1967-06-07

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer the election certificate of Mr. Andre Ouellet for the electoral constituency of Papineau.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHIEF OF MACNAB CLAN

Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, might I take the liberty of pointing out to Your Honour that we have the privilege of having with us in the house today the chief of the clan Macnab, who has come here from his home in Scotland to help Canadians celebrate their centennial and in particular to help the people of the township of McNab in the great and sovereign county of Renfrew celebrate the centennial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Herman Laverdiere (Bellechasse) (for Mr. Whelan) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development presented to the house on June 1, 1967 be concurred in.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, once again the first reports of the various committees being tabled include the request that their quorum be reduced. The same request has been made for several years and every time the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the government leader promise us that the committee procedure will be carefully reviewed, but it is never done.
The committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development is made up of 44 members and its quorum is 23. The chairman is now 27053-801
asking that it be reduced to 15, while some members of this house who do not sit on any committee could be appointed. However, the government prefers to have the quorum reduced.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Well, if we cannot find at least 23 members in this house who are interested in agricultural problems, then, what is the use of having that committee? Its quorum, according to standing orders, is 23 members, and we are asked to reduce it to 15. Why? Is it because we cannot find enough members who are interested in agriculture? Is it that not enough of them attend the meetings?
I maintain that attendance at committee meetings is far from satisfactory and that hon. members who are appointed to those committees, especially on the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development, which is most important, are shirking their duty when they do not attend the meetings. Asking to reduce the quorum is no solution. Instead, committee members should be required to attend the meetings and show an interest in agricultural problems. If they cannot be present, they should ask for a change and make room for those who are interested. Many members of this house should be interested in agricultural problems, but not even 23 could be found to attend the meetings, and that is what I am protesting against. I object to this motion, I am voting against it, because I figure that if we are unable to gather 23 members to attend to committee meetings, it means that most hon. members do not take their role seriously, and that they are not really interested in agricultural matters.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one in this house who is not a member of any committee. My hon. colleague the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) does not belong to any committee either. We take interest in the work of the house, we are willing to be on those committees, particularly on the agriculture, forestry and rural development committee, where very important problems are to be discussed, such as the problems involving eastern Quebec farmers and milk producers. The hon. member for Sherbrooke and I are not members of this committee. I say to the government leader in the house that if we
June 7, 1967
1243	COMMONS
Reduction in Quorum of Standing Committee cannot find 23 members among those who are left to attend the sittings of the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development, the hon. member for Sherbrooke and I shall go to maintain the quorum at 23 members and then I believe my colleague and myself will set an example and other members of the house will be cozened to attend the serious discussions and we will not be required to reduce the quorum to 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is my suggestion. I repeat, I am not a member of any committee at the present time nor is my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke. There are many others who should be interested in the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development. I know there are some who attend regularly, but I object to a reduction of the quorum to 15.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, having heard the hon. member for Lapointe, I must say that if we had counted on the hon. member for Lapointe last week to reach a quorum, we would have had to go to Expo.
We must act more seriously, Mr. Speaker, and look at things as sincere and responsible men. We insist upon a quorum of 20 members out of 265 in the house, but we do not always have it, and for understandable reasons: it is because the house is in committee and we are discussing matters which do not interest all members.
That is the case precisely in the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development which is necessarily the most important committee. If the committee, for instance, is considering a matter interesting the western provinces or a province in particular during two or three sittings, members from Quebec, Ontario or Nova Scotia cannot necessarily be blamed for not attending these sittings.
As a matter of fact, when the matter before the committee is of a general nature, when it concerns the whole of Canada, there is no trouble having a quorum; but when the matter is of interest to only one part of Canada, when it deals with agriculture for instance, then having a quorum is difficult.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we tried on three occasions to get a quorum at last and only after serious discussions was it agreed-I agreed to it myself-to reduce the quorum to 15. I submit that out of 45


members a quorum of 15 is still quite sufficient to discuss agriculture seriously. I insist on this especially when a specific matter of interest to only one part of Canada, if not to only one province, is considered. Then, should hon. members, who know nothing about the matter under consideration or have no interest in it, be obliged to attend two, three or four consecutive sittings?
Mr. Speaker, I think it is logical to ask the house-we have asked this several times -permission to reduce the quorum to 15, especially if we want to act as serious people and if one compares the required quorum to that of the house.
Why, I ask myself, do the members objecting to the reduction of this quorum not object to the quorum of the house, which is only 20 members and which I have always found ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, I think a quorum of 15 for the committee on agriculture forestry and rural development-and I know what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker-is reasonable and that we can still do serious work.
This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we shall always be 15 on the committee, no. If we look at the report of the committee we see that there are always between 25 and 30 members, but let the house give us at least permission to reduce this quorum to 15, so that we can work efficiently and stop canceling one meeting after the other.


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to hon. members, I think that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who has been absent quite regularly from the house in recent months, is not aware that there are many other committees sitting at this time and that many other hon. members are busy attending those committee sittings.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we reduce the quorum from 23 to 15, we must take into account the views of the members concerned who are in a position, more than I am, to decide whether it is advisable to reduce the quorum or leave it as it is. But I want to take this opportunity to say that as an Independent in this house, where I must enjoy the same privileges-on a par with all other hon. members-I asked during the first session to be appointed to the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. My application was accepted and then, without any reason and without consulting me, the government simply struck out my name.
June 7, 1967	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the main problem is the question of setting the quorum at 23 or 15 members for the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development. I believe that the government or the house leader should consult the hon. members at the beginning of a session in order to know who is interested in sitting on a given committee. Now, if the government proceeded in this way, some members would express their interest in a certain field and committees would then be able to count on a good attendance at meetings.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Personally, I take this opportunity to repeat publicly and officially my request to the government to be appointed to the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, which I find most interesting.
And I do believe, Mr. Speaker, you can testify that since January 18, 1966, I have been among the most assiduous members in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Allard: I hear the laughter of some Liberal members from Quebec who are often conspicuous by their absence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Allard: So, it is all very well to laugh, but I maintain that each week I have been one of the most assiduous members, and this for one year and a half.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. I will remind the hon. member that he should restrict himself to the present motion.


Maurice Allard: I am only too willing, Mr. Speaker, if only some Liberal members from Quebec will just keep quiet and allow me to go on.
Over one year and a half, I have proved that I am very interested in the business of the house. I submitted official applications to you, Mr. Speaker, to the house leader, to the whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Pilon), to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and my requests for appointment to the committee in which I am highly interested were not considered.
If the government agreed to heed the wishes of hon. members to sit on such and such a committee, we would not have all those requests to reduce the quorum from 25 to 15, as we have had in the last few months.
DEBATES	1249
Reduction in Quorum of Standing Committee
We would have on these committees members interested in sitting on them and they would share in the work on such committees.
I hope the government will heed my request during this second session. I am here to work. I want to do my share in the work of parliament, not only in this house but in committee. It is my right and the people of Sherbrooke constituency expect the government to give me the opportunity to work in the parliamentary committees.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the committee asked for a reduction in its quorum at its organization meeting is in my opinion an indication that the standing orders, which were approved only two years ago, are improperly formulated and therefore should be changed to reduce the quorum of the committee to whatever the members agree is a fair and reasonable number. It is quite true that a committee should be able occasionally to reduce its quorum for a specific purpose when events make it necessary, but the fact that the members of the committee asked for a reduction in the quorum at the very first meeting of the committee indicates that our standing orders are not in keeping with the wishes of the members.
Therefore I am opposed to the motion which proposes to reduce the quorum of the committee, because I believe that our standing orders and the practice of the house are not synonymous. I believe the standing orders should be changed to designate whatever quorum the members consider to be reasonable. This is what we should do, rather than decide on the quorum of a committee on an ad hoc basis every time the committee meets.


Mr. Augusie Choqueiie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, three short reasons why the motion should carry.
First, the agriculture committee met two days ago and we had a quorum of 23. It was unanimously decided to reduce the quorum to 15.
Second, the quorum of 23 members represents a higher quorum than that of the House of Commons, which is not quite normal.
Third, by bringing down the quorum to 15 members, the agriculture committee would still have the largest number, the highest quorum. That is why I feel we should pass the motion. In closing, I say that if every

June 7, 1967
Questions
member owned a luxurious yacht, to spend tour days at Expo, we could probably reduce the quorum even more.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from some of the comments that have been made that the motion before us is only a symptom and that something far more serious is behind it, namely the concern of members about the size of committees and of this one in particular, which has 45 members. In view of the fact that the committee admits that its members do not have sufficient interest to attend its meetings, since it had to meet three times before a quorum was assembled, I believe we should consider the advisability of reducing the quorum of the committee to a reasonable number such as 10 or 12, which would enable it to work more efficiently and would obviate the need of members having to ask each time for a reduction in the quorum.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Maurice Allard: for leave to introduce Bill No. 128, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Powers of Chairman and of the Board).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board to make a ruling alone when a dispute arises between two or several unions seeking a negotiating agent certificate.
[Mr. Choquette.)
During the discussion of this bill, it will also be suggested that the chairman of the C.L.R.B. be bilingual.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Irvine: 1.	Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration give some priority to the announcing of his department's policy on the winter works incentive program in order that municipalities may plan and budget in advance?
2.	If so, when may such an announcement be expected?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The timing of decisions about the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program must tie related to the purpose of the program, which is to help to stabilize construction employment through the year.
2.	The government of Canada will make known its intentions for the 1967-68 winter at the earliest date that is possible, in relation to the purpose of the program.


COLOUR TELEVISION SYSTEMS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What colour television systems were considered for use in Canada?
2.	What were the comparative cost factors of each system and of colour television sets, which receive each?
3.	Which of the systems is more readily recordable on video tape?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The following colour television systems were considered: N.T.S.C., (U.S.A.); SECAM III, (France); PAL, (Federal Republic of Germany).
2.	(a) The system cost factors considered for the three systems were: Network transmissions and distribution; Station transmitters; Video tape recording.
The N.T.S.C. system, due to its more stringent technical requirements, is the most costly in terms of the three factors above. The SECAM III system is the most tolerant of deficiencies in the performance of systems and equipment and can, therefore, utilize
June 7, 19S7

less costly facilities for recording and distribution. PAL is intermediate in the above respects between N.T.S.C. and SECAM III.
(b) The cost factors of colour television sets for the three systems relate solely to the techniques of recovering colour information from the composite colour television signal. N.T.S.C. receivers are the least costly to manufacture, SECAM III costs slightly more, with PAL being the most costly.
Signals of one colour system can be transcoded into another system. Due to the costs involved, transcoding can be achieved only at the studio, along the transmission network, or at station transmitters. Receivers designed specifically for one colour system cannot successfully receive colour TV signals from another system.
3.	SECAM III colour signals are most readily recordable on video tape, utilizing standard black and white recording machines. N.T.S.C. and PAL colour signals require auxiliary colour equipment for recording. A video tape recorded from one system can be used with another system by the use of transcoding techniques.


DISPOSAL OF HARBOURS BOARD LAND, VANCOUVER
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has any land been leased or sold by the National Harbours Board in Vancouver to Harbour Park Developments Ltd. and, if so, how much land is involved in any such lease or sale?
2.	If leased, what is the annual lease rental per square foot?
3.	Is this rental rate subject to review and, if so, what is the basis upon which any rate adjustment is negotiated?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	Yes. Lease of water lot comprising 808,024 square feet for term of 63 years.
2.	1st year, 3.62365 cents per square foot. Next 20 years at 6 cents per square foot. Next 14 years at 14 cents per square foot.
Balance of term at rate to be determined by formula as follows: For years 1999 to 2006 at such rates reflecting such increase or decrease in the above 14 cent rate as represented by the relationship of the average shelter index factor for the year commencing October 1, 1998 to the average of the shelter index factors for the period October 1, 1981 to September 30, 1988.
Questions
For each of the remaining three seven-year periods at such annual rentals as fixed by the board.
3.	See answer to part 2.


DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TROIS-RIVIERES PORT
Mr. Mongrain: Did the Department of Transport by itself or through the National Harbours Board prepare a definite project for the development of the port of Trois-Rivieres covering the next ten or fifteen years or any other period of time?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National
Harbours Board advises as follows: apart from its normal studies of future requirements at all its harbours, the National Harbours Board has taken steps to secure engineering data necessary for the full development of plans for the expansion of port facilities at Trois-Rivieres to meet any anticipated demands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS EMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Mr. McKinley: How many university students and university graduates have been employed during 1966 and 1967 by the Department of External Affairs, and
(a)	how many of those employed were bilingual
(b)	how many were not bilingual?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Please refer to starred question No. 2,762, asked by Mr. McKinley on March 14, 1967, answered in the Hansard of May 8, 1967.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Are applications for family allowances on behalf of Indian children made directly by the parents to the appropriate officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, or are they made by or through the staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	If they are made through the staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, what is the reason for this procedure, and by what law or regulation is this policy followed?
3.	Are family allowances forms for Indians different than the regular forms used for all other Canadians, and, if so, in what way are they different, and what are the reasons for these differences?

June 7, 1967
Questions
4.	Can Indians obtain these forms for family allowances anywhere else than from the Indian agent and, if not, what act or regulation authorizes this restriction?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. In the large majority of cases applications for family allowances are made directly to the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the remainder, they are made through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2.	The Indian bands whose members apply directly for family allowances to the Department of National Health and Welfare are those where this procedure has been recommended to the Department of National Health and Welfare by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is expected that all Indian bands will eventually be included in these arrangements. The other method has been retained for certain bands as a means of assistance to their members. Either method is permitted under the family allowances regulations.
3.	The forms used by those Indians who apply for family allowances through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are different from those used by Indians who apply directly and by non-Indians. The colour is different so that they may be readily distinguished for administrative purposes. There are other minor differences to allow for the provision of certain identifying information such as the band name and number.
4.	The forms described in 3 are available to Indians through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development only. The reason is for the convenience of the Indians. The relevant authority is contained in the family allowances regulations.


Mr. Scoli (Victoria (Onl.)): 1.	What plans, if any, are there for renovation of facilities along the Trent canal system?
2.	Which sections of the Trent canal system, if any, are going to be renovated?
3.	Will any such renovations be carried out in 1967?
4.	If so, what is the anticipated expenditure?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Long range planning calls for the renovation or modernization of all the facilities along the Trent canal.

2.	Work is progressing or planned for all sections of the Trent canal system.
3.	Yes.
4.	$2,501,000.


Mr. Scott (Victoria (Ont.)): 1.	What was the volume of traffic on the Trent canal system in 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	What is the anticipated volume of traffic in 1967?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Craft lockages
1.	Traffic	1964	112,233"	1965	117,931"	1966	129,9712.	Traffic	1967 (forecast)	142,000


Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of forest fires in Canada in 1964 and in 1965?
2.	How many of such fires are estimated to have been caused by smoking?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The first part of the answer, Mr. Speaker:
1964-	6,944
1965-	7,238
The second part of the answer:
1964-	1,546
1965-	1,686


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Naiional Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motion for the production of papers numbers 9, 10 and 11 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the agreement of the provincial government authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour kindly call notices of motions Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 12? I ask that the others be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Cowan:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any contract entered into concerning taxi service to and from the Ottawa railway station, since January 1, 1966.
June 7, 19S7
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no such contract in the possession of the government. Therefore I would hope the hon. member would be willing to drop the motion.


Mr. Cowan:: This matter is too important to be dropped upon such a request.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for
debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Mather):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all correspondence between the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments and federal, provincial and municipal organizations or agencies concerning lower Fraser river flood control proposals and their financing, and copies of all correspondence between the federal government and organizations and individuals concerning the lower Fraser river 1967 flood potential.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: This motion is acceptable upon three conditions. The first is the usual reservation as to privileged documents and provincial consent; the second condition would be an understanding that the motion applies only to documents within the last two years; and the third condition would be that it applies only to federal-provincial and federal-municipal communications, not to provincial-municipal communications. I had a conversation with the hon. member on that subject and I believe he will agree.


Mr. Knowles:: I can confirm that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation just expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the report of the interdepartmental committee which was announced by Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) in the House of Commons on March 29, 1965 and was established to conduct a comparative study of the promises contained in the various Indian treaties and surrenders as related to the laws respecting game and fish.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Motions for Papers
Speaker, the request by the hon. member deals with a report Which was made to myself and other ministers concerned. Since it is a privileged document I cannot agree to the motion, but I think the hon. member might be satisfied if I told him that these are very important matters dealing with Indian rights so we intend to make a synopsis of the findings and distribute it to all members of the house.


Frank Howard: Following that statement, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to withdraw the motion subject to my opportunity to compare the synopsis with the original document, and my right to return the motion to the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Ormiston:
That an humble address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency praying that he	will	cause to	be	laidbefore this house copies of	the	exchange	of	correspondence between the government of Canada and the province of Alberta since June 1, 1963, concerning the development of community pastures.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Ormisfon:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of the exchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia since June 1, 1963, concerning the development of community pastures.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Ormisfon:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of the exchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan since June 1, 1963, concerning the development of community pastures.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Ormiston:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
1254	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry before this house copies of the exchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the provincial governments since September 1, 1965, concerning a federally assisted school milk program.
John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with regard to No. 12-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a request that this notice of motion be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I give thanks to the C.T.V., which last night gave three hours of prime time to the proceedings and vote of the security council, with the remarks afterward of President Johnson also being made available to Canadians served by the C.T.V. network. As a result of yesterday's meeting and the cease fire that was ordered and directed by the security council, is the government in a position to say whether any action has been taken in this connection by either Israel or the U.A.R. and those associated with the U.A.R.?
At the same time would the minister give us his observations on the serious situation created by the attitude of the Soviet union which, in demanding a cease fire, threatened to break off diplomatic relations with Israel unless the cease fire were immediately accepted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last portion of my right hon. friend's question, while one may regret such consequences I think my hon. friend will agree that this is a matter beyond the control of the government of Canada. It is a matter that can be determined only by the Soviet union itself.
With regard to the council meeting last night, as both my right hon. friend and the house know the government of Canada gave instructions to our ambassador at the United Nations to support the cease fire resolution which the security council unanimously adopted. The hope was expressed by him on behalf of the government that the parties concerned would comply with this cease fire appeal.

DEBATES	June 7. 1967
The resolution calls upon the parties, as a first step, to take forthwith all measures for an immediate cease fire, and for a cessation of all military activities in the area. I should, of course, like to pay tribute to those who in conjunction with their governments negotiated this resolution. We hope that all members of the United Nations will now exercise their influence to bring the fighting to a halt.
The security council was called into session at noon today, when a proposal was made for a further decision by the council calling for implementation of the cease fire by 8 p.m. Greenwich mean time June 7. This resolution was also passed unanimously.


John George Diefenbaker: That would be what time here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think four
o'clock. After the passage of this resolution, on instructions from the Canadian government the Canadian ambassador tabled the following resolution:
The security council, noting resolutions S/7933 of June 6 and S/7940 of June 7, requests the president of the security council, with the assistance of the Secretary General, to take the necessary measures to bring about full and effective compliance with these resolutions.
As of the latest information I have, Mr. Speaker, that resolution is on the table but has not yet been discussed. A point of order has been raised asking that measures be taken with regard to the confirmatory resolution of today which was adopted, as I said a moment ago, by the members of the council.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what is the meaning of that latter resolution to which he refers? What are the measures that would be taken, or what are the measures in contemplation by the proposers of that motion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government had in mind that it might be desirable, as has been observed in other similar situations, for someone representing the president and/or the Secretary General to go to the area to assist in making arrangements to give effect to the terms of the Security Council resolution. I have the impression that the Secretary General himself has certain plans in mind, but I think at this stage it would be wrong for me to speak about these until he himself has made some statement.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary
June 7, 1967	COMMONS
question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While we are all pleased that the security council has issued an order for a cease fire and we all hope all the antagonists will comply, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs where we go from here. If the cease fire is not merely to be a breathing spell for the antagonists to regroup their forces and procure reinforcements, some peace negotiations will be necessary. Is it the thought of the Canadian government that the security council will begin to promulgate such peace negotiations in the hope of bringing about a stable situation in the Middle East?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is our hope, of course, and this is partly what the government had in mind when it instructed our ambassador today to table the resolution he did.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have any of the combatant countries as yet complied with the order? There is the rumour that Jordan has done so.


Murdo William Martin: The Secretary General made a report on that at this afternoon's meeting, and said he had heard from General Bull, commander of the United Nations truce and supervisory organization, that he had had an approach from Jordan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I put a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did I understand him to say that the Canadian representative had tabled a motion? If so could the minister read the motion to the house so we will be aware of the recommendation the Canadian representative is making?


Murdo William Martin: I did read the resolution, Mr. Speaker; it is now a matter of record. I read it a few moments ago. I am not trying to take advantage of my hon. friend; I did read it, but I will read it again:
The security council, noting resolutions S/7933 of June 6 and S/7940 of June 7, requests the president of the security council, with the assistance of the Secretary General, to take the necessary measures to bring about full and effective compliance with these resolutions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, what I was asking the minister about was this. I followed the motion with reference to compliance, but I understood the minister to say in answer to my question that the Canadian government 27053-811
DEBATES	1255
Inquiries of the Ministry was taking some initiative in the matter of peace negotiations which would be proceeded with as soon as the cease fire had been brought into effect. Is any such motion being tabled by the Canadian delegate and, if so, what is the nature of that resolution?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will understand that these resolutions are tabled in the light of the consultations which take place with certain countries and also with the president and members of the secretariat. Beyond that I do not want to go now. But in addition-


Mr. Starr:: You have not gone anywhere.


Murdo William Martin: I do not think I can be expected at this stage to do so, in view of the fact there is discussion taking place now on whether this resolution will be considered today. I have just been advised that notwithstanding what he said about half an hour ago, the delegate for Bulgaria agrees in principle with the Canadian resolution but asks for further time to study it. In addition, this morning the Prime Minister was in touch with certain other governments about matters not unrelated to the kind of question my hon. friend put to me a few moments ago.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I refer to the report given out yesterday or the day before that as a protective measure the U.A.R. had closed the Suez canal. Is the canal still closed, or has it been reopened in recent hours?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question under advisement before giving a reply.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is the view of the government of Canada that the strait of Tiran and the gulf of Aqaba should be open for passage by ships of all nations, and will the government press at the United Nations to have this position accepted and agreed upon by that body?


Murdo William Martin: When the Prime Minister spoke to this house, I think it was last Wednesday, he stated the view of the Canadian government with regard to the right of innocent passage in the strait of Tiran and I, in answer to questions on May 23 and May 24, called the attention of the house to the government's view with regard to this matter, reaffirming the statement made by the
June 7, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister in March 1957 with regard to this aspect of international law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it the intention of the government to give instructions to the Canadian ambassador at the United Nations to press for the recognition and guarantee by the United Nations of safe passage through these waters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Prime
Minister said the other day, the first thing is to end the fighting. That is the purpose of the resolutions passed last night and today. Today's resolution was in simple terms. It does not involve the question raised by the hon. member in one way or the other, that is as to the rights and claims of the parties. Both resolutions were passed, of course, without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it the intention of the government of Canada now to press in the United Nations for the acceptance of the right of free passage, -and its guarantee by the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have pressed this view in the United Nations, and we shall continue to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question with further reference to earlier questions directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Once a cease fire has taken place, if it is acceptable to the various nations involved, there will be a number of political questions requiring attention. Is it the intention of the government of Canada to support the convening of the four great powers in the security council to bring about agreement in respect to those matters which will become of paramount importance once a cease fire has been agreed on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The right hon. gentleman will recall that last week the Prime Minister urged four permanent members of the security council to use their powerful influence and position as members of the security council to try to bring about arrangements which would avoid the outbreak of hostilities.
Later he urged the same four great powers to use their influence to help bring about a cease fire. I can say to my right hon. friend, and I would ask him not to press me further, that the Prime Minister today has been in touch with persons in one of the great power countries urging action along this line.


John George Diefenbaker: So that it will be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said as reported at page 1124 of Hansard for June 5 that he hoped the four great powers, the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the U.S.S.R. would realize they have a special responsibility, and added "I feel they perhaps should meet on a high political level." Is that the significance of the statement the minister has now made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I prefer at this time not to go into details, but I can say to my right hon. friend that the Prime Minister has been discussing a phase of this matter that is not inconsistent with what my right hon. friend has read out. I may say I am sure the country will join with me in the view that there is great significance in the fact that there has been consultation, in particular between the Soviet union and the United States, consultation that undoubtedly had much influence on the decision of the security council last night.
While I am on my feet I would like, I am sure on behalf of all of us in this house, as I said to the Indian high commissioner this morning and as I intimated to the Brazilian ambassador, to say that the sympathy of Canada goes out to India for the loss of ten men in the United Nations emergency force, and to Brazil for the loss of one Brazilian soldier. Canada, as one of the component members of the United Nations emergency force, fully appreciates the contribution that all members of that force have made to the preservation of peace over a period of ten and a half years. Our sympathy goes out very sincerely to these two countries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a
supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the security council has ordered the cease fire, could we be assured that the Canadian government's position will be that that body, having ordered a cease fire, has some responsibility for sponsoring peace negotiations and placing its guarantees and prestige behind any agreed settlement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly can give that assurance, and this was the tenor of the concluding remarks of our ambassador last night at the security council, when he quoted words uttered in this house by the Prime Minister to the effect that measures must now be taken to meet the causes of friction and hostility in the Middle East, so that we would not be called on again in
June 7, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry another decade to deal with the regrettable [Translation]
situation that has confronted the world in the	VOCATIONAL A.ND TECHNICAL
past three weeks.	TRAINING


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to a question asked earlier of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can the minister advise the house whether, in the event of failure, we do have contingency plans to return our forces to the troubled area in the Middle East?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koofenay West):: wish to address a question to the honourable and gallant Minister of Industry. What cooperation from the federal government can the city of Trail and other communities on the Columbia river expect in combating the rapidly rising waters of the Columbia river?


An hon. Member:: The High Arrow dam.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: thank the hon. member for having given me preliminary notice of this question. In reply to his very courteous inquiry may I say he is probably aware that the federal emergency measures organization is in constant touch with the flood situation in British Columbia, as well as with the provincial authorities. Under our present constitutional arrangements, requests for federal government assistance must originate with the provincial government.
I can assure the hon. member, however, that the federal government is fully aware of the danger of this situation and has mobilized the resources which it has available in order to meet any emergency which might arise, should a request be forthcoming from the provincial government.


Mr. Deachman:: Is it not the case that the High Arrow dam constructed on the Columbia river will minimize-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the federal-provincial agreement on technical and vocational training in force at the present time, so that adults may avail themselves of the training they need?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing under the old agreement until such time as the workers who are attending a course have finished their training and others actually start to come into operation.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us when training courses to further permanent education will be established, as he promised not so very long ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the supplementary question should be placed on the order paper.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to inform the house concerning anticipated grain shipments through the port of Churchill this year in comparison with last year's exports through the northern Manitoba seaport? *


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I can only say that the wheat board has been doing very good work in encouraging shipments through the port of Churchill. I believe this year's movement is now assured at about the same level as last year's and, of course, we will continue to strive to improve the position.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO RATIFICATION OF NEW INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I too
have a question to ask the Minister of Trade
1258	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry and Commerce. It concerns the international wheat agreement. I should like to know whether formal ratification will be necessary by all the signatories to that agreement, and whether such ratification will be forthcoming before the new agreement is due to come into effect.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Canada together with several other interested countries did ask the chairman of the international wheat council to convene a meeting, and he has now called a special session of the council to open in London on June 19. The purpose is to make arrangements for the revision or renegotiation of the present international wheat agreement. This will provide an opportunity for elaborating and extending the grain agreement concluded in the Kennedy round, for associating other countries with this agreement, and for bringing it into effective operation as soon as possible.



POSSIBLE INCREASED EXPORTS DUE TO EVENTS IN MIDDLE EAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether, in view of the declaration made by several countries in the Middle East-Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others-that shipments of oil to the United States and the United Kingdom are to be stopped, he can advise the house what action if any has been taken to accelerate deliveries of Canadian oil into positions where it could satisfy emergency requirements.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only say that all necessary measures are being taken by the National Energy Board and by the interdepartmental committee on energy to do that.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Has
there been any discussion with the governments of Great Britain and the United States with reference to exports of petroleum, and has the Canadian government taken an initiative in this regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am aware of conversations in this regard at least with the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to report anything in connection with the question I asked some
[Mr. Korchinskl.)
DEBATES	June 7, 1967
days ago about a possible oil pipe line to tap the Chicago market.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I answered that question last week, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General and ask whether he would mind looking into the situation whereby Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers are laying charges against people of Chinese origin for entering this country illegally or under improper names. If he finds that this is so, will he take steps to see that this practice ceases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a submission. That is not a question.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister advise the house what progress has been made toward relieving farmers, particularly fruit, vegetable and tobacco farmers, from the excessive amount of paper work that is required in making all the deductions when paying part time help?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a statement which should not be given by way of answer to a question at this time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could beg your indulgence in this matter. It is a timely question because of the season that is at hand, and I think the minister was about to make an announcement either in the house or outside it.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make the announcement in the house. One of the things that has been done is that the former limitations for reporting income on T4's by farmers and all businessmen in Canada have been reverted to. Unless income tax and pension plan deductions are made, T4's do not
June 7. 19S7

have to be made out for persons earning under $250.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest this type of statement could be made on motions rather than by way of an answer to a question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I wonder if the Prime Minister would be good enough to deliver two bouquets, one to the C.B.C. for putting Peter Trueman on "Viewpoint" last night, the other to Peter Trueman for his very refreshing comments.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to transmit my hon. friend's words to the C.B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With a carbon copy to
Christopher Young.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, if the matter does not come under his jurisdiction, to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister assure the house that the applications for exemptions of flying farmers, now being made to the Air Transport Board, will allow farmers with aircraft to spray for weed control this current spraying season as in previous years, and not only for pest control as outlined on the applications?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not too certain that this comes under my jurisdiction. I will certainly support any applications that farmers, flying or otherwise, make, but I think this comes under the authority of the Board of Transport Commissioners.



HOCKEY-POSSIBLE CONTRAVENTION OF BILL OF RIGHTS OR COMBINES LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. Orders of the day.\n[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)']
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister which affects the individual freedom of a former member of this house. Has the Prime Minister or the government received any representation from or on behalf of Leonard "Red" Kelly, regarding the archaic and serfdom-like rules of the National Hockey League which permit Canadian citizens to be sold and traded like chattels despite their personal wishes? If so, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the government has plans to commission a study to ascertain whether such regulations contravene the Canadian Bill of Rights, and thus demand legal action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even though the right hon. Prime Minister seems anxious to reply to the question I feel it is not the type of question that should be asked at this time.
The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask the same type of question of the Solicitor General.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given by his department to amending the anticombines legislation to include service industries such as hockey, in order to prevent the kind of situation to which my colleague from Danforth referred?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, this question should properly be addressed to the Registrar General.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he any information he could give the house regarding the safety of Canadians in Nigeria?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the situation in Nigeria I can say there are military movements but there is no evidence of military conflict. Canada has made arrangements with the British high commission in eastern Nigeria for the evacuation of Canadian citizens along with citizens of the United Kingdom.
June 7. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, and ask him if he is in a position today to reply to the question I posed on Monday, which in his unavoidable absence was taken as notice by the Minister of Public Works, with reference to whether any representations had been made by Mr. Drury, the president of DOSCO, for a hearing with the minister's department or any of his officials, regarding the situation at the Sydney steel plant and the large scale lay-offs there?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, no representations were made to me, by Mr. Drury, the president of DOSCO, but early in May, about the 8th or 9th, I did have a meeting with two senior officials of DOSCO, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Moloughney, to discuss the circumstance in which DOSCO is finding itself as a consequence of the prevailing low prices for spot steel on the world market. We did examine the possibility of further initiative which might be taken in respect of the export market. I also undertook to have inquiries made to see whether there was any question of dumping of their particular prod-ducts. As the hon. member has noted, since then the Export Credit Insurance Corporation has provided assistance in securing export contracts for rails to Mexico and an inquiry is under way in respect of the possibility of dumping.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member might ask his supplementary question tomorrow because we have already exceeded the time allotted to questions this afternoon.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The members from Cape Breton Island have continually been cut off when making representations about the economic situation in Cape Breton. I think when questions about hockey players have been permitted, it is time we were permitted to ask questions concerning the workers of Cape Breton.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will note that those questions were permitted but that the answers were not permitted.


Robert Muir: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: The hon. member will have to rise on another point of order, because the hon. member for Cape Breton South has failed to establish that he had a valid point of order.


Robert Muir: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is not connected with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Certainly there would not be any continuity to the question if it were let go for another period of time. That is the point of order, and the only reason I rise at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course if members of the house are in agreement I will allow the hon. member to pursue the matter and ask his supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and also members of the house. In view of the fact that just prior to the provincial election the federal cabinet representative from Nova Scotia intimated that there was a good future for steel at Sydney, does the minister agree with this impression?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of Bill No. C-106, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the house for long. I thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) for his courtesy and consideration in making possible the adjournment in order that I might speak. I should like to say to the minister that he is one who has endeavoured at all times to uphold and preserve the amenities of the house. The manner in which he does so is a model for some of those who sit close to him.
June 7, 1967	COMMONS
The bill before the house is a comparatively simple one. In general the provisions are first, that "minister" means such member of the Queen's Privy Council as is designated to act as the minister for the purposes of this act. Second, and more important, the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board which otherwise would terminate on August 1 will be continued indefinitely and become a permanent part of the law of this land. I would not have spoken had the minister not permitted himself the luxury of endeavouring to rewrite history in certain particulars. Conversion is always a matter for commendation. Prior to the minister's occupying that position views were expressed by other members of the Liberal government not in keeping with those spoken by him. It is well to recognize that for the first time through the years there is widespread commendation for the Canadian Wheat Board, which in the past was unable to mobilize the approval or support of succeeding Liberal administrations.
One could go back to 1917 when the first board was brought into effect under a Conservative government. In 1921, when Right Hon. Mackenzie King assumed the position of prime minister, the wheat board died a natural death. I do not intend to read from Hansard unless I am asked to do so, but in 1935 Right Hon. R. B. Bennett introduced wheat board legislation. It is interesting to read the debates of those early days, beginning on July 1 that year, when the late Hon. J. L. Ralston, while leading the Liberal party in words of condemnation, refused to vote against the legislation and gave approval to the wheat board act.
Today the wheat board is receiving widespread commendation and properly so. It has been the greatest single stabilizing factor in the economy of western Canada and of Canada as a whole. When the Liberal party came into power in 1935 it promptly in effect ditched the board. History cannot be rewritten because the government feels these things should be forgotten. The board was dead as soon as the Liberal party came into power in 1935. It was only a question of allowing it the privilege of dying by inches. These things are not to be forgotten.
I accept the minister's sincere adherence to the wheat board, but as he spoke I felt he should be reminded of other days. His arrival in the present government has brought hope to those who believe in the wheat board.
DEBATES	1261
Canadian Wheat Board Act [DOT]	(3:50 p.m.)
When we were in office we took measures to benefit the western farmer, but not at the expense of other parts of Canada. For years under Liberalism the west was the forgotten part of Canada. If anyone on the government side, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), would contradict that, I call as my witness the premier of Saskatchewan. Over and over again he has reiterated that during the Conservative administration western Canada was raised economically to a level reasonably equal with that of other parts of Canada.
We remember over and over again asking the Liberal governments of Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent to provide loans on farm stored grain. They said it could not be done. The farmers had piles of wheat.


Mr. Rapp:: Nine hundred million bushels.


John George Diefenbaker: The attitude of Right Hon. C. D. Howe was that, after all, if other countries wanted wheat, they could come for it.
We provided immediate loans on farm stored wheat, and that turned the piles of wheat into money for the farmer. We brought in acreage payments. Today on every hand, as I found when I was out west a few days ago, the farmers are saying, regardless of political considerations, that those payments which have been stopped since this government came in, benefited the western farmer and Canada as a whole. Our policies when we were in office, changed wheat from a glut to an asset.
I should not have mentioned these things at all had the minister not made certain statements which, though they are entirely correct so far as details are concerned, had the effect of leaving a wrong impression, unintentionally. It was simply rewriting history. I point this out to the minister: You cannot sell the idea to the western farmer that any other government but the Conservative government I had the honour to head, would have sold the same amount of wheat. You cannot sell the farmer an idea simply by naming a dam in the province of Saskatchewan after one who did not bring the wheat sales about.


Mr. McIntosh:: They did not give a dam.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture must have had something to do with naming of the dam. He was in western Canada. He knows the west. I say this to him: He ought not to go back and tell them his
12S2	COMMONS
Canadian Wheat Board Act reasons for what he did in that connection, unless he expects a warmer reception than he had the last time.


An hon. Member:: The west knows you, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember the days when the Liberal party did not think that Saskatchewan was worth a dam. We brought about the payments for farm stored wheat, and we opened a new hope for agriculture in western Canada.
Now, when speaking of the sale of wheat, the minister says that nearly half of Canada's wheat and flour exports are shipped to Sino-Soviet countries, to most of which it is necessary to extend credit in order to do business. The policy of selling wheat with government assistance was implemented 15 years ago when 5.5 million bushels were sold to Yugoslavia. That was 5.5 million bushels. I remember so well, when we said that arrangements were being made to guarantee the sale of wheat to China, that members of the Liberal party-and those members do not sit opposite any more, they are gone-got up and said that it was ridiculous. At that time the President of the United States said, "You are not going to sell wheat to communist China." That is what he told me.


An hon. Member:: He said it was treason.


John George Diefenbaker: I pointed out that Canada's policies would be determined here and not in Massachusetts, or even in Boston. But the hon. gentlemen sitting opposite ridiculed the idea.
I have before me the Searle weekly report No. 13 dated Monday, December 12, 1966. The letter observes:
-"important as it may ultimately prove to be, it would be a mistake at this stage to regard Canada's sale of a single cargo of No. 3 Northern wheat to communist China as anything more than an interesting development".
Had the government of which I had the honour to be the head not decided that one could trust the communist Chinese to repay their debts, there never would have been any wheat sales to communist China. Someone suggested that we had taken a tremendous chance. My experience over the years in the ordinary affairs of business and law convinced me that when a Chinese gave his word, he kept it. That view affected the sale by the wheat board. Had a Liberal government been in office there never would have been that sale. The Liberals opposed it; they

DEBATES	June 7, 1967
ridiculed it; they condemned it. I heard them saying not only in the house but over the radio how ridiculous the sale was. Heresy has now become orthodoxy. As the minister said, half of our wheat and flour goes to Sino-Soviet countries.
The minister also mentioned other countries such as Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, and mainland China. These countries represent a market for over 20 per cent of our total exports. Mainland China, under long term agreements, is the second largest purchaser in the world of Canadian wheat. I am glad that this government has followed the course that it has followed. What it condemned it now accepts. The illegitimate child-that is how they regarded the wheat sales to communist China-in the intervening years has had established for it by the minister the paternity of the Liberal party. I thought that I ought to set the record clear in this regard.
* (4:00 p.m.)
I should like the Minister of Agriculture in particular to bear in mind when he visits the western prairies that he should not try telling the farmers the fiction that he or his government had anything to do with the sale of western wheat. If he does, all I can say is that his pastures will not be "greene". I have reviewed the redemption of the Liberal party in this regard. The wheat board was condemned in 1935. The Liberal party, through Mr. Mackenzie King, a western representative from Prince Albert, took the stand that the wheat board should not operate more than one year in advance. They succeeded in securing an amendment to that effect because the legislation had to be carried out. They had in mind, when giving it support in July, 1935, that they would torpedo it at the first opportunity-and they did.
The sales of wheat that have been made and the contribution by the wheat board in securing markets have given hope to the western farmers. They have not forgotten, though, that While 21 cents is the maximum increase in the price of wheat under the new international agreement, two years ago 17 cents was cut off their price. The result is that the wheat farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba received an income in those two years of about $190 million less than they would have received because of the action of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
June 7, 1967	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: Today the price goes up 4 cents over and above the 17 cents that was cut off. What has happened in the intervening period? There are high prices for agricultural implements and for the things the farmer has to buy. Agricultural prosperity has been eroded by inflation. Farm machinery prices have gone up in the last three years to an extent that beggars description in adequate terms. Action is necessary.
Mention was made today by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) of the facilities at that port. The minister said we will ship as much this year as was shipped last year, according to present forecasts. That is not enough. Churchill is not being utilized as it should be. The great interests in Montreal and Vancouver are opposed to the adequate use of Churchill. Adequate use of the facilities there would give the western farmer several cents a bushel more than he is receiving today, because of the reduced cost of transportation. The hon. member for Churchill has fought this battle, as yet unsuccessfully. I hope the minister will give the assurance. not that we will ship through Churchill as much as was shipped last year but that we will ship at least 20 million bushels more than have ever been shipped through that port.
The wheat situation is just part of the larger picture. I mentioned the increased prices of farm implements. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) has asked for action in this connection, but the minister, looking Lincolnesque, I am told, has not taken action.


Robert Henry Winters: Are you referring to me?


John George Diefenbaker: No, I am referring to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) wins the prize for pulchritude. The minister misunderstood me; he looks like Errol Flynn.


Robert Henry Winters: I hope not.


John George Diefenbaker: I was directing my remarks to the Minister of Agriculture and suggesting that action should be taken. Recently we saw the farmers visiting parliament, kept outside of parliament. I suggest to the minister that he had better get, not a report on farm implement prices, but action.


Robert Muir: He had better get cracking.


John George Diefenbaker: The farmers of Canada are being bled by the unjust prices charged
DEBATES	1263
Canadian Wheat Board Act today by the farm implement corporations. That is clear and definite. If the minister has any doubts about that and would contradict it, I give him the opportunity to do so. He cannot deny the fact that regardless of the increased cost of production, farm machinery prices today bear no direct relationship in equity to those costs.
Now I come to one or two other suggestions, and I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. This is a segment of the plan for improving agriculture and ensuring a fair deal for the farmer. I should like to see the establishment of a federal marketing board, or boards, in conjunction with the departments of agriculture of the provinces. Many who opposed the wheat board as being a dangerous intrusion into private business have today become worshippers of the wheat board.
I should like to see the establishment across this country of boards similar to the wheat board. I should like to see action in that regard to provide a sensible marketing system for the eastern dairy farmer. We have proven through the wheat board what can be done. I remember the beginnings of the board in western Canada. As a boy I attended a small school where for the first time the idea was put forward by certain farmers that something could be done, and they formed what they called a farmers institute. That was in 1907. One of the things they asked for was that the farmers have some control over the marketing of their wheat, and also some protection, which they did not then have, against the inequities perpetrated against them. This has now been achieved through the medium of the wheat board.
I realize that there will be some disagreement with regard to what I am about to say. The minister has the power to include flax and rye under the wheat board without any action of parliament. These two cereals should be treated under the wheat board. At the same time I would suggest that farmers should be able to sell by private sale those products which are under the wheat board. Two weeks ago I raised with the minister the question of the shortage of oats and barley in Manitoba. He produced statistics which indicated that there was no particular shortage. However, I find that the oats and barley which were in shortage were mainly those not available for feed. Therefore the argument that I was making at that time for a release from the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that farmers may dispose privately of a certain portion of their oats and
12E4
June 7, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act barley lor feed purposes would indeed be generally welcomed by the western farmers.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Finally I wish to say that this is all part of the picture. One cannot say the wheat board is an entity by itself, and everything is well. When we were in office we brought about a system of technical schools of which the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) was the proponent. This has now been phased out. Under that plan 75 per cent of the cost of construction was paid by the federal authorities. I would like to see assistance given in all parts of Canada for the establishment of agricultural colleges so that the training will be available to more and more Canadians who want to stay on the farms, and a similar plan established whereby the federal government would contribute 75 per cent of the costs. This would not only make avaliable increased knowledge to those who otherwise would be denied it, but would also encourage research which would be of tremendous benefit to the farmers in all parts of Canada.
There are many other matters with which I would have dealt but I will not do so because I said I would not take long. I will conclude by saying to the minister that I am very happy the Liberal party has now embraced the principle which we advanced in sales of wheat to communist countries. I belong to those who are not impressed by the argument that the sale of wheat is the sale of a strategic material. We must use our tremendous potentialities in agriculture in Canada to help feed the world. We cannot do that by accepting the suggestion, which was advanced by the Liberal party between 1958 and 1963, that sales of wheat to communist countries should not take place.
Mr. Speaker, making the legislation permanent does not of course mean that it is permanent; it can be changed any time. But it will not be changed so long as there are farmers and wheat producers who are aware of the benefits which flow from the wheat board act.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), particularly when he is dealing with a subject matter which is as close to him and to the constituents he represents as is the Canadian Wheat Board. I may say that it is my own opinion that much of what has been related to us here this afternoon is accepted as a general consensus by most grain and wheat producers in western Canada, and I

have no intention at this time of entering into any polemic with any hon. members to my right as to who deserves prime credit for the increased sales of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board. However, I just want to say that much of the controversy which blew up about three years ago, at the time of the change of governments, regarding who merited special praise for the increased volume of sales by the wheat board, is due to a misunderstanding. I feel that even if the Canadian Wheat Board, acting on its own, had succeeded in negotiating a large and special sale, this would have come to nought had the government of the day not been prepared to make special credits available. My understanding is that the former administration was prepared to extend special credits by means of which the wheat board was then able to make large scale sale commitments to communist China.
Whether or not the then minister of agriculture had a very personal and individual role in that connection is still not clear to me and I do not think it is the prime point to be considered. The important point is whether the government at that time was prepared to make special credits or guarantees available. It did, and the sale was consummated. I believe that most people in the farming areas of western Canada understand this to be so. Certainly there can be no dispute about the fact to which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition made reference, that for years the preceding Liberal government refused to consider and implement any legislation to make available cash advances for farm stored grain. The 1950's were extraordinary years for many grain producers in western Canada. There was the problem of surpluses coupled with low prices, and certainly it was very necessary, because of the extraordinary problem facing these people, to bring in a program which would make cash advances available for farm stored grain. A special effort was required to cope with a special problem, and this was done. Governments cannot afford to act timidly and they do not have the right to evade unusual responsibilities when the times are unusually difficult, and certainly this criticism directed at members of the Liberal party is justified.
I do not want to say that there is nothing objectionable in Bill C-106. For the most part it deals with administrative changes in the organization and administration of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I do not regard anything in it as being a change of substance. It is all procedural. Yet, if the minister and
June 7, 19S7

his advisers had read with care the report of the parliamentary committee on agriculture, they would have found therein specific recommendations as to desirable changes that could be brought about within the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. One has to do with the matter of bringing rye and flax under the purview of the board.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I should like your ruling on this. It is my understanding that on third reading of a bill it is not possible, or at least it is not the custom, to introduce new matters of principle. These have been disposed of during the debate on second reading. If I interpret correctly what the hon. member is saying, he is asking us to broaden the principle of the bill in order to include items that were discussed and disposed of during the debate on second reading.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Speaking to the point of order, I just say that I am not suggesting the bill be amended in order to accommodate my proposals. I am merely expressing my regret that this has not been done. I believe this is in order, since the bill refers to grains coming under the jurisdiction of the wheat board. Unless your honour wishes to be very strict in the application of the rules, I feel I should be allowed to proceed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One of the procedures allowed on third reading is the moving of an amendment to refer a bill back to the committee of the whole with the instruction that a certain section be changed in certain particulars. My colleague is not proposing to move such an amendment, but the fact is anyone can move such an amendment. One could not move such an amendment without pointing out the discrepancies or deficiencies in the bill, and this is what the hon. member is doing. If one can move an amendment to send the bill back to correct certain deficiencies, then one is quite in order in discussing the deficiencies or discrepancies in the bill.
What my colleague is seeking to do is simply point out that, while he agrees with the provisions in the bill, he regrets that certain other provisions are not in it. I suggest to your honour that this type of discussion is within the provisions for debate on third reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In speaking to the point of order I should like to say that to attempt now to confine the debate on third reading to a strict interpretation of the rules, after the speech
Canadian Wheat Board Act we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on subjects which have been raised at least 50 times, would not be proper. Surely at this stage anything goes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) that the debate on third reading of the bill can be similar to the debate on second reading. However, having once decided the principle of the bill, the debate on third reading is just a little more restricted than that on second reading.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I am aware of this. I was not sure of the rules respecting debate on third reading. I just took for granted that we would be allowed to make reference to almost any subject matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I have some further references to make to the subject matter of this bill.
I was saying that the effect of this bill really is to make certain procedural changes, but not any substantive changes, in the organization or administration by this board. I do feel that flax and rye, as I say, should have been put under the administration of the wheat board by legislation, since we have had repeated representations to that effect by various organizations and also had the opinion of the parliamentary committee on agriculture to the same effect.
Another matter which relates to the operation of the board has to do with the quota system presently in operation in the west and the ways in which it may be modified. It seems to me that the quota system really works to the disadvantage of the small and medium grain producers. If a means could be found somehow to make an adjustment in favour of the small and medium sized operators, it would sit well with a large number of producers in western Canada. I do not believe such a change would militate to any appreciable extent against the larger producers. Obviously, a change of this nature would affect them to some extent but not to the degree where they would find it painful or particularly disadvantageous. In this connection, I hope that the minister, his officials and the officials of the board will give consideration to the short run effect of such a change. I certainly hope that within the course of the next 12 months the board might find it possible to recommend such a change in operation, thereby making it easier for many small and medium sized grain producers on the prairies to conduct their operations.
June 7, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I have one final question in connection with the bill and I believe it is in order to put it to the minister. It has to do with the schedule appended to the bill. I note that the explanatory note states that the schedule, containing a list of seed cleaning mills, feed mills and warehouses is a list of such facilities in existence as of March 1. Was this schedule reprinted since the debate on second reading? I gather from reading the reports of the debate on second reading of the bill that the schedule setting out a list of flour mills, seed cleaning mills and so on was considerably out of date.
Since the date of March 1, 1967 has been left in the bill, I must presume, unless the minister tells me otherwise, that the list has been reprinted. I do not know whether the bill was reprinted, but I assume it has been. I did not take advantage of the opportunity to speak on second reading of this Bill No. C-106, and that is the reason I am making these remarks now.
There is one other matter I should like to raise with the minister. I do not apologize for doing so, even though he may suspect I am infringing on the rules somewhat. I am referring to the responsibility of the board, perhaps more particularly of this government, concerning the need for supporting some research, some testing and some improvement of our transportation facilities as they relate to the handling and transport of grain to domestic markets outside the prairies and to export positions. All of the evidence which the committee was able to gather during its deliberations and its trip to Vancouver and the prairies last winter seemed to indicate that some of our grain moving methods and some of our facilities were getting out of date. Specific suggestions were made with regard to the feasibility of appointing a transport expeditor who would function under the supervision of the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe this suggestion was forwarded by the committee to this government. I hope the minister and his colleagues will see fit to give the suggestion careful analysis. In addition, it was pointed out rather clearly to this government that it really must assume responsibility for improving port facilities on the west coast. All the data and the indices projected would seem to indicate that the trend will be toward increased exports of Canadian grain to Asian markets. All these port areas, therefore, will really have to be enlarged and improved upon. I refer to the unloading facilities at the port and the slipways for docking boats. All of this can be held in abeyance. One year

could pass, or two, three, four, five or six years, and before we knew it we could be involved in a grain movement crisis, a grain blockade or bottleneck.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The hope was expressed that since the recommendations have been made the government will now set to work forthwith. I hope the minister, together with his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and others, will take some real, tangible action to see that the program to improve these facilities is commenced and that a certain amount of research and investigation into new methods of grain handling is conducted. The concept of the unit train, which I understand is something the United States railways are experimenting with in the movement of grain in the United States, was brought to our attention when we were in western Canada just a few months ago.
I conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker, that the changes that are being provided for through this legislation are of a nature that cannot really be objected to. Indeed the idea of making the board a permanent body with authority to act is nothing more than realistic. The board is entering more and more into long term, long range commitments and agreements, and I think that many purchasing groups and countries would find it better to deal with a body that has the kind of permanent authority which is commensurate with the agreement or contractual obligation that is being entered into at the time. If a master agreement with a term of five years is being entered into, it does not make sense to give the board entering into that agreement a legal life span of less than that term. Therefore, setting up the board with an extension of authority timewise is realistic.
However, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime there are many other substantive matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board that the government must give cognizance to and deal with in a tangible way in the course of the next year or two.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important functions of the Canadian Wheat Board is to provide a fair allocation of the available market to all the wheat producers in the area covered by the wheat board. I just want to speak very briefly on this quota system. I should like Your Honour to know that no member of this party participated in the second reading debate, but I do intend to be very brief at this stage.
June 7, 1967	COMMONS
I could not help but listen with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) as he went back over the history of the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1930's and attempted time after time to rejuvenate-if you want to call it that-the credit given to his party and his government for having increased sales of Canadian wheat.


Reynold Rapp: There is nothing wrong with that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But what is so amusing about this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition has just returned from the west. I do not know whether he was in my constituency, but he was awfully close. He now comes back to the house, and the first major contribution he makes to the debates in this chamber is to repeat a speech that we in this house have heard at least 50 times. The thought that occurred to me was this. I was wondering whether the attempt to perpetuate this illusion that hon. gentlemen try to give the farmers of western Canada is becoming more difficult and the right hon. gentleman is trying to revitalize it a little bit.


John George Diefenbaker: The recently self-appointed minister of agriculture has spoken again for Liberalism.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It seems to me that this must have bothered the right hon. gentleman after visiting some of the major grain and wheat producing areas of the prairies, because he comes back to this house and gives the same old speech we have all heard about the great things which were done some nine or ten years ago by his government. We have heard that speech made by the hon. members for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), I think by the hon. member for Humboldt-Mel-fort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), indeed by all of them.
This speech, Mr. Speaker, is the standard speech that is made by every one of them, not only in this House of Commons but in every election campaign during the last ten years. They do not tell us, however, some of the other details that should be told if they want to tell the whole story-and I understood that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to give all of the details. The right hon. gentleman complained about the detail that the minister left out of his speech when he was talking about the Canadian Wheat Board. For example, the fact that the original contract with mainland China was signed three days before
DEBATES	1267
Canadian Wheat Board Act the minister of agriculture got over there to make the announcement; that is one of the details he left out. He also left out the point that while there was an expansion of credit facilities, for which I give the right hon. gentleman and his party full credit, the fact remains that all the mechanism to provide export credits, and so on, had already been set up before his government took office.


Reynold Rapp: But they never used it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not quite fair to say they did not use it, because they did. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) was very careful to mention that they had made some kind of deal with Yugoslavia. Actually, I think he could just as well have left out any reference to that five and a half million bushels because the amount is so insignificant. However, these are some of the details that are left out, depending upon whether the speech is being made by someone on this side of the house or on the other side of the house. I think members on both sides should fill in the details for each other, so that we do not go through this performance over and over again.
I hope the right hon. gentleman is now satisfied that he has been able to revive these past glories and can live with them for a while yet; but as I say, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that his trip to the west must have left him feeling that the picture had slipped a little.


Reynold Rapp: You were not in favour of sales to communist countries.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right; the hon. gentleman opposed sales to communist countries.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. gentleman did not oppose sales to communist countries.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, you did.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There may be some validity to the statement that some members of this party did, but do not say that I did, because I did not.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman opposed that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The right hon. gentleman had better dig up some proof about that because I take exception to that statement.
Getting back to the subject matter of the bill, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of quotas, as I said at the outset, a fair allocation of the
June 7, 1S67

Canadian Wheat Board Act available market to all the wheat producers of western Canada is the primary function of the Canadian Wheat Board. Because unless there is a proper and fair allocation of the market that is available, the full purpose of the wheat board falls by the way.
I suggest that it is not enough simply to set quotas for specific points and just to leave it at that. The reason I say this is because a quota has no validity whatever until there is space in the elevators at the delivery points to which the producer can haul his wheat, and there have been some shortcomings on the part of transportation services in the provision of this space.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The minister who was formerly responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), stated in this house that he and his officials along with members of the Canadian Wheat Board were giving serious consideration to bringing in a new quota system. He went on to say he would shortly be outlining these new ideas for the benefit of hon. members, the intention being to change the quota system in such a way as to make it more effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it was designed.
We have heard nothing further about this. We have heard nothing on the subject from the minister who now has responsibility for the wheat board. We do not know what came out of those discussions or even whether they are continuing. This is a matter of great importance. I know that some places on the prairies wait three or four months to have their quotas brought up to the same level as others during the crop year.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. During this last crop year there has been a large market and the kind of weather which is conducive to the movement of huge crops by rail. So no serious disparities have arisen. Indeed, I do not know of any areas which are complaining that their quotas are substantially below those of other areas. This is not a problem which arises this year.
I suspect, however, that if wheat exports were to decrease, or if difficulties arose in connection with transportation, the problem would immediately arise again. I hope the minister will tell us either today or at an early date what the wheat board has in mind by way of a revision of the quota system so that these wide discrepancies as between shipping points may not arise in the future.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I shall speak on this bill for only a few moments. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) referred to quotas but as usual, of course, he made no suggestions as to how they might be changed.
I wish to draw once again to the attention of the minister the very favourable location of the elevator at Moose Jaw. Situated as it is on the main line of the C.P.R. and accessible to the C.N.R. routes, this elevator should be put to greater use than has been the case in the last few years. In my opinion this would improve the working of the quota system in some of the country districts in the region; I say this because the elevator at Moose Jaw has a capacity of some 5.5 million bushels of wheat.
I am glad to see it is being used to near full capacity now, and that its utility is thus being demonstrated. At the risk of worrying the minister with repetition I wish to emphasize once again the importance of this elevator because, among other things, of its strategic location.
During the sittings of the standing committee on transport and communications many references were made by witnesses and others to modernizing the arrangements for handling and moving grain, particularly wheat. I suggest to the minister that the Moose Jaw elevator has the necessary cleaning and drying facilities to enable it to fit into the pattern of grain transportation envisaged in the next few years. It has been envisaged-and this came from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) himself-that pipe lines might be used to move some of our grain. I believe that the Moose Jaw elevator, because of its location and other advantages, could fit into this technique, if it ever comes about.
I hope the minister will draw the attention of the Canadian Wheat Board to my remarks. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is not here but perhaps the hon. gentleman will ask his colleague to draw the attention of the Board of Grain Commissioners to what I have said, inasmuch as that minister has responsibility for the work of the commissioners.


Mr. Ed. Nasserden (Rosihern):: I shall try to limit my comments on this bill to about one minute. Since second reading took place, at which time I mentioned the possibility of rye and flax being placed under the jurisdiction of the board-a suggestion which has been reinforced today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)-I have had occasion to read the reports of the agriculture
June 7, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act
committee for the past year. As hon. members know, the committee travelled through western Canada.
One of the recommendations made by the committee read as follows:
Your committee therefore recommends that legislation be introduced, after the usual procedures have been completed, which would extend the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board so that it would be the sole Canadian marketing agency for rye, flax and rapeseed.
I wish to bring this recommendation to the attention of the minister and commend it to him.
When I spoke in the debate the other day and referred to rye and flax I suggested that some people were not as anxious to see rape-seed brought under the board's jurisdiction. I have to amend that statement today and say they are just as anxious to see rapeseed included. In fact, no farm organization in western Canada has indicated it is at variance with the recommendations of the agriculture committee in this connection. That is all I wish to say at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that under our rules he is not permitted to speak at this time unless he has the unanimous consent of the house. If he wishes me to do so I will ask the house for consent.
Does the house give consent to the minister speaking, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am bound to say I was not aware of that rule and thought I would have an opportunity to reply as of right. I am grateful to hon. members for giving unanimous consent, although I intend to speak only briefly.
Little has been added that was not said on second reading, so nothing is required from me by way of rebuttal. The hon. member for Medicine Hat referred to speeches which were made on other occasions by the Leader of the Opposition, but I am relatively new in my responsibility for the wheat board and I have not heard those speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: Neither had he, except in his imagination.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: I was pleased to hear the hon. member's references and enjoyed them very much. The Leader of the Opposition referred
to interpretations placed on my presentation during second reading. I tried to be factual. I have always gone on the basis that one cannot alter facts. You can alter the interpretation of facts but not the facts themselves. I did not think there was anything in the factual content of my presentation with which the right hon. gentleman would disagree. I referred to the fact that it was under his administration that the first contract with communist China was negotiated by the wheat board, and China has proven a good market for Canada ever since. Reference was made to the fact that the sale of 5J million bushels of wheat to Yugoslavia was inconsequential. However, sometimes it is these small things that establish precedents which lead to greater business later on, and we are hopeful that will be the case.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) also referred to the port of Churchill and urged us to greater efforts. I have replied occasionally to questions put by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) and told him we are working very hard. It is not always easy to persuade the shipping lines to take wheat out of Churchill. The season is short, and the shipping season itself happens to coincide with the season during which wheat is coming on to the major markets of Europe. Therefore there is not a great incentive for the shipping lines to take wheat out of Churchill.
By dint of hard work the wheat board has been able to succeed to the point where we can contemplate a shipping season from Churchill which we think will be at least as good as last year. We are still working and hopeful for better things; but of course I cannot guarantee that at this stage, because so much is beyond our control.
I will be very glad to review the quota system. I have not had an opportunity to talk recently to the wheat board about it but I will do so, and hope I will be able to say something about that at an early date. The elevator at Moose Jaw did get a considerable amount of business after the matter came up at an earlier date and it will be used to the fullest extent consistent with the primary functions of the wheat board, which are to sell and move wheat.
With respect to the matter of rye, flax and rapeseed, I was aware of the recommendation of the agricultural committee. I alluded to that in the debate on second reading. I told hon. members that I was impressed by that recommendation but wished more time to study it, since my association with the wheat

June 7, 1967
Business of the House board has been of such a short duration so far.
Naturally I would like to see more wheat shipped out of the ports of Halifax and Saint John, which traditionally had a greater play than they have been receiving recently, but trends change and we must strive to keep the wheat flowing through all the ports of Canada to the greatest extent possible.
I have nothing more to say, except that I have enjoyed the historic treatment today. However, I think the Leader of the Opposition, and all other hon. members, would agree with me that while history is interesting to the western farmers they are more interested in performance, and if I could be permitted the opportunity to quote one more fact which I think will be as unassailable as the other facts I have quoted, it is that the prices for wheat are now at the highest level in history under the international wheat agreement, and are only fractionally below the maximum under the international wheat agreement at Vancouver.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the house agree to calling it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. When Your Honour was on your feet and the suggestion that it be called five o'clock was made, I was in conference with the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) who had hoped to complete his estimates before five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the point of order raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), but it being only a few minutes before five o'clock I requested the opinion of the house as to whether it would rather have private members business begin now, or just spend two or three minutes on estimates.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I would be imposing on the house by making a request. However, I am prepared to do so, but I certainly can take no offence if the house feels otherwise. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. 
Howard) had not quite completed his remarks when we adjourned the debate the other evening. If it met with the will of the house and it decided to continue, I feel the hon. member for Skeena should at least be permitted to complete his remarks.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am in the same position as I was last evening. I think I should not accept the offer of the hon. gentleman, which of course does not mean that I do not consider it to be an important subject, but I have ascertained that there are a few other hon. members who desire to say something about the estimates. Further, the minister himself has not had an opportunity to reply to the comments that have been made up to now. I think it would be going a bit far to expect to get his estimates through this evening.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I can take no exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena and respectfully suggest that we revert to private members hour.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to provide that an employer shall not introduce or implement any technological innovation, development, or change which would materially and adversely affect the working conditions of his employees until after he has negotiated the matter with the bargaining agent of his employees, and that if no agreement is reached, the matter shall be refererd to a conciliation board as provided by section 22 (2) of the act, and that if the employer introduces or implements the proposed changes without such negotiation and conciliation, his employees shall have the right to strike immediately as if the collective agreement had expired and all other statutory requirements had been met.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is just about 15 months ago since I presented a notice of motion that was identical to this one, and the reasons I am presenting this one today are because I feel the issues which inspired me to present the first one are just as crucial today as they were then. My main reasons are based on the recommendations contained in the Freedman commission report. As most hon. members will recall, the Freedman commission was set up at a time when labour relations between employees of the C.N.R. and the C.N.R. executive reached such a point
June 7, 1967

that a wildcat strike occurred, as a result of which transportation facilities on the C.N.R. were tied up for a short period of time.
Because of the wildcat strike hon. Mr. Justice Freedman was given the job of inquiring into the reasons for the dispute between the employees and employer, and of coming up with recommendations to resolve the situation in order that it might not happen again. At that particular time the C.N.R. had arbitrarily served notice on the railway running trades that it was introducing drastic changes in working conditions without first negotiating the conditions with the unions and employees involved. The employees took exception to this and insisted that any changes of this nature should be negotiated.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The company, for a considerable length of time, had been hiding under an umbrella of an understanding that was archaic. I am referring to the residual rights theory, the theory that there are certain fundamental rights which did not have to be negotiated and in respect of which the company would have the right and authority to make changes without becoming involved in negotiations with the union. As I said before, Mr. Justice Freedman's job was to explore the events leading up to the wildcat strike and to submit recommendations concerning how a similar work stoppage could be avoided in the future. The last time I spoke on this matter and presented my notice of motion I dealt extensively with the recommendations which Mr. Justice Freedman made. Today I shall deal with them only very briefly. I intend to quote from one or two passages. The first has to do with Mr. Justice Freedman's summation concerning what is involved so far as residual rights are concerned, and whether or not this is something which should happen today. I should like to quote from pages 91 and 92 of the Freedman Commission report:
The commission must accordingly conclude that on the basis of the law as it exists today the company does have the right, as it contends, to institute run-throughs. That conclusion at once poses a question: Should it continue to have that right? The commission is satisfied that it must be answered only in one way. The institution of run-throughs should be a matter for negotiation. To treat it as an unfettered management prerogative will only promote unrest, undermine morale, and drive the parties farther and farther apart. In that direction lies disorder and danger. By placing run-throughs, on the other hand, within the realm of negotiation a long step will be taken toward the goal of industrial peace. More than that. Such a course will help to provide safeguards against the undue dislocation and hardship that often result from technological change.
Industrial Relations
Mr. Justice Freedman spent months travelling from place to place hearing witnesses provided by the company and the labour unions. I think he investigated the whole matter very thoroughly. For this reason I believe a great deal of credence should be put on the recommendations of the Freedman Commission.
It is nearly two years since the recommendations of the Freedman Commission were made and published. I submit that not a single thing has been done by the government in respect of these, even though this commission has cost the country a great deal of money. It also has cost both the unions and the company involved a great deal of money, and still we have a situation where up to this date these recommendations have been ignored. I submit that the issue is as crucial today as it was two or three years ago. I believe the attitude of the railways is exemplified by the recent announcement of curtailment of passenger service in Newfoundland. Possibly this could not be considered as being relevant, but I think it gives a pretty fair idea of the way in which the railway companies operate today, and the callous disregard they appear to have for the employees when they make changes.
The few comments I should like to quote from the Canadian Trainmen's News lor the month of May have to do with the passenger runs in Newfoundland. I shall read only a portion of this. One paragraph reads as follows:
The announcement by C.N. that it would abandon rail passenger service on the island altogether and substitute bus service along the trans-Canada highway came right on the heels of the report of the Royal Commission on Transportation which recommended a substantial increase in rail passenger service.
Here is an example, when a recommendation had been made that there should be an increase in the service, where the Canadian National Railways decided to abandon these facilities. Further on the article says:
While C.N. has not yet applied to the Board of Transport Commissioners to abandon the island services, more than 200 employees (by C.N. figures) will lose their jobs. The greatest proportion being B.R.T. members.
These are the men who operate the trains.
As well as train crews, the brotherhood represents express messengers in Newfoundland.
I believe this is a serious matter and, even though it is not entirely relevant to the Freedman commission recommendations, because those recommendations deal with

June 7, 1967
Industrial Relations
changes of a different kind, I believe it does point out very definitely that the railways are perhaps more to blame than most industries when making changes and dealing with innovations which seriously affect the employment of their employees, without prior consultation or without negotiation of any kind with the employees,
I am quite sure that when I sit down I will be reminded by someone on the government side that a task force has been set up to look into the whole matter of labour-management relations. According to the information I have-and I believe it is quite authentic-this force is headed by four professors who have engaged already dozens of professors of law, sociology, economics, and so on. I have no quarrel with these people, but I believe a force of this kind should not be overloaded with that type of personnel. I think more people from the labour movement should be involved in this task force. Already they have over 90 projects on which they plan to do research. I think this points up another thing; apparently they are more interested in research and study than they are in getting down to business and actually doing something about this whole matter. I should like to ask whether this is just to be another exercise in research and study. Is it to be a replay of the B and B patter, or will there be some positive action? I think not. In my opinion the whole exercise is a series of delaying tactics which indicate cowardice on the government side in facing up to a crucial issue.
My information is that not one of these 90 projects is designed to deal specifically with the issues raised by the Freedman report in respect of technological change, management's rights and the social responsibilities of governments and corporations. Further we have the two great labour problems of last year. The first is the railway strike of which we are well aware and in respect of which there was a breakdown of negotiations, lack of trust and an example of the futility of the conciliation procedure. These were very important factors in the railway strike of last year, which I believe everyone will admit was a very serious situation and one which called for very positive action on the part of the government.
Another matter which apparently they are not going to go into is the problem represented by the C.N.T.U. and the Canadian Labour Relations Board. How is the French fact to be recognized or accommodated in federal labour legislation and administration? I think this is

a very crucial matter today. It is my information that the majority of the studies deal with industries and matters falling under provincial jurisdiction.
* (5:10 p.m.)
One would gather that this academic task force are out to employ any academic egghead who has been sitting on any pet project which possibly could be related in some way to management and labour relations. The worst is, however, that the task force have deliberately ignored the points which were raised by Mr. Justice Freedman. The problems implicit in the rejection of the Canadian Labour Relations Board by the CNTU and the troubles with longshoremen in Montreal and Vancouver would suggest to me, Mr. Speaker, that all the crucial issues have been ignored entirely and that this task force is, in effect, a delaying exercise which is being engaged in order to get away from facing the important issues that prevail at this time. I am of the very strong opinion that the railways are just sitting tight; they are waiting for an opportune moment and it will be a short time only before we shall be faced with the problem that faced us before, particularly with respect to run-throughs.
I realize that federal labour laws do not affect too many of our major industries, so that I need not, I think, speak for them. I do think that the majority of industries that do not come under federal jurisdiction do not apply the archaic residual rights rule, yet this is something that the railways apparently do not intend to move away from. This matter was one of the crucial issues in the railway negotiations of last summer, and on no occasion was there any indication that the railways have any intention of negotiating with the employees on anything that involved the recommendations of the Freedman Commission report.
I had not intended to take up much time with this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to now. I would conclude by saying what I said at the outset, that this notice of motion is just as crucial today as it was 15 months ago, that nothing has been done to implement the recommendations of an eminent jurist who went to a great deal of trouble to explore the labour situation in the federal field. Another such labour dispute in this field could bring about the same results that were previously seen. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I would request that hon. members of the house will support my notice of motion.
June 7, 1S67


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, in common with other hon. members I was looking forward very much to the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett) on a subject about which, I think it is fair to assume, he is probably more expert than most of us, having had long experience in the railways industry. In his notice of motion he presents a problem which is very severe and real and is encountered not only in the railway industry but in all industries. I hope I shall be forgiven if I express considerable disappointment in his remarks, particularly with his suggestion that since the Freedman report came out, nothing has been done. Later in my remarks I hope to demonstrate adequately that something has been done by the parties themselves.
Most particularly, I take exception to his suggestion-and I am disappointed in this allegation-that the task force which was set up with the very best of intentions by this house is, according to his interpretation nothing more than a delaying device. In my view he has done a grave disservice to the men who are working on that task force.
Not only has he done that, but his allegation at this stage of the game, when the members of the task force are working and in which he proceeds to dismiss the task force as a delaying device is premature and precipitate. In the process he has cast doubts upon the integrity of the men who are working for it. If his intention is to advance the cause of the railroader, and I am sure it is, then the hon. member has not adopted the best approach.
As to the sum and substance of the hon. member's notice of motion, I do not think anyone in this house would take exception.


Mr. Winch:: Will you vote for it?


James Hugh Faulkner: It is important, in considering the notice of motion, to consider not only its substance but also to some degree the timing, and the methods through which we may achieve the legitimate and desirable objectives which the hon. member for Nickel Belt has set forth. I think it is possible to argue that at some stage legislation may indeed be required to accomplish the goal set out in the hon. member's notice of motion. I should like, though, to discuss some of the developments which have taken place within the private sector between management and labour through collective agreements which have in recent years accomplished those goals in some measure.
Industrial Relations
I think it is important to take this notice of motion in its total perspective, and to judge whether right now it is particularly urgent that we proceed to do that which it seeks. There is a provision in the notice of motion regarding technological change and its effect on job security which I think is important and which the hon. member did not mention. It seems to me there is an area where eventually we shall be required to bring in an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and this has to do with the unorganized sector of labour. It is in the area where collective agreements do not exist that, possibly, protection will be sought through the medium of legislation.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is the opinion of most if not all hon. members, that the objectives set forth in this notice of motion are commendable. I think we all share an equal concern about the effects of technological change on workers. The history of the labour movement, the history of free enterprise in this area, is characterized by a series of developments, all of which point to one thing, that technological change, improvements in technology, improvements in machinery and improvements in methods of production have almost invariably been purchased at the expense of the livelihood and best interests of the workers. That was so if we look back to the nineteenth century. That was the raison d'etre behind the movement of the Luddites. That was the condition which governed the attitude of the Tolpuddle martyrs and others, right up to fairly recently.
I think it is true to say that in most instances technological change has been purchased at the expense of the interests of the working men and working women. I think therefore that it is perfectly natural that within the labour force there should be this resistance. But, I think it is imperative to recognize that the resistance to technological change is not resistance to technological change per se, but a resistance to the ramifications of technological change on the lives of working men.
That is why in the past within organized labour, and indeed outside the ambit of organized labour, there has been fear, misgiving, and indeed opposition to technological change which is applied arbitrarily by a decision of management and which affects the working conditions of men and women within factories.

June 7, 1967
Industrial Relations
I wish to demonstrate briefly that in recent years, within the private sector as between labour and management, there has been I would say a significant and important development which shows that on both sides a sincere attempt at accommodation on the point that is raised in the hon. member's notice of motion.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
No responsible labour leader argues in principle against technological change. Not only is it an inevitable feature of our society, but if reports that one reads are true it is likely to become more severe in the future than it has been in the past. It is an indispensable condition. It is a condition that ensures workers their jobs, because it provides competitiveness for industry itself to survive not only domestically, but particularly internationally. But it is important, as I said earlier, that this accommodation to technological change be undertaken with both parties involved, so that in fact we do not upset the general move toward improved efficiency within our industry and we do not sacrifice the workers involved.
Recently a study was made of collective agreements prior to January, 1962. The title of the study is "Results of a Study of Collective Agreements". It appears in the Laval Industrial Relations Journal of January, 1964, and the author was Monsieur Quinet. In the course of the study the people involved observed that in collective agreements pre-1962 there were virtually no provisions for technological change. I should like to read an excerpt from the study which points up this fact:
When we started preparing the study, we firmly intended to analyze provisions dealing specifically with what is commonly called ''technological changes". In fact, some such provisions were spotted by the analysts. But it was soon discovered that very few collective agreements contained such provisions, i.e. provisions that would make an open and obvious reference to the problems resulting from technological changes. If our analysis had been limited to this type of provision (for instance clauses dealing with the establishment of labour-management committees which would undertake to study the possible effects of technological changes in a given plant or company), our study would have indicated a very low percentage of establishments covered by such technological change provisions.
This was the condition the study found existed at that time. I am afraid I cannot give the exact number of collective agreements studied, but it was substantial. It was found that in collective agreements prior to 1962

there was very little reference to technological change and very little provision for such change. Recently studies have been undertaken by the Department of Labour. Again I apologize to the house for the fact that my statistics are not complete, but they do indicate the trend, which I think is important and merits consideration by members of the house. One hundred and twenty collective agreements post-1962 in the iron and steel products, printing and publishing industries -these are major industries-made direct reference to technological change, new machinery or new processes. There were within these collective agreements 140 provisions- this would also include the trucking industry -which did not make direct reference to technological change, but there were in the collective agreements provisions which obviously influenced adjustments on the part of both sides to technological change.
I admit that this information is not particularly detailed, but the point I am trying to make is that it indicates to me that within the private sector since 1962 there has been a fairly substantial effort on the part of management and labour to themselves deal with the problem posed by technological change. I think this is a very significant and healthy development and one which should be considered when discussing this notice of motion.
I should like to deal specifically with the issue which obviously is uppermost in the mind of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett), which is of course the railroad industry and the Freedman report. This has been the most spectacular, if you like, most recent pointing up of the problem. The hon. member for Nickel Belt read from the Freedman report a section which I had intended to read, so I shall not reread it. However I should like to go a little further in quoting from Mr. Justice Freedman's report because I believe it not only states the problem so well, but the principles which should guide us in a solution of the problem.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt quoted from the report-I have it as pages 135 and 136, but we may have different editions-on the matter of run-throughs, which the report said should be a matter for negotiation. The report in part reads as follows:
The institution of run-throughs should be a matter for negotiation. To treat it as an unfettered management prerogative will only promote unrest, undermine morale, and drive the parties farther apart.
June 7. 1967

1 think that is absolutely true and is a point that should be recognized by all. The report continues:
The commission-
Mr. Justice Freedman was the chairman of the commission.
-believes that its answer is rooted in fundamental fairness. A run-through program cannot be developed overnight. Much prior planning for it is required. Management is the one to initiate such planning-
I should like to interject here a notion to which I have always subscribed, and I would be interested to know whether the hon. member for Nickel Belt subscribes to it. I believe that in the matter of industrial relations the initiative must come from management. I have always believed that the attitude of management is what in turn determines the attitude of labour. If you get an attitude on the part of management that is co-operative and shows a willingness to negotiate in good faith, you engender the same attitude in labour almost without exception. The Freedman report continues:
Management is the one to initiate such planning and it alone knows where the plan is to take effect and what is its proposed nature and scope. But it does not bring its plan to the bargaining table. In that state of affairs bargaining proceeds and a collective agreement is in due course signed. Thereafter management for the first time introduces its plan. By now the parties are in the closed period. The plan may have the effect of causing very material changes in working conditions, as was undoubtedly the case at Nakina and to a lesser extent, at Biggar. But such a manoeuvre is not forbidden by the law, provided that the collective agreement itself is not violated. The result for the men is that they must suffer such a change in their working conditions; and this without recourse, for in the closed period strike action is forbidden. Their contract was made on the basis of one set of circumstances. Now it must be performed on the basis of another set of circumstances, devised by management alone and to which they have given no consent. There is a manifest inequity here which clamours for attention and correction.
I agree with that. I think all members of the house would agree with it. The point made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt is that nothing has been done, and since the Freedman report the issue has been ignored. The brotherhood of railroad trainmen, numbering 18,000 men, concluded an agreement and I should like to read an excerpt of the memorandum of agreement:
No new crew run-throughs shall be effected until an understanding is reached in current negotiations being conducted by vice president W. C. Bowra and the brotherhood concerning the establishment of guide lines and rules to govern the implementation
Industrial Relations
of crew run-throughs. Any such understanding shall be incorporated in the main agreement and become a part thereof.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Both sides agreed to that provision. In the case of the residual non-operating group, numbering 55,000 men, and the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers, numbering 20,000 men, the following is an extract from the agreement they reached with management.
I would like to quote briefly from article VII which is entitled "Technological, Operational and Organizational Changes":
1.	It is agreed between the parties that on the introduction by the company of technological, operational and/or organizational changes the following provisions will apply:
(a)	the company will not put into effect any such change which is likely to be of a permanent nature and which may effect a material change in working conditions with adverse effects on employees covered by this agreement without giving as much advance notice as possible of any such proposed change to the unions concerned and, in any event, not less than 90 days if a relocation of employees is involved and 60 days' notice in other cases, with a full description thereof and with appropriate details as to the consequent changes in working conditions and the number of employees who would be adversely affected;
(b)	that it will negotiate with the unions measures to minimize the adverse effects of the proposed change on employees, which measures may, for example, be with respect to severance, loss of wages, expenses of moving and travelling of employees required to relocate, retraining and the merging of seniority lists within organizations and/or such other measures as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
2.	If the negotiations do not result in mutual agreement within thirty calendar days of the commencement of such negotiations, or such other period as may be agreed upon between the parties, the matter shall be referred immediately for mediation to a board of review, on which each of the parties will be equally represented by senior officers.
3.	The board of review shall, within a fixed period to be determined by it, make its findings and recommendations. If such recommendations are not acceptable to either party, the matters remaining in dispute shall be referred immediately for decision to a referee selected by the parties, or, failing that, appointed by the Minister of Labour.
The matters to be decided by the referee shall not include any question as to the right of the company to make the change, which right the unions acknowledge, but shall be confined to measures for minimizing the adverse effects of the change; and if there is also a dispute with respect thereto, to the question as to whether such change would materially or permanently affect working conditions.
4.	The decision of the referee shall be final and binding.
These are agreements reached by both parties in the dispute. It seems to me that one of
127S

June 7, 1967
Industrial Relations
the principal virtues of these agreements is that they have been arrived at by the parties involved in the dispute and that the government did not enter into it. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett) has done a disservice to the men involved when he claimed that since the Freedman report nothing has been done, and in a second breath castigated the task force which is attempting to go beyond this particular problem and come up with long term solutions.
I will not speak about the task force although I intended to do so. However, I do feel that in assessing whether or not we should move ahead with the very laudable and commendable objectives implicit in this notice of motion it is reasonable for some of us to question whether it is good timing to do so now, while the task force is still deliberating. I think most of us share the conviction that the task force is a responsible effort.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt raised the point whether or not there should be more labour representation on this task force. This may be a valid point and I am not prepared to dispute it, but I do feel we should wait until we hear what they have to say before dealing with this problem on a much broader front, as it affects both the railroad and other industries.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) I was very disturbed to hear the hon. member who introduced this motion say that nothing has been done with respect to the recommendations of the Freedman report since it was first published. This was a particularly surprising statement from a man who was in the railway unions and whom we would expect to be familiar with the collective agreement to which the hon. member for Peterborough referred. The fact is that this agreement in which technological changes are taken into account was put into the collective agreement between the railway workers and the railway companies and was signed on December 17, 1966, a few months ago, but after the hon. member first introduced his resolution in this house last year. I was also surprised that he should attack the formation and establishment of the labour task force. It so happens that today I met one of the members of this task force, and I do not think there is any doubt as to the sincerity and good intentions of these people.

The hon. member said that the establishment of this task force was nothing but a delaying tactic on the part of the government. By making this allegation he questioned the integrity and sincerity of the people who accepted to serve on the task force. He must remember that the Freedman report, which I agree is an excellent report, dealt specifically with technological change on the railways, and if we are going to make changes in our labour laws we should look at all industries, because our labour regulations apply not only to railways but to other industries as well.
When this resolution was put to the house last year I had the opportunity to speak on it. I supported it generally, although I disagreed with certain details. Since the debate in the house last year on this resolution there have been many significant additions in this field. In addition to the collective agreements which have been signed, two very important publications of studies have been put out by the Economic Council of Canada. One of these, which was put out in November, 1966, entitled "A Declaration on Manpower Adjustments to Technological and Other Change", deals in more detail with the subject matter of this resolution.
The other study of the Economic Council of Canada was put out in February, 1967, and is entitled "Towards Better Communications Between Labour and Management". In the study on technological change several very important points are put forward. First of all, and I do not think this can be stressed often enough, we must emphasize the importance of technological change and automation in our economy by introducing methods which will allow us to produce more in our country. We do a lot to help the workers because we are increasing our production. We will eventually give our Canadian people more products and a better opportunity to compete in the international markets where Canadian industry must compete. I will quote from the report of the Economic Council of Canada, in which we read the following:
It is now universally recognized that technological change is essential for the achievement of the basic economic and social goals of full employment. a high rate of economic growth, and rising standards of living. Canada, with its open economy, must be ever conscious of the need to ensure that no impediments stand in the way of change. To prevent change from taking place would be not only to deny ourselves the benefits which result from the process of change but would undermine our competitive position in the international economy and eventually result in our slipping behind the rest of the industrialized world.
June 7. 1967

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This has been said many times before, Mr. Speaker, but I think it ought to be repeated because there are some people in this country who feel that technological change or automation is necessarily an evil thing. Although it has temporary evil side effects, I think we must all agree that in the long run it is extremely important and valuable. We should not do anything to retard its progress in any way.
This report on technological change by the Economic Council of Canada makes some very important recommendations to deal with technological change. First of all it points out the necessity for continual bargaining, especially in connection with matters concerning technological change. The report states that if we are to merely discuss technological changes at the end of contracts during the short period which is usually allowed for collective bargaining, we are then bargaining under pressure of meeting a deadline, and often the many draft contracts which are presented to companies by unions cannot be adequately dealt with. So, first of all, this report recommends some procedure for continuous bargaining from the date of arriving at a contract. Second, it recommends that employers try to introduce technological change during periods of full employment. The purpose of this of course is that if some employees have to be phased out of a particular company they will have opportunities to work for other companies.
If technological change is made in a period of unemployment, there will not be the same opportunity for these employees. I should like to refer to another study which was made by Mr. Everett M. Kassalow, who is research director for the C.I.O.-A.F.L. In discussing this problem, Mr. Kassalow states:
American union leaders and economists have repeatedly emphasized that the precondition for satisfactory adjustment to the spread and development of automation is a strong full employment economy. This necessity has been underscored by the experience of the past few years.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is something that employers will have to respect. They will have to try to introduce their technological changes during periods of full employment.
The third recommendation put forward by the Economic Council of Canada in their report concerns the matter of advance notice and time lag with respect to technological changes. It is obvious that most of these technological changes do not happen overnight.
Industrial Relations
Management starts to plan them long in advance of their introduction and knows many months, perhaps years, before they are actually put into effect. The Economic Council recommends that advance notice of at least three months be given. It is interesting to note that the collective agreement concluded between the railway companies and the railway employees provides for 90 days notice if re-location of employees is involved, and 60 days notice in other cases. I do not know if that provision is a consequence of that recommendation by the Economic Council.
The council in its report also suggests that when technological change is introduced and men have to be released, the companies should try to accomplish this purpose through natural attrition, that is through voluntary separation such as men going on pensions or men leaving the company. One hon. member suggests entering politics. In general, the companies should try to let these men go through the process of natural separation rather than through forced separation.
The council suggests, too, that if some men are near retirement age they could be granted early retirement on full pension in order to try to keep the men who are still able and willing to work. If this procedure were followed,-and it has been followed-when these men leave the company, you do not merely hire men to take their place, but you keep the group of men you have and re-train them in the new work that is required.
This leads to a further recommendation in the report concerning retraining programs. We have a national manpower policy under which there is a retraining program. However, the Economic Council suggests that the companies also should have retraining programs for men who are phased out of jobs as a result of technological changes. It is also suggested that they have relocation policies, especially if the company has more than one plant and jobs may be available at another plant.
Another recommendation in the Economic Council report refers to pension portability. It points out how many men who have worked for a company for a number of years and have built up certain pension rights often have a fear of moving to other companies or other places of employment. They fear they will lose all their pension benefits. The Economic Council report suggests that there be a

June 7, 1967
Industrial Relations
vesting of pension rights. I should like to quote paragraph 32 of the report:
Vesting of pension rights, which is a guarantee to the worker of an equity in his pension plan based on all or part of his accrued pension credits should he leave his job prior to the time that he becomes eligible for retirement, tends to make the pension structure more flexible, thus increasing the potential mobility of the worker.
There are some further recommendations which are listed under "financial measures". One of these is severance pay, another is unemployment benefits and mobility allowance. The Economic Council report recommends that employers set up funds for phased out workers in these three areas. On the subject of severance pay, the report says:
The purpose of severance pay is to provide a lump sum cash benefit to workers who become permanently separated from their firms due to technological or other changes.
Supplementary unemployment benefits would be supplementary benefits to those provided by the government unemployment insurance scheme. Mobility allowances would be mobility allowances in addition to the government program of mobility allowances and these would be provided by the company. Benefits of this type have already been won in many instances by workers through collective bargaining. I refer particularly to the steel industry, to the meat-packing industry and the rubber industry in the United States.
Again, I should like to refer to the paper prepared by Mr. Kassalow, the research director of the C.I.O-A.F.L. in which he refers to benefits of this type:
For the successful handling of automation and related problems there must be increasing acceptance in collective bargaining of the concept that workers have a property right in their jobs. With this in mind: "the cost of obsolete workers should be viewed as a charge on industry just as rational as the cost of machinery."
I think that is a very important principle that we must accept, Mr. Speaker, because if they can accept the principle that they provide for obsolescence of machinery, they can as well provide for the obsolescence of the job performed by employees, the employees themselves being much more important.
[DOT] (5:50 pun.)
Before I leave this particular report dealing with manpower adjustments to technological change, I should remind the house that the Economic Council is a group which has very good representation from labour, management and nearly all provinces in Canada, and therefore the recommendations made in this report carry a lot of weight.
[Mr. Allmand.l
The other report of the Economic Council to which I referred, entitled "Towards Better Communications Between Labour and Management" deals mainly with labour-management consultation. I suggest that if on both sides we are to have the exchange of knowledge and information with respect to technological change as recommended in the report I have just referred to, we must have the institution of procedures for consultation.
In the report the Economic Council states this:
The main instrument to bring about a system of effective communication and consultation at the plant level is through joint consultation committees, operating on a continuous basis. These committees would consider all matters that are not usually reserved for collective bargaining, or fall within the procedures for settling grievances arising out of the interpretation, administration or alleged violation of the collective agreement. In other words, these committees-
This point is important, Mr. Speaker.
-would assist and supplement but not interfere with the collective bargaining process and established grievance procedures for dealing with the administration of the collective agreement.
For many years now the federal government has been encouraging the formation of labour-management consultation committees. This has been successful in some respects, but it must be recognized that there is still some suspicion of this process. I think if these committees were understood in their proper context they would be acceptable and would do a lot to relieve the employees from the shock they experience at the introduction of technological change.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that in the United States tripartite committees consisting of labour, management and government have been set up to deal with technological change. Although it is important that labour and management consult on a continuous basis, I think it is also important that government keeps in very close touch with both labour and management so that it can plan its legislation and departmental programs to work together with management and labour, as well as enable the government to formulate its other programs which are not directly under the labour department but which do a lot to help workers who have been phased out by technological change. Here I think of the war on poverty program, and programs to revitalize potential abandoned towns, the establishment of new industries, better transportation policies in areas newly affected by technological change, the building of technical schools, and so forth.
June 7, 1967

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to accept that technological change at a very rapid pace is with us to stay that it is essential that we work with it and not against it. There should be no delay or suggestion of delay in the implementation of technological change. There should be no featherbedding. On the other hand, everything must be done to protect the workers and to lighten the blow to those workers who are phased out by technological change.
Although I welcome the introduction of this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning I am surprised that a man so close to the railway unions was not aware of the fact that there were collective agreements signed during this past winter which implemented many of the recommendations which the hon. member is making in his resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to express my appreciation to the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and Peterborough (Messrs. Allmand and Faulkner) who made quite elaborate speeches which will not fail to clarify every angle of the situation.
I have read with considerable interest the resolution put on the order paper by the hon. member who introduced it in the house, and I think he also deserves appreciation for the generous intention that leads him to pursue his efforts to improve the fate of the workers.
Mr. Speaker, a closer consideration of the resolution, however, inspires certain reservations. First of all, the resolution as introduced should be analysed.
It will be noted first that this resolution talks of "technological innovations'' which would "materially" affect. . . The word "materially" causes some concern, because the idea of the mover of this proposition is
Business of the House not truly understood. It is difficult to realize his purpose when he speaks of technological innovations which would "materially affect" the working conditions. To my mind, the expression is too vague to command full support of the wording of this resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for
the consideration of private members business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder whether the house leader could give us an outline of the proposed business for tomorrow, and preferably for the next few days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier in the week that we would be dealing with legislation tomorrow, but since then it has been decided that tomorrow we will deal with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. On Friday we propose to take the estimates of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
On Monday we will take the estimates of Finance; on Tuesday Defence Production; on Wednesday Energy, Mines and Resources. On Thursday we propose to take the resolution-if it is on the order paper-dealing with the Cape Breton Development Corporation. On Friday we will take the estimates of the Registrar General.


John Angus MacLean: I presume that that sequence will be followed, even if perchance the estimates of the department are finished in less than one day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, that is the proposal. If for example northern development were finished before the end of the day on Friday, we would then take finance.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27053-82J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 8, 19B7