Tuesday, April 25, 1967

J. Cyril Sinnott: I have no confidece in the Deputy Ministers to carry out this thing, which is what your legislation proposes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to economic develo ment generally, and in re- gard to agriculture in particular, which is the only thing contained in this White Paper, it reaches the startling conclusion that agriculture is the most important ac- tivity in Prince Edward Island. I agree with that but that's all that is in the White Paper. There are only two primary producers of wealth on this Island, one is the farmer, and the other is the fisherman; the rest of us who live on this Island are what you might describe as parasites, living off them.

Now the emphasis on agricultural development is certainly warranted but the White Paper says nothing about how it is going to be done, or how the Gov- ernment proposes it be done. Sometime ago, December, 1966, I read an editorial in the Financial Post which seems to me to be important and I will read it for the benefit of the members of the House.

“It is plain that Canada’s farmers are fed up to the teeth with their slot in Canada’s economic system. They get particularly bitter when critics suggest that more efficiency would solve their income problems. The reason is this. In the post- war period agriculture's productivity has risen on the average of about five and one- half percent a year as against 4.1 percent for all commercial enterprises. But the persistent gap between labour and income per capita in agriculture and in the rest of the economy has not closed. The farmers, in short, have been running faster than anyone else and managing to stay longer in the same place. Farm irritations have also been fanned by this year’s large trade union wage gains, and by the housewife protesting against high food prices. Farmers have watched their share of the retail food dollars slip from 60% in 1950 to about 40% today. Most farmers lack the bargainiru power to raise farm prices when they feel increases are justified. It is significant that the farmers of one province, Ontario, have prodded their government into bank-rolling a committee to canvass ideas for guaranteeing stable farm income. But this encampment may well cost government and taxpayers considerably more than mere committee expenses. The Executive Director of the Manitoba Consultative Board, and the big Ontario Federation of Agriculture have similar and very radical proposals. They envisage replacing today’s piecemeal farm subsidy programs with one massive program to guarantee the necessary income for the efficient family farm. Under such a scheme, farm output would be divided into common denominations, called income units, and an efficient family farm would produce a given number of income units. Such a farmer would be assured of income sufficient to give him a reasonable return on his investment. This would require transfer of payments through government to guarantee this income. It is radical and an official of the Ontario Farmers Federation admits that other support programs have failed and so We need a radical approach. If the farmers themselves feel the various government support prices are a waste of money, it is high time for a major re-thinking of the whole farm policy." (Applause)

I would recommend to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Government that they read the report of the Executive Director of the Manitoba Consultative Board. This is only a comment upon it and this report should be obtained by the Government and studied in detail. I understand it is a very important document.

Now, Mr. S eaker, I want to speak for a few minutes on a topic that seems to be a disease in this province, and I refer to political patronage. I suppose that some political patronage is inevitable, somebody always knows somebody in government who will help them out, and I am not referring to those particular individuals at all. And if some piece of government machinery is to be purchased there may be a preferred sup- plier who is a friend of the Minister or is a friend of a Member or something like that. This is difficult to control. But when political patronage becomes part of Government

olicy then it is time to call a halt. The first series of Minutes-invCouncil issued by this Government include only the names of those to be fired, and the names of their replacements. Over 600, in all, were fired by the present Government, and I am not making excuses for any previous Governments who may have done the same thing. What I am interested in is seeing that this thing is brought to a halt as soon as possible. It is surprising to me that the Government could not have found

447...