1975-06-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the tragic event that has just taken place in the British Columbia penitentiary in which three prisoners known to be dangerous and serving life imprisonment entered an area of classification together while carrying concealed weapons and held a number of employees of the institution as hostages, one of the hostages losing her life, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government immediately set up a royal commission with terms of reference to investigate the whole tragic affair, the security, control and conditions of the said British Columbia penitentiary, to determine, first, the cause of this uncontrolled violence, and to report on decisions made that brought this sad tragedy to an end, with the authority to look into the security and control of all penitentiaries in Canada and the general conditions existing therein.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On the basis of what has taken place in the last 43 hours at the British Columbia penitentiary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House asks the Solicitor General to bring forth legislation on the pressing issue of capital punishment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Consistent with the decision which the Chair has taken in the past, the subject of capital punishment, as I have said when ruling on the question of abortion and on the question of old age security, is a question of continuing concern and, unless I can be persuaded otherwise, as it will come before the House in other forms ought not to be raised in the form of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the past it has been the practice for the Ministry of Finance to act as the official government organ responsible for evaluation, forecasting and policy concerning the Canadian economy. Considering that a quasi-autonomous Crown corporation, CMHC, whose membership includes the deputy minister of finance, has issued a report the contents of which tend to contradict reports put forward previously by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in that it predicts a higher rate of unemployment, higher mortgage rates and fewer housing starts than the projections previously provided to this House, I move seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to issue a statement outlining which forecast and evaluation of the Canadian economy the government of Canada adheres to, and to reveal which government organization will, in the future, be responsible for the presentation of government economic projections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from excessive spending of public funds for personal pleasure and political purposes by the Prime Minister (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 11, 1975
Oral Questions
Trudeau), as was illustrated last weekend. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the House requests immediate establishment of strict clear-cut guidelines for prime ministerial spending specifically including a full description of legitimate expenditures permissible from public funds because they arise from the performance of the duties of the Prime Minister as such, and also those expenditures arising from personal pleasure and political activities which should henceforth be paid for by the Prime Minister himself or by the Liberal party of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sure all members of the House are very sincerely disturbed by what has taken place in the British Columbia Penitentiary, particularly the death of Mary Steinhauser. When did the government receive word from the one country to which the Solicitor General is reported to have referred as having agreed to take the prisoners, had promised to incarcerate them on their arrival and return them to Canada as soon as possible? Can the Prime Minister advise when yesterday he learned of this proposal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was apprised of that fact somewhere after eleven o'clock last night. I inquired how recently before that the message had come through. I was told something like 15 or 20 minutes. I believe I was apprised of the answer as soon as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister indicate whether this indication was communicated to the prisoners who were holding the hostages last evening before the final confrontation or what decision, if any, did the government take following receipt of this communication from the unidentified country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at that point I conferred with the Solicitor General and other officials. Contact was made with the people heading the operation in British Columbia. I do not believe the fact was conveyed to the criminals who were then holding the hostages.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If this information was passed on to those in charge of the operation in British Columbia, was it passed on with instructions about communications with

the criminals or with instructions as to what decision, if any, the government had taken with regard to the acceptance of such a proposal from this other country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the way it happened the people in British Columbia were asked their opinion on whether the information should be conveyed immediately and, if so, in what form? They were asked to express some views. I and other cabinet ministers expressed some views.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-SECURITY PRECAUTIONS TAKEN IN VIEW OF LETTER WARNING OF POSSIBLE RIOTS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. I forwarded a letter to the penitentiary system a couple of weeks ago regarding the possibility of riots in the pen. This letter was signed by 30 inmates. In view of that letter, were any extra security precautions taken at the penitentiary in the last couple of weeks?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check on that. However, I can say that the incidents that took place in the past few days did not have the support of the general population in the penitentiary. As a matter of fact, many of the inmates expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the actions of their fellow inmates.


REASON FOR DELAY IN BUILDING NEW PENAL INSTITUTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
John Douglas Reynolds: In
view of the fact that the real problem in British Columbia is the lack of new penitentiary facilities and the fact the government has not been able to get under construction the two maximum security institutions they indicated they want to build, and for which they are trying to find locations, will this last happening speed up the government in building those two new institutions that are so badly needed?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have been going as quickly as we can in trying to find sites. Whenever we locate them, we seem to have objections from the local communities. We have a policy of consulting with the local community and the provincial government. In order to build the new institutions, we will have to get co-operation from some communities and the province. I might say we are going ahead on a site at Mission and another at Kamloops. I hope we can find some other sites on the Lower Mainland.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REASON FOR FAILING TO INFORM PRISONERS HOLDING HOSTAGES OF COUNTRY WILLING TO ACCEPT THEM
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to get back to the facts in the case. In this particular instance the information that a country was willing to accept the prisoners was, I understand, not conveyed to the prisoners. Can the Solicitor General tell
June 11, 1975

us why this information was not given to the prisoners holding the hostages?


William Warren Allmand: There was no recommendation that this information should not be given to the prisoners. But we had not reached that stage. We only received an answer from the country in question late last evening. I then contacted the people in charge at New Westminster and asked them for their reaction to the proposal and for their advice as to how it should be put to the inmates-through what intermediary, and so on-and what conditions should be attached if they agreed to the proposal. This was being discussed by the administration at British Columbia Penitentiary when the incident took place within the consultation building and everything else came to an end.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF INCIDENT INVOLVING PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister tell the House whether .it is routine procedure in the B.C. Penitentiary to allow three of the most dangerous criminals in Canada-I understand there were four originally-into the classification area with only one security guard? In view of the widespread public concern, is it the minister's intention to embark on a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act to be carried out by a Supreme Court judge, possibly one with experience in criminal law, so that all the facts involved in this regrettable situation can be made public?


William Warren Allmand: Because of the various aspects to which the hon. member has referred, including the fact that the inmates in question had knives in their possession, I have suggested that there be an inquiry. The inquiry we propose to undertake at the present time is one under the Penitentiary Act.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Not good enough.


William Warren Allmand: There are provisions under that act for either an internal inquiry or for an inquiry with outside persons. We intend to pursue the one with outside persons. No final decision has yet been made but we do agree there should be such an inquiry.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REASON MINISTER DID NOT MAKE STATEMENT ON INCIDENT INVOLVING PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister advise the House why, in a matter of such great concern to the country, he did not see fit to make a statement on motions this afternoon so that the facts as he understands them could be put fully before the House? Under the present procedure, we are just picking-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Why cannot we be given a statement on motions thus providing an opportunity for a full reply by representatives of all parties on this most important matter?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: I considered taking that course, but while I was considering it many people in the system were already making statements across the country including, I believe, the Chief of Police of New Westminster and the people in the penitentiary service on the West Coast because there was so much concern they felt they could not wait until two o'clock. I, too, was severely pressed for a statement and I made one in Toronto in the hotel from which I was working. If the hon. member wishes, I have no objection to making a statement to the House and I will still make one on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO INCIDENT INVOLVING PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the light of the public concern shown over this incident, a concern which is shared by members on both sides of the House, would the Prime Minister not consent to ordering an inquiry at which witnesses could be called and evidence taken under oath by a royal commission or a public inquiry under the law so that the whole thing could be aired? I ask this question in all seriousness, not only because of this tragic event but because it may trigger other events in other penitentiaries in the future if prisoners can get away with this kind of thing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Solicitor General has answered that the government has the intention of initiating one. As for the comment about getting away with it in the future, I would point out to the hon. member that there has been a tragedy, and that a loss of life is a very regrettable thing. The first priority of the government was to make sure that the hostages would be treated safely, and that any solution that we found would not result in the kind of tragedy that occurred. There was a second priority, which was to make sure that the criminals themselves did not escape into some other country where they would go unharmed, and this was a priority that the government was determined to follow. It is only because we had that priority, too, that hopefully this kind of tragedy will not happen elsewhere, and I hope that we will have the support of the opposition on that matter.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF INCIDENT INVOLVING PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Prime Minister would know where I stand, and where this party or anybody else for that matter stands on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter and I do not know why hon. members want to holler and shout. In light of the Prime Minister's answers to the Leader of the Opposition regarding some agreement that these prisoners might be flown to another country, did the

June 11, 1975
Oral Questions
government actually agree to this? If so, what was the name of the country, what were the terms of that agreement, and was it ever communicated to the prisoners in question? I agree with the Prime Minister's priority that the lives of the hostages were at stake.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he agrees with the one priority, but I would be interested to know whether he agrees with the other. It is because these two priorities had to be kept in mind at the same time that we acted as we did. With regard to the question that the Solicitor General has already answered, no, we had not at the time the killing happened informed the criminals what country or what conditions were proposed for them. I think it is known that one of the conditions was that they would be apprehended on arrival and returned to us. It is not certain that if that had been told the criminals in so many words they would have then released their hostages. However, I am very interested to know where the hon. member and his party stand. It would be interesting, too, if the Solicitor General speaks on motions, to hear them tell us what we should do in such cases.


Mr. Baldwin:: Let him do it, not you.


An hon. Member:: Do you have to play politics with everything?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I point out that within the last five years there have been two such incidents in Canada. We believe that the way we acted had the people's support, but there are members on the other side in all parties who have had second guesses about all this, and it would be interesting to know now in cold blood how they would have acted in the circumstances.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing or refining the questions asked the hon. member for Calgary North and my leader. May I ask the Prime Minister this. After word had been received from an unidentified country that it would be willing to take these criminals, the Prime Minister said that he had some discussions with cabinet ministers. Did the Prime Minister and those cabinet ministers come to a decision whether or not those criminals should be sent to that country? If so, what was that decision, and was the staff at British Columbia handling this matter given an indication of that decision and asked to communicate it to the prisoners?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Solicitor General certainly indicated the answer to that question. We had certain views which were exchanged between ministers. We had not made a final decision until we had got back the opinion of the people in British Columbia who were on the scene. It is obvious that whatever happened in the course that was followed is the responsibility of the government. I believe the Solicitor General did a superb job in handling this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, it was the government that was determining the policy in this matter, but we were doing this, as the Solicitor General indicated in his answer, in consultation with the people who were in contact with the criminals.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, do I take it that the simple answer of the Prime Minister is that up until the time the facts were communicated to the people in British Columbia, no decision had been arrived at by the government as to what its intentions were in respect of the question of the dispatch of the criminals to an unidentified country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what the Solicitor General and I said, Mr. Speaker.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the recent events in British Columbia, could the Prime Minister advise the House whether he intends to reconsider the position of his government with regard to the reinstatement of capital punishment for those found guilty of premeditated murder, so that tragedies similar to those we have witnessed in the past do not happen again in other Canadian prisons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the relevant provision of the Criminal Code is due to expire before this legislature is likely to come to an end. The government intends to come back before Parliament to take a stand and introduce a piece of legislation on capital punishment. However, I have no intention of saying any more at this time.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who answers for Statistics Canada. In view of the fact that consumer price index figures released today show a .8 per cent increase in the cost of living, with food as the highest single component factor, being 1.1 per cent, and in view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board report for the same period showed a 1.5 per cent increase, will the minister indicate whether the reappraisal or the reassessment of the current methodology of price indexing has been completed, and will we have a new and different kind of sampling from now into the future?


June 11, 1975


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it has been completed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this and the fact that pensions are now indexed to the consumer index, will the minister look upon this as important and urgent? At the same time, I should like to ask the minister if he has communicated to the chief statistician the desirability of coming up with a low earners' index which was the subject of debate in this House on several occasions?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the chief statistician, or Statistics Canada, is working in this area. This is by no means an easy question. Rather, it is a highly technical and complicated question, and I would not want to raise the expectation that there will be an early solution to it.


SOCIAL SECURITY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it is based on the fact that most social welfare payments put out by the government of Canada are now indexed to the consumer price index. In view of the discrepancy between food costs put out by CPI and the Food Prices Review Board, and, more particularly, in view of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board uses a more basic diet to get its measurement, is the minister looking into this to determine if he can come up with a more accurate sampling of the actual increase in the cost of living, especially the cost of food, which would then be more truly reflected in the quarterly increases in pensions?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the indexation of social welfare payments is specifically provided for in the act passed by this Parliament. As the hon. member knows, this index applies not only to food but also to many other items appearing on the shopping list of a Canadian family. As to the breaking down of this index, it is a responsibility of Statistics Canada. When Statistics Canada comes up with a better index than the current one, not only will we be glad to adopt it, we will have to under the act.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the
Oral Questions
Treasury Board. Because the minister stated last Friday that a bill to further aid the financially ailing Olympics in Montreal would be introduced in a few days, and since more than a few days have now passed and time is running out for COJO and Montreal, could the minister indicate to the House what day we may expect this bill to be introduced, or can it be assumed perhaps that the delay in introducing this legislation is due primarily to technical problems at the Mint complicated to such an extent that it may in fact be impossible to mint this special coinage in time to aid the cause?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill should be introduced within a few days, but we have never set a particular date, and when I say a few days, I mean a few more days.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact that the Mint has been looking at the possibility of minting regular coins with the Olympic symbol as well as a special gold coin piece, could the minister confirm or deny that he or his department have been given instructions to purchase special equipment for the sole purpose of minting these special coins and is the minister aware of the technical difficulties being encountered by the Mint for the purpose of this special minting?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: That question is under study, Mr. Speaker.


ENFORCEMENT OF RADIATION EMISSION REGULATIONS IN URANIUM MINES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statements made by Dr. A. T. Prince, President of the federal Atomic Energy Control Board, to the Ontario royal commission on mining safety that his agency did not enforce its underground radiation emission regulations nor did it demand or receive reports from the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources with respect to radiation levels at the Elliot Lake uranium mines, and in view of the unwillingness of the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources to enforce the federal standards, is the minister now prepared to exercise his responsibility and ensure that the federal standards on underground radiation emissions are enforced?
29S76-8

June 11, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility, on the urging of the province of Ontario, for measuring radiation emission was delegated to that province. As the hon. member has said, that responsibility has not been adequately discharged and we will exercise the whole responsibility here.


John R. Rodriguez: That is very good to hear, Mr. Speaker, but in view of reports that provincial governments are pressing the federal government to turn over the responsibility for safety and health standards in the uranium mines in the provinces, and in view of recent statements by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, Leo Bernier, that miners will have to accept conditions as they are, tough it out, or quit, can the minister assure the House that the federal government will not wash its hands of responsibility for safety and health of uranium miners in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Some three weeks ago I asked the minister if he would consider issuing guidelines for Canadian engineering companies carrying out work in the territories on the pipeline and facilities and the minister indicated a favourable response. I wonder whether he has now decided what those guidelines should be?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter we are still trying to resolve. We had people in from Imperial Oil who were in the process of letting a contract for the first gas plant in the delta. We are looking seriously at the guidelines we should be imposing.
Perhaps I might reply to the hon. member's previous question of a week or ten days ago. I understand it was probably the contract let to Fleur Corporation to which the hon. member was referring when he mentioned Calgary. The firm, Fleur Corporation, which actually received it, is based in Houston.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker, and ask him one more question. Would he consider inviting the engineering companies from the industry to help him get the type of guidelines he should have rather than deal with the people who are letting out the contracts?


J. Judd Buchanan: I think that is probably a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The minister and his predecessor indicated that their department was preparing, in consultation with the various provinces, a home purchase warranty plan. Last week I believe the minister responsible for housing in Ontario indicated that Ontario was proceeding on its own with a home purchase warranty plan. Would it be possible for the minister today to indicate when the federal warranty plan will be ready?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the warranty plan is an independent plan. The industry, the provinces, the consumers and representatives of society in general are meeting on a regular basis. They are making very good progress. I would hope the program would be in place by the end of the year. The minister from Ontario who made those statements has officials participating in these regular meetings which are proceeding very satisfactorily. I would think that the target he has set for it to be in place is very much the target the independent group has to put it in place.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It follows somewhat a question posed to him yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Since a second jury has acquitted Henry Morgentaler, and despite this fact the Quebec minister of justice intends to fly in the face of the jury's decision and launch a further prosecution and also appeal the verdict, does the minister not feel obliged to protect the jury system and suggest to his counterpart that further prosecutions and the appeal should not be proceeded with?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly accept the various premises of the hon. member. It seems to me that ordinary prosecutions are in fact what are being pursued here, and that any consideration by the minister of justice of Quebec about whether or not to pursue an appeal would seem to be purely within his discretion and would depend on his judgment about whether or not it would be wise to do so. In the same way he has his principal responsibility with regard to all the questions about whether or not a criminal charge should be proceeded with. I cannot see how the disposition of one issue would decisively influence how the other issue should be dealt with. He will still be operating within his own purview. The other day some hon. members wondered whether I am sometimes reluctant to comment to the attorneys general about the way in which they carry on their functions. I may very well wish to do so or feel
June 11, 1975

obliged to do so, if I feel that in any way they are interfering with the application of the law or departing from the very important traditions of attorneys general functioning as officers of the court to apply the law and apply their discretion in that context. I cannot see that kind of departure in this circumstance.


POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE FOR DR. MORGENTALER
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will try another department and ask the Solicitor General if consideration is being given to the recommendation of a parole by exception for Henry Morgentaler?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is no application for such a parole.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the unfortunate and serious situation that has developed over the tainted meat scandal in Quebec and Ontario that is causing concern to producing cattlemen all across Canada and one that has already caused a price drop, will the minister use his good offices as a federal minister to ensure that federal meat inspection under the health of animals branch and the various provincial meat inspection agencies, is properly and quickly co-ordinated to ensure that all meat offered for sale in Canada for human consumption is adequately inspected by either the federal or provincial authorities and would he consider, as a means of accomplishing this objective, instructing the current Beef Inquiry Commission to inquire into the matter of the adequacy of national meat inspection and to make appropriate recommendations?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make it clear that the vast majority of the meat is inspected federally, under the CDA inspection services, and under provincial or municipal systems. The vast majority of those products are thoroughly inspected. I have at all times defended our federal inspection services, particularly because I am more familiar with them, and I say that any fresh meat appearing on the store counter that is obviously so inspected is high quality meat, consumers can be sure so far as we are concerned. The price of meat in Canada has not changed much. It is approximately the same as in the United States, and this is the controlling factor. The price of meat in Omaha is the same, within 50 cents, as the price of meat in Toronto. I have no authority to instruct the Beef Inquiry Commission, which is inquiring into the marketing of beef products to change their directives at this time, but I am having some discussions with regard to the problem.
Oral Questions


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that CMHC has issued a damning forecast for the economy in general and housing in particular, and in view of the fact that the deputy minister of finance sits on the CMHC board of directors, is this forecast by CMHC the result of consultation with the Department of Finance, and further, are the government's official predictions and evaluations of the economy in line with this June 6 report by CMHC?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, we have every confidence in the predictions made by the Department of Finance. In so far as the first part of the question is concerned as to the consultations, I will have to check that out.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVERT PREDICTIONS IN ECONOMIC FORECAST BY CORPORATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As the minister responsible for CMHC, does he accept the predictions put forward in the CMHC report "Economic Trends and Outlooks for 1975" and, if so, what immediate steps is he planning to take to avert the eight per cent unemployment, higher mortgage rates and fewer housing starts predicted in that report?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have every confidence in the economists of CMHC, but I have yet to find two economists who agree on the same set of figures. Their advice is based on background papers produced for guidance, and I also used them for guidance.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Given the fact that CMHC has emphasized the plight of the housing industry in relation to the economy in general, has the minister had any reassurance from the Minister of Finance that those factors which adversely affect housing and mortgage rates, such as long term bond rates and the deficits in the balance of trade, will be taken into consideration at the time of the budget?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have complete confidence that the Minister of Finance will take all these things under consideration when he brings down the budget.
6648

June 11, 1975
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


LOSS OF GRENADES DURING TRANSIT BY RAILWAY-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. With respect to questions I asked in the House on April 29 and May 7 concerning the theft of hand grenades from a CN rail box car in Chilliwack, is the minister in a position at this time to inform the House if the investigation has been completed and, if so, what was the result of the investigation and what action was taken to see that similar situations do not occur again?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I assume that the hon. member is referring to the grenades in the CN rail box car. An investigation was carried out and new rules were set down. CNR admitted that they had not taken sufficient precautions in order to protect the public. The public will be informed; the cars will be locked and a new set of measures are being adopted to ensure that the public will be fully protected in the future.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I ask the minister whether, in the course of the investigation, any evidence was produced that there was a failure to observe the regulations that were currently in effect at the time?


Jean Marchand: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: My
question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On May 29, 1975 I asked the minister if he could use his authority to insist that in the designation of target areas in Nova Scotia under the federal-provincial agreement top priority be given to the county of Cape Breton in view of the serious housing problem there. He informed me that he would be meeting in Halifax on Wednesday with his provincial colleagues and would be discussing this matter with them at which time he would certainly give it the high priority it deserves. Would the minister now give us an inkling of what conclusions were reached at that meeting?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed in Halifax on Wednesday and also met the minister in Ottawa just yesterday. He expressed the need for the same high priority. I have not had a specific answer regarding this project, but it is receiving current attention from our regional manager in the area.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in connection with the problem of unemployment and the housing crisis in Cape Breton. A few weeks ago he promised me that he would discuss this with the minister of development in the province of Nova Scotia. I would like to know now what conclusions were reached.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: There are continuing discussions between myself and various ministers in the governmeni of Nova Scotia, and there have been some since the hon. gentleman asked me the question before. I think he is aware of the supplementary agreement relating to the straits side of the island of Cape Breton. We are constantly looking for new opportunities through DEVCO and under supplementary agreements for the area more directly related to the Sydney steel operations. I hope that our efforts will be successful.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the problem of unemployment is still very serious, especially in Quebec, and since a few weeks ago I asked the minister whether he intended to recommend an extension for LIP projects and the approval of new projects, could the minister now tell the House whether he is in a position to recommend the extension of projects due to terminate soon and the approval of a number of others which were submitted last fall? I am speaking about worthwhile and not insignificant projects.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I cannot change my answer given to the hon. member when he asked the question previously, except to say that any decision on it will be made known to hon. members in the usual manner.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. As summertime lends itself far better than winter to the performance of certain jobs, would the minister at least consider recommending that projects such as those he mentioned a while ago be proceeded with, so that the workers can produce more and the funds can be of greater benefit to the community as a whole where those projects will be carried out?
June 11, 1975


Robert Knight Andras: I am afraid there is some contradiction in the premise in the hon. member's question in that while the projects may be carried out more efficiently in the summer from the climatic point of view, it is unfortunate but true that unemployment usually peaks in the winter. That is the objective of any program we have launched in the past and would be of any one we launch in the future.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that there are plans in the minister's department to take away national parks status from certain land, specifically land in Wood Buffalo National Park, would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions at an early date regarding the policy of Parks Canada and of this government in respect of the change of status of land in national parks?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is a most unusual thing for the department to remove any land from national parks. There were, if my memory serves me, only 60 or 70 square miles involved out of 18,000 square miles in this particular park. We felt there was an obligation to the Indian people in unsettled lands under their treaty, which ante dated the creation of the park. We felt this was an exception and an unusual exception.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not
answered my question. Surely, the Canadian people have the right to know this government's policy with regard to land removal from our national parks or does the minister feel that the Canadian people do not have the right to know that this government's policy is with regard to land removal from national parks?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the policy of this government in relation to national parks speaks for itself. In the last half dozen years my predecessor created ten new national parks which exceeded the record of all governments for the preceding 50 years. This was a singular exception, and the regular policy is that we would not remove land from national parks under any circumstances. However, these were extremely unusual circumstances and we felt the obligation to the Indian people ante debate the park's creation and took priority.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister's department arrived at any decision on the application by the province of Manitoba for a DREE grant to aid in construction of a dairy plant in Manitoba? The application has become quite controversial in that province.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the application and hon. members opposite have provided me with certain information regarding it. No decision has been made as yet. I have asked for a comprehensive study to determine the impact of this proposed undertaking on the dairy industry generally in the province. To date, I have not received all the information that I require to make a decision.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister taking into consideration the opposition to the plant from many milk producers, and also the harmful effects the proposed plant may have on existing small dairy processing plants already established in the province? Quite a few of these were established under the auspices of the minister's department in previous years. Is this information being asked for and will an evaluation be made on some of these bases?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had a few representations in favour of the project but there are concerns relating to the possible effects on the smaller operators. This consideration will be part of the analysis which I have undertaken.


POSSIBLE BUDGETARY MEASURES TO AID IN OVERCOMING REGIONAL DISPARITIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Because of continuing high unemployment and other economic difficulties, particularly in the Atlantic region, can the minister say whether any specific arrangements will be incorporated into the budget on his recommendations specifically designed to assist DREE to cope better with economic disparities? I am thinking of some measures to single out regions covered by his department for new initiatives in terms of economic assistance to cope with the real difficulties that we have not been able to eradicate. Will the minister be making a statement on this?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would not think I would be making a statement. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that while it is true I will be making recommendations and suggestions with regard to certain budgetary matters, the outcome will only be known on budget night.

June 11, 1975
Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would not expect the minister to reveal what these recommendations are at this time but could he assure the House that he has made a direct input into the budget to bring forward new recommendations to deal with DREE and give it increased powers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which is supplementary to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and again today by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, only I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the announced intention of the Attorney General of Quebec to appeal Dr. Morgentaler's second acquittal and to proceed with another ten charges is not exactly in accord with the ordinary practice in this country, would the Prime Minister consult with Premier Bourassa of Quebec about this course of action in an effort to preserve and protect the jury system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the relevance of that particular question to the jury system. Presumably, the other cases would proceed in front of a jury just as the most recent one did. But I do not take note of the suggestion of the hon. member. He has heard the answer of the Minister of Justice and, as the hon. member quite properly put it, this question is a matter for the provinces to decide. I will ensure that the representations of the hon. member are conveyed or brought to the attention of Mr. Bourassa.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the growing opposition to the admittance of the PLO for the United Nations conference in Toronto, particularly from the Israeli government, the Jewish Defence League, a letter from the Premier of Ontario and also the Liberal caucus of Ontario, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether cabinet has had an opportunity to make a decision and if so what is it? Also, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to reply to the Premier of Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the representations that the hon. member refers to. The matter has been brought to the

attention of cabinet and it will announce a decision fairly soon.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that PLO members are reportedly preparing to attend the Habitat conference scheduled for Vancouver next May, would the Prime Minister inform the House of the status of the review presently under way and particularly whether the review would cover that type of conference at some time in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously we will have to take a position relating to United Nations conferences. I would suggest our review will probably be broader than just the subject of United Nations conferences.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman is interested in reforming the Senate, and in view of the fact that International Women's Year is about half over and the government has done nothing for the plight of women, and because the Prime Minister is looking for a woman in Canada to fulfil these difficult tasks, would he consider a very hard-working and talented woman, Mrs. Una MacLean Evans from Edmonton to be appointed to the other place?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council, in his capacity of former Minister of External Affairs.
Does Canada intend to follow up the appeal made on June 9 in Washington by Senator Frank Church, chairman of the Senate sub-committee on multinational companies, to the effect that all members of NATO should reform their method of selling arms to prevent the recurrence of situations similar to the Northrop case?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has been reviewing its policy with respect to the sale of arms. As the hon. gentleman knows, we try to avoid selling arms to any area of conflict or potential conflict. We also try to see that our rules are not contravened indirectly. I can assure the hon. member that the kind of considerations he has raised are very much before us.
June 11, 1975



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Isabelle.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in both official languages-Mr. Loiselle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to make a statement on the British Columbia penitentiary incident, but at the request of the opposition I shall do so.
At approximately eight o'clock a.m. on June 9, 1975, three inmates of the maximum security British Columbia Penitentiary, New Westminster, British Columbia, armed with two knives, took 14 persons, including three women, hostage and forced them into a file vault of the institution's former classification building. Sole access to the vault is through a steel door.
Initially the three inmates demanded drugs and equipment to restrain the hostages. Their next demands were to see Garry Bannerman of Radio Station CKNW, Mordecai Briemberg of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), and legal aid lawyers Sorachan, Williams and Jackson. The three inmates are Dwight Lucas, Andrew Graydon Bruce and Clair Daniel Wilson. Later in the day, through Briemberg and Bannerman, the inmates demanded transportation with their hostages via helicopter to Vancouver International Airport, for onward transportation to some country which has no extradition treaty with Canada.
Throughout the day the inmates maintained dialogue with prison authorities through their chosen intermediaries while holding a knife at the throat of one of the women hostages. Our principal concern at this time was to save the lives involved and to gain time.
During the evening and night of June 9/10 action was undertaken, through the Department of External Affairs, at the Solicitor General's request, to determine if some country would be willing to accept the inmates on humanitarian grounds to save the lives of the hostages. We realized that it would be virtually impossible to find a
B.C. Prison Hostages
country which would take inmates with such serious criminal records, but we wanted to make an effort to show our good faith to the inmates and convince them that their demands were unreasonable and unrealistic.
The Department of External Affairs approached several countries to accept the inmates. Most refused outright, while some took the request under consideration. Finally, late on June 10, late last night, one accepted, on condition that the inmates be incarcerated on arrival and then returned to Canada. As a result of this acceptance, initial steps were taken to establish a contingency plan which could be presented to the cabinet and then to the inmates.
However, at approximately one o'clock this morning, B.C. time, the hostages managed to get all but Mary Steinhauser and two inmates into the vault, closed the door and overpowered their remaining antagonist. The institution security force standing by and observing this action rushed the inmates holding Mary Steinhauser. In the struggle Mary Steinhauser and one inmate were seriously injured. Both were transported to hospital where Ms. Steinhauser died shortly after. The inmate is said to be in critical condition.
The exemplary conduct displayed by the hostages throughout this difficult incident and the professionalism displayed by the staff of the British Columbia penitentiary, under the regional headquarters direction, in spite of the tragic conclusion of this incident, deserve the highest commendation.
A police investigation is being conducted, and the Canadian Penitentiary Service will establish an inquiry with respect to the entire incident.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we on my side of the House appreciate that the minister has been under a great deal of pressure. We are therefore grateful for the statement he has been able to make. We are exceedingly sorry to hear that a lady died in such unfortunate circumstances.
This tragedy brings to the fore the concern of Canadians for an efficient system of administration of justice. They are concerned about law and order and the protection of society. That being so, we hoped the minister would give a somewhat fuller assurance about the nature of the inquiry. Can he assure this House and country if there is to be, literally, a public inquiry? During the question period he mentioned that an inquiry would be held under the Penitentiaries Act. I do not see why it should not be an open, public inquiry. It could be held under the Penitentiaries Act, or as a royal commission.
The inquiry should not just look into the unfortunate factors which led up to the incident in the B.C. Penitentiary. It should look into the entire question of penitentiaries. Although we do not know the full facts, we do know that a report was made about a year and a half ago which recommended changes in the penitentiary administration of B.C. There was a recommendation that at least one, possibly two, new maximum security prison areas should be established.
We do not need more institutions like the one at Kamloops and Mission, which I understand are medium or intermediate security prisons. We have known for some time that inmates at New Westminster are overcrowded.

June 11, 1975
B.C. Prison Hostages
There has been a high staff turnover. The staff at New Westminster are paid less than their provincial counterparts at Okalla. Maximum security areas at New Westminster are overcrowded.
Following on this tragedy we need the assurance that there is to be a full, open inquiry, which will use this tragedy as the catalyst for focusing attention on conditions in penitentiaries. As I said, most are overcrowded, including New Westminster. I know that our priority is the safety of life, yet we must explore conditions in penitentiaries. What happened at New Westminster may make tinder boxes of other penitentiaries in this country.
Some questions need to be answered. For instance, how did such three dangerous criminals gain access to a classification area which is considered as being a relatively medium security area? After all, these were no ordinary criminals. One was an axe killer; he had killed a woman in front of her seven-year daughter. The other had stabbed a sheriff and stabbed an RCMP police officer. One of them had shot two people.
We know the minister's concern about capital punishment. I respect that concern. Much as we welcome plans to reform and rehabilitate those who are incarcerated in our penal institutions, we say that the minister, who is responsible for the administration of justice, must face the question of capital punishment and bring it back before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We must deal with that question, regardless of how we may feel as individuals. In my time as a member of this House I have seen that topic discussed on a number of occasions. Our people are concerned about our administration of justice; they are worried about permissiveness in our society, and feel frustrated because there is no opportunity for this House to debate capital punishment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked about conflicting priorities. Obviously, safety of life is one priority; is it higher than the recapturing or reincarcerating of escaped criminals? We cannot adhere to a double standard. The Prime Minister likes to philosophize about respect for law and order, and then he turns round and condones an official double-cross. These questions will need to be considered.
Other questions need to be answered. For instance, after the government had asked other countries if they would accept these criminals, and after most countries had refused and one accepted, on certain conditions, why did it take the Prime Minister and cabinet five hours to discuss the situation? Why was there that time lag? Why did it take so long to get in touch with officials at the scene, and get some type of response from the inmates? During that time the situation came to such a tragic climax.
Public opinion demands a full and open inquiry into not only the New Westminster tragedy but the whole question of the administration of justice within our penitentiary service, to give full protection to those in the service on

guard over the criminals. New Westminster is not a healthy situation.
The minister still has to face the question which is causing him so much concern, and bring back to the floor of this House the fundamental question involving life, namely, capital punishment. We should have an opportunity to air that question again. It would take care of some of the public frustration. The government seems sometimes to be more concerned about perverting the law by just having commutation wholesale rather than on a selective basis.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for the statement and express to him our appreciation of the difficulties and the tensions he has been under. It is always easy to use hindsight in these kinds of things.
I think I speak for every member of this House when I say that we would like to express to the mother and sister of Mary Steinhauser, the deceased hostage, our deepest and most sincere condolences. It is somewhat ironic that the deceased hostage was well-known for her dedication to improvement of our penal institutions. She was well-known for her sympathies with those who have to work and live within them. That is a part of this tragedy that makes this a doubly sad occasion.
As I say, hindsight is always easy. However, there are some very serious questions that must be asked about this particular incident. The first question to ask is whether it is routine or why it is that three, and in this case there were four, of the most dangerous criminals in Canada are allowed into the classification area of that prison with one security guard in attendance. Each of those prisoners had a past history of desperate conduct. One recently tried to escape. All were serving life sentences, two for murder, and one for attempted murder.
It is a legitimate question to ask whether the security system in this institution and in other maximum security institutions is being administered properly by the Solicitor General's department. These are not cheap political shots. These questions have been raised over and over in this House. We would like some action in terms of security and protection for those who have to work in these institutions.
The second question that has to be resolved, and it is the reason we call for an inquiry, concerns the delay that arose between the indication that an unnamed country was willing to accept these prisoners and making the decision on when to relate the information, and the reasons given for not relating the information. I would say that cries out for a full investigation. I do not mean having a department investigate this. Frankly, that is a waste of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have had a lot of internal investigations. In this case the public are entitled to the full light of day on all of these facts. I recommend that we appoint a supreme court judge who is rich in criminal law experience, one with good common sense. We should get outside the civil service and bring someone in to have a look at this whole situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 11, 1975


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A departmental investigation is ridiculous. It will not satisfy the public in any way, shape or form. The public have been concerned about these institutions for quite some time. It is necessary to get outside the service and see that justice is not only done but is perceived to be done.
A difficult question was posed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in answering one of the questions put to him. He said "Well, it's all right for you guys, but you are not on the spot." I recognize the government had a dilemma in terms of whether it should release three desperate and dangerous criminals. However, there is a precedent in this country, the Cross case.
No one in this party objected to the procedure followed in the Cross case. I do not know of anyone crying because the criminals in the Cross case are somewhere abroad. I believe that was the right approach. I hope the government took that approach.
I am concerned indeed that there is an ambiguity in the statements that were received today on the question of the release of those prisoners and the question of the protection of those hostages. I sincerely hope the government did not try to have it both ways in this case. That would be a case of compounding this very serious tragedy.
In view of the severe criticism the government has had over the years in terms of its penal service administration, and in view of this being one incident in many, we should not forget this tragedy. Mary Steinhauser should not have died in vain. We cannot go on playing the same game. We need a full public inquiry into the way these maximum security institutions are run.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we know what tomorrow holds in as much as it is made and influenced by the Solicitor General. Another tragedy has just occurred at New Westminster. The only answer of this government is to extend, through the Solicitor General, their sincere sympathy to the bereaved family, congratulations to those who risked their lives in spite of the minister's indolence, and finally, to order an inquiry which will remain on the shelves like all previous police investigations.
Mr. Speaker, a similar tragedy occurred not so long ago, at Cowansville, in the province of Quebec; the circumstances were different but the consequences were similar. A prison guard was killed there. The next day the minister was asked what he intended to do. Did he intend to take measures or was he taking measures to guarantee maximum security in our prisons, to protect our prison guards and encourage them to work, and particularly, to protect our society. This minister, in an eloquent and remarkable endeavour, said he extended the family his sincerest sympathy, and he had ordered an inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, this did not prevent another tragedy, at New Westminster this time. The three murderers concerned who held 14 hostages at New Westminster were well-known, hardened criminals convicted for premeditated and capital murders, and they had been sentenced to life imprisonment.
B.C. Prison Hostages
Yet, the minister should understand that those three individuals who played the heros, which cost the life of an innocent person were already under the maximum penalty before taking the hostages, namely life imprisonment. Neither do they fear, regardless of the seriousness of their crimes, a more severe penalty because even before the tragedy at Cowansville, before the tragedy at New Westminster, those criminals had already been condemned, before they did anything, to the maximum penalty provided under the act, regardless of the seriousness of their murder, that is life emprisonment.
Proceeding from that principle rejected by the minister-and he is staking his political life on it-it does not matter to the inmate whether he kills one, two or five prison guards with whatever weapon he can use to commit another crime, a knife, a revolver or other weapon, his penalty will not be any more severe than before his crime. He is already under the maximum penalty.
Mr. Speaker, this is how happen deplorable and absolutely unfortunate situations such as we have just witnessed at New Westminster, when we have to find an obliging country ready to assume towards the criminals the responsibilities which we have failed to accept.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I suggest that the minister will be held directly responsible of those tragedies so long as he refuses to allow the House to review the matter of capital punishment and to reinstate it in cases of premeditated murder.
Mr. Speaker, as reported in Hansard for May 5, on page 5452, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Papros-ki) asked the following question: Will the government consider a national referendum on the abolition or retention of capital punishment? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) replied: The government has no such intention. When the hon. member for Edmonton Centre asked for a national referendum with a view to ascertaining public opinion on the matter, the President of the Privy Council answered:
Mr. Speaker, at every general election, the people of this country have some imput. The last time they elected a majority of Liberals.
There is the government' answer and the manner,-in between tragedies-it considers the problem. So, when there is no tragedy, the government refuses to consider the issue of capital punishment, refuses to reconsider it, when it knows that public opinion is very much divided on the issue and disappointed by the administration of justice at present.
When an unfortunate tragedy occurs, everybody agrees. Then, the minister makes a fine statement or extends his sympathy. But, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow another tragedy could take place and there is absolutely no guarantee that measures are being taken by the department, since, for the government, it is a purely political issue. I think, and I know this is a serious charge, that the minister's own head or department are more important to him than the protection of innocent human lives in prisons. That is why I think I am expressing the views of many of my fellow-citizens when I say I am deeply disappointed to see that such murders, such crimes can be committed in an organized and civilized society with impunity.

June 11, 1975
B.C. Prison Hostages


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate, of course, the circumstances in which the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) changed his mind about making a statement on motions, but this does not take away from the fact that the Chair has already allowed a number of questions on this subject today. Had the Chair known then that a statement on motions would be made, and that there would have been an opportunity to ask questions later, the Chair would not have shown the latitude it did. In the circumstances I think hon. members ought to be quite brief in their questions. The subject has been well ventilated. I shall try not to restrict questions too severely, but I think we ought to come quickly to the point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. I ask him this question fully realizing that it is after the event and recognizing, also, the pressure under which he and the government were living yesterday. But we need a little more light, I think, on what happened during the five hours between the receipt of the information that a country was prepared to accept these criminals and the final confrontation at the penitentiary. Was there, in fact, a decision taken by the government in the course of those five hours that this offer would not be accepted but that this would not be communicated to the criminals in question because, as I understand it, there was no communication of any aspect of this offer to the criminals?
Was there in fact a decision taken not to act on this offer or, on the other hand, was it the case that in the course of those five hours, to put it dramatically, with a woman with a knife to her throat, the government was unable to reach a decision as to what it should do?


William Warren Allmand: To begin with, I am not sure whether it was five hours. I was at the telephones for more than 24 hours-I know it was a long time. But as soon as I was advised that the country in question would accept the prisoners under certain conditions, I immediately consulted with my deputy minister, the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, and some other senior people in the department. That took maybe half an hour or 45 minutes. I then got in touch with the Prime Minister and discussed it with him.
I then immediately called British Columbia to speak to the regional director. He had spent the whole night there the night before and he had gone home for the first time in two days. I could not get him at the penitentiary, but finally I got him at his home in Abottsford. I discussed the matter with him, described the offer as conveyed to me by the Department of External Affairs and asked him to think about the implications, discuss them with the leading people in the B.C. region, and call me back as soon as possible.
I told him that among the issues we had to resolve were whether he thought there was any chance of the offer being accepted by the inmates, and who should convey the offer to the inmates if we were to convey it. I wanted his advice on how we were to carry it out, and how quickly. I wanted his advice on the particular offer. He said he would do that. He returned to the penitentiary after he

had freshened up a bit. He went back to New Westminster. I was waiting for his call.
We called him later, and he said they were getting further reports on the situation inside the place where the hostages were, and that everything seemed cool and calm and most people were going to settle down for the night. He said he would be discussing the offer from the foreign country shortly and that he would call me back. I waited. The next thing that happened was that I got a call indicating that the hostages inside had tried to overcome their captors.
Both the hostages and the inmates inside the classification wing knew we had asked several countries for permission to send them there. When we had received answers from those countries, and most of the answers were no, we would report as soon as possible to the inmates saying we were waiting for others, and so on. They knew there were certain outstanding responses to come in. Before a final assessment of that offer was received, this further incident occurred where a girl was killed.
With respect to the fact that the girl was killed, I must say that throughout the entire period one of the inmates was holding a knife to the throat of one girl or other. They used that as a means of controlling the other 13 hostages since there were only three inmates and 14 captives.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be unfair about it and I do not want to be critical of any individuals, but I should like to ask the Solicitor General this question: in view of the lapse of time, whether five hours or four and a half hours, and the obvious pressure and fatigue for the people on the spot with responsibility, does the Solicitor General honestly feel that the government's apparatus and organization for dealing with this kind of emergency are adequate? I ask that question in view, as I say, of the fatigue obviously involved for the limited number of people associated with this operation, the difficulty of getting word back and forth, and of making a decision in a great emergency.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I say, as soon as the message was received we did nothing else but work on this particular offer. We wanted to make sure that the offer would not be misunderstood and that it would be conveyed properly. As I say, we wanted the advice of the people on the spot. At one time we considered whether we should send the offer directly into the inmates, but that was advised against because of the tenseness of the situation there, and I took the advice of the people on the spot.
There was no sitting around or delay. There were discussions, many telephone conversations. It so happened that when we tried to get the regional director, for the first time in a long period he had just gone home to change and freshen up. I am not sure how far Abbotsford is from New Westminster, but he had gone home. He got dressed immediately and returned to the penitentiary.
It was understood by nearly everyone that at a certain period of the day they would not hear anything else during that day, and that they would wait until the morning for further answers to come in on the request made to
June 11, 1975

the different countries. Everyone had the impression that everything was all right and that there was no great pressure at that time. For one reason or other the hostages decided at a given point that they were going to overcome their captors, and of course that led to the situation where a person died. They were no doubt acting in the best of faith. They were frightened. They knew the offers were out. But as I say, there was no delay. We were given the impression that there was no time limit, that everyone was willing to wait till morning since night time had come.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House, not of the last time that the communication was received in terms of the country that was apparently willing to take these prisoners, but of the last time a communication was given to the prisoners and hostages concerning the level of activity in regard to meeting the demands of the prisoners? At what time were they last advised as to the progress of the negotiations?


William Warren Allmand: It is hard for me to say, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I made many, many telephone calls. I think on Monday night as soon as I got to sleep the phone rang again, and I had no sleep at all that night. Last night I think I was in bed for about two hours, so I forget.
I know I phoned many times to British Columbia. I dealt with three people-the regional director, the acting regional director, and the director of the penitentiary. I had many conversations with these three individuals and they worked with the team that was discussing matters with the inmates and hostages. I had one conversation with Mr. Bannerman on Monday. I conveyed information as quickly as I could, and they conveyed it to me as quickly as they could. I was dealing back and forth with Ottawa as well.
I was lucky, Mr. Speaker, because we had gone to Toronto for a conference. We did not attend the conference at all, but as a result I had my senior people right with me at my hotel and throughout the whole night we were together and in consultation.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficulties inherent in this kind of situation, but would the minister advise whether the condition of the hostages themselves prior to this unfortunate incident was assessed by anybody on the scene? These hostages had been held since approximately eight o'clock on Monday. The final incident apparently took place at one o'clock western time last night. Did anyone assess the physical or mental conditions of the hostages as well as of the prisoners? Obviously the prime concern would be to see that no precipitate action took place on the part of the prisoners. What kind of assessment took place regarding the risks inherent in keeping that many people enclosed over that period of time?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I had a report late yesterday, I think late in the evening eastern time, perhaps around midnight. I was told that that would be eight or nine o'clock in the west, but I cannot be sure of the exact time. I was told they had ordered supper for all the inmates and hostages from outside, and that everything seemed to be as well as possible under the circumstances, that everyone appeared cool.
B.C. Prison Hostages
By the way, the penitentiary employees outside the classification unit could see inside, and on one occasion they brought out hostages so they could be seen by the people outside, and they seemed to be well. The negotiating team also said they seemed to be well. The conditions were not the best, but there was no hysteria or undue concern shown by the hostages. They seemed very cool and placid considering it was a very difficult situation. So the assessment was that in the circumstances things were pretty calm and under control, in the sense of control in these circumstances.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: As a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister satisfied that the action that precipitated the unfortunate struggle in this incident was on the side of the hostages, or was it on the side of the inmates? Is there any indication at this point as to the causal factor of the struggle that took place?


William Warren Allmand: I am advised that the hostages at a given point decided that they would try and overcome their captors, the inmates. What led them to decide at that particular time to act one does not know, but they did act all of a sudden. Again I understand that one of the inmates had been given drugs. He was a drug addict and drugs were given him because it was felt that by supplying the drugs he might fall asleep or become high; and in fact that is what happened to him. He became high on drugs and he was easy to overcome. I guess that at a given time they thought they could take action, they picked up a tripod and went after the other inmates. A struggle ensued and the guards came in, and shots were fired. We still do not know the exact cause of death of the girl who died, Mary Steinhauser; that will be assessed and we will be getting a medical report.


Mr. Speaker:: There are four other hon. members who are seeking to ask questions. I had indicated earlier that I thought the subject had been rather thoroughly discussed. I propose to see two additional members, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), and then discontinue questioning at that point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask one question. At what time was it that the authorities in British Columbia became aware of the fact that the hostages intended to try to overcome the inmates?


William Warren Allmand: This came without warning, Mr. Speaker. I was told by the regional director that they were in their offices, actually discussing the proposal from the country I mentioned earlier, and they had just started their discussions when they heard the shots fired and they rushed out. By the time they got there they were bringing out the bodies and so on.
The correctional officers at the institution were outside this special classification unit. They were watching and waiting, and their instructions were not to invade the unit unless harm was being done to the hostages or unless a struggle ensued. As soon as they saw a struggle under way they went in and tried to save as many lives as possible and reduce the conflict.

June 11, 1975
B.C. Prison Hostages


Gerald William Baldwin: There was no advance warning?


William Warren Allmand: There was no advance warning
whatsoever.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have just two questions for the minister and I will ask them both at once. As the minister remembers, back in 1973 we had a major problem in the British Columbia Penitentiary with a riot. At that time a motion that I put forward in this House was passed, setting up a committee of this House to investigate security at penitentiaries. I should like to know whatever happened to that report because it seems now we are going to set up another committee, and two years from now there will not be anything done in respect of that penitentiary.
Secondly, the minister said in one of his answers today that they were building penitentiaries in Kamloops and Mission. I think the minister is aware that neither of those is to be a maximum security institution. The city of Lilloo-et has offered a location to the federal government, and the minister said they had turned it down a number of times. In fact the city of Lillooet is begging for the federal government to build a maximum security penitentiary there, and I wonder if the minister could advise us if they are going to go ahead with that maximum security institution. It certainly would be a good place for animals of the type that were in that room last night, the three of them, to be sent to, because you have to segregate those people from the other ones who are in that institution, or you are going to continue to have those problems.


William Warren Allmand: I would agree; we are actively examining the Lillooet site, and a decision will be made shortly. I think I should also point out that we looked at a site in the hon. member's riding and the people there did not want that particular site. It is a difficult thing, especially in populated areas, to find public acceptance for a maximum security penitentiary.
In respect of the other question regarding the committee that was set up in the last parliament, if you will recall, a special sub-committee of the justice committee was set up to study security and other matters in the penitentiary services following a series of escapes and other problems in the penitentiaries. That committee was under the chairmanship of the present Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).
They carried on work in different parts of the country, but they were unable to get the committee together for a report. As a result, the hon. lady chairman sent me an individual report of her own. Some other members of the committee sent me their individual reports, but other members did not. There was never a report of the entire committee. I had the benefit of those personal reports, but there was never a report tabled by the committee.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or perhaps a question of privilege. The minister stated that the commission came into my riding and looked for a site to build a penitentiary but the people of my riding turned it down. I think that is misleading the House to a great

extent. They wanted to put it at a certain location in my riding, which the people would not accept. The people of my riding proposed other locations in the riding that would be quite acceptable. The location we are talking about is in the middle of a residential area where there is also an airport. I think the minister should withdraw that point as it is very unfair to say that the people of my riding turned down a penitentiary in the riding. They turned down the location which, to the majority of my people, including a former Liberal member, is a poor location.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was federal government property, formerly a military base, and it was assessed as being a good site. I just say to the hon. member that the people in the area did not want a penitentiary on that site, and perhaps there were good reasons. I am not aware of the other sites in the riding to which he referred, but we would be glad to look at them.


APPROVAL FOR BROADCASTING OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
June 9,-The President of the Privy Council.-The following proposed motion:-That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,998, 2,005, 2,203, 2,375, 2,387 and 2,451.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,948 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
June 11, 1975


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was the Department of Supply and Services directed by Treasury Board to develop an efficient and effective EDP procurement organization to service all departments and agencies?
2.	What has been the progress to date?
3.	How many independent EDP groups do work for the Department?
4.	Where do the responsibilities of these respective groups lie in terms of the many departments and agencies in government?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes, except in those circumstances where DSS considers delegation of purchasing authority to departments or agencies to be more effective.
2.	The Department of Supply and Services received TB approval on September 21, 1973 to establish an EDP organization which would plan and consolidate the procurement of all EDP goods and services in accordance with Treasury Board Circular Letter 1972-24 relating to EDP in the federal government. Its reorganized Electronics and Data Processing Sector has consolidated the procurement of EDP goods and services for some 60 user departments and agencies. Beneficial bulk procurement arrangements have been brought about for items in common use, as have improvements in the services available to users and in the efficiency with which procurement resources are used. In the fiscal year 1973-74 contracts were issued with a total value of $81 millions, and the estimated value for 1974-75 is $100 millions.
3.	In DSS: There are three EDP responsibility centres. In the Private Sector: There are 480 independent EDP groups or companies to date on our source lists, of which some 350 have received DSS contracts.
4.	DSS: (a) The first group is the procurement organization within the Electronics and Data Processing Sector which arranges all contracting for EDP goods and services, (b) The second group operates computer-aided text processing equipment as part of the system for printing government publications, including Hansard, (c) The Services Administration of DSS maintains a computer network for pay and related matters. Private Sector: The private sector provides hardware, software and services under contract to DSS in satisfaction of requisitions received by DSS from government departments and agencies.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Of the over $53 million contracted for EDP equipment in the last fiscal year, will the Minister of Supply and Services provide a breakdown of all such contracts, respectively enumerating dollar amounts awarded?
2.	What regard does Canadian content have in consideration of awarding EDP contracts?
3.	What percentage of the $53 million figure in terms of development, design, construction and procurement was of Canadian content?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The EDP Division of the Electronics and Data Processing Sector purchased for fiscal year 1973-74
Order Paper Questions
approximately $81 million, including services. The Department does not have the manpower and financial resources to provide the information in the detail requested. However, the following data might be useful. The total number of contracts for equipment and services were 2,122; approximately $40 million for equipment and $41 million for services. The latter includes: Leased lines, $25 million; Service bureaux, $12 million; Miscellaneous services, $4 million. A breakdown by value class intervals is as follows:
$ Value	Documents	Total Dollars0- 10,000	1,640	$4.2 Million10K-200,000	448	14.2 Million200 K-1 Million	22	8.0 Millionover 1 Million	12	54.2 MillionTotal	2,122	$80.6 Million2.	The Department's solicitation policies and procedures favour Canadian producers and others who have rationalized their production in Canada to ensure opportunities to supply world markets. Detailed Canadian content requirements may be specified depending on the system and equipment to be procured. These would appear in the terms and conditions of invitations to tender and form part of the basis on which the tenders would be assessed.3.	This varies substantially depending on the type of equipment. The average however is estimated to be a minimum of 25 per cent Canadian content on the $40 million of EDP equipment. The $41 million of data processing services is fully Canadian.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	What has been the total number of men trained on CPR under the on-the-job training programme for engineers (a) how many have been trained at (i) Vancouver (ii) Reveistoke (iii) Calgary (iv) Medicine Hat (v) Moose Jaw (vi) Saskatoon (vii) Winnipeg (b) what has been the total cost of the Manpower Programme and what is the breakdown per trained engineer (c) what formula is used for cost-sharing?
2.	(a) What is the total cost per trained engineer for training undertaken at CNR Gimli, Manitoba (b) how many (i) graduates (ii) failures have there been?
3.	Does CNR receive assistance under Manpower and, if so, in what amount?
4.	Has RTC initiated studies as to the effectiveness of CNR and CPR programmes and, if so, are such studies available?
5.	Has CNR and CPR made use of Manpower policies for training carmen and, if so, in what manner?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Transport Commission as follows: 1. The total number of men trained on CPR as engineers under the Canada Manpower Training Program since it inception is 49. Of these, ten were trained in Edmonton and the balance as follows: (a) (i) Vancouver, 0; (ii) Reveistoke, 0; (iii) Calgary, 7; (iv) Medicine Hat, 9; (v) Moose Jaw, 12; (vi) Saskatoon, 11; (Vii) Winnipeg, 0; (b) The total cost to Canada under the Canada Manpower Training Program for the training of the 49 engineers on CPR was $85,356. The average cost to Canada for each trained engineer was

June 11, 1975
Order Paper Questions
$1,741.95. (c) The formula used to calculate the costs to Canada are percentage reimbursements of wage costs actually incurred by the employer, CPR, during the training period: in Calgary and Medicine Hat it was 50 per cent for classroom training and 25 per cent for on-the-job training; in Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, it was 40 per cent of wage costs.
2.	(a) $3,124. (b) (i) 524 to end 1974, (ii) 10 to end 1974.
3.	CNR did not receive any assistance for the training of engineers at Gimli, Manitoba. However, it has received assistance under the Canada Manpower Training Pro-gramm to train other various categories of staff. The total amount of such assistance for the year 1974-75 was $77,806 and the amount contracted to date for the year 1975-76 is $34,759.
4.	No.
5.	Only CNR has made use of the Canada Manpower Training Program to train carmen. In the year 1972-73 a total of 16 persons undertook such training in the Atlantic Region at a cost to Canada of $9,600.


Mr. Herbert: Has the Department of Communications ascertained to what extent radio and television reception will be eliminated or reduced by the proposed Hydro-Quebec power lines which are to export electricity to the United States?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: An evaluation of previous experience with electrical transmission lines of similar high voltage extending into the Montreal and Quebec urban areas indicates that television and radio reception in the vicinity of the new transmission lines to the United States should not be significantly affected if affected at all.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the government a policy relating to new construction and new design of buildings in efforts to conserve energy and, if so (a) what is such policy (b) how is it being implemented?
2.	Have any studies been carried out with regard to dynamic thermal analysis and, if so, by whom and with what recommendations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. Discussions relating to policy implementation on conservation of energy in new construction and new design of buildings are currently taking place among relevant Federal government departments and agencies such as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Public Works, the National Research Council, and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
2. To implement this program a special Task Group was established within the Department of Public Works to carry out energy system analysis and conceptual design responsibilities using the thermodynamic and the hour-

per-hour simulation techniques. Working on a project-byproject basis the Task Group has carried out the analysis of many building projects and their associated systems and optimized the projected energy consumption for these projects.


Mr. Brisco: How many proposed hydro projects are presently planned for British Columbia which will receive some form of federal assistance, and where are such projects located?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: None.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the government contract more than $53 million dollars in computer hardware and services last year within the Department of Supply and Services and, if so (a) what are the names of manufacturer distributors (b) to what degree is the purchasing policy vis-a-vis Canadian content regarded in buying such hardware and services.
2.	What efforts are being made to make use of the unused potential in operating capacity of data processing and photocopying units within the Department?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 3, consideration of Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Towers for Mr. Horner).
June 11, 1975
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this motion stands in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and I was speaking on the bill only because that hon. member was not in the House at the time it was introduced, I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member for Crowfoot the 40 minutes allotted to the mover of the motion, in which case I would only take 20 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This should be done by unanimous consent so we will be sure there will be no difficulty. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment to Bill C-50 I should give special consideration to the opportunities for agricultural production that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is overlooking. If there ever was an opportunity in this country or this world for the production of food we have that opportunity now in Canada. We have the producers who are ready, willing, and waiting to produce food for a hungry world.
One of the problems we have to deal with exists because we have a Minister of Agriculture who lacks imagination and apparently the initiative to legislate programs which would be not only to the benefit of the producers, but ultimately to the benefit of the consumers in Canada and to the population of a hungry world. To me it is immoral to limit the production of food.
We have to exercise care that we do not enter into or negotiate those types of legislation that will limit food production. We have to exercise great care primarily because we are an agricultural oriented country. The urbanization of Canada is increasing very rapidly. Up to the present time a great many urban dwellers who are also consumers have more or less left administration policy to those who are interested in the production of food. This is good, providing the proper climate is established or is in evidence for ultimate production. I think it is incumbent on each and every one of us in this House of Commons to ensure that this comes about.
It is very difficult, especially for those of us in the opposition, to get the Minister of Agriculture to accept those policies which are not only going to be to the benefit of the producers but also the benefit of consumers.
I realize that stabilization was enacted in an effort to get away from the boom and bust cycle. This is all right so far as the majority of producers are concerned. However, what is unacceptable to them is that if they had to take a lower average income because of stabilization than they would have as an over-all average in the boom and bust cycle, this would be to the detriment of agriculture. This is why we must exercise a great deal of care in initiating policies for the benefit of Canadians. I am sure this is one reason why this matter concerned so many people in committee, and interested so many people across Canada.
Many representations were made to the committee. Surely it is not necessary for me to remind the minister that members of the opposition on the committee had to fight very hard indeed for the right of witnesses to appear
Agricultural Stabilization Act
before the committee, and for representations to be made. A large number of groups and organizations are vitally concerned about this legislation, not the least of whom is the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario. I realize I shall not be able to cover all the points I consider important in respect of this legislation, but my colleagues during the course of this afternoon and during future sessions when this legislation is being debated I am sure will bring these other points to the attention of the House.
I wish to read into the record certain statements made by the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario. He said:
Bill C-50 represents a most significant piece of agricultural legislation. Its importance has been emphasized by the representations made to the standing committee by various farm organizations. The problems inherent in deriving an effective income protection program are many; the regional make-up of our country, the numerous commodities to be considered, the constitutional framework of the country, that is, who should assume the responsibility or be involved in a stabilization plan-the federal and/or provincial governments and/or farmers.
Then he went on to state further:
First, we believe the federal government has an obligation to place a floor on farm prices that prevents the kind of disaster prices that drive farmers from the land. We suggest that the federal government guarantee a price at 90 per cent of the average price for the last five years, and more preferably the last three years. The federal government would make a payment to all producers when the price fell below that level.
Many people are concerned that this bill could give a great deal of power to the Minister of Agriculture and the government without imposing any obligation on them. It would seem that the minister has it both ways. This is not good enough when one considers the past record of the minister. He has moved about the country telling the urban people, the consumers, that they will have to pay more for the products they use on their tables. I am sure everyone understands this when one considers the tremendous amount of good land that is being gobbled up by the large cities.
If I remember the figures correctly, I believe in the province of Ontario something in the order of 20 acres go out of production every hour. A similar situation exists in western Canada where the cities are alsd growing. With good agricultural land being taken out of production I am sure the time is not too distant when the Minister of Agriculture will have an obligation to encourage producers to produce to the fullest of their capability.
One concern we have about this legislation is that, if at any stage the minister decided that the producers were producing too much in any aspect of agriculture, he could place curbs on production to the detriment not only of the producers of the product but ultimately the consumer.
In referring to the portion of the bill that this amendment would delete I wish to mention two lines:
For the purpose of stabilizing the price of an agricultural commodity, the Board may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the Governor in Council...
That would give tremendous power to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think this is desirable. Nor do I believe it is for the benefit of the producers. If it is not for the benefit of the producers then ultimately it certainly will not be for the benefit of the consumers. If there should be a shortage due to the shortcomings of any policy

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
of the government, then ultimately the consumers will suffer.
I should like to place on the record a statement made by the Canadian Pork Council. At page 2 of the brief presented by this council we find the following:
The interim stabilization plan was developed on the concept of the federal government guaranteeing a margin of $22.41 per hundredweight over a nationally weighted average feed cost.
The feed cost was developed from two basic feed formuli-one using western grain, the other basically a corn ration. The national average feed cost is of course weighted by the preponderance of feed usage in eastern Canada. The amount of grain used in the former was 548 pounds per hog with a protein level of 13 per cent-both of which are considered by the pork council to be unrealistically low. Not only was the five year "cost" inadequate in that it contained too little feed and protein, but moreover did not include other costs of production.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind the minister that in committee and during the debate on second reading I, and my colleagues on this side of the House, wished the minister to include in the cost of production transportation costs to market. He apparently is of the opinion that this would be difficult to do. Surely with all the computer systems available in Canada it would not be too difficult to provide a little equality between eastern and western Canada, or vice-versa.
This brief further states:
The margin was struck as the difference between the nationally weighted price and the nationally weighted feed cost, and is guaranteed at 90 per cent. The effective support level is about $42 per hundred (the cumulative feed grain cost from April 1, 1974 to February 1, 1975 was $20.64).
At the level of $42 per hundredweight the support for 1974 was found to be so low, compared to current costs, that all provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Manitoba, provided for some level of market price assistance for varying periods of time during 1974. In Manitoba a payment to sustain and encourage production was made to producers for the increase in their production this year over last year.
That is the problem with which this bill should be dealing. I am disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture has not initiated a program which, as I said earlier, would benefit the producers and ultimately the consumers. In his position as minister he would be capable of bringing in such a program. I think that he has reneged on his responsibilities because he has not established such a policy in agreement with the provinces, a policy which would be for the benefit of the producers. It is not good enough for him to bring in this type of program, and take credit for it even though it does not work. He can then go on the hustings and say to the electors that he brought in Bill C-50, the stabilization program. That is not good enough, because a program that is to benefit the producers and ultimately the consumers must work.
Let me quote some more of the statements contained in the brief of the Canadian Pork Council. This is what they said:
On the marketing side there is no single national market for pork. There are a series of provincial or regional markets with the Ontario market being the major one. For the most part all other markets are priced below the Toronto market. One of the major concerns of the Pork Council members during the past year, particularly the western members, has been the price discrepancies which exist between their markets and the Toronto market. The difference has been usually much wider than the cost of moving pork into eastern markets. For example, as can be seen from the attached appendix, the price spread

between Saskatoon and Toronto for 1974 was $7.66 per cwt. This is slightly more than $4 per cwt. more than the cost of trucking pork from Saskatoon to Toronto even at the new 1975 rates. Saying so however, the council does recognize that ready availability of supplies is in some situations and circumstances worth some level of premium.
We have to recognize that agricultural organizations, producers, provincial governments and their agricultural committees are concerned.
The Pork Council submission goes on to read:
However, as noted, the Pork Council believes that programs to assure at least minimum income should be the responsibility of the federal government and therefore we believe that a federal stabilization program should be tailored to serve regional needs and thus deal with all producers and regions comparably. In our view the establishment of a federal program with different regional applications, if circumstances dictate the need of it, is far preferable to a series of competitive provincial agreements "top loaded" on a basic national program. This is precisely the kind of program that pork producers have experienced during the past year, and which they have been looking forward to getting out of and into a national plan financed by the federal government.
This is exactly what I have been talking about. No doubt my colleagues will be discussing this further. The federal government has shortchanged the producers of Canada by not initiating this type of program which will ultimately benefit the producers, stabilize the agricultural industry, and benefit the consumers. I see that you are ready to rise, Mr. Speaker, to remind me that my time is up. I thank you for your consideration.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I want to explain just why I felt it necessary to put this amendment before the House. In my view it is a sad day when we are ready to grant more and more power to the government which it does not know how to use. Yet it wants absolute power. The clause which I propose be deleted from the bill grants this power to the government.
Whatever powers the minister or the government can devise between now and kingdom come can be used by the minister and the Department of Agriculture under this bill. He does not have to come back to parliament to ask for more power because, for instance, there is a problem which might arise in some parts of Canada; he can go ahead and solve it without parliament. To many who do not treasure democracy and who do not believe in representative government, this may be the way things should be done. Although representative government may not be the most efficient form of government, it is still the best there is. Some people may say that granting such powers to the government may make it more efficient and may make civil servants more authoritative. This is what this clause is doing.
The present Agricultural Stabilization Act which this clause amends contains a clause dealing with powers. I am referring to clause 7 (a) to (g), which deals with specific powers that the government can use to implement or stabilize the prices of agricultural commodities. The minister said that was not enough, he wanted more powers. The hon. member who spoke before me said that more power might be all right but that under our federal system there should have been further consultations with provincial governments regarding what powers they would approve. This is also my view.
June 11, 1975

I have a letter here, written by a young person in Virden, Manitoba, saying that the people over there do not quite understand the Minister of Agriculture and they would like me to attempt to explain my views to them. I attempted to do this to my constituents, but I hesitate to write to Virden, Manitoba. In explaining my objections to this clause I stated the following in the House on October 15:
There are two basic directions we can take to tackle our mounting problems; one is socialistic, with state participation in all sectors, and the other is through a free market economy with over-all state control.
In this way the economy can be gauged and we know exactly where it is at. Most members of the old Liberal party would have had no objection to taking any of those two directions, and no objections to going along with a free market economy and over-all state control. But this Liberal government and the Minister of Agriculture do not feel that is enough. They want to tinker with society and they want state participation in all sectors of society. That is spelled out in the two agricultural bills before the House, Bill C-41 which deals with grain for export, and Bill C-50 which deals with every other agricultural commodity produced except for western grain, which is being dealt with under Bill C-41.
The deputy minister of agriculture spoke before the Committee on Agriculture with regard to Bill C-41. He said we have two bills under study. I should like to quote him from page 44 of Committee Proceedings 41. He said that Bill C-41 is designed to deal with western grains, the six major grains. He went on to say that 70 per cent of that production is for export. Then he said:
-I think you have the two bills before you. Indeed at one point, it was even considered calling the western bill an export and market insurance bill because that was the heavy orientation of it. However, it is still called the Western Grain Stabilization Act, but that is the primary difference that we see here.
The difference is that this bill deals with commodities produced in Canda and most of that production which is marketed in Canada. I have a growing fear that in granting the government a blank cheque or powers beyond what the minister has today, it will turn to supply management. The minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario also had this fear which he voiced during his appearance before the committee. He said:
Under 10(1) (1.1) of Bill C-50 our interpretation of the wording "may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the Governor in Council for that purpose" to mean the possibility of production controls or supply management.
I share that fear, Mr. Speaker. Supply management is often spoken of as a goal, a dream, but to my mind it would eventually limit production to the known market for nearly every commodity produced in Canada outside of the six major grains. That known market is Canada itself. The Minister of Agriculture is a much quoted proponent of supply management and of marketing boards. It is my fear that the powers in this clause would limit production of hogs, cattle, poultry, wool, sheep, bees, honey or what have you, to be known market, that being our own consumption.
I see a world suffering from great shortages of food. I see farmers with a great desire to produce. I see over-zeal-
Agricultural Stabilization Act
ous ministers attempting to control production, supposedly so that they can get better management of it. This is particularly true when world prices are falling.
Committee proceedings No. 40 show that there were several attempts to get the minister to explain what he meant by the term "supply management". As reported at page 31 the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) posed the following question:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to follow up somewhat on Mr. Horner's statement in regard to the minister's control over the agriculture sector once again. If I might quote what he stated in regard to the second reading of this bill, he stated that:
None of these programs-
He is speaking about second reading of this bill when the minister stated in this House that:
None of these programs can work without proper supply management.
The Minister's answer appears on the same page. I will not read it all, but he said:
Proper supply management means producing a commodity for a market in such a way that you know where it is going to be as much as possible.
That really means only Canada. Then, to make it abundantly clear, the hon. member for Pembina asked this question:
When this bill becomes a reality, our markets will still somewhat reflect the prices that are in the United States, will they not?
That is an innocent question, Mr. Speaker, one normally applicable to the cattle industry in western Canada. The minister replied:
The world markets for world commodities, yes, I think they reflect it much too much, as far as I am concerned, because I do not think we should be so dependent on their marketing.
He is referring to the fact that our cattle market reflects the prices of the United States market and he does not believe that we should depend on that as much as we do. That is a mighty heavy answer to give to any thinking man in the cattle industry, particularly in western Canada. How anybody could be in the cattle industry and say that we should not be concerned about prices in the United States is hard to understand. Only one who believes in rigid supply management control could make such a statement.
Since 1947 the cattle industry in western Canada has hinged on markets in the United States. During the war the border and the markets were closed, but after 1947-48 the embargo was lifted. As a result cattle prices increased by about 15 cents per pound, and we benefited from being able to ship cattle to the United States. There have been times when we suffered, but by and large we should recognize the advantage of having a market of some 240 million people available to us. This allows us to increase production and improve our efficiency and thus lower the cost of food to the Canadian consumer.
If one were to over simplify the case one could compare it to the automotive pact, the accessibility to the American market and the opportunity to increase our production and thus increase efficiency and lower the cost of cars. The sad part is that the price of cars was lowered in the United States but not in Canada. That has not happened in the beef industry in Canada.

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
One could say that beef is not a world commodity. What did the minister mean when he said "world markets for world commodities"? One could take the narrow view that beef is not a world commodity, but the evidence is that it is a world commodity and our producers suffer from world competition. If beef prices have risen in the last month or so it could be because the production of fat cattle is down in both Canada and the United States. If we had not had the recent scandal in Montreal we might have expected beef prices to rise had we not been on a world market. The production of beef in Australia is twice our production, and the amount of their production which is surplus is four times or more what our surplus has been in the last two or three years. For some time to come Australian beef exports to Canada will stop beef prices in this country from reaching prohibitive levels. The minister cannot convince me that beef is not a world commodity.
What other powers is the minister seeking? In committee I raised the subject of hogs, and the minister spoke at length about hogs. I asked if the minister intends to set up a single desk marketing system for hogs, the words "single desk" being synonymous with "marketing board" but not carrying the connotations which antagonize some people. Some people just do not like marketing boards. I wanted to know what other powers the minister wants which are not set out in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (g) of subsection 10.1(2) of the stabilization bill.
In the minister's view, a single desk marketing system would stop the provinces from competing with one another. He will have a hard time convincing the hog producers of Alberta that they are not competing with hog producers of British Columbia, or the cattle producers of Alberta that they are not competing with the cattle producers of British Columbia. British Columbia produces less beef than it needs, and its hog production is somewhat deficient. Alberta hogs are sold on the Vancouver market. Therefore Alberta hogs compete directly with B.C. produced hogs.
It is not likely that the minister can use his powers to lessen competition between provinces. I have suggested that the single desk marketing system will attempt to reduce competition in hog marketing. Let us examine that idea.
At present Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba have established marketing programs under which they sell hogs to Japan. The programs are not similar and the provinces are competing with one another. As an Albertan, I am not worried about Alberta's ability to compete on the Japanese market. We can compete in hogs and in any other commodity. Apparently competition worries the minister. I do not think he is worried so much about competition between Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; he is worried about competition between Saskatchewan and Ontario, and I suggest that the single desk marketing system, which is another name for a national marketing board, is designed to lessen that competition.
The minister does not want Saskatchewan to increase its production of hogs or cattle. The Saskatchewan farmer will be told, "We are giving you grain insurance; keep your granaries filled and, if necessary, we will make you a

payment if we fail to sell the grain. In the meantime you need not keep hogs and upset the Ontario market." That is the story they will be told.
What does the record show? In the period 1969-70 Saskatchewan increased hog production by some 70 per cent. Then when grain started to sell at high prices about a year and a half ago, Saskatchewan hog production declined by some 28 per cent. Mr. Speaker, supporters of supply management do not like such large swings in production. That is exactly what the minister suggested when answering the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) on May 20, 1975. He said, as recorded on page 40:31 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Proper supply management means producing a commodity for a market in such a way that you know where it is going to be as much as possible.
Traditionally western Canada has exported 10 per cent of its hog production. Saskatchewan exports about 10 per cent of its production to the United States, and we think we can continue to do this for some time to come. We are not afraid of competition. We can compete with United States hog producers, and have proved our ability so to do.
Ontario is relatively self-sufficient in hog production and exports certain types of hogs to the United States. Quebec is also a surplus producer of hogs; it exports some of its production to Ontario and sends certain cuts to the United States. But western Canada produces feed grain, a raw commodity which is used in the manufacture of meat, if one can consider the transformation of feed grain into meat as a manufacturing process. We think we can produce more meat every year and provide more employment for Canadians in western Canada.
As I say, we consider feed grain as a raw material. I therefore see the government's two agricultural bills and the minister's support of supply management as constituting an attempt to curtail the growth of a budding agricultural manufacturing industry, as I consider the process by which we change feed grains into meat as a manufacturing process. I therefore fear the wide powers which this bill will give the minister.
In the language of the bill, the "Board may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the Governor in Council . .." That, really, is jargon which makes the clause read better. Of course the ultimate decision still rests with the Minister of Agriculture, and that is what I fear. We know that the Governor in Council means the cabinet; therefore since the cabinet appoints the board, the cabinet will have a great say in what the board decides.
Why do I say I am afraid? In the past six or seven years we have seen a tremendous shift in the Liberal party's philosophy, a shift away from belief in the individual and a shift toward government involvement in the individual's business. The Liberal party thinks that the government should interfere as much as possible in the individual's business and no longer be content to play the part of referee.
Quite possibly the amendment before the House will be defeated and the bill may pass this afternoon. If it does there will be no need for more agricultural legislation. Legislation in the field of agriculture will become un-
June 11, 1975

necessary, as this can all be done by way of regulations of some board, with the approval of the minister, of course.
That is not to say there will never be another piece of legislation. Politicians, being the animals they are, they will sometimes be in doubt as to what they should do and there will be talk of legislation in the Speech from the Throne. Speeches from the Throne in the years ahead will read, "And there will be efforts in the agricultural field to deal with the problems of marketing", or something like that.
The only time there will be debates on agriculture in this House of Commons will be on debates on the Speech from the Throne, or when a minister bringing down a budget makes some adjustment in the excise taxes on agricultural commodities or increases taxes on the agricultural industry in Canada. Then there will be debates on agriculture.
Perhaps it could be said that the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) brought all this on himself. The member for Crowfoot has often been blamed for holding up a piece of agricultural legislation for two years. The government is using this request for power as a way to ensure that will never happen again. I guess it is right.
I could not let this time in the history of Canada go by without clearly pointing out that this is fully noticed. The opposition is fully cognizant of the fact that this reach for power is one more bitter pill to swallow. It is one more loss of what I believe is representative government, a little more loss in our basic freedom, the right to speak out. The right to debate and legislate is part of our true democracy. The government is taking away that right by reaching for all the power this minister might want.
I could say to that person in Virden, Manitoba, who wrote asking what the minister is really like, that he is a nice friendly fellow, but he is being led around by an evil cabinet. To make sure he is led properly, they appointed an accountant, who knows nothing about agriculture, as his deputy minister. This minister does not know enough about agriculture to realize what is going on and what the cabinet is doing to him. He does not know enough about democracy to realize that.
I hope before this minister's political career is over he, like many Liberals before him, will realize what this cabinet is doing to him and will leave that political party. Many Liberals before him have done just that. I will not list them this afternoon. One of them was the deputy premier since 1968. He left because he saw his freedom and that of Canadian citizens escaping little by little, just as is happening this afternoon. Another minister from the province of Quebec left this cabinet. I hope I am around long enough to see the present Minister of Agriculture realize what kind of a cabinet this is.
The minister told the committee that in this particular clause, the cabinet was giving him a blank cheque. That is what he said. I could quote it from the committee proceedings. It may be giving him a blank cheque, but it is costing Canadian farmers and our agricultural industry more than money. It is costing our freedom and our ability to be flexible in production, something which has kept our agricultural industry flourishing up to this time. I hope
Agricultural Stabilization Act
the minister will decide he does not want the agricultural industry to die under his authority and will get out of the cabinet before that happens.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on what the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has stated. He intimated that this minister does not know anything about democracy. This minister has been in an officially elected position for over 30 years, in most cases elected or re-elected every year, not every two or four years. I was elected every year until I came to this House of Commons. I think I know as much about democracy as the hon. member or anybody else. I think I know as much about free enterprise as the hon. member or anyone else.
I think of that great free enterprise province the hon. member for Crowfoot comes from, Alberta. It is much more socialistic than Saskatchewan which is supposed to have a form of government that the hon. member says is so bad for Canada. When one thinks of the bulwark of the free enterprise in Alberta, one thinks of the fact that the government of Alberta owns more in that province and is more socialistic than any other form of government in all of Canada.
We can also look to old Conservative Ontario which has more marketing boards than any other province in Canada. The hon. member should tell Bill Stewart, the Ontario minister of agriculture, that he should get rid of them. Tell him he does not believe in supply and management, and he will say you are not telling the truth. We all know that the hon. member for Crowfoot does not get along with the Ontario minister of agriculture. The record of the committee shows that he does not get along with him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister is suggesting that the committee record shows I disagree with the Ontario minister of agriculture with regard to supply and management. If the record shows that, let the minister produce the record. I quoted the minister from the committee proceedings. If I quoted out of context, the minister should have risen on a question of privilege such as I am doing. Odd as it may seem, I did not disagree with the Ontario minister of agriculture on one statement. If the minister can prove me wrong, I would like him to quote the record.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all one has to do is check the marketing boards in Ontario and how they operate, especially those for the canning crops. If that is not a form of supply management, I do not know what it is. As a farmer who grows crops under that program, and I do that, you are contracted for so much. That amount is what you are allowed to sell on the market. They do have a form of supply management. The minister of agriculture in Ontario doesn't believe in wasting things. He does not believe you should grow things in the hope somebody is going to buy them. In Ontario they have the largest amount of their produce of any province sold under some marketing board or other. That again is a bulwark of free enterprise. It doesn't take away initiative to produce, or to create, or to become an efficient farmer.

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The hon. member talks about world commodity markets. Let him consider what is happening in world commodity markets because we do not just trade in beef in competition with the United States of America. We trade in competition with Argentina, Australia and New Zealand. These countries are affected. You could buy beef in Australia a little while ago for about 2 or 3 cents a pound on the hoof running around the range; all they have to do there is to leave them outside until they think the market is going to get a little better. That is the kind of market in which we compete.
I can tell the hon. member that if he wants to see the files of letters I get from western people, I get hundreds of letters from western people, some of them quite large operators. By the very action of the cattlemen in British Columbia they have accepted, by a vote of 2 to 1, a form of guarantee of security. I am sure most members of this House would have said a year ago they would not have accepted that kind of form of guarantee proposed by the government of British Columbia or by any other government. I may say I have some reservations about the program they have put into effect in British Columbia. But the fact is, the cattlemen have accepted it. It is not compulsory. It is voluntary. The cattlemen, at the annual meeting of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, accepted it.
The hon. member talks about supply management. Let us talk about the old bill. What did it do? I am talking about the bill initiated by the former government, that tremendous bill which provided for a form of security, a bill which was readily available, the bill which was brought into the House on January 24, 1958, given third reading on January 25 and Royal Assent on January 31, 1958-it was all that quick. It was so important it all had to be done in that time.
What did that bill seek to do? They called it supply management. Under that bill, and under former governments and former ministers of agriculture, they limited the amount of money paid. For instance, on hogs they never paid on more than 200 hogs that a producer had. Under our program last year it was up to 1,500 hogs per producer. Who was limiting supply? Was it this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)?
Surely to God no one in the country is going to suggest to me that what is happening in the hog industry today is good. There w'as no sort of security offered for them. The hon. member for Crowfoot says: Sure, they went down in price in Saskatchewan, and production was down there because they could sell grain. He says production declined by 20 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan they have the best support program, but because it was provincial and the producers know these commodities are marketed world-wide, their production went down 40 per cent. Over the whole nation the production went down 20 per cent. Is this what we want? I do not want it for the producers and I don't want it for the consumers either, because the price of pork in the last few days has been the highest ever on record in Canada.
The same thing has been happening in the United States, the same thing has happened in Italy, the same thing has happened in New Zealand. There are too many people chasing too few porkers around, that is what it

amounts to. They are all bidding for that commodity, and it is going to hurt the purchasing power in the hands of consumers. It is going to hurt the industry too, because people will discontinue using that product. That is what will happen, because there isn't enough supply to go around. Pork producers in the nation enjoyed no security because there was no program in operation.
The hon. member for Crowfoot suggests I am going to have a wondrous selling program for hogs. I think it is a very good idea, but as I say, it is up to the pork producers to adopt that kind of a program themselves. We hear it suggested by some ministers of agriculture in Canada today that the thing to do is copy the Wheat Board, make a commitment, appoint members by the government, and let them do the marketing. Do like you do with the Dairy Commission. They are appointed by the government. I asked why they should want that, and they say; "Because that is the best security any farm producer has. We don't mind seeing that for chickens, we don't mind seeing that for eggs, and we wouldn't mind seeing that for pork."
But I am a strong believer in producers running their own organizations, and that is the reason why I have been very reluctant to move in that direction. I believe in democracy though the member for Crowfoot says I do not. He would not dare go out into Saskatchewan and tell them to get rid of the Wheat Board. But those people who run the Wheat Board are appointed by the government. For the first time in history they elected a group of advisers to the Board, if you want to call them that. I am not suggesting we should go that far, but it has been suggested to me that this is the kind of efficient marketing system that we need in Canada.
I only used pork as an example of what history shows. It always shows it is not a great economic benefit to society, either producers or consumers, this up and down effect. It doesn't necessarily have to be in there because this up and down effect means an up and down income for the farmers of the nation. Their investments today are too high for them to continue to tolerate that type of thing.
When the hon. member talks about world markets, about Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba competing for markets such as Japan, the only contracts which were honoured or, I should say, the only guaranteed pork sales they had at a constant price, were the contracts with Japan which were honoured. They completely jumped off the market when the energy crisis took place in the world and they had to spend more of their money on energy. The government affected concluded that its people could get along without certain products so they removed themselves from the free pork market. But they did honour the contracts they had. It meant, though, that buying power disappeared by 50 per cent.
A ministerial delegation is going to Japan in the latter part of next week to talk about these various things-to make sure that we can continue our supplies. Perhaps someone can come up with a better system, a better system which will guarantee some of the things our producers want.
I have talked to many people in Canada. I have gone outside this chamber to talk to many people, not only farmers but urban people also, to find out what their views are, what they think about agriculture.
June 11, 19V5

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago at a dinner meeting in Toronto I was sitting next to the Mayor of Toronto. He said: "I don't know what you are talking about, but I can tell you if I were running as a leader for a certain party in this country I would certainly run on stabilization, because everybody in the cities thinks it is a wonderful idea that you are going to guarantee people food at stable prices with a decent return to farmers. I am an urbanite and I know nothing about farming, but if I was the leader of a party I would steal that policy from you; you have convinced the people of Canada that it is necessary, and after seeing you on television I believe it is the answer myself."
I said: "Mr. Mayor, if you listen to the farm organizations and talk to the rural people you will realize how important this is, even more so if you go to world food meetings and hear what they are demanding by way of a constant supply of food; you just don't produce food and hope that somebody is going to buy it, or produce huge surpluses which will be held over your head like a club so that you can be beaten down in price."
I am surprised the hon. member for Crowfoot and the other member from the same province would talk about these things. They come from part of Canada where the producers of grain held 30 per cent of the world's grain reserves. They were held over their heads like a club. They could not even afford to buy decent clothes for their children or to pay their taxes because they held those tremendous grain reserves for the free markets of the world, and could not get rid of them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The minister seems to persist in bringing in the hon. member for Crowfoot on the matter of stabilization. I recognize that the bill before us is a stabilization bill. I also recognize it was brought into being under a Conservative government. I support the concept of stabilization. I have nothing against the Canadian Wheat Board whatsoever. The Canadian Wheat Board does not have supply management as I think he interprets supply management. I think that the other powers he is seeking but is afraid to ask for amount to supply management.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I could have interrupted the hon. member for Crowfoot when he was talking about the letter that he wrote to the young farmer some place in Manitoba. I am sure that he would give an honest interpretation of what was said by the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, but I am also sure I could have helped him a little in writing that letter.
I am not going to take up much more time of the House, but I do want to say something about world conditions as they apply to Canadian producers. The commodities that we sell will be in greater demand on world markets. However, what are world markets doing with other products, such as energy, cocoa beans or coffee beans? Countries are forming cartels so they can bargain with the rest of the world to ensure they are not taken advantage of. We have to recognize that we will have to be part of that world or suffer the consequences. We will not be able to deal much differently with them.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Let us go to the European community and see how they operate with their so-called free trade system. For example, if you ship a cargo to Europe, when it enters the harbour they can slap a levy on it if they do not want it. I suggest that we have one of the freest trade systems in the world. This is why I am alarmed at this talk of curtailing agriculture, and at people who put this idea across the country when I know that they are fully knowledgeable of what we are doing in Canada in terms of trade in agricultural products and the possibilities that exist. I also know fully well that in light of world conditions we have to take immediate action.
The acceptability of motion No. 4, as far as I am concerned, is out of the question. This amendment in the bill was designed to provide an opportunity for the government, following discussions with the provinces, to provide for methods of stabilization for producers which would involve actions other than purchase, deficiency payments, and payments for the benefit of producers now provided under section 10 of the act. It is true that the amendment is general and that it can be considered to give the Governor in Council broad power. But with the need for food production and stability in the agricultural sector, it is important to have adequate power to meet unforeseen situations in this important sector. The basic reason for the amendment is to enable us to act and react immediately.
I do not know whether anyone would suggest that I or any other Minister of Agriculture would abuse these powers, but we have an amendment in the bill providing for consultation with the producers of the nation before action is taken. I have been a strong believer in consultation with the producers of the nation.
I was also requested in committee to restate some of my feelings to the House when the bill came up at report stage and third reading. Concern was expressed about the possibility that, despite the safeguards in subsection 10( 1) (a) and (b), a province might decide to topload the federal stabilization program on a given commodity, making it more profitable to produce that commodity in that province as compared to other provinces that also produce the commodity. I assure the House that in such a situation, under the amendment the Governor in Council would be of the opinion that such toploading would be to the disadvantage of the other provinces, and would have to say that no toploading would be permitted unless all four provinces producing the commodity were in agreement in regard to that kind of toploading program. I suggest it would simply create more inequity and inequality, and as Minister of Agriculture for Canada I do not want to see that happen.
For example, under the Canadian Dairy Commission we have practically eliminated the inequality that used to exist between producers producing the same commodity for the same market. There is now very little variance in the price of industrial milk across the nation. Only two or three years ago it varied by as much as $3 per hundredweight because there was an invisible provincial line. That has now been almost eliminated as a result of Canadian farmers, provincial ministers of agriculture, and Canadian farm organizations working together. Let me reassure the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not my inten-

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
tion to become a dictator to Canadian agriculture, because I know that would not work.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate under the guise of speaking to an amendment at the report stage. The minister has just stated how he would like to be a socialist, though he does not want to become one by the exercise of undue control. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) indicated that, while he does not want to be a dictator, either, he would like to see some form of dictatorship that would result in stable prices. The argument then turned to whether or not we have supply management.
The interesting philosophical part of this bill came from the remarks made by the hon. member for Crowfoot regarding why we have Bill C-50 as well as Bill C-41. If we were to amend this bill on third reading to include the six commodities covered under the other stabilization bill, the situation would be very interesting. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would then be responsible for stabilizing all farm products, and we would eliminate what has become a great problem for the Liberal party, with its members travelling around the country, and we could turn our attention to arriving at some kind of arrangement for those six commodities referred to in Bill C-41.
Bill C-41 obviously has nothing to do with supply management, because supply management has been used ever since the Wheat Board was set up. The commodities designated by the bill have always been on a quota system and require a different kind of supply management than that talked about by the minister and the hon. member for Crowfoot.
The Minister of Agriculture fails to realize something that he used to know, and that is that the way to stabilize farm prices is to pay the farmers a fair price for their products. If price parity is achieved on agricultural commodities, then there will be reasonable amount of interest on the part of the farmers to produce those commodities. In fact, if you pay them sufficient to enable the farmers to do reasonably well, quite often they will provide the Canadian public with a surplus of those commodities.
Therein lies the problem. Some people think of supply management in terms of one person farming only 300 acres of a certain commodity, or raising 200 head of cattle, or paying a premium on 1,500 hogs, and toploading in one province with payment of a large additional amount. If we were to forget that kind of antiquated argument over supply management and go back to what is fundamental to every farmer and every commodity in every part of Canada, that is, a decent price for the product, then we would be able to stabilize prices and encourage the farmers to stay on the land. Perhaps we would then be able to do what the minister brags we are doing, but which we are not going to do unless the prices are stabilized. We are not going to be able to meet the commitments the Minister of Agriculture made in Rome at the World Food Conference unless the individual farmer gets enough money that he can stay on the land.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Agriculture say he disagrees violently with his counterpart, the minister of agriculture for Ontario. It is true that Ontario has gone into all kinds of marketing legislation and that some of that legislation is highly directed to management. It is a fact that if you are a grower of tobacco in Ontario you are told you must only put in a certain number of acres, you must only harvest a certain amount of the product, and you will receive a certain price. Ontario has done very well in this regard, and there has been very little complaint from the farmer.
There are other sections of agriculture under very strict quota systems in Ontario, and some of these restrictions have worked very well. There are many marketing boards in the country, I believe in the neighbourhood of 80 altogether, many of which have no quota structure or limitations at all. These are just boards set up for mutual protection, mutual advertising of the product, and to make arrangements about how to go after sales. These boards do not worry very much about prices of commodities in the marketplace.
The Minister of Agriculture has said he disagrees with the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, and that he believes his representation, made under rather special circumstances to the committee, was made for the purpose of intervening in respect of the top-loading provision written into this bill. To be fair to the minister of agriculture for Ontario, he was right in this regard, because he really was the only one representing a province that could use top-loading in respect of almost everything.
It is fair to suggest, I believe, that the province of British Columbia is top-loading now in respect of cattle. It had to do so for a very simple reason. British Columbia has a relatively small amount of arable land. That province decided this land should not become subject to speculation but should remain in agricultural production. To keep the people in agricultural production the province had to agree to provide the farmers with a decent standard of living. The province held out the carrot in British Columbia, and even the free enterprisers in the cattle industry were willing to accept it because the carrot was sizeable.
This action on the part of British Columbia will, in all likelihood, have an eventual adverse effect on the rest of the cattle industry, and I presume that is why so many officials of that industry are interested in talking to members of parliament at this time.
If I thought the hon. member for Crowfoot was right in his assertion that this part of the bill will give the Minister of Agriculture power to decide the price, the quantity, and virtually all aspects of supply management policy in respect of the six commodities referred to in Bill C-41, I would be inclined to support the minister.
The hon. member for Crowfoot has said very often that the real criterion to be used in measuring how well a farmer is getting along is the price he is paid for his commodity at the farm gate, and that if he does not get enough at the farm gate to pay his input costs of running the operation he will not be in business.
June 11, 1975

Whether we accomplish this aim by holding out a carrot, as we did ih respect of the dairy commission, or in some other way, it must be accomplished. The only thing the federal government can be proud of in its whole damned stabilization policy for the last 17 years is the creation of the Canadian Dairy Commission, particularly the industrial milk section. This has been the only solution the government has found to any of the farmers' problems, or this is the only solution that has proven successful. This is the only commission which has been able to carry on as a separate entity.
The government has helped out hog producers and egg producers, it has helped out the hens, the sheep and the wool producers. The government has helped all the animals and all the farmers, but it has not solved very many of their problems. If the hon. member for Crowfoot really believes that by giving the minister this kind of power we will be giving him complete autocratic control, let me say that I for one would much rather it be given to this minister than the minister who will have autocratic control as a result of Bill C-41. I would like this Minister of Agriculture to be given the power to set floor prices and establish a marketing structure that would guarantee a reasonable price for those products covered by Bill C-41.
One of the major problems that has faced Canadians in past years has been the result of surplus agricultural production. Surely this must be of concern to many members of this House. Every time you turn on your television these days you see a picture of children starving in some part of this world, yet every time we have had difficulties in the agricultural industry they have been the result of over-production following prices reaching parity with production costs.
With very few exceptions, in a few selective areas, it has been impossible for farmers to become wealthy. It has often been said that western farmers all have airplanes and fly south every winter. I think this is a myth that has been spread in eastern Canada over a long period of time. Whenever I have been in western Canada I have found that the farmers do not live in better houses, certainly do not have better buildings, and I do not believe they have better incomes than farmers in other parts of Canada. This indicates perhaps that farmers all across Canada do not receive enough for their products. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Certainly we do not have a sufficient number of farmers in Canada today to utilize fully our agricultural potential.
The minister speaks of his desire to be able to meet these needs. I am personally aware that he has made some very socialistic statements in the past. He has made some statements which have put him in bad stead with some of his colleagues. He indicated he looked very favourably at the cooperatives, and at the matter of western farmers getting together to decide the amount they should produce of their own commodity in order to maintain the price. Therefore, if the board should see fit to give the minister the right to increase his control over any of these commodities and the end result should be a parity price for the farmers, I would think another department would have to have responsibility for the distribution. There are even in
Agricultural Stabilization Act
this country many needy persons who still require the abundance of agricultural products we can produce.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act over the last 15 or 16 years by various means has bailed out farmers who have been in desperate need with relation to many commodities. It established stability, but stability is almost like welfare. The stabilizaton was at a very low level so that the farmer would not lose his farm, but it was not high enough that the farmer could do very much on the farm.
I am pleased to see that the new legislation contains changes which, in my opinion, are advantageous and which will guarantee that the price the farmer will receive will be 90 per cent of the average over the last five years. This will be indexed to his costs.
I suggest to the people in western Canada who are now being asked to consider Bill C-41 that, if this bill is successful, any commodity may be designated under this bill, even those included in some sections of the other bill. If we are successful I believe we will not only stabilize the welfare level in respect of agricultural commodities but that the minister will have the potential to develop at least 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the capacity in that field. He will have an obligation to sell the commodities. I believe that all this bill should do is supply the farmer with a floor price at a level that would keep him in business.
Very shortly we should look at a farm incomes program separate from welfare. We should decide what type of a program we should have in order to keep the farmer in business and make his contribution to the agricultural production of Canada. We should decide what the program should be in the North American economy and what it should be in respect of the international world food bank. When we make those decisions we will also have to make a decision that farm land should be retained as agricultural producing land.
We should have a farm income program which would ensure that the farmer would be able to have his weekends free and provide for his old age, while at the same time enjoying the amenities of life similar to those enjoyed by other segments of our economy. If the minister can do this within the authority he is being given by this legislation- and I believe he could if he so wished-then I am quite prepared to support the clause which has been written in, and I do not share the fears of the hon. member for Crowfoot who, I believe, is of the opinion that the minister really cannot produce the type of supply management that would in effect end up as an income guarantee for the farmers in any given situation.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, it is without any reservation that I support the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I was rather alarmed when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) took a few partisan political chops at the hon. member for Crowfoot.
Up until 1972 I was involved in the business sector of agriculture. I was not involved in politics. Having been involved in business, I really know what this is all about since I was engaged in the business of marketing livestock. The only people who would listen to us in those days were the right hon. member for Prince Albert, (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Crowfoot, and a few others on this side of the House. I believe people involved

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
in agriculture, especially in western Canada and in the maritimes. are particularly grateful to the hon. member for Crowfoot and many others who fought the very dictatorial legislation contained in Bill C-176.
So that the Minister of Agriculture will have an idea how the people in the west and in the maritimes feel, I should like to refer to the Globe and Mail for March 8 and on an article written by James Rusk. This article states that the beef producers in Canada, and in the United States for that matter, have traditionally fought government involvement in the industry with the same ferocity with which they battled coyotes, blizzards, and rustlers. It goes on to state that the people are angered that one of their number, a former federal agricultural minister, H. A. Olson, had the temerity to mention beef cattle in the legislation to create national marketing agencies. It is suggested that this was a major factor in his defeat in the 1972 federal election in the southern Alberta cow country constituency of Medicine Hat. I think that is pretty indicative of the way free enterprisers in agriculture think today.
I do not believe it would be right for me to condemn the Minister of Agriculture, unjustly, but I think it is right if I am to do a job for the people in my constituency that I should look over the record of the Minister of Agriculture since he came to office.
In February, 1973, as a budget measure to combat inflation Canada removed its import tariff of three cents a pound on beef and one and a half cents a pound on live cattle. That was a move taken by the Minister of Agriculture. On March 29, 1973, the United States government imposed price controls on food products. On August 2,
1973,	Canada imposed controls on exports. On September 9, 1973, the United States ended the freeze on beef prices. On September 14, 1973, Canada lifted its export controls. On September 21, 1973, Canada re-instated the tariff. On November 2, 1973, Canada adopted a temporary surcharge which was removed on February 10, 1974. On March 15,
1974,	Canada announced a subsidy program. On April 9, 1974, Canada banned all imports containing DES. On August 12, 1974, the U.S. and Canada agreed upon DES certification program and Canada announced a global import quota system. On November 16, 1974, the U.S. declared quotas on Canadian livestock and products. The source for this information is the Food Prices Review Board, and various publications where this can be found.
The minister is asking for more power. He has all the power he needs. I spoke about the actions taken by him and, as stated in the bill, by the Governor in Council. Unfortunately when we see who the Governor in Council is we find it happens to be the Cabinet. As we look at the seating order, we find that there is not one person in the Cabinet who is involved with agriculture. So I do not think we can really condemn the Minister of Agriculture because his hands are tied and he has no alternative.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question? I thought I heard the hon. member say that there was no person with experience in agriculture on this side. I know of at least two of my colleagues, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and the Minister of Agriculture,

who have had that experience, quite apart from the experience which some others of us have.
My question really is with regard to all the action which the government took with regard to beef, which the hon. member listed. I wonder if the hon. member will recognize that during the course of that period those various government actions widened considerably the spread in the price for beef between the Omaha market and the Canadian market, and therefore acted very much to the advantage of the Canadian producer. Does he not agree that it would be fair to comment on the wisdom of those actions rather than just enumerate them, when they resulted in this wide spread in favour of Canadian producers?


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: In answer to the first part of the minister's question, I did not say that not one member of the cabinet was born on a farm. I am talking about active engagement in agriculture.


Otto Emil Lang: They are.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: The minister spoke in reply to a question of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I am sure he is aware the hon. minister is a farmer who owns 200 acres of land, but he has been involved in local politics for 35 years while his brother ran the farm. In order to become familiar with agriculture, you have to be involved in it at all times.
In his opening remarks the minister said the hon. member for Crowfoot has accused him of not knowing anything about free enterprise. It seems to me that he has divorced himself from that because we all know it is the Minister of Agriculture who advocates marketing boards and who believes in supply management. We all know what comes next. There will be quotas, and after quotas government takeover and government control. This is what we are afraid of.
The minister referred to Alberta and state control in Alberta. They never go on to tell you that Alberta's gas trunk line shares are held by people in central Canada. He also referred to Saskatchewan. I think the proof will be in the election tonight. We have had a mass exodus of people from Saskatchewan, as I found out during the last election. Exploration work in Saskatchewan is at a standstill, and the people of Saskatchewan will show what they think in the election tonight.
I did not want to speak on the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot, or get into an argument with any of the ministers. I am just stating facts. It is our duty to look at the record before we condemn anyone. Here are the last figures since the Minister of Agriculture took office and during his tenure. According to those figures, our exports of meat have dropped by 19.4 per cent, our exports of dairy products have dropped by 49.3 per cent, our exports of fruit have dropped by 20.7 per cent, and our exports of vegetables have dropped by 9.5 per cent. Those were the figures given to me by the external trade division in answer to a question on the Order Paper this week.
Another thing that concerns me is the extra power asked for by the minister. He is asking for more and more power, although he already has all the power necessary under the present act. Why he wants that power, I do not know, and the reason I hesitate to give him any more power is the
June 11, 1975

record which I have just read. I do not think there is any minister who has done worse during his tenure of office than the present minister.
Recently I paid a visit to a communist country with a group of parliamentarians. There was the odd person in the group who thought this was a pretty good way of life. I give government members credit because they were not among them. We had a very enjoyable time, but we saw the way communism worked, we saw the government take over 70 per cent of the land, we saw government control, we saw the government force private people off the farms, and we saw production drop.


Otto Emil Lang: This sounds like Saskatchewan.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: The Minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) is in a pretty jovial mood, but I would like to point out to him what will happen if we allow this to happen. I should like to quote from a letter written by a person from the minister's province. I do not know whether he has ever heard of Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: It appeared in the Western Producer of Thursday, May 22, 1975, and it was written by Mrs. Alice Krilow of Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan. Here is what she thinks will happen if we continue with government controls and takeovers. The letter is entitled, "Land Bank Critic". She wrote:
I notice Mr. John J. Mitchell never gives up. We hashed the Land Bank over in the News Optimist, North Battleford and lo and behold I pick up The Western Producer and there is Mr. Mitchell again.
First, Mr. Mitchell, why don't you inform everyone you are a retired school teacher not a farmer.
Second, you have no right to tell farmers what is good for them. Retiring farmers in luxury on taxpayers dollars and sinking young people into government ownership is never going to keep our province going on or the world fed. Have you ever stopped to think about what the future will be with everyone working for the government? That is communism.
Why doesn't the government go into the house building and buying business then everyone can rent their houses and never worry about mortgages or owning their own homes? If this kind of life is good for farmers let's make it good for "everyone".
I am a farmer's wife, I know all about hard work and doing without many things other people take for granted, but I still like the security of knowing if anything happens to my husband, I and my children will have something left to keep our bellies full. What would we have if this land were rented from the government, a welfare cheque?
I tell you that these are the feelings of people all across the country. During my visit to the Maritimes last week I found that people in farm communities in the Maritimes feel the same as we do in western Canada. I do not know how to describe the way they feel down there regarding agriculture-they feel that central Canada, Ottawa especially, has agriculture pulling on the cow's horns. They think western Canada is pulling on the cow's tail. The Minister of Agriculture, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are milking her dry. That is what is happening today, Madam Speaker.
I feel sorry for some members who came to this House in 1972 when I did, and for those who came in 1974. I always
Agricultural Stabilization Act
felt the greatest people I ever met were the people in agriculture in my own little corner of the world. Since I have been in Ottawa, however, I know that some of the finest people I have ever met are in this House of Commons and they come from all parts of the country. I have met some wonderful people here who would really like to do the job they said they would do during the elections when they were out on the hustings. I do not know whether it is the Prime Minister, the party whip, the Minister of Agriculture, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board or who is responsible, but when it comes time to vote they are whipped into shape and vote against what their constituents want.
I believe the government is void of ideas and that is why we have rules and regulations and controls. We do not even feed Canadian beef to our armed service personnel in Europe. We have 707s flying over there all the time, but we buy beef from the United States and Denmark to feed them. We have been in a surplus position, but our exports have dropped by 19.3 per cent during the term of the present Minister of Agriculture.
The government claims that it has consulted and listened to every segment of the industry, but that is not so. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association urged that adequate changes be made in the federal taxation of producers and said this would be superior to any ad hoc subsidy scheme. They proposed the capital herd concept which is in practice in the United States. This puts an investment value on cattle and provides the same kind of tax treatment for livestock as for most other capital investment. They recommended certain tax provisions to ensure the transfer of the family farm to children as a viable economic unit. Madam Speaker, these are ways to stabilize and to encourage young people to stay on the farm.
The Minister of Agriculture talked about implementing the beef subsidy program. We have a guaranteed price of 45.32 cents per pound but nobody in agriculture is going to collect a penny. We have begged the minister to go to Washington to lobby with Secretary Butz because the trade patterns in this country are north and south. Every time there is a confrontation with the United States market Canada is going to be the loser. I am not antiAmerican but I am pro-Canadian. I think it is our duty to get along with our neighbours whether they are across a barbed wire fence or across the longest undefended border in the world.
It is our duty to do everything to encourage the minister to lobby with our greatest trading partner in order to build markets. I think that stabilization is selling. The minister goes to Toronto and tells them that their foodstuff is cheaper than in any other country in the world, and then the next day he tells producers they are going to receive more for their products. I want to conclude by saying that I am happy to support the motion of the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the House that the agricultural prices stabilization bill is a stop loss type of legislation. It is there to give the farmer a guarantee that if there is a drop in prices he will have a floor. Under the rules in the marketplace this bill simply modifies the
6670

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
price; that is all it does. In spite of all the debate this afternoon this is not a supply management bill. All it does is give a floor price, which is an indication to the farmer that he is to produce more or less according to that floor price. In that respect it has an impact on supply.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) was correct when he said it is not a supply management bill nor is the Wheat Board a supply management operation. It simply sets the price. All farmers accept this. Where the clash of opinion comes is on the question of what, since the war, has been called supply management. The idea arose in Europe after the war. It came to the United States in the 1960's, and to Canada in the 1970's.
I would point out to the House again that this bill is not a supply management bill. It is a fundamental part of the package that you must have as an agricultural policy to make the system work. It is a device to stabilize prices by setting in advance a floor which indicates to the farmer what he should do about production by price and not by control.
Where the trouble arises, and what prompted the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot, is that the minister in this House and in committee keeps bringing up the question of supply management. The great majority of farmers honestly believe that they want governments to get off their backs. They would like to make their own decisions. All they want from government is some aid to stabilize income without changing the fundamental laws of supply and demand.
I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot because I was in committee when the words "supply management" came up in discussion. They were brought in gratuitously by the minister. They have no bearing on the bill, however.
I know this bill, Madam Speaker. I helped draft the original in 1958. This bill is not the answer to all the problems of farmers; it is only one step in a process, one part of a package. All we are doing at this stage is dealing with the Conservative legislation of 16 or 17 years ago and hopefully making it better. The fundamentals are the same.
It is true that under this bill the minister has discretionary powers, and we have to trust him not to abuse those powers. It is this talk of supply management in connection with the bill which has alarmed hon. members from farming areas.
Somebody mentioned the election is Saskatchewan today. It is a provincial election, but the issue that is bothering people is having government get off their backs. According to information I have, when the polls opened this morning, people were lined up waiting to go in. Somebody is going to catch it tonight. When I hear of people lining up to enter the polls in the morning, I know-knowing Saskatchewan as I do-that somebody is going to get it.
The possibility of the government being on the backs of the people is frightening the people. There is no need to raise such issues; as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) said, these things can be done the proper way. If

you want to sell your goods, you have to help the other chap sell his; only in that way can he earn the money with which to buy your goods.
I come now to the bill and the amendment. When the bill was being considered in committee two main concerns were raised by members of all parties. One had to do with the so-called top loading provision, the provision which would give the minister power to make deals with other provinces and producers, and establish a floor above the formula price. The inherent danger in the top loading provision was well illustrated by the minister from Ontario who made a valuable presentation. I think it is fair to say that all members of all parties supported the position of the minister from Ontario and, at their suggestion, I suggested amendments which have been included in this bill, as reprinted, on page 4.
In that committee I assured the minister that I would, on behalf of my party, support amendments brought in by the government in response to our request. Those amendments were intended to remove certain fears that two or three rich provinces could top load any particular industry or product and thereby harm other provinces and producers.
The amendments on page 4 were brought in by the government at our request. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) still expressed some concern, and the minister promised that, when he speaks in the House, he will make an unequivocal statement to the effect that if two or three of our provinces should support top loading policies, the federal government will have no part or share of such top loading.
Top loading, to those who are not familiar with the term, is the means by which wealthy provinces like B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and possibly Saskatchewan establish supports which are much higher than those other provinces can afford. The effect is this: top loading diminishes and even destroys producers in other provinces which cannot provide that type of support. In the interests of maintaining a healthy agriculture in all parts of Canada, the members of all parties making up the committee agreed that top loading should not be used as an incentive.
Let me read the amendment into the record. I am about to read from page 4 of the revised version of the bill, and I shall begin quoting at line 30. The amendment says that the minister may enter into an agreement ... unless he is of the opinion that such an agreement
(a)	would give to the producers of the commodity who are to be parties to the agreement or for whose benefit the agreement would be entered into, a financial advantage in the production or marketing of the commodity not enjoyed by other producers of the commodity in Canada;-
In plain terms, the law says that the minister cannot make an agreement if it gives some producers an advantage over others. I thank the minister for accepting that amendment which was suggested by the opposition. The amended clause goes on to say:
-or
(b)	would be an incentive to the producers of the commodity who are to be parties to the agreement or for whose benefit the agreement would be entered into, to over-produce the commodity.
The two parts I just read were added to the bill at the request of the opposition, and were supported by every
June 11, 1975

member of the committee. I declare my support for them now, on behalf of the party I represent.
The second concern has to do with the particular amendment we are considering today. Some hon. members found subclause 5(2) of the original version frightening. After we had discussed it in committee and heard the full story, we did not find it nearly so frightening. Listen to the language of subclause 5(2)(1.1) as proposed in the original version:
For the purpose of stabilizing the price of an agricultural commodity, the board may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the Governor in Council for that purpose.
It sounds as if there is no limitation to the power of the board, and that alarmed not only the members of the committee but various farm organizations and several provinces. Once again the opposition suggested an amendment. We suggested that the powers under that clause should be used only after consultation with producers. Then departmental officials said that you cannot have producers advising the Cabinet. Consequently we suggested the insertion of an amendment in clause 2 on page 2. The reprinted version of clause 2 of the bill reads in part:
-after consultation with producer groups, recommendations respecting the powers that may be prescribed under subsection 10(1.1), as are necessary-
I accepted, on behalf of the group I represented in committee, that amendment which was suggested by officials, and I re-affirm my party's support of that amendment.
Having said that, I must report to the House that the hon. member for Crowfoot was not satisfied; he wanted to see the reprinted version of the bill; he was not satisfied that the suggested amendments would meet his objection. He feared, that the minister Still possessed increased or unlimited powers. Consequently he brought forward his amendment.
For my part, I do not share the hon. member's concern about this particular bill. I can see the logic of what he says; however, having read the bill, and knowing the bill as I do, I have come to the conclusion that the clause he is worried about does not relate to supply management powers. To understand this matter, one should refer to the old act which made available to the board three techniques for stabilizing price.
Obviously the provinces and producers discussed the possibility of the government's producing techniques other than those originally brought forward in 1958-59. Knowing that this clause refers to techniques, rather than to the theory of supply management, a theory which opposes pricing under a free market system and which espouses control of production, and being aware of the historical background of the clause, I am not so worried about it. It simply gives power to the Governor in Council, on recommendation of the board, to propose new techniques. Previously this had to be done in consultation with the farmers. Therefore, having read the bill, I am willing to accept the assurance that this is not a supply management clause.
I am willing to accept the minister's word that he will not be dictatorial and I therefore assure the minister, or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is here in his place, that I will honour the commitment I made in com-
Agricultural Stabilization Act
mittee. My party and I find the government's version acceptable.
I must raise a little problem now-if I could get the minister's attention for a moment. The minister had given his word to look into a problem which is bothering the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. The minister said he would make a statement on the hypothetical example quoted by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. He said if that circumstance occurred when he was minister, he would not allow it. That concerned the two or three provinces overloading, and the federal government participating. I would like the Minister of Justice to convey to the Minister of Agriculture that he should give that assurance to the hon. member as he promised, because that is the closest we will get to having it in legislation.


Otto Emil Lang: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member in his remarks. While I was not in the House when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was speaking, I am informed he did in fact do that in the course of his remarks here this afternoon. Hansard will show that. I believe the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) was distracted at the time the particular remarks were being made, but I think Hansard will show that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on the same point of order.


Mr. McCain:: Madam Speaker, the subject matter of the minister's speech really did not touch on the questions directed to him during committee consideration of the bill. The answers which he gave today certainly were not definitive of the problems presented to him. I certainly support the idea and I would like to hear the remarks the minister promised us. He did not do that.


Otto Emil Lang: Madam Speaker, I suggest the hon. member may be reassured when he reads Hansard.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of the minister. I did not get the clear assurance promised us in the committee. I just suggest that if the Minister of Justice would report to the Minister of Agriculture, who unfortunately had to leave for a reason we all know, that we would like him to make that statement, it would ease the mind of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. A definite promise was made.
I happen to know that boards appointed by governments not only read the statute, but also statements of ministers. These act as precedents and guidelines. That is the closest I can get to getting it into the legislation. I said I personally would accept this assurance from the minister. I think it would ease the mind of the hon. member before he speaks on this matter.
I would like to close by saying that this bill is a necessary part of the agricultural package. The official opposition supports it. I hope the minister uses the opportunities that this act gives him and has given him to provide the help that I know agriculture requires.
29576-9'/2

June 11, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, in the short time left in this debate on the report stage of Bill C-50, I want to make some comments related mainly to the top loading feature. Before doing that I want to say how disappointed I was when the commodity wool was no longer allowed to be included as part of the named commodities in this bill.
The sheep and wool industry is the forgotten agricultural commodity in Canada today. It has been for some time, perhaps as far back as World War II. It was a sad day for Canada's sheep and wool industry when the government, under the previous Minister of Agriculture, wiped out the wool deficiency program. That was the last straw for an already struggling commodity group in Canada.
The reason suggested by the present minister and the former deputy minister of agriculture was very unrealistic and inappropriate, to say the least. The reason was that the wool deficiency program had to be dropped because it was not accomplishing the original objective, presumably to encourage the sheep and wool industry in Canada. How could it? It was not given a chance.
That action was the final blow, and still further depressed our sheep and wool industry. It was most noticed by those producers of sheep and wool along the United States border, especially in western Canada, because that policy was in sharp contrast to the subsidized sheep and wool industry across the border in the northwest United States such as Montana and Wyoming. The omission of wool is a very serious aspect. It is too bad it is not included in the bill.
I want to come now to the matter of top loading. It is the most important aspect of Bill C-50. I want to refer in
particular to a very significant meeting, one which the minister referred to in his remarks. I refer to the meeting of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association held in Kamloops on May 22. It was the two-way annual convention of that association. The biggest issue by far was the matter of income assurance as applied to the beef commodity group.
I attended for two and a half days in order to observe. It has been many years since I have seen a debate in the field of agriculture similar to that. It lasted four hours or more and became very emotional. There was a very tense atmosphere. In spite of that, there was a very high level of debate on the part of those who debated the pros and cons.
The only other similar situation I can remember was in 1952 or 1953 when we first debated the issue of compulsory marketing boards in Canada. In particular I think of a meeting in the Palliser Hotel in Calgary. The same atmosphere prevailed and there was a very tense and emotional debate.
I want to preface my remarks about this British Columbia income assurance program for cattle by saying that my interest at that meeting and my remarks today relate strictly to the impact of a top loading plan such as this and the impact it might have on a national agricultural commodity that is involved in international trade, especially with the United States. May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 12, 1975