions that we did not accept. If there are no exclusions we must be sure that the producers of a given product who do not want to come under the act will not be forced to accept an agency. One of the shortcomings of the legislation is that it does not deal adequately with ensuring income to the producer. There are at least two amendments to come before the House which will deal with that question. This legislation should concern itself with income.
The basic approach of the provincial legislation both when it was established and throughout the years was that the provincial agencies would be bargaining agencies designed to achieve a fair, reasonable or adequate market price and income return for the producer. That is the basic approach. One of the failures in this bill is that there is no stated concern about farm income. By inference, this is left to the agricultural prices support legislation which we have on the books. With regard to many farm products, this is inadequate and is not administered effectively.
Hon. members have repeatedly asked why the prices support act is not used to assist farmers who are in considerable difficulty because of the present low prices for hogs and other farm products. If the Agricultural Prices Support Act is not going to be effectively used to protect the farm income position, we should consider ways and means of doing it through this bill.
The position of the provinces with regard to this bill is not one of total unanimity or of total disagreement. I know one province which changed its position while this bill was being considered. This was a public move. I do not know what has been said to the minister behind closed doors or what opinions hav.e been privately expressed by the provinces. When this bill is passed, it will be permissive for the provinces and producers. Those provinces which in their wisdom do not choose to use it with regard to certain products will not have to do so. By the same token, if the producers of eggs, hogs, apples, potatoes or cattle consider that this type of legislation is not of use to them, they will not be required to use it.
If they consider that the marketing system which they have is adequate and they can live in the same manner as the producers of hogs in my province are attempting to do with $19 hogs, it will be their right to do so. As free citizens of Canada, they will be able to continue in that manner because this bill will not force them to do anything else. We must keep this in mind.
I have reservations which can be dealt with by further amendments which we intend to move. We hope they will be considered and accepted by this House. They
would make the bill a more effective instrument and make it possible for farmers to use it more effectively. The first order of business of a Parliament should be to ensure that products move freely and have access to the markets across Canada. If that is done, this should be a workable instrument. There should not be any coercion. Farmers and producers should have the right to either use or not to use this legislation. They should have free access to the markets in Canada as well as those outside Canada. When marketing farm produce we should have available all the markets we can find. We should not approach the marketing of farm produce from a restrictive point of view but from an expansionary point of view.
Representatives of the Dairy Commission appeared before the standing committee yesterday. They were asked whether they were taking advantage of the present market for powdered milk which appears as though it might be expanded. In our agricultural production we should not have a policy which will box us into the Canadian market. After all, this country has only 20 million people. Our agencies, whether privately or publicly-owned, should provide an opportunity to expand into other markets so that we can use the available agricultural resources in terms of people, land, know-how and ability to produce. Our over-all policy should be one which is outward-looking.
It would be a mistake to consider this bill as a restrictive instrument. Our approach should be that this is an instrument which will enable us to more effectively market our products and exploit all markets that may be available to us both domestically and overseas.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the bill under study, Bill C-176, supersedes Bill C-197 which having been discussed at length prior to the adjournment of the previous session, comes back to this House under a new form but with the same basic principles. It was then a highly controversial bill and some people were in favour of it while others were dead set against it, but all these points of view were from the producers or farm associations concerned.
During this session this bill has been discussed at some considerable length. The House asked the Committee on Agriculture to travel across the country and consult provincial agriculture ministers and hear the views of the various farm organizations.
I was really amazed at the continuing interest for all our sittings, be it in eastern, central or western Canada. I am convinced that each member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture worked very seriously. We all had the purpose of collecting information so as to be able to provide farmers with a helpful piece of legislation, while preserving the interest of consumers and agencies concerned with the trade of agricultural production.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, at the provincial level, in Nova Scotia, for instance, the Minister of Agriculture expressed the views of his government in a very extensive brief. I could summarize the minister's attitude by

April 28, 1971

quoting the following sentence from Committee Proceedings No. 11, of Thursday, January 21, 1971:
Our chief concern, however, is with the wider implications of the Bill. We recognize that this is enabling legislation and that it must be of a general nature. Yet it seems to us that the Bill is raising almost as many problems as it is attempting to resolve.
Mr. Speaker, that was the opinion of a minister from Eastern Canada. Now coming to central Canada, we have the provincial minister of agriculture who said the following in his brief on January 22, 1971 and I quote:
-and the effects, whether they are favourable or not-
-of the act, following the passing of Bill C-176-
-whether they are favourable or not, according to the point of view of the people affected, or according to what you expect from it, means that in the field of Agriculture, in the province of Quebec and elsewhere it will call for reactions which are as varied as the various vested interests involved and which tend to develop in this very important sector of our economy.
I continue the quotation:
In the face of these various different stands, not only different but often contradictory, the Department of Agriculture of the province of Quebec hesitates to put itself in the position of an arbiter because circumstances do not justify such a role.
Further on, the minister added:
However, Quebec does not feel that this Bill C-176 will ipso facto, just by being put into effect, bring an automatic solution. This solution can only be brought about after frank and open discussions between the provinces directly involved and can only be applied, if the provinces are willing to agree to the sacrifice of certain special interests for the general welfare of Canadian agriculture.
For the past months the situation in Canada has been truly disastrous. For example, we see the Ontario government passing legislation to protect producers in that province while seriously harming those of other provinces.
I am under the impression that the situation, far from improving, will, if I am well informed, be getting worse. In fact, I am apprehensive about the future of Canada should such a situation persist and I doubt that Bill C-176 can really represent a completely adequate solution.
I do not mean that Bill C-176 is not an appropriate tool to start discussions and to correct a situation which should be improved, but we must not forget that, in the end, the farmers' only objective is to put their products on the Canadian market in order to meet the producers' needs and to receive a fair reward for their work.
It does not matter much whether butter produced in Quebec is sold in Vancouver, Edmonton or Regina, as long as the producer receives a retribution for his work. That the pound of beef produced at Edmonton or Regina should be sold in Montreal, Quebec or Toronto matters little as long as the producer is paid for his work.
I think it is necessary first to consider things from both the national and the regional point of view. Unfortunately, as a committee member I could notice during the trip
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
that the tendency was to think on a regional rather than on a national basis.
Marketing councils will be able to establish marketing agencies upon request from the majority of interested producers. These agencies will evidently be able to operate if there are provincial agreements, agreements which could be quickly negotiated if there is good will and if everybody sees the possibility of helping producers all across the country.
If such marketing agencies are contested, discussed and their case brought before courts, who is going to pay for all this which is going from bad to worse? It will still be the producers. Who is going to suffer the consequences? The consumers!
That is why I deplore the fact the the marketing council does not have the required powers to negotiate in an intelligent manner. In the end, however, there must always be some authority having the power to decide, to settle the question.
Having studied all the briefs submitted to them, the members of the committee came back to Ottawa and sat for long hours trying to put down on paper the amendments suggested in order to make this legislation as perfect as possible.
Some amendments were accepted, others were not. Maybe they will again be discussed in the House. One of them deals with the exclusion of certain products: beef and veal for instance.
If Bill C-176 is such as to help egg, poultry, wool, maple syrup or honey producers, I firmly believe that it could also help the other producers provided this is their desire.
I am gratified to see that the bill provides that a marketing agency may be established by the Marketing Council upon the request of a majority of a class of producers.
This is a safety valve. As is the case with other members, I have received representations from beef producers across the country, through their association, asking that this class of products be excluded from the bill as, according to them, they have no need for these provisions at the present time.
I am willing to believe that they are right and that this is not absolutely necessary for the time being, but at the national level we must pass legislation which will be available to all producers.
I entertain no absolute confidence in the effectiveness of this legislation, and I think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is able to anticipate that its administration will be extremely difficult. A considerable amount of goodwill will be required to achieve the establishment of marketing boards that may actually operate and provide practical results that will satisfy all producers.
There is a problem, however. I have listened attentively to the minister. If I am wrong, he can correct me. I understood that he had stated that there was no question,

April 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill under this bill, of controlling production. If I remember correctly, the provisions of the bill which provide for the establishment of the boards enable these boards to issue production permits and, by the same token, to determine, if required, production quotas. I think that at the same time the bill should include a special provision to guarantee producers the prices that would enable them to get a decent income.
The problem in agriculture is always the same: we constantly struggle to get decent prices without fleecing consumers, in short, prices which will allow producers to make reasonable profits.
The bill also contains provisions to balance production volume and makret possibilities. I do not quite agree on that because market conditions are always determined by consumer purchasing power. And heaven knows it is a problem in too many families.
The real extent of the market is not known, according to surveys made by the Senate Committee on Poverty. The only way the committee may have helped the people was by determining to what extent the economic system may have prevented production from reaching the table of the consumer. In any event, there seems to be disagreement with regard to the report of the committee and rich people were certainly not found in every area of the country. Indeed, there are families that do not have exactly what they need, not only to eat but to dress decently.
That is why I say the bill will not achieve all its aims; but it will help get more agricultural produce into the stores and that will be one step ahead. One organization will enable the producers to prove that they have worked, that they produced something which the consumers can use.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I think that we should continue to seriously consider the proposed amendments in order to find out whether there might not be one which could likely improve the bill, so that it could unite Canadians instead of dividing them. For no consideration whatever would I like hon. members to my right, who represent constituencies of other provinces, to think that our positions are those of mean Canadians who consider only their area or their province. But the fact remains that every member is conscientious enough-I am sure-to represent honestly and properly his constituency, his electors and to follow up on the representations made to him.
I would not like it to be said that because the province of Quebec supports the best provisions of this bill, it regards the bill as perfect. That is not what I mean. Even if only 50 per cent of the provisions of the bill were good, we should use them and later on improve the legislation so as to really reach its objective, namely to put all farm products on the national market so as to make them available to the Canadian people.
As I already said, I think it is extremely regrettable that this bill does not include a provision enabling those marketing boards to channel in the same way all the products that will be imported from other countries.
I see that an amendment in this regard has been put on the order paper. A few moments ago, the Minister of Agriculture mentioned it and said that other agencies and departments were sharing this responsibility and that we should not multiply the number of agencies in the same field.
I submit that it does not amount to multiplying the agencies. They could remain under the authority of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce but with the possibility for the marketing boards to demonstrate that they are acting in a relevant way when they grant import licences for some farm products which are in direct competition with Canadian products.
I am well aware that there is presently such a possibility of control by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce but God knows how difficult it is to have this legislation applied, these restrictions enforced when it is necessary. We had to make representations to our farm organizations. Federated Co-op had to take action several times to draw the attention of the authorities on a particular field so as to give fair protection to Canadian farmers. For this reason, I hoped the bill would have contained a provision to regulate the activities of people engaged in international trade with a view to profits only and not as a service to the community.
This form of trade must be regulated in an intelligent way so as to allow farmers to fulfill the objectives spelled out in the bill, namely to give farmers the possibility of living decently.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) with a great deal of interest. I was disappointed in that I felt he might have spent less time dealing with the picayune matter of an advertisement in a newspaper and more time defending the reasons for the government's adopting the measures in this bill. This is one of the most important bills to be dealt with by the Committee on Agriculture in the last 50 years.
In the short time allotted to me I should like to deal with the necessity of the amendments to this legislation. As you are aware, we in the province of Ontario are familiar with marketing schemes, agencies and marketing commissions. A number of marketing operations and bodies are now operative in this province as in other regions of Canada. The reason is very simple. One of the earliest marketing schemes was started in my own riding, in Chatham, Ontario. Similar schemes were commenced many years ago in the province of British Columbia. We are very familiar with this type of operation, as they are in the province of Quebec and in most provinces where marketing schemes exist to varying degrees.
A previous speaker stated that the concept of national marketing legislation is not new. For many years successful marketing boards have been working for the betterment of the farm community in their local or regional areas. These people naturally felt there was no reason why this proposal, if extended nationally, should not work to the benefit of a great many more engaged in the production of agricultural products. This is not a new

April 28, 1971

concept. When this legislation was introduced it received a great deal of approval in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and other regions of Canada where marketing agencies are operative. Once this matter was brought before Parliament with the concept that the federal government would enter the field, the idea began to percolate in the agricultural communities of Canada. As a result, a great deal of concern has developed in these communities.
Let me point out why I feel there has been tremendous concern and an abrupt change in attitude on the part of many toward this bill in its present form. In the production of any commodity there is not, and never will be, total support for a marketing scheme. Some people feel such a scheme is not in the interests of the primary producer. Perhaps the majority feel that it is in their interests. As a result, we have in every province, region and community a nucleus of people who believe in free enterprise and that mandatory marketing legislation is not in the common interest.
Let us also consider what is happening in respect of this legislation. Producers in Ontario and other regions of Canada are concerned about the government bringing in an omnibus bill. The bill before us is such a bill. Its concept is based on the fact that all agricultural products in all areas of Canada should be covered. The bill itself speaks not only of primary products but any portion or any manufactured part of a primary product. This is certainly an omnibus concept.
The minister said in his speech that nowhere does this bill indicate there should be production control. I cannot agree with his interpretation. Let me put on record why the majority of producers in Canada cannot agree with this assertion. Over and over again the minister and this government have stated that the bill is patterned on provincial legislation which gives production control. They have pointed to the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Dairy Council as prime examples of how this concept can work. Anyone who is familiar with agriculture knows that the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Dairy Council are based on the concept of production control and supply management. For the government to suggest now that nowhere implicit in this bill is such a provision is, to say the least, misleading.
Let us consider what has happened in respect of the Dairy Commission. It was set up to protect dairy interests in Canada. We find that small enterprises have been forced out and that it is almost impossible for new farmers to get into this business. An apt description of what is taking place as a result of such legislation is that large producers are placed in a comfortable position, protected against encroachment by government regulation. Another grave concern in Ontario relates to the provision in this bill which makes it possible for the government to delegate provincial authority to national marketing agencies and the federal authority. It is expected that the two working together in harmony and within the democratic process will bring about the hoped-for adjustments. But this is immediately eroded by the fact that the minister in his explanation left the impression that the provincial authority is delegated only perhaps by negotiation and
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
that it is within the purview of the provinces to opt out of the measure entirely or on a commodity by commodity basis. I think this is a major weakness.
The second major weakness is that no import control is inherent in this legislation. It is all very well for the minister to say we do not need it in legislation of this type because it is inherent in other legislation which is available to the government and that therefore there would be duplication. In respect of the practical application of marketing schemes already in existence in Canada, we see that every time an application is made to the government for import control either it is not granted or the delay is of such a nature that it becomes almost impossible to make a profitable sale of the commodity in question.
A prime example of this arose in the House yesterday when the hon. member for British Columbia, a proponent of this bill, criticized his own government because there was no import control on strawberries coming into his province. This shows why import control is absolutely necessary. I join with my colleague in the allegation that this bill will not, and cannot, solve the problem of interprovincial trade and the restrictions we now face, because the only tool it has is negotiation. As the minister has indicated, it will provide a forum for negotiation of differences. There is no legal way under Bill C-176 in which there can be a determination or real assessment of the problem facing the provinces. So I agree with my colleague that the only way in which this matter can be solved is by reference to the Supreme Court. I agree with him that a proper assessment of Bill C-176 is not possible until we know the decision of the Supreme Court, because if the decision should be what we expect it to be, then the terms and provisions set out in this bill will not be applicable.
Another matter which is very upsetting to me and to others who are familiar with the workings of marketing agencies and the way in which they provide aid to primary producers is that during the committee hearings, while listening to the government's defence of its own bill it became readily discernible that the government is more concerned about control over agriculture than with providing a democratic method of supply-marketing in a regular fashion.
I think we will find that the major difference between this measure and a provincial measure is that there is not spelled out in this bill the basis for the success of such schemes in the provincial field. It is all very well for the minister to state that there will be a democratic process and that the majority of the primary producers of any commodity will have to solicit the government in order to be placed under the terms of the legislation, but that is only half the story because the reverse is not equally true. If the primary producers should find that rather than being of benefit to their industry it is a detriment, then there is no provision for a plebescite or any other means of adopting a negative approach to the bill so that such an agency could be disbanded. This is a basic weakness as between the federal and provincial legislation.

April 28, 1971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
Over and over again the minister has emphasized that this is a democratic approach and this will not be done unless the majority of producers wish it. I maintain that the minister immediately loses his credibility, because there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of cattlemen in this country do not wish to come under the provisions of this measure. They have said so over and over again. They want no part of it.
Mr. Speaker, the government is interested in only one thing. It is interested in bringing a bill before the House in a manner which includes cattlemen whether or not they wish it. It is all very well for the minister to say they are only being brought under the umbrella of this bill and that it will not be implemented so far as cattlemen are concerned unless they wish it. What bothers me is that in the terms of this bill we are giving tremendous authority to public servants who are answerable only to the minister and this House. I am concerned that this measure is of such importance that if we should be wrong it could mean the economic ruin of hundreds and hundreds of farmers in this country.
I do not hold a brief for those who moan and whine about the length of time spent on this matter by the House and the committee, because if in our deliberations we can amend the bill in such a way that we save only one farmer from bankruptcy then in my opinion the time will have been well spent. If we make a mistake it could take years to bring in an amendment in order to redress the wrong, especially when we see the degree of esteem in which this government holds the farming community of Canada.
We must look at this bill very carefully. We will have to amend it in order that it can be operative and can solve the various problems facing Canada today. I am terribly disturbed that we have not been able to obtain a Supreme Court ruling on the very cornerstone of this bill before we are asked to give it final passage. This is major legislation.
I am very sorry the minister did not adopt a more moderate course in dealing with something which primary producers across the country have wanted for many years. I had hoped the minister would bring in a measure of national scope as he did in respect of the dairy industry and as was done in respect of the wheat industry.
If the government had brought in such legislation for the poultry industry, which dearly wanted it, it would have received rapid passage through the House. If such legislation had been brought in and operated successfully, then the other commodity groups would have been lining up at the minister's door demanding similar legislation. The minister did not do that. He is trying to bring it in all at once to cover a tremendous number of commodities and regions. This involves many different personalties and ten different governments. In my opinion it will be impossible to achieve rapid implementation of this measure once it is passed, because the problem of interprovincial barriers is growing each and every day and is becoming more and more ominous. I think it is misleading for the minister to say that this measure will settle the problem. Even if it did provide a solution, I submit it
would take a minimum of 12 months to draft all the regulations and negotiate them with the provinces. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendments proposed by my colleague.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in speaking in this debate, not so much because of the content of the bill but because I wish to point out to the thinking people in this country what will be the effect if this measure is passed. I believe that the result will be a disaster. The bill was first introduced a year or so ago as Bill C-197. At that time the standing committee heard many witnesses. There was a general rejection of what that bill encompassed and we rather suspected that after it died on the Order Paper last June, on being reintroduced it would be redrafted and contain many improvements. It was very disheartening to see it come forward in this form.
The suggestion was made that this bill is a product of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and he has received a great deal of the blame for it. It was pointed out earlier today that much of the thought behind the bill originated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and that he elaborated on it in a speech at Winnipeg on June 2, 1968. In other words, the bill was not proposed by anyone with an agricultural background but by what you might call a playboy from Westmount, a world traveller from Westmount. When you read the bill you can easily see that this was the case. To substantiate that statement I quote from the speech he delivered in Winnipeg on June 2, 1968, as follows:
In order to meet the difficulties of divided jurisdiction in the area of marketing of agricultural products, the government would undertake to raise for discussion with the provinces the possibility of providing over-all authority for the marketing of agricultural products as a federal responsibility.
That statement was made before the members of the present government knew they would be appointed to the positions they hold. I want to make it abundantly clear that the thought behind the bill did not come from the agricultural community. Marketing boards are not the main thrust of the bill. The main thrust will be restricted provincial trade policies and government control-nothing more and nothing less. The Minister of Agriculture has made many speeches to the effect that this bill is what we need. We will all wait with baited breath to see if the bill, when proclaimed, will solve the interprovincial trade situation, the so-called chicken and egg wars which have been developing and have given rise to increasing trade restrictions between provinces.
As has been so well pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), in reality the whole situation boils down to a decision that should have been made by the Supreme Court. In reality we are wasting our time in this debate in the House. Time and time again members of the government rise and say, "We must get this legislation through, or that legislation through. We are in a

April 28, 1971

hurry; we are short of time." Then why, Mr. Speaker, are we wasting our time debating this matter now, when it is a matter to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada?
I heard a very prominent judge say that this will be the most important decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the last 50 years. I would say it could probably be the most important decision ever made by the Supreme Court, since confederation itself may hinge on the decision. The decision, in effect, may be on whether Canada is in reality a nation, or ten nations. If the decision is made that there should not be free trade between the provinces of Canada, then the die will be cast, separatism will spread and we will truly become ten nations. But if the Supreme Court decision is to the effect that there should be free trade between the provinces, this bill will mean nothing and the agencies or boards set up under it will mean nothing. However, if the Supreme Court decision goes the other way, in effect saying that each province is a separate nation, we will need something resembling an interprovincial GATT agreement and the provision in this bill giving provinces the right to opt out of any arrangement will mean nothing. In effect each province will have to become part of an over-all agency in order to get part of a national quota. Some provinces may set up barriers against the importation of goods from other areas.
We could very well run into a situation in the western provinces, where they do not have the people to consume the goods they produce and rely on the export of their farm products, where they would set up barriers to the high-priced industrial goods they have been bringing in from other parts of Canada. They could start looking to places like Japan and the U.S. and make their own international trading arrangements.
On many occasions the minister has made light of the fact that we need this bill to create another forum for consultation wherein the provinces can get together and discuss these trade arrangements and agencies. But we have all the forums we need now, and there is nothing to stop the ministers getting together. The creation of one more forum to solve the matter of interprovincial trade is only a joke. There are the federal-provincial conferences with ample opportunities for provincial ministers to get together. The argument that this bill will set up another forum is only a red herring and has no value at all.
The Supreme Court ruling which will be handed down probably toward the end of next month will be one of the most important decisions made since confederation. It will be the deciding factor on the way in which Canada will go. We have had many divisive pieces of legislation from this government. I think the official languages bill has been most divisive and this is substantiated every day. But no legislation has ever been brought forward that will be as divisive and detrimental to this nation as the bill before us.
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
To return to the matter of another forum for consultation, I think this is just idealism. In this regard I should like to quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when that committee met in Halifax on January 21, 1971. In answer to a question, Mr. Callahan, the Minister of Agriculture for Newfoundland, said:
Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I do not agree that the provinces are agreed on this bill. They are not. So far as I am aware, no province has come out and said, "We agree with this legislation", and X have already indicated that at a full meeting of the ministers six months ago-and I have quoted from the proceedings of that meeting-there was a consensus which, as I have said, is the lowest form of opinion, which seriously questions vital aspects of the bill, so I do not agree that the provinces are asking for this. I know what they have been asking for. I have been among them and I know what we have asked for.
If this is the way some provincial ministers see the bill, how can any new forum created under this bill sweep that away and make everything glorious and fine and create a wonderful agreement on the question of provincial trade? I do not think anyone here who truly represents agriculture would not support the bill if they could see that it provides one extra dollar for the producer. Where is there anything in the bill about pricing or giving producers more money in their pockets?
We repeatedly saw amendments turned down in committee. I recall an amendment to put the word "viable" into the clauses to replace the words "efficient and competitive", but the latter phrase was chosen. This would mean just another cheap food policy. Time and time again we have heard the word "efficient" used in regard to business where it generally means a greater profit margin, but as it relates to agriculture it can only mean a cheap food policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: We were given no assurance that the word "competitive" does not mean competitive with another country. What are we to be competitive with- Mexican tomatoes, Australian beef? The terminology of the bill gives no assurance that this would not be the type of competition producers would have to face.
I think the most ridiculous concept of this bill has been the matter of controlled production, though quite a few people may not be in agreement with this. However, I think anyone could and should be ridiculed for bringing forth control of production without control of imports. This is one of the most ridiculous assumptions ever made. Surely the minister would not try to implant in the minds of the farmers that their standard of living could be raised by controlling production and granting licences to farm with no mention at all of imports.
The apple growers and beef producers appeared before the committee. I recall that the apple growers of Nova Scotia and British Columbia said they had no problems and did not need this bill, that the only thing they

April 28, 1971
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill suffered from was imports because they had to leave their apples under the trees; it was too expensive to pick them. They questioned how it was proposed to raise the income of farmers without doing anything in this regard. The amendment was moved in committee on several occasions. It is the same type of amendment that has been written into other bills such as the textile bill, where a product was protected-but it was turned down in regard to agriculture.
Initially this bill contained clauses which ensured that the interests of consumers would be looked after before the interests of producers. I supposed that this was an agricultural bill brought forward by the Department of Agriculture to look after the interests of farmers, yet its language suggests that consumers are to be placed on a higher level than producers.
Controlling production without controlling imports simply means that the government will have the right to set the price of agricultural products. It will be able to perpetuate a cheap food policy in this country by allowing imports in or by shutting them off at will. If the price of a commodity rises to a level at which farmers can survive if they produce it, the government can simply import that commodity and control or lower its price. That is what is done with beef. For one month in 12, Canadians eat beef produced in Australia. The minister has been questioned about this in the House and has said, "Well, the need is there. We do not have the beef available." You do not mean to tell me that if beef was not brought in people would not buy Canadian beef that is already on shop shelves, and thus raise the price to the level that beef producers ought to get. Why, back in 1952, 18 years ago, beef prices were higher than today. You can imagine what the costs of production were 18 years ago. Look at the current prices of machinery and at the costs of labour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some remarks on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), namely amendments Nos 1, 5, and 22 which deal with certain implications of Bill C-176.
As members of the committee, we have travelled throughout Canada from Halifax to Vancouver and found that producer associations, mainly primary producers, were seriously worried. As for the bill, Primary producers are sceptical about the bill because most of them throughout Canada are used to work on their own.
A farmer wants to be his own boss. He wants to sell his products himself and be the master of his production and his prices. He also wants in all regards to be the master of his future.
I think that with the passing of Bill C-176, the producer will no longer be his own boss. He will have to
think in a different way, to act in a different way and also to decide his future in a different way.
Particularly when we visited Ontario, we found that many producer associations were concerned about the implications of Bill C-176. In the course of our trip, we met 78 producer associations, 90 per cent of which grouped primary producers.
I should like to call the attention of hon. members on the most frequent questions raised in the briefs that were presented to us respecting the producers' concern. They asked: Who will control imports? Who will control the boards? Who will pay the administrative costs? Will some provinces be allowed to withdraw from the marketing agencies? Can such a system generate local favoritism? Will the farmer or the producer take the decisions within the marketing agencies? Will the producer be entitled to prosper at an equal rate in all provinces? Will the rights already secured under the British North America Act be more or less diluted by this bill? Will the farmer now have to decide or negotiate on quotas? Are the quotas transferable? Will all farm products be regulated by a quota system?
All these questions were put to us by farming groups. Many were in favour of the proposed measures; however, almost everybody agreed on the implications of the bill, though mildly. Almost all expressed the wish that their member should move amendments to the bill.
In committee, 29 amendments were proposed. Some were approved and others were rejected. However, I believe that all of them would be essential for friendly understanding between the producers from the various provinces.
We are sorry, indeed, to see that some provincial governments, namely the Ontario government, have already placed an embargo on Quebec products.
We know a bill like this one is necessary to put an end to this type of thing. But before approving it on third reading, I feel we should give it further thought.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, could the government House leader tell us what business the House will consider tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that tomorrow we propose to call second reading of the bill to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't that a bit hasty?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

April 28, 1971

I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) whether when introducing his proposed legislation tomorrow he intends to establish the government policy concerning the services related to that legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be making a statement on the bill and on matters related thereto.
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I was thinking this evening that Parliament seems at times to operate slowly, but I believe that hon. members are hard-working, patient, confident and optimistic. I therefore wish them good night, and may their projects of today become the realities of tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
533Y

Thursday, April 29, 1971