1967-09-27

HEADS OF STATE


Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Loibiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-152, intituled "An Act respecting the salute to the head of state".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, when the national anthem of a friendly nation is booed by a crowd, it is always an odious sight.
In Canada, an obsolete and colonialist protocol fosters that type of deplorable incident which, amongst others, occurred when General de Gaulle, arriving on the Colbert, set foot on Quebec soil. An anthem other than that of Canada was immediately intoned.
The purpose of this bill is to correct an annoying anachronism and to allow the anthem "O Canada" to serve as a salute to the head of state, in the presence of the governor general, since the latter represents first and foremost the head of state of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. [English]



CORPORATE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs; to provide for the appointment of a minister and a deputy minister and for their duties and powers; to provide that the governor in council may establish a consumer advisory council and other bodies to assist the minister and for the remuneration and expenses of the members thereof; and to provide for certain other matters related or incidental thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to increase by one cent the postage rates for letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada; to provide an amended rate structure for newspapers and periodicals; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Mather: Has the Prime Minister received petitions in support of private member's bills C-155 (1966) and C-38 (1967) extending the powers of magistrates in dealing with cases of cruelty to animals and, if so (a) how many petitions were received (b) in what form (c) from residents of which provinces (d) what consideration is being given to such petitions?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices and the Department of Justice as follows: Yes. (a) 2,950 containing 3,668 signatures; (b) Letters, cards and lists of signatures; (c) All except New Brunswick; (d)

September 27, 1967
Questions
The government proposes to introduce at this session an amendment similar in principle to that proposed in Bill C-38.


FEDERAL COMPLIANCE WITH LABOUR STANDARDS CODE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Do all federal government departments now carry out the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code with respect to (a) part I-hours of work (b) part II-minimum wages (c) part III- annual vacations (d) part IV-general holidays?
2.	If there are exceptions, what are they and when will they be corrected?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Standards similar to those set out in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code with respect to minimum wages, annual vacations and general holidays are enjoyed by all employees of federal government departments. The only known exception to this concerns the rates of remuneration received by cadets in the Canadian Coast Guard College which are in some cases lower than $1.25 per hour. The cadets are, of course, involved in a formal apprenticeship program which will ultimately have beneficial career effects, a situation for which the code makes provision.
2. With respect to hours of work, most public servants work a 37 J hour or 40 hour week; this is, of course, equal or superior to the minimum standard in the code. Nevertheless, hours in excess of the standards established by the code are worked in certain field operations, isolated locations and under exceptional circumstances directly related to operating requirements. The Treasury Board has had such types of situations under close study to determine the most practicable methods of meeting the code standard while recognizing the best interests of the employees and the requirements of service to the public. In several such instances it has proven possible to reduce hours to the code standard or very close to them. Efforts along this line are continuing and it is felt that collective bargaining will assist the process since it will provide the vehicle for making known the employees' wishes with respect to various alternative solutions.


STUDIES RESPECTING NATIONAL CAPITAL BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Is the present site of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge the result of a study or suggestion made by
[Miss LaMarsh.l
the town planners of the National Capital Commission and (a) if so, in what year was this result made known to the public (b) if not, who authorized the construction of the bridge at that place?
2.	What were the priorities established in 1952, 1956, 1960 and 1964 by the town planning committee of the N.C.C., concerning the construction of bridges over the Ottawa river between the Quebec side and the Ontario side?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, did the N.C.C. in its study on the economic prospects of the national capital area, mention the westward shifting of the inhabitants of the N.C.C. area both on the Quebec and Ontario sides, since 1947?
4.	In the master plan for Hull and district, which was made known in 1964, and in connection with the regional development for Hull, Aylmer, Des-chtaes, Lucerne and Hull West, what were the 1986 population forecasts for each of these municipalities of western Quebec?
Han. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works): 1. No.
(a) Not applicable, (b) A special technical committee set up to study this question, known as the Ottawa river bridges committee, comprising representatives of the Ontario department of highways, the cities of Ottawa and Hull, the federal Department of Public Works and the federal district commission endorsed the present location of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge which was recommended in a report prepared by Messrs. De Leuw Cather and Company 1956. The construction of the bridge at this site was confirmed finally at a special meeting dealing primarily with cost sharing held April 28, 1960, attended by the federal Minister of Public Works, the minister of highways and provincial treasurer of Ontario, deputy minister of public works, Quebec, the mayors of Ottawa and Hull, and their respective staffs.
2. 1952-The Greber report of 1950 established as first priority the replacement of the Alexandra bridge and allocated second stage priorities to the Lemieux island and Des-chenes bridges. A bridge at the location of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge was not mentioned. The federal district commission used this report as a guide to the development of the national capital and adjusted its recommendation in the light of the information available at the time of the development of a project.
1956-The federal district commission brief in 1956 recommended to the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate, the construction of an Ottawa river bridge as priority 5 among many prospective joint
September 27, 1967

projects. The joint committee's report in reply to this brief stated:
The acute congestion at rush hours would be greatly relieved if the tracks were removed from the Interprovincial Bridge. Adequate approaches to the bridge on both the Ottawa and Hull sides should be constructed at once. An entirely new bridge should be built as soon as possible to take the place of the old bridge.
1960-The Greber report of 1959 to the National Capital Commission gave the Mac-donald-Cartier bridge first priority of the Ottawa river crossings. This location was accepted at the special meeting of April 28, 1960, referred to above, at which the chairman of the National Capital Commission was present.
1964-The Lemieux Island bridge now had top priority as the Macdonald-Cartier bridge was being built.
3.	The report on economic prospects, national capital region, prepared by Larry Smith and Company for the National Capital Commission, indicates continuing residential population growth westward on both sides of the river, with most of the growth occurring in Ontario. The report also forecasts residential development east of the existing Ottawa-Hull area.
4.	The 1986 population forecasts in the master plan for Hull, Aylmer, Hull South (now Lucerne), Deschenes, and Hull West prepared in 1963 were as follows:
East of Gatineau park: City of Hull, 70,000; Hull West, 8,000; total, 78,000.
West of Gatineau park: Aylmer, 12,000; Deschenes, 2,500; Lucerne, 25,500; total, 40,000.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING CONTRACTUAL
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Has the governor in council established any regulations concerning the conditions under which an agency corporation may undertake contractual commitments under section 83 of the Financial Administration Act?
2.	What are these regulations?
3.	Are there such regulations for proprietary corporations and, if so, what are these regulations?


Edgar John Benson: 1. The governor in council has established regulations under which certain agency corporations may undertake contractual commitments pursuant to section 83 of the Financial Administration Act. Currently, these regulations apply to three agency corporations: the National Capital Commission, the
Questions
National Battlefields Commission and the Northern Canada Power Commission.
2.	The government contracts regulations, P.C. 1964-1467, P.C. 1966-533 and P.C. 1967-12.
3.	No.


INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, CANADIAN JAVELIN CO.
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the income tax division any action or proceeding in the Exchequer Court or before the income tax appeal board in connection with the income tax defaults of (a) John C. Doyle (b) Canadian Javelin Limited (c) subsidiaries of Canadian Javelin Limited?
2.	If so, what are the amounts of claims against each of the above?
3.	If any (a) decisions (b) settlements have been made in any of the said cases, what is the nature of each?


Edgar John Benson: 1. (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No.
2.	A writ of extent was issued out of the Exchequer Court of Canada against John C. Doyle on the 8th day of July, 1963, for the sum of $3,410,130.90. (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
3.	(a) Mr. Doyle appealed to the tax appeal board regarding the assessments against him. The decision rendered on June 6, 1967, by the Chairman, Mr. Cecil L. Snyder, and concurred in by Mr. Maurice Boisvert, member of the board is:
The appeal for the taxation year 1950 is allowed in part and the assessment is varied to add to the appellant's income for 1950 the sum of $200,000 in place of the sum of $400,000 assessed by the minister. The assessments levied by the minister of $160,939.35 and $183,173.11 for the taxation years 1953 and 1954 respectively are approved and these appeals are dismissed.
The further assessment for the year 1954 of the sum of $2,080,000 is approved in principle but the assessment is referred back to the minister for reassessment to permit the deduction of approximately $280,000 incurred by the taxpayer in acquiring the property in Chile wherein the amount of profit derived from this venture is held assessable to income tax.
(b) No settlement has been made by which tax properly assessed has been reduced.

Sepiember 27, 1967
Questions


PENSIONS TO JUDGES FOR PERMANENT INFIRMITIES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many persons receive pensions under section 23 (1) of the Judges Act by virtue of being afflicted with some permanent infirmity disabling them from the due execution of office?
2.	Without specifying their names or identifying them by provinces, what were the permanent infirmities submitted as the reason for resignation of office, by those now receiving pensions?
3.	What is the practice followed by the governor in council in deciding requests of this nature and what medical opinion is required?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1. Sixteen.
2.	Six heart disease; 5 cerebro-vascular disease, including strokes and other complications; 1 disseminated sclerosis; 1 prostatic disease; 1 mental illness; 1 complications of therapy for a malignant tumor; 1 high blood pressure; progressive physical and nervous infirmity with advancing age.
3.	Each case is considered on its own merits and one or more medical opinions are obtained, depending upon the nature of the infirmity and the notoriety of the circumstances surrounding the request.


SURVEY OF MEDWAY RIVER, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Crouse: Is there a survey being conducted by the federal Department of Fisheries on the Medway river in Queens county, Nova Scotia, at present and, if so (a) what is its objective (b) who authorized the installation of a counting device which impedes the flow of fish to their natural spawning grounds (c) have any salmon passed through the counter (d) what arrangements have been made to distribute or dispose of the kiaks killed by the counter (e) how many salmon have died in the counter box (f) how many salmon have been caught in the heavy wire screening and iron rods blocking the river (g) has a report been filed by the fisheries protection officers on the number of smolt, spawned kiaks and other fish travelling down river which have been killed while endeavouring to pass through the counter box?


Hon.   H.-J. Hobichaud@Minisier of Fisheries: Yes. (a) The collection of basic engineering and biological data essential for the development of a scientific management program for the Medway river, (b) Counting facilities are essential tools for the collection of data and are authorized by senior departmental officials for this purpose, (c) Over 200 salmon and grilse passed through the counting fence to July 18. (d) It is not unusual for kiaks to die naturally after spawning. The dead kiaks accumulated on the fence were collected and buried; the number was in-
IMr. Benson.]
significant compared with the total run. (e) None, (f) None, (g) The resource development service is undertaking this project and will prepare an internal report.


DISMISSED DIRECTORS OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	Over the past ten years, have there been any cases of dismissal of directors of crown corporations defined as proprietary corporations by the Financial Administration Act?
2.	If so, what are the names of the dismissed directors, and why were they dismissed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the proprietary corporations as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


MONTREAL-COST OF ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES IN PORT
Mr. Davis: What has been the total cost to the federal treasury, since 1955, of roads, highways and bridges built within the confines of the port of Montreal and charged either to the National Harbours Board or to Expo 67?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned: the cost of roads, highways and bridges within the exhibition grounds is $23,248,580, of which $19,027,070 will be permanent and $4,221,510 temporary.
The total asset value of the permanent bridges and roads is $15,221,650, leaving a balance of $3,805,420.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: $55,967,088 in so far as the National Harbours Board is concerned.


COST OF EXPO '67
Mr. Webb: What has been the actual cost of Expo '67 to date?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The agreement entered into on January 18, 1963, by the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal stipulates that the government of Canada shall pay 50 per cent of the cost of the exhibition, the government of the province of Quebec 37J per cent, and the city of Montreal 12J per cent. The gross expenditures to July 31, 1967 are $333,592,741,
September 27, 1967

which includes capital, administration, operating, public relations and financing costs. Revenue accruing before, during and after the exhibition from the sale of passports, bonus books, concessions, royalties, sponsorship, advertising and sale of assets, etc., will be applied against gross expenditures.


COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Mr. Orlikow: What is the approximate total cost, at the present time, of educating the following qualified persons up to (i) bachelor's (ii) master's, and (iii) doctor's levels (a) engineers (b) mathematicians (c) physicists (d) scientists (e) physicians and surgeons?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: At present no reliable figures are available. A cost study in Canadian universities and colleges is presently being done by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada with financial support from my department. Preliminary results of this study should provide reasonable accurate information by the summer of 1968.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Caouette: As of July 1, 1967, what were the exact boundaries of the national capital, as opposed to the "national capital region"?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
[ Translation]


CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: should our country, Canada, remain a single country or should it be partitioned to please the destructive elements that want to destroy the basis of national unity, and also to establish clearly the definition of one nation or two nations in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Villeneuve be kind enough to explain to the house the urgency of debate.
Canadian Unity


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as things are going in Canada, I think it is more urgent to debate our very existence as a country or as a nation, than to deal with wheat commitments or agreements with the United States or other countries, or even housing, because if our country is on the brink of anarchy or revolution, it is obvious that neither wheat nor housing will have much importance in our country.
Mr. Speaker, the very existence of our sovereign country is at stake. The confusion now prevailing everywhere in Canada in that regard must be cleared up. And it is here, in the Canadian parliament, that it must be discussed. I think that we are at least two years late here in the federal parliament to debate that question. But it is better late than never. The time has come, I think, as we say in good French, to take the bull by the horns. It is not too late yet and we must not be afraid to state that we are in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the Canadian parliament is at least two years late. It is a matter of restoring order in that tower of Babel.
Some of our people are in favour of the associated states, others prefer independence and sheer separatism; we have some in favour of the sovereign state within a Canadian union-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him, as I did yesterday when a similar motion was put, as well as the day before yesterday when another motion, of the same kind was introduced, that under the provisions of standing order 26, the mover and those who speak on that motion must restrict themselves to the matter of the urgency of debate. The point is to convince the Speaker, if possible, that the debate should be held today rather than later this week, next week or at the earliest opportunity given to the house to discuss that problem. I would invite the hon. member to restrict himself to that point.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is not a matter that concerns the future. Indeed it does, but this question should have been settled, cleared up and discussed two years ago here in parliament, in order to know where we stand.
It is urgent to know whether Canada is made up of one or two nations. It is urgent that we know whether we should choose between a republic, Canada as it is at present or an improved Canada. That is why we must

Sepiember 27, 1967
Canadian Unity
take a stand in order to avoid any more confusion, both inside and outside Quebec, as well as the acts of terrorism which occurred the other day at Pierrefonds or right in the city of Montreal when the confederation train passed through, and in several other spots in the province of Quebec.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we know whether we are Canadians, or whether there are two or ten kinds of Canadians. It is up to the federal parliament to take a stand, to discuss this matter as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If that is the general opinion, I would ask hon. members not to broach such a general subject in the present circumstances.
Hon. members know that the representatives of all parties have agreed to discuss this afternoon a matter concerning which a similar motion was introduced a few days ago. In my opinion, there will be complete chaos if we put off the debate scheduled for today, by a motion introduced under standing order No. 26. I do not see the usefulness of putting off the business of the house in order to allow this sort of debate.
The hon. member for Villeneuve himself recognizes the wide scope of the question; that was the sense of the speech he has just made. I would remind him of citation No. 100 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where, under subsection (8), it is written:
I do not think that under the standing order... a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated.
And it seems to me that this citation applies exactly to the situation which the hon. member would call to the attention of the house and I think that I should immediately give my ruling that this motion is not in order.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think that standing order No. 26 states that those who would express their opinion on the urgency of a debate are entitled to do so. It is included in the standing order and was added, if you recall, Mr. Speaker, because previously, the ruling of the Speaker could be appealed. Lest anyone be able to appeal the ruling of the Speaker, it was added to the standing order that the Speaker was required to take into account the advice or the opinion of those who wished to speak on the question.
[Mr. Caouette.l
At this time, I believe we have not had the opportunity to speak on this point and the ruling has already been brought down.
I Mr. Speaker, and I admit quite frankly, that if this problem could have been settled this afternoon, I would have been happy. Let it be settled, so that we may finally know what is what. We might have decided this afternoon the whole question of whether independence or associated states would have been better. That I would have liked to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can see the merits of the objection taken by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) under the standing order which he read but I think that he will also see the merits of the ruling which I have made. He will understand that even if he or other hon. members attempted to convince me that a debate of this kind should take place this afternoon, it would be in vain. Under the circumstances, I do not feel that a prolonged debate should be allowed.
I make this ruling quite aware of the fact, as I said before, that the hon. member for Lapointe is right when he says that as a rule the Chair must listen to the argument presented by those interested in the matter and who suggest that the adjournment of the regular business of the house is necessary in order to consider the motion moved by an hon. member.
But, I have come at once to the conclusion that such a debate would not be necessary. I would suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe to wait for another opportunity to make his representations.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I think it is my privilege to set forth my arguments in favour of the urgency of debate on that matter; however, if I should be out of order, I would ask you to set me straight. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you made your ruling so hastily this afternoon; usually, you take everything into account and take into consideration the opinion of minorities with a generosity that does you credit.
I should like to say at the outset to set the record straight that I am not a separatist. On that point, I dissociate myself from my friend, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). On the urgency of debate, Mr. Speaker, I must share the opinion of the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the member for Lapointe, because it is more important this afternoon to debate the future of Canada than to discuss whether there will
September 27, 1967

be legislation allowing the building of houses for those who need them, although that also is urgent.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It must be realized, Mr. Speaker-and that is where I want to prove the urgency of debate-that the separatists in Quebec are creating a climate of anarchy and terrorism and that the fanatics in other provinces are making false representations and we even have to put up with international vexations of the part of some heads of state who meddle in our problems.
I think it is urgent, Mr. Speaker, because there is some anxiety throughout Canada at the present time about whether Canada will survive or not, and the problem is mainly one of understanding, of finding the meaning of the words. What do we want exactly, what is the meaning of all those words said before public opinion, especially by people seeking political advantage.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that even if the present debate were considered as urgent this afternoon, it would still be helpful in clarifying what Quebec wants exactly and in finding out the right meaning of the words we are discussing. We run the risk of waking up to-morrow in a dead-lock; this would mean, for Canada, endless years of difficulties and perhaps the disintegration of this national unity in which we so firmly believe.
Apart from this, I think the initiative should spring from the federal government and not from the provinces. If the government wishes to retain its prestige-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member suggested himself a moment ago that I might call him to order if, in my opinion, his contribution was somehow exceeding the scope of the debate.
It seems to me that at the moment he should be called to order. The only matter which the hon. member can discuss, if he wants to, is the urgency to move the adjournment of the house this afternoon to discuss that question.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: With all due respect for your decision, and I admit that your are much more familiar with parliamentary procedure than myself, I am trying to bring forward some arguments to prove the urgency of the debate, because I feel that the future of Canada is much more important them the future of housing in Canada.
Canadian Unity
I have enough faith in the good will of all my colleagues in the house to think that, in the opinion of the hon. member for Vil-leneuve, what we want this afternoon is first to define the terms in order to know whether we agree to secure the future of a united Canada. In my opinion, this is more urgent than to discuss whether a housing program will be launched tomorrow morning for the benefit of homeless persons.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres for his comments. I should have pointed out more clearly than I did earlier that the situation this afternoon is quite exceptional.
A motion was moved yesterday under standing order No. 26, and it was agreed to discuss that motion today. I therefore asked the hon. member to postpone the subject matter of this new motion to another day that we might deal with the matter brought up by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I repeat, under order No. 26. To proceed otherwise would be illogical. That is why I suggested, at the start, to the member for Vil-leneuve that discussion of his motion could not be allowed today.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, might it be possible to discuss it Monday, for instance?


Mr. Speaker:: The member can discuss the matter with the representatives of the parties of the house. Unfortunately, I cannot take that decision.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to prolong the debate since you have made your ruling, but it might be preferable that the Prime Minister indicate to the house a tentative date when we could deal with this problem which is of such significance that we must not close our eyes on the subject. Perhaps the Prime Minister would have some explanations to give us which would be helpful in finding a solution to the present deadlock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. members that it is almost sure that very shortly the house will be asked to consider a supply motion and the budget, and, within the scope of these two subjects, the debate proposed by the hon. members for Lapointe and Villeneuve could take place.
Once again, I am asking the co-operation of the hon. members, and I suggest that the comments they might wish to make now might easily be made when the debate proposed by the hon. member for Villeneuve

September 27, 1967
Canadian Unity
actually is considered by the house. As I have said, this might occur very shortly. I am asking tor the co-operation of the hon. members for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who seem to wish to add to the arguments already brought up.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to co-operate, but I should like to add one word after rising five or six times, precisely on this motion of the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) who raised the most important, the most capital question in Canada at this time. I shall dwell for perhaps 60 seconds on the urgency of debate.
I say it is an urgent debate but I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to take this into account so that the debate may be held after the following events have taken place: the right hon. Prime Minister said yesterday that he was expecting in November the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission which will deal precisely with these problems of one nation or two nations on the social, cultural and political plane. There will be shortly an interprovincial conference called by Mr. Robarts. The parliamentary committee on the constitution in Quebec will get back to work shortly and, apparently, report early in December. The states general of Quebec and of French Canada are meeting on November 22. That is why the subject is so important and capital.
I would invite the hon. member for Villeneuve to press the matter further at the beginning of December, in order that we may discuss before the end of 1967, the most important problem faced by Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have some exceedingly striking arguments which will irrefutably convince you of the urgency of the debate.
My first argument derives from two different positions: the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) says there is only one nation in Canada; the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) says there are two. So, the debate is most urgent because the problem is liable to create a cabinet crisis, and the debate will inevitably continue on cabinet solidarity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder anew if it might not be wise to stop this discussion. I think I was perfectly right when I indicated a moment ago to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) that a problem of such scope could certainly not be solved by a debate within the limits of standing order 26,

and I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe surely agrees with me on this point.
I cannot imagine what argument could be put forward by the hon. member for Villeneuve or some other member of the house to prove that such a broad question should be considered this afternoon, in the very particular circumstances of the business intended for this afternoon. Once again, I wish to remind the hon. member that, in any event, I have already made a ruling I would not prevent the hon. members from stating their points of view, although I think that this debate should stop now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if we are not allowed to put forward our views on the urgency of the debate, I believe that the whole procedure was irregular. The hon. members for Villeneuve, Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke were permitted to voice their opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I said
before, the hon. member will certainly have the opportunity, within a very short while, to submit his representations when it is possible to have this debate. As he knows, the rules state merely that the Chair should listen to the representations and to the suggestions that are made. However, they do not state that the Chair must listen to all the arguments, all the representations of each member. I think the rules give full permission, however, to the Speaker of the House to come to a decision before he listens to the 264 members. Therefore, I ask the hon. members once again to allow me to come to the next item of business on the order of the day.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order. I think that to clarify the present situation and without embarking immediately on a debate, as you suggest, if the Prime Minister gave us some indication so as to advise us approximately when such a debate would take place in the House of Commons, it would be satisfactory to everyone because, under the present circumstances, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives utter a word in the house, while outside the house, everybody uses phrases such as "one nation", "two nations," "two founding people" and "three founding people." One does not know where to go-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member could perhaps put that question to the Prime Minister when we reach the question period.
September 27, 1967


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have here standing order 26 which states this:
Any ruling made by Mr. Speaker after listening to argument on the question or urgency.
There is no mention here that Mr. Speaker can restrict the reasons, can allow certain members to speak on the question and refuse that permission to others, but it states and I quote:
-after listening to argument-
-on the question of urgency. That is exactly what I intended to do, Mr. Speaker. You do not want me to do it. I shall not do it. I am going to co-operate with the Chair but it is rather strange that other hon. members were allowed to state their reasons and that, when my turn came, I was denied that permission, and 1 still wonder why.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I ask this question in the interest of facilitating the business of the house and enlarging the comprehension of members and the public. I ask the Prime Minister whether on an early occasion he will give to parliament, as he has given to the press, a list of legislation and a detailed timetable of the priority for dealing with such legislation. This will provide Canadians across the country with some assurance that the very real issues of economic expansion, high prices, national development and national unity will be faced firmly by this parliament.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to see that the right hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman has already begun to impress me. I would be very glad to see that the hon. gentleman is given a list of the kind he has suggested, and other hon. members also. The priority and order in which these proposals are to be taken should be worked out in consultation with the leaders of the parties. In respect of the particular matters which the hon. gentleman mentioned, which are not necessarily related to specific acts of parliament at this time, there will be
Inquiries of the Ministry a budget debate-I think it will be next week-of five days, I believe, if parliament wishes to take five days, and I hope we will be able to cover the economic situation at that time. Then there will be two supply debates very shortly. So far as legislative proposals are concerned, I suggest there be a meeting at a very early date to try to work out priorities which will be agreeable to all.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he inform the house whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs, during his stay in New York leading our delegation to the United Nations, has had discussions with representatives of other governments regarding possible steps toward peace negotiations in Yiet Nam? If so, can the right hon. Prime Minister inform the house whether there is some hope that such steps are being seriously considered by the governments concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has discussed this and other matters with delegates to the United Nations assembly. He has had several meetings with foreign ministers. Viet Nam was certainly one of the matters discussed, as indeed were other matters including the situation in the Near East.
As a result of these discussions I can only say at this time that there is nothing to encourage the view that constructive negotiations on the war in Viet Nam can begin at this time. But that does not mean we are not pursuing with others at the United Nations the possibility of changing that situation. My hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs made his statement to the assembly today. He dealt with this matter, among others, in that statement. I hope he will be in the house tomorrow, and perhaps he will be in a position then to answer questions on that statement.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether the government has recently made representations to the government of the United States urging it to stop the bombing of North Viet Nam, particularly,

September 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry if I may put it this way, the irresponsible and dangerous bombing within miles of the Chinese border?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was included in my hon. friend's statement today. He had discussed this and other matters with the representative of the United States government. If my hon. friend has read that statement he will have noticed-I am paraphrasing the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because I have not the text before me-that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not see any hope of negotiations until the bombing of North Viet Nam stopped; words to that effect.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would express the feeling of appreciation of many, I am sure, on this side of the house over the minister's very strong stand at the United Nations this morning pressing for the early suspension of bombing in order that talks might begin.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to
the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether the government has received any formal communication from the Organization of American States regarding its call to friendly nations to cease trading with Cuba.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. We have received the resolutions of that conference but there has been no approach made to Canada by the organization itself in connection with the resolutions or the meeting which was held in Washington recently. At least I had no knowledge of any such approach early this morning but I will make further inquiries.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the existence of a plan which would allow the Union Nationale to achieve independence for Quebec within the next five years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Only from what I have read in the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, including a statement which apparently was made this morning by a representative of the government of the province of Quebec denying the significance that has been attached to any such statement.
I am not sure, in fact, that he did even deny its existence.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister recognize the urgency of a debate on this matter in case such a plan did exist, and when could this debate take place here in the federal parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can think of no more important subject to be discussed in this house at the right time and in proper circumstances, and I hope that will be very shortly.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made in Montmorency by the member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) on the eventuality of a Canadian republic, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the matter has been referred to the cabinet, and whether it is the intention of the government to introduce shortly in this house a bill to amend the constitution of the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that this question is in order in the circumstances.


Maurice Allard: Why not?



ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY GENEVA AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question
September 27, 1967	COMMONS
to the Minister of Industry. Has the government any plans for easing the impact of the Kennedy round tariff reductions on companies whose products are sold only in the Canadian market? If so, when does the government expect to announce such plans?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given to this question. Plans are in preparation and when appropriate an announcement will be made.
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-
Bagot):	A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether there are any plans to protect the agricultural products of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I point out that such products are not within my province, and I prefer not to be too precise on that.
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-
Montagnes): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that one of the consequences of the Kennedy round tariff adjustments might well be to create unemployment in certain industries, has the Minister of Industry consulted with the minister of manpower for the purpose of setting up a crash program to accelerate the retraining and relocation of the employees affected by those changes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, such discussions have been held.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Prime Minister. It is related to an earlier question directed to the Minister of Industry with regard to the Kennedy round. Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister assure us that studies are being undertaken by the government to look into the possible alleviation of the impact of the Kennedy round on agriculture, such as are now being undertaken with respect to other segments of the economy? After all, agriculture is still an industry.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall have to speak to my colleagues about that, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	2549
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



PARTICIPATION BY BRITISH COLUMBIA IN RETRAINING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the minister tell the house whether the province of British Columbia has yet signed an agreement with the federal government to participate in the occupational retraining program to which reference has just been made? If not, can the minister tell the house what effect this will have upon the number of positions open to persons now applying for retraining and improving their technical skills?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that the question is perhaps too detailed and should be put on the order paper.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the first question I will take the second one at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be simpler to take both at ten o'clock.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport which I know is of concern not only to both of us but to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport and his department. Has the parliamentary secretary anything to report with respect to requests by Canadian Pacific Railway train crew employees for improved first aid and transportation arrangements in certain areas to deal more effectively with accidents on the railroad?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Keni (Onf.)):: Mr. Speaker, normally I would address this question to the minister of forestry or the Minister of Agriculture, but since neither is in

September 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the house and the matter is urgent may I be permitted to address it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the contract price for new corn in Ontario is already 25 cents a bushel lower than last year, will the right hon. gentleman undertake to have the house informed as to whether, in order to check this alarming trend, the Canadian livestock feed grain board has recommended to the government a freight subsidy on this corn which is moving into eastern markets similar to that on western grain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question appears to the Chair to be the type of question which should be placed on the order paper. If the hon. gentleman thinks that I am wrong he might give notice that it be discussed on the adjournment proceedings, whereupon I would give it priority.


Harold Warren Danforth: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent matter. This corn is in the process of being marketed. Every day's delay means a lot of money to the farmers involved. To have the matter delayed until a later debate would just increase the pressure on this particular commodity.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of forestry I have a question for the Prime Minister which is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) concerning the plight of the feed grain producers in southwestern Ontario.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would undertake to discuss with the minister of forestry, who answers for the Canadian livestock feed grain board, the possibility of implementing the recommendation of the standing committee on agriculture, which appears at pages 542 and 543 of the fourth report of that committee dated March 22, 1965. This recommendation suggests enlargement of the feed grain assistance policy to cover feed grain producers in Ontario whose products are destined for markets which are in eastern Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss this matter.
[Mr. Danforth.l



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the government house leader, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the importance of the debate which has been called for today, will the government agree that this house should forgo the private members' hour and sit until ten o'clock tonight?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consult with my colleagues and try to reply informally later.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the government house leader whether he intends to call a house leaders' meeting to discuss the matter so as to prevent any kind of backlash that might eventuate if this question is not discussed through the normal channels.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to discuss it with any of the house leaders.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to rise on a point of order and clear up for the benefit of hon. members the question of the sitting hours for the rest of the day. I have had a word with, I think, most of the house leaders, and without asking them to take any responsibility for this suggestion I propose that we forgo private members' hour, continue with the estimates until six o'clock, and then follow the regular practice for the rest of the day.


Mr.  A. B. Pafterson@Fraser Valley: I listened with some interest to the minister's statement during which he indicated he had discussed this matter with most of the house leaders. I wish to state categorically that the minister did not mention it to any member of our party.


An hon. Member:: What party?


Mr.   Palferson@: As for the matter which was discussed when he was over on this side of the house, he did sit beside me but he never mentioned the subject to which he has just referred. I object to his indication that the house leaders have been contacted with regard to this proposal. Furthermore, I should
September 27, 1967

like to know just why the leader of the house is taking his present attitude, whether it is deliberate or not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A proposal has been made by the minister. Without going into the details of the intervention by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, is it agreed that the house shall sit at the times suggested by him, and is it so ordered?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or on a question of privilege, if you prefer it that way. I am aware that the three independent members here do not express their opinions on all questions and it seems to me that, as representatives of the people, we should have the same rights at least as every member here and that, as a matter of courtesy, the hon. minister could have come over here to ask us whether or not we objected to that. We do not require so much after all and, even if some of my Liberal friends do not understand that we are protecting their interests at this time, I wish nevertheless to reiterate that we do not accept, whatever may be our differences of opinion, to get a poorer treatment than the other members who, for their part, resigned themselves to the guidance of a leader. We are not even asking, Mr. Speaker, that there be a leader here but, while coming this way one could have asked us: Have you any objection to that, yes or no?
That is all we are asking, to get the same treatment as the other members and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is our privilege.


Mr. Patterson:: It is not our intention to thwart the will of the house at this time, but I wish to say that in future we may have to examine carefully any decisions we may take if consideration has not been given to discussing such matters as this with the house leaders either individually or at a meeting.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the point of order or question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the proposition was, of course, put up to each member of the house and each member of the house is free to accept or reject it. House leaders and others were treated alike. But I do reserve my position with regard to the final point raised by the hon. gentleman.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the hon. minister the assurance that he has a very agreeable personality with which we can co-operate. All we ask is that he sees us somewhat more often and listens to us. We have nothing against him, we are agreeable to the decision he submits to the house. We are ready to accept it but as the leader of the Creditistes has said, there is a principle involved in the questions that will arise in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The proposal has been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the house forgo private members' hour from five to six and sit thereafter from eight o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -that the house adjourn at six o'clock. My understanding now is that the house is to adjourn at six o'clock having suspended the private members' hour from five to six. This requires the unanimous consent of the house. Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. In view of the current discussions which are taking place, is the government reconsidering its decision to withdraw support from the HARP project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. There have been very long and intensive examinations into the HARP project. The decision to terminate Canadian government assistance was made some 19 months ago. The HARP project was advised that Canadian government assistance would be terminating in a period of one year from the time of the decision. This year has now run out and circumstances do not appear to have altered so as to justify a change in that decision.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. What provision, if any, is the government

September 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry making to keep in Canada scientists who will otherwise be obliged to move to the United States with the project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we have been exploring with the McGill authorities other possible work alternatives tor this group.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the release by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics under date of September 25 which discloses that changes will be made in 1968 in the industry selling price indexes and wholesale price indexes, can the minister advise whether changes will be made in the cost of living index, changing its present 1949 base equalling 100 to a more recent year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question appears to be argumentative and I do not think it is acceptable.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that major revisions of this type can cause considerable inconvenience to users of these indexes. Long term contracts have to be written in the immediate future which make use of these indexes. I am requesting this information because these contracts will have to contain a provision which allows for a change to higher industry selling prices, and for these reasons I think it is important that we know the government's plans in this regard.


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



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg Souih):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I would ask the right hon. gentleman, does the extension announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance with respect to the deadline on the filing of briefs on the Carter report on taxation mean, hopefully, that the report is to be scrapped?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR TAX REDUCTION ON PRODUCTION MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the increased difficulties which will be encountered because of the Kennedy round tariff agreement, will the minister recommend to the Minister of Finance that he give consideration to easing the tax on production machinery so that our own Canadian manufacturers can compete against foreign firms which are exempt from this tax?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, under the Kennedy round agreements the tariff on production machinery coming into the country will be reduced, thereby reducing the costs that go into production.


John Alfred Irvine: May I ask a supplementary question. We know the tax is to be reduced, but a tax will still remain, and it will be of such proportions that it will make it difficult for some Canadian manufacturers to compete.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is argumentative.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. My question arises out of the growing concern over the past two months which was partially clarified yesterday by the statement the minister made at the Chateau Laurier. Now that the minister has clarified the position of businessmen, doctors and lawyers with regard to the universality of the unemployment insurance fund, could he extend his clarification to cover other professions, such as teachers and nurses.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: welcome the question, Mr. Speaker, because I welcome the opportunity to clear up a statement that has given rise to some misunderstanding. In the speech mentioned I said that there has been a trend toward universality and that certain other classes may come in. I said to the teachers, however, when their representatives met with me recently, that they are near the bottom of any universal list, if they ever do come in.
September 27, 1967


Murdo William Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister take this opportunity also to clarify that statement contained in his speech which refers to the extension of universality to any who are not functioning as employees on wages or salaries, or their employers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this line of questioning is out of order.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government come to a decision with respect to proceeding with the substantial project of the intense neutron generator requested by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter is still being studied at cabinet committee level.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the substantial size and expense of this project, is it intended to submit it eventually to a parliamentary committee or to the house for approval?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has already been submitted to the science council. The Prime Minister or the cabinet will decide if the step recommended is a wise one.



EXPO '67 ASSISTANCE TO VISITORS DURING MONTREAL TRANSIT STRIKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Georges-J. Valade@Sainle-Marie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) since Expo comes under his jurisdiction.
Has the minister received from the authorities of Expo 67 requests for assistance in the transportation of visitors now in Montreal to the Expo site during the strike of the public transportation system which is dragging on? Has he been approached by the authorities of Montreal or Expo 67 about that matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: I have been in constant communication with the officials of Expo. I am meeting with the board of Expo in Montreal on Friday. This is a matter that is constantly before us.


Mr. Valade:: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us if he is ready to offer that transportation service if the Expo authorities request it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is hypothetical.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Having in mind the questions and answers yesterday on the subject of the introduction of the new broadcasting legislation, and particularly whether the legislation will be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, my question is this. Has a firm decision been taken on the procedure to be followed, and will the bill be referred to the committee I have mentioned after second reading?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision. At the moment, I think, some discussions are going on among the representatives of the parties, but I cannot say whether there is anything firm.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he able to advise the house and country of any initiatives which the government is taking or plans to take, either in a commonwealth or security council context, to hasten the realization of the government's declared aims in reference to the situation existing in Rhodesia?

September 27, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon, L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister): I am not able to answer that question on orders of the day, Mr. Speaker. We have been having discussions with other governments inside the commonwealth with regard to the commonwealth aspect of this very important matter, and inside the security council, because this question will be coming before the security council.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question that yesterday I undertook to answer today. The question by the hon. member for Melville was about action being taken with respect to the alleged dumping of Canadian potash. The answer is that we are aware of the anti-dumping investigation that is being carried out by the United States treasury. This investigation is still in its preliminary stages. We are in touch with the firms involved and have provided them with relevant information regarding anti-dumping regulations and procedures applied in the United States. As I have said, this is only preliminary, and I shall report developments to the house later.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask a supplementary question in respect of the anti-dumping regulations. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce not aware of the prices charged by Canadian producers? If so, why does he wait on the results of a United States investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: That question, too, is argumentative, I should think.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he consider the possibility of recommending the creation of a committee of the house to study the problem of the constitution in Canada?
[Mr. Macquarrie.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: This question, or one like it, was asked yesterday. I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: My
question is for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman use his undisputed talents in the field of international reconciliation to assure us that the Secretary of State will soon be able to resume her proper place in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is out of place.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether, in view of the desire of a great many native Indian people in Canada to be referred to and considered as Canadian citizens, she would have a conversation with her colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to find out whether, in the amendments to the Indian Act which are being prepared, provision might be made for some designation enabling native people to be considered on the same footing as anyone else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SASKATCHEWAN-INQUIRY AS TO QUOTAS AND BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Can he inform the house when we may expect a general quota in the province of Saskatchewan, and when box cars will be available to handle the grain? I should like to mention one point specifically, Mr. Speaker. Radville in Saskatchewan is one place where the situation is serious.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I have a reply I can give in connection with Radville, but perhaps it would be better if we were to wait a few moments until we go into committee and I can deal more fully with these matters.
September 27, 1967



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Industry. Recalling the hon. gentleman's repeated assurances in the house that the Canada-United States automobile pact would result in lower prices for automobiles in Canada, could the minister indicate what steps he has taken with regard to the current price increases?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman is apparently not aware that the recent price increases in the United States with application to 1968 model cars were considerably higher than was the case here.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Is the
minister not aware that Ford have increased the prices of their cars in Canada by $90?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that in the United States the increase is $131?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the Secretary of State. I wonder whether along with her concern for parks she has shown a similar concern for the establishment of a Canadian film corporation, the subject of a bill which she was anxious to have passed earlier this year. Can the hon. lady tell us when the corporation will be set up and when it will begin to function?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We have been awaiting appointments to the C.B.C. I have been discussing this with various individuals and if the one matter has not been resolved soon, the other will be.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been ad-27053- 162J
Supply-Trade and Commerce vised by those concerned whether the increase of one half of one per cent in the interest rate charged by the Bank of Canada, as announced last night, will have any effect on mortgage rates of interest?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger Regimbal (Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) indicated a while ago that he had been discussing the consequences of the lowering of tariffs, could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us in which industries and regions such unemployment is expected?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the program under study and the ideas that we are discussing concern all those industries which might have to tackle the problems mentioned by the hon. member but we have not referred to any particular industry.

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tardif in the chair.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order; house again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote 1 will be found at page 492 of the bluebook. The details thereof are listed at page 493.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $8,429,500.
Maurice Rinfret: Shall this item carry?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased I have this opportunity of returning so soon after the session reconvened to the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I
September 27, 1967

Supply-Trade and Commerce think hon. members will recall that we stood item No. 1 and passed all the other items. It was stood at the particular request of the then leader of the opposition so that he might have a chance to consider and discuss the Kennedy round of negotiations, but the finger of fate in the form of political vagaries has intervened in the meantime and I am sorry he is not here now to pursue the matter. Because the item was stood to discuss the Kennedy round of negotiations perhaps at the outset I should make a few remarks on the Kennedy round.
As I indicated on June 30 these Kennedy round agreements constitute the most important trade pact in history, representing a major advance in the liberalization of world trade. The concessions secured in our major foreign markets will be of benefit to every sector of the economy and every region of Canada.
The agreements provide for wide ranging tariff reductions or elimination of tariffs on virtually all the products of which Canada is already a significant exporter. Of particular importance is the reduction of tariff levels on industrial and manufactured goods generally to levels of 10 per cent or less in Canada's major export markets. This is where the new opportunities are opened up. These tariff concessions will, for the most part, be phased over a period of four years, beginning January 1 of next year. The scheduling of Canadian tariff reductions will be announced in the near future by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
In addition to the tariff concessions obtained, the Kennedy round resulted in the conclusion of a new international grains arrangement providing for significant increases in the price range for wheat and also in the establishment of a new multilateral food aid program. I shall go into this matter in more detail in a few moments.
The third important agreement negotiated in the Kennedy round, which will also be helpful to our exports, relates to a new antidumping convention. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced last week the setting up of a special committee to receive the views and recommendations of Canadian industries with respect to Canadian implementation of this anti-dumping convention.
The Kennedy round will open major new perspectives for the expansion of Canadian exports to our major markets both in the United States and overseas. The concessions obtained will, in particular, make it possible

for Canadian industry to develop export markets in the new fields of manufactured industrial products, the most rapidly growing sector of world trade. The realization of these new trading opportunities will make a significant contribution to a more viable balance of payments, and to increased employment for our rapidly growing labour force. As I have repeatedly emphasized, it is primarily up to private enterprise to ensure that these market opportunities are fully exploited. Such export expansion will, through economies of scale, help to lower costs and increase productivity.
The positive response of the Canadian business community has been gratifying. In order to ensure that Canadian exporters are made fully aware of the new export possibilities we have embarked upon a series of seminars with the business community in every region of Canada, in co-operation with the provincial governments. Good meetings have already been held in Winnipeg and Halifax. A further Kennedy round seminar will be held in Montreal tomorrow, and in the following two weeks seminars will be held in Toronto and Vancouver. We expect that, in total, more than 2,500 firms across the country will participate.
Our trade development program in response to the new opportunities opened up by the Kennedy round will be a continuing process A further series of meeetings is planned with the export committees being established by Canadian trade and industry associations. We are gearing the services of the repartment in all' its aspects to the new dynamic international environment for world trade. I have already announced the extension, for the first time, of export credits and insurance facilities for Canadian exports to the United States market.
The Kennedy round is not, of course, the end of the road. We are already engaged in the consideration of what further international trade initiatives might be taken to carry forward this process of opening up channels of international trade. In this connection, it is expected that there will be a meeting of trade ministers in Geneva this fall, under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in which we will be looking to the possibilities for the future. I am planning to attend this proposed ministerial conference. I have already had an opportunity to exchange views as to future prospects for the liberalization of world trade with Ambassador Roth, the president's special trade representative, in the United States, and with Commissioner Jean Rey, the newly elected
September 27, 1967	COMMONS
president of the European Economic Commission.
I am also planning to hold further discussions with British ministers on these matters, as well as on the important question of possible British accession to the European Economic Community. We are maintaining the closest consultation with the British government in order to ensure that Canadian trade interests are taken fully into account.
Now, I should like to turn to the subject of wheat which has been receiving a great deal of my attention in recent days, and will continue to do so.
First, let me again clarify the position of the new international agreement scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 1968. You will recall that while the administrative provisions of the old International Wheat Agreement were continued, the price provisions lapsed on July 31 last, as I informed the house. In this connection I refer hon. members to Hansard of April 7, page 14643, and of June 5, page 1134.
An extension of the lower price range of the 1962 agreement was not acceptable to Canada and other exporting countries who were negotiating in the Kennedy round for a higher price range for wheat. Indeed, acceptance of the former and lower price range at that time would have prejudiced the securing of the higher price range then under discussion in Geneva. The Canadian position was worked out with representatives of western farm groups, who were present in Geneva during the negotiations.
As I informed the house on earlier occasions, we were successful in negotiating a 21 cent increase in the price range as compared with the old International Wheat Agreement, and I again emphasize it was an increase in the range. This agreement was signed by 17 countries, including most of the major commercial exporters and importers.
On announcing the terms of the agreement, and on other occasions, I emphasized that the specific prices at which wheat would trade within that price range would be determined by market factors of supply and demand. For example, in reply to a question by the hen. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I said:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, these are simply minima and maxima within which the world price can and does fluctuate. The world price still is determined largely by supply and demand, having regard, of course, to the maximum and minimum referred to here.
DEBATES	2557
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Subsequently, a negotiating conference was held in Rome during July and August for the purpose of expanding the Geneva accord into a full-fledged international agreement, incorporating the price and food aid commitments negotiated in Geneva as part of the Kennedy round. Fifty two countries attended the Rome conference, including all signatories of the Geneva agreement. The new grains agreement is scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 1968. This date was not Canada's preference, and we pressed hard in the negotiation in Geneva and Rome for an earlier date. However, constitutional procedures in other countries, and particularly decisions yet to be taken among the E.E.C. member states, made it impossible to obtain agreement for earlier implementation.
In the interim, until the new agreement comes into effect, it is essential that market stability and adequate prices be maintained.
I have been very concerned about the downward trend of wheat prices in recent months. I am particularly concerned that wheat has been trading in world markets slightly below the minimum prices established in the Kennedy round agreement, although they are substantially above the minimum of the old wheat agreement which was $1.74 for No. 1 Northern.
Canada did not initiate the downward trend in world wheat prices, but rather was forced to lower prices to meet competition from other exporters.
It was against this background that I met in Washington on September 12 with the United States secretary of agriculture, Hon. Orville Freeman, and the United States special representative for trade negotiations, Ambassador William Roth.
The house will recall that following these meetings greater confidence developed amongst overseas buyers. The tone of the market has improved and Canadian and United States export prices have increased two and three quarters cents per bushel.
At the present time, No. 1 Northern is priced three quarters of a cent below the new agreement minimum basis in store the lake-head. At least, it was at that price earlier today.


Mr. Woolliams:: What is the price at the lakehead today?


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps a cent above that as of this afternoon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not hear the price you gave.
September 27, 1967

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Henry Winters: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: This is the date when the new agreement is scheduled to become effective.
In the light of prevailing prices and the current stronger tone in the market, it is not anticipated that this will involve any heavy demand on the treasury, but will, I hope, be an important factor in ensuring that we achieve sales at the optimum price.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit an interruption at this stage?


Robert Henry Winters: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I believe that on behalf of the government this is the first time this announcement has been made in parliament or even outside parliament to the press.


Robert Henry Winters: 
Mr. More:: How much have imports increased?


Robert Henry Winters: Imports have increased quite substantially, but fortunately our exports have increased faster than our imports with the result that as of the date I mentioned we had a much healthier balance of trade than we had last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
September 27, 1967


Robert Henry Winters: This continuing strong advance in exports has been achieved despite a slowing down of growth in some major markets and in world trade as a whole. Especially noteworthy is the sharp rise in sales to the United States, notwithstanding the hesitant trend of industrial activity in that country in the first part of the year. Canada's exports to the United States in 1967 to date are up 19 per cent from the same period in 1966 and are half as high again as two years ago.
Among Canada's overseas markets, the sharpest gains are being made in Japan and in some Commonwealth countries. Hon. members will have seen the reports of recent important contracts by Canadian uranium producers for deliveries to Japanese users extending through 1978.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
You will recall the contract signed earlier with the United Kingdom and another contract with Ontario hydro which gave us substantial evidence of the vigorous revival of world demand for uranium for peaceful uses. The need of importing countries to protect their future requirements for nuclear power reactor fuel have sharply accelerated the pace of exploration and mine development. Canada is in a specially favourable position to meet these new demands.
The forward momentum in our total export activity must be sustained. To give more specific direction and focus to our export initiatives, I hope shortly to set targets for the coming year.
As barriers to international trade come down, and as the nations of the world move closer together, Canada's future progress toward international strength and maturity depends more than ever upon a strong performance in world markets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow the Minister of Trade and Commerce in debate because I have always said, and will repeat now, that even though we sometimes disagree philosophically or about the facts he is probably one of the leading gentlemen who sit on the front benches on the government side. Perhaps I might say that we are also personal friends.


An hon. Member:: Watch him, Bob.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My first comment this afternoon on behalf of western Canada is of congratulation to the minister for the announcement we heard a few minutes ago. I
Supply-Trade and Commerce am sure the president of the wheat pool of Alberta, the president of the wheat pool of Saskatchewan and other farm organizations have been apprehensive. They would have been more content a few weeks ago had they known that the government was considering or was prepared to make payments out of the treasury to cover any per bushel loss on grain that was sold by the Canadian Wheat Board below the minimum suggested by the new international wheat agreement which will not come into effect for approximately one year.
Probably the Family Herald, which is a farm paper, put the situation in the most succinct way. Before reading from that paper, let me say that the fact the government is considering now paying bonuses to the Canadian farmer out of taxpayers' money does not altogether change the picture. Perhaps the minister will make some explanation in that regard when I have completed my remarks. Certainly, grain was sold by other countries below the minimum to be set under the new wheat agreement or below the minimum set under the old wheat agreement resulting in a decrease in our exports.
I should like to read from page 9 of the Family Herald, the last edition, under the heading "Reports" as follows:
Western farm leaders have been quick to react to the downward slide of wheat prices which early this month fell four cents below the floor agreed upon in last spring's Kennedy round but which does not actually go into effect until July next year. Both Charles Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and Roy Atkinson, president of the National Farmers' Union, have registered the concern of prairie producers over this development. Mr. Gibbings declared that "Canadian producers are facing the most critical situation that has existed in more than 20 years."
A 22 cent price drop for No. 1 Northern has brought the Lakehead price from $2.13 last spring to $1.91 in early September. The price drop has brought a direct confrontation between U.S. and Canadian wheat pricing policies. While neither trade minister Robert Winters nor Canadian Wheat Board chairman, W. C. McNamara would say specifically where the price cutting started, they did acknowledge that Canadian wheat exports to Japan had suffered most during the current sales decline and that U.S. exports had taken up the slack.
Let me pause there for a moment. In other words, while there has been this vacuum between the lapse of the old agreement and the implementation of the new agreement, we have lost markets for Canadian wheat.
Let me continue reading from this article: Mr. Gibbings was more forthright.
"It will be noted," he said, "that the U.S. price dipped below floor levels on July 13, the day after 52 nations met in Rome to begin discussions about implementing the sixth wheat agreement. It seems
2560	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce to me that all the nations participating have a moral obligation to observe the floor price to which they agreed. Technical difficulties in completing the final document should not serve as an excuse to break the floor."
Behind the increasing competition lies the fact that world production is up so wheat exports are slowing and stocks are rising. At the end of the crop year, July 31, Canadian exports totalled 482.4 million bushels compared to 545.3 million the year before. During August exports of 21 million bushels amounted to a third of the exports for the same period in 1966. Stocks too were up 67 million bushels.
Let me come quickly to my point. After we had asked for an adjournment of this house to discuss this very serious matter, after we asked the Prime Minister what would happen as a result of the 22 cent drop in the price of wheat, and following a great deal of pressure on this side of the house, the minister got up this afternoon and said to the farmers of western Canada and the country that the government intends to pay bonuses out of the treasury to western farmers because the United States has sold wheat below the price of the international wheat agreement. In other words, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the reprisals of the United States against Canadian competitors.
While this was going on we were losing our markets, particularly in Japan. The minister may have remedied or patched up momentarily the difficulty, and may have satisfied western farmers. However, as the minister said in his opening remarks, the sale of wheat and the price of wheat, in spite of these agreements depends on the law of supply and demand. The demand existed and it was being met by Canada. During this interim period this demand was being met by the United States and we have lost important markets.
What was it that put the farmers and farm organizations in the position of believing that they were secure under the international wheat agreement? In the few minutes I have I should like to refer to what the minister said on May 15, 1967 as found at page 222 of Hansard for that date. Let me read one paragraph to point out what the minister said to get headlines across this country and which left the impression that wheat would sell for 21 or 22 cents a bushel more. On that occasion I replied to the minister that I hoped the farmers of western Canada would not believe that they were going to get the 21 or 22 cents a bushel more. This is what the minister said:
While it is not yet possible to make public detailed results because not all GATT countries have, as yet, had the opportunity of agreeing to them, I can say with respect to wheat that the basic elements of a new international wheat agreement have been agreed between major exporting and importing

DEBATES	September 27. 1967
countries. We have achieved a significant and welcome increase in international minimum and maximum prices for specified qualities of wheat, and substantially strengthened arrangements for cooperation to maintain market stability. For No. 1 Manitoba northern, in store at the lakehead, new minimum and maximum prices will be $1,951 and $2,351 Canadian respectively.
To be fair to the minister, he corrected those figures the next day when he pointed out:
The maximum price for wheat at the lakehead and at Vancouver under the agreement announced yesterday should be $2,385 and $2,461 respectively instead of $2,351 and $2,431 as they appear in Hansard at pages 182, 183 and 222.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The spread of 40 cents between minimum and maximum is in U.S. funds. The above corrected figures provide for the conversion to Canadian currency at current rates.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on that occasion asked the minister this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether this will change the 21 cents increase over the previous price increase mentioned by the minister, or will that still stand?
The minister's answer was as follows:
The 21 cents figure still stands.
I suggested to the minister on May 15, 1967, that he left the impression-he did not do it deliberately, by any means-with the farmers in the country and members of parliament that the price of wheat was going up 21 cents immediately. You can understand the reaction out west when they found that the price of wheat dropped 22 cents. They felt there was a 43 cents spread between what the minister had said in the house and what was happening economically in western Canada as far as wheat was concerned. That statement was made on May 15, 1967. The minister referred to what I read yesterday from page 1134 of Hansard. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale said:
Mr. Speaker, this a very important question and should be answered right now, for the simple reason that the farmers in the west have planted their wheat and are waiting to know where they stand in light of the new wheat agreement.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this very briefly. On June 1 our ambassador in Washington did sign on behalf of the government of Canada a protocol extending the administrative articles of the 1962 wheat agreement until July 31, 1968, with provision for earlier termination in the event of a new agreement covering wheat coming into force before that date. This action was recommended by member governments of the international wheat council at its 48th session last April.
September 27, 1967	COMMONS
In view of that statement we considered that the articles of the international wheat agreement of 1962 were renewed. If you look at articles 13 and 14 of that agreement you will see they set out and define "minimum". The minimum is the floor price. I will have something to say about that in a few moments. That is what the western farmers fought for for many years, so they would know when they produced their wheat they would receive at least the floor price for their commodity.
This is what happened in 1929. In 1929 the price of wheat was about $1.40 a bushel. I was a boy on the farm at that time. Within six months the price had fallen to a price of 20 or 30 cents a bushel. As a result there was bankruptcy and insolvency on the farms and it took seven or eight years to recover from that situation.
We heard from the minister on June 5 that the administrative articles of the wheat agreement had been renewed and he set out the maximum and minimum prices. At page 15 of the international wheat agreement of 1962 I find this:
If any exporting or importing country is making wheat available for purchase by exporting or importing countries at not greater than the minimum price, or if such a situation appears likely to arise, the executive secretary shall, after bringing the mater to the attention of the advisory committee on price equivalents and communicating as that committee may advise with the country concerned, report the situation to the executive committee.
In other words, if any country is selling wheat at below the minimum price, it is reported to the council that governs the matter and sets the minimum and maximum prices. The maximum price protects the importer and the minimum price protects the producer. What is the situation now? The minister says that the agreement has not been finalized. I ask, are we in a new vacuum in this respect?
I suggest that we are. Will the importing countries which have been buying wheat from the United States, particularly Japan, at a price below the minimum come forward now,-the 52 countries concerned-no matter what was discussed at Geneva, and sign an agreement which will mean they will pay more per bushel for their grain? There may be further difficulty in crystallizing and finalizing the international wheat agreement.
I and the farmers of western Canada believed when we heard those answers from the minister that the agreement was being continued and there was a minimum and maximum price in respect of wheat. If there was 27053-163
DEBATES	2561
Supply-Trade and Commerce agreement, we believed there was an obligation on the part of the United States, Canada and other exporting and importing countries to live up to the minimum and maximum prices set under the new agreement when the 52 countries met. Perhaps this was not done because of some failure on the part of the minister. I hope the minister will explain this later.
In any event, the United States decided they would get our markets. The United States seized this opportunity when there was a vacuum in the agreement, when the agreement did not operate. They seized the opportunity to sell their grain to Japan and perhaps to other countries because their exports were dropping off. Their export markets were dropping off seriously in August and they decided to take over the Canadian markets. Exports from that country had dropped to the extent of not quite 100 million bushels.
The loss of markets is just as serious as a reduction in price, because without sales there cannot be any prosperity on the farm. I remind the minister that back in 1956 when he was a member of another government, when Mr. C. D. Howe, the then minister of trade and commerce went out west, there were 700 million bushels of wheat piled up on the farms, unsold, with no quotas; and without quotas there cannot be any prosperity on the farm.
Today we face a serious situation. Not only are exports dropping off, but for weeks the government has dillied and dallied in connection with the strike of the S.I.U. and no grain has moved out of Canada. Today most of the grain is still in bins on the farms of western Canada. It is no good paying a bonus in respect of the price of wheat if that commodity remains unsold. Therefore, this is not much of a promise; it is merely an attempt to cover up a problem.
The government felt they had to bail themselves out as far as the farmers of western Canada were concerned, so they said: We will bonus you for any loss in the price of grain. But if grain cannot be sold, what good is that bonus? Why has the government got into this situation? Let us see what has happened. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, the wheat board used to be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. In April 1963, when the Liberals came into office, the Minister of Finance went to Edmonton and Regina and said that the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, had been wrong in telling the farmers to produce wheat. The minister said
September 27, 1967

Supply-Trade and Commerce they would have a surplus of wheat. Within 30 days there was such a demand for wheat that the Minister of Finance was telling the farmers that we had not enough wheat to meet the demand. What kind of nonsense is that?
People opposite scoffed at the former minister of agriculture. They said: You did not sell the wheat. They were so busy trying to sell this idea to western Canada that they forgot their responsibility as the government to sell wheat. The position of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle at that time was that we needed an aggressive sales policy. I am sure this minister wants an aggressive sales policy for wheat. But there is a difference between the two ministers. The minister of agriculture when we were in office said that if there was any problem we would take responsibility for that problem. The Minister of Finance said no, it is always the problem of the wheat board; there are no sales without the wheat board. That kind of attitude may have created the vacuum in which the government finds itself this afternoon.
I think it will pay if for a few moments I remind the house, before putting some questions to the minister, of some of the history of wheat. From the homesteading period until 1924 the sellers of grain in western Canada were disorganized. In the fall the price of wheat went down, and when the farmers had sold all their grain the price went up. Wheat was dealt with on the grain exchange. In 1924 our fathers and grandfathers met and formed the first wheat pool. From the first wheat pool there grew, through R. B. Bennett, the Canadian Wheat Board which for the first time in Canadian history stabilized the price of wheat in much the same manner as did the farm stabilization measure with respect to other products. That measure was introduced when the hon. member for Calgary North was minister of agriculture in the Conservative government.
The wheat board then became the marketing agency for all grain. This happened during the war, and I give the Liberals credit for it. The wheat board is the farmers' marketing agency; it organizes the sellers of wheat and is able to obtain a fair return, a pool price, for wheat. The farmers and producers of western Canada feel they have been put back in a vacuum in respect of wheat. In fact, they are in a vacuum. The only thing that the minister has done as the result of probings from the opposition has been to tell the farmers that to compensate them for the lower price he will give them a bonus. He has not
[Mr. Woolliams.l

explained certain things which have occurred, and I think we deserve an explanation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Here are the questions that I should like answered, Mr. Chairman.
1.	Has the United States or any other country broken the terms and conditions of the international wheat agreement? Is that agreement operating on a legal or moral basis?
I see that the minister is getting some guidance from the new Liberal member for Medicine Hat, who never really wanted to sell wheat to the Communist countries anyhow.
2.	With the lapse of the international wheat agreement after the meeting of the nations at Geneva, was there a moral undertaking by all exporting and importing countries of grain who were a party to the agreement to live up to the terms until a new agreement became effective?
Why is that question important, Mr. Chairman? It is important for this reason. If the United States continues to sell its grain below the minimum price stated in the international wheat agreement, which is not now in operation, then we are going to lose our markets. What country is going to pay more for wheat from Canada if it can get it cheaper from the United States? Is this a reprisal by the United States against Canada because the former Conservative government dared sell wheat to Russia and Communist China? Has the minister put that question to the United States? We want to know what has been the nature of the talks.
3.	Did the minister know on May 15, 1967 when he announced the prices in the House of Commons and the increase of 22J cents for No. 1 Northern that there was no minimum or maximum price that could be legally enforced, and that basically the farmers of western Canada were operating in a vacuum for the first time in many years?
If the farmers were operating in a vacuum, and if wheat was operating in a vacuum as far as its being a market commodity, why did the minister say that we have a new minimum and a new maximum even in spite of that vacuum? We are almost back on the old grain exchange system where the United States can make moral arrangements with Canada and then go out and dump its wheat on to our markets.
That is the kind of stand that I should have liked to see the minister take on that night in
September 27, 1967	COMMONS
May. Perhaps his trade officials have led him down the garden path so far as the United States is concerned, and that country is taking over our markets. I should like to know what is going on behind the closed doors.
4.	Has the United States subsidized its exports of grain so as to be able to supply Canada's best customers with wheat below the minimum price? How much has the United States dumped on the market?
I did not know what the minister was going to announce today but I should like to ask him another question. On the strength of Canada subsidizing its wheat for the first time, will the United States make other reprisals? Did the minister say to the minister of agriculture or minister of trade in the United States, or to any of his officials: We are going back to western Canada to bolster up our political chances by giving the farmers a bonus?
One of our great problems in the export market has always been the competition of the United States. That is why over the years governments have always considered the matter very carefully before subsidizing grain in this manner. It was always felt that if we were to subsidize grain in this manner the United States, with its power and economic might, would be able to dump its grain onto our markets.
I referred to 1929 and 1930 when young men and women were taken out of school and put off the farms with nothing but their possessions. We have just had the biggest drought in western Canada in 30 years, and the only reason we have had any kind of crop is the reserve moisture of former years. In Great Britain today there is a recession and there are economic difficulties in other countries. High interest rates prevail. The same circumstances existed prior to 1929 when the crash came on the farms. This crash will come again, in spite of the assurances of the minister, if we lose our markets.
What good is a bonus, Mr. Chairman, if we do not sell our wheat? How long will the taxpayers of Canada keep the government in office if no wheat is moving to Canadian markets? That is the question.
5.	Is there no agreement operating at the present time to protect the western producers and to guarantee them any floor price, or do we merely accept the word of the United States that that country will maintain a moral obligation to Canada?
If there is such a moral obligation, what was the question asked by the minister when 27053-1631
DEBATES	2563
Supply-Trade and Commerce he met Mr. Freeman on September 12? Did the minister ask Mr. Freeman why the United States was selling its wheat when it gave us its word that it would not sell it below the minimum price? Was this action taken so as to get our markets? I should like to know what was the answer. Was the government pussy-footing with the United States? Or did the minister stand up like the former leader of the opposition when he was prime minister and was told that the United States would not assist Canada to load grain destined for China and Russia? The right hon. gentleman told the President at that time that Canadian wheat would be loaded on the ships and would be exported, that this country was a sovereign state. I suggest that this is the kind of action that this government should be taking. Are we now an economic satellite of the United States in respect of wheat and other commodities?
I am not expert in industrial affairs, Mr. Chairman, but I suggest that members of parliament from areas of industry should take note of what happens to those industries when tariffs go by the board.
6.	Is the position that the United States has taken since the Geneva conference against Canada's export of grain a reprisal against Canada for the exports to China and Russia? Has the minister discussed this?
7.	What assurance has the minister received from Mr. Freeman in Washington to restore the buyers' confidence in the market and recover one cent or more?
Can the minister say whether since his chat the price has gone back 1J cents or 2f cents? The fact is that the price has gone down 22 cents. Is it bouncing back? Time will tell, but it is taking a long time.
8.	Can the minister now guarantee to parliament that no further sales by the United States or any other country will be made below the minimum price?
Did the officials in the United States say to the minister that they were sorry they ruined our market in Japan and may ruin it in Great Britain, but that from now on they were going to be good boys because they had a moral arrangement with us? Did they take advantage of this vacuum to unload their surpluses? That is the question that the farmers in the farm organizations across the country are asking, and they are not going to be satisfied with the minister's announcement today that he is giving a bonus when our market prospects are deteriorating day by day and nothing is being done. If the minister had
September 27, 1967

Supply-Trade and Commerce been given a guarantee in this regard I think he would have mentioned it when he reported to the house a tew moments ago.
9.	Were any sales made by Canada below the minimum price? We did not hear about that. Is this the reason we lost the Japanese market to the United States? I understand from newspaper reports that we lost two thirds of that market, and if that report is correct it is a big blow. Has Canada told the United States that we are going to embark upon a wheat war? I am not recommending such a step by any means, but I think there should have been some strong talk by Canada on this question.
I appreciate the patience of the minister and the members of the committee on this question, and in conclusion I congratulate the minister for saying that he will bonus the wheat producers for their loss because of the bungling of his government. However, I do not congratulate him on the vacuum which is costing us markets day by day unless he has received some assurance in this regard from the United States, and unless he can produce some answers to the nine questions I have posed which he has heard this afternoon and will appear in Hansard.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce always radiates selfassurance and confidence when making announcements to this house or when offering an interpretation of some recent developments in trade talks. But I think that most members of the committee, certainly on this side of the house, have come to learn by experience that sometimes it is a little dangerous to accept the minister's interpretation of what is going on at its face value. It seems that the minister is a victim of his own feeling of overconfidence with respect to many recent developments.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Bow River and others referred to occasions in this house-they are May 16, May 25 and June 15, to be exact-when the minister, in statements or answers to questions, clearly said that the price of wheat then prevailing in world markets would continue to prevail for the next 12 month period or so, or until the inception of the new agreement. He said that price levels would remain, to the best of his information and judgment, at what they then were,
IMr. Woolliams.l
around $2.12 or $2.13. On page 577 of Hansard for May 25 the minister said:
-it is understood in trade terms that this means the new price range which I have reported to the house will be observed in the months ahead until the new agreement becomes fully effective.
Being human, the minister, as everybody else-despite his self confidence-is liable to err. Throughout the summer he had ample opportunity to take remedial action. For some strange, inexplicable reason, he failed to do so until about the middle of September. It was then, we are given to understand, that he went to Washington to talk with the Secretary of Agriculture in an effort, presumably, to persuade that government to change its wheat export sale and pricing policy. Though the minister's effort resulted in relative failure, he ought to be given credit for making the effort. Nevertheless, the effort could have been made sooner.
Throughout July, August and until the first part of this month, the price of Canadian wheat declined in a drastic manner, that is the proper term. The decline was so drastic in fact that a leading spokesman of the wheat producing industry of this country referred to it as being of epic proportions, and certainly worse in cost-price terms than any decline we have experienced in the past two decades.
The minister, by way of announcements and questions answered in the house, gave us to understand that the old wheat agreement would be carried on until the inception of the new agreement next July. Yet, events have shown that the minister's statements were not correct. Yesterday, when questioned by hon. members on this side, the minister sought to qualify his answers. He said that he had been referring only to the instruments of administration with respect to the old wheat agreement being extended, and that he had not meant to say that the agreement itself was being extended. Certainly, the spirit of the agreement has not been extended.
As we now know, after the last agreement ended-even before that-our neighbours to the south pursued a trade policy with respect to wheat that was a violation of the spirit of the old agreement. Certainly, it violated the spirit of any new agreement.
The ink was hardly dry on the agreement protocols that were drawn in Geneva and Rome last April, July or August when the United States pricing policy for wheat became such that wheat prices fell toward the floor agreed on in the new agreement.
September 27, 1967

Lest I digress too far I wish to say, with respect to the minister's announcement of this afternoon, that the government's new policy will be to make good the difference between the floor price of the new agreement that is to take effect next year and any prices received that are lower than that. That policy is important psychologically. It is difficult to calculate extemporaneously at this time what the announcement will mean in dollars and cents. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. member for Bow River. While the bonus, as he called it, is one thing, the timing of it is another. The sense of timing possessed by this government is poor, and it was poor in this instance. I agree with the hon. member's statement.
If the new policy had been arrived at a few weeks ago or even a month ago, the Canadian Wheat Board might have been able to pursue a more aggressive policy in protecting our established markets in Japan and elsewhere, those markets where we have been slipping in competition with the United States with respect to wheat sales. Once a market is lost it is not readily regained. If it is ever regained, it may take a few years to do so. If the policy of paying the differential between the new floor price and the lower prices is acceptable and laudable now, it would have been all the more welcome, all the more sensible and all the more defensible a few weeks earlier. Though I have no proof, I hazard to say that the government's decision was an eleventh hour decision. The decision is good, but how much better would it have been had it come earlier. I am prepared to insist that the government's announcement came as the result of a hasty last minute reflection. I say that because the collective thinking of the cabinet was not much disposed to the idea of some form of price support. Only ten days ago the minister said in a press conference that the government had no intention of considering a price support on subsidy program for wheat. Ten days later it is announced, but only after some markets are lost.
On his return from Washington the minister, as reported in the press, said something which left me surprised and appalled. He admitted that wheat price levels were softening, that they were soft. In the face of a 22 cent decline, which is a decline of approximately 10 per cent, to say that there is a softness in wheat prices shows a degree of nonchalance which I hope that this minister and his colleagues will not exhibit again.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The minister said also that the government was not considering any form of subsidy or price supports. This would be approximately ten days ago. It may well be that the government was in fact considering such a proposal at the time but for some reason or another having to do with strategy, possibly, it was decided not to disclose the nature of those deliberations in connection with a price support policy.
Now, we have an announcement, and it will help. There is little point in indulging in harsh recriminations, or attempting to discover why the minister was not apparently aware of the adverse trend in prices which was developing in July and August. Certainly, from May until now there has been great confusion in the minds of many people, not only among producers but among those who sit in legislatures and in parliament as to the likely effect of the trade talks on wheat prices. As for the minister's explanations and interpretations, all they did was to leave in their wake a sea of confusion, confusion compounded because his statements were contradicted by actual events or became so soon after.
Now we find, in a sense, remedial action taken. I refer to today's announcement about the readiness of this government to provide moneys by way of price support to cover this differential. There was no need for the government to have waited so long. All the indications during the past few months, indeed, throughout last year and 1967 to date, showed that there was an inflationary trend developing in this country. This is far from being abated; in fact, it is gaining momentum. The index of the cost of farm production surged last year, and this year the rate was even higher. The more general cost of living index increased to a point at which it brought forth a general cry of protest. This year the indicators show that the rate of increase in the cost of living is even higher than it was last year. Thus, a 22 cent decline in the price of wheat has taken place this summer-call it a 10 per cent decline by way of understatement-at the very time when the cost of production is surging upward unabated.
It is ironical that last May when the minister was referring to the new minimum and maximum levels which had tentatively been agreed at the trade talks-an increase amounting to 21 cents-the hon. member for Medicine Hat and others pointed out, quite
September 27, 1967

If the prospects of a return to the former levels and above the new I.W.A. floor are not good, it is likely that some countries which, until now, have been prepared to ratify the new agreement will choose to stall and not ratify it. As I understand it, the period of ratification falls between October 15 and the end of November, only a few weeks from now.
The course of events during the past few months have caused a critical situation, one which has been outlined by Mr. Gibbings and others who have described what took place during June, July and Augsut when the federal government sat back and did nothing with respect to this crucial matter.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the minister before the next speaker commences. In view of the fact that taxpayers' money is contributed by all the people in the nation, the small farmers as well as the large farmers, is the minister aware that under his method of payment most of the money will go to the big operators and the small fellows will get nothing? The fellow with 50,000 bushels of wheat will get the lion's share. That is what this system of payment means. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that. I am also waiting anxiously to hear what the small farmers throughout western Canada will have to say.


Robert Henry Winters: Any deficiency there might be, and I trust there will not be very much -I hope there will not be any substantial charge against the taxpayers because we all hope and expect the price will return to a more normal trading range-will be paid to the wheat board which in turn will make the payments in respect of deliveries.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: But there is no difference between paying it to the wheat board and paying it directly to the farmers. There is just one step in between.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I enter this debate on wheat and wheat prices with some hesitancy. Ordinarily, someone else in this party more versed in that branch of agriculture would have spoken, but I wish to make a few comments on the subject.
It is always a pleasure when the government comes round to adopting what Social Credit has advocated over the years. A few years ago we campaigned on two-price agriculture. Now, we see that the wisdom of what we said has come home to the government, perhaps a little late but better late than

Supply-Trade and Commerce never. The previous speaker wondered why the government had delayed so long. I think it has moved rather rapidly. It has had the benefit of only two days of advice from the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and I think it has acted with great promptness on that advice. While we may regret his loss, I am sure the farmers of western Canada will appreciate the step that has now been taken.
The move announced by the minister this afternoon should bring home to some people the fact that today agriculture operates in a world market, an increasingly sophisticated market. Of course the usual moans and cries will go up that rugged individualism on the frontier is being allowed to die a little more, but at the same time there should be realization that we are in competition with other nations which, years ago, adopted policies of subsidizing agriculture in a whole variety of ways that have not been used in Canada.
We are subject to a variety of manipulations. I know this has been a good summer in Europe, and I expect in most of the Soviet union as well, but I very much doubt whether this is the main factor which has brought about the declining price of wheat. Because of the world food shortage food prices should not be declining in any part of the world. I am sure the manipulation that has been taking place has been at the governmental and policy level, and the result is not all due to the supply and demand factor.
In a way I am surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the government have been slow to act in this manner because during the last few years they were quick to act when external competition threatened the industries of the central provinces. They have been the architects of a variety of solutions to reduce competition between the United States and Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I could speak of the automotive pact which constantly has been held up as something which would be of advantage to us. We know the tremendous excitement there was on that side of the house when it was felt a few months ago that the Mercantile Bank might be in a position to compete too strongly with Canadian banks. We know of the efforts that have been made on that side of the house to prevent the establishment of the Bank of British Columbia and we can imagine the glee that was felt at the demise of the Bank of Western Canada. All these are things which would lead to the economic development of the west. It is unfortunate that this
2588	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce one branch of agriculture, which is so important to the west, should have been brought to this stage of crisis before any action takes place. This government has adopted a rather cavalier attitude to world agreements in respect of primary food commodities. In so far as a sugar agreement is concerned, nothing is heard about that at all. As a matter of fact this is one aspect of Canadian agriculture, but compared to the whole Canadian agricultural industry it is a small aspect. The government never has seen fit to do anything about really bringing about a sound sugar agreement. This is another matter which I trust the hon. member for Medicine Hat will take up when he has a little more time after the wheat problem has been settled.
When the problem of international wheat agreements is so important to the country as a whole and so vital to the west, it seems strange to me that the situation which has developed could have developed with so little sound and fury from the government spokesmen through the last few months and that we had to wait until the opening of parliament before anything could be done about it. Even when it is done, it is a shoring up operation which does not look to the future.
I trust that those who are responsible will make every effort to reduce the kind of unfair competition which comes from outside and not inside Canada. I think the spokesmen for industry and trade on that side of the house have looked too long at what they felt possibly was competition within Canada and have been neglecting the sort of competition which can arise in the international market. This type of competition can have serious repercussions for a variety of industries, but especially for the agricultural industry.


Raymond Langlois: Supply-Trade and Commerce might add that it appears to be a rather silly mistake.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that the government should do a great deal of fancy skating to rectify this situation as soon as possible. The government must not wait until tomorrow to do something. It should adopt that old slogan, do it now. The government should establish a parliamentary committee to study this whole situation and recommend measures to correct it. If it did so, I am sure it would receive the unanimous co-operation of all members. The government should clamp down on those companies which are swindling not only the farmers but the Canadian taxpayers by unnecessarily increasing the cost of machinery of all kinds. This trend is inflationary and is detrimental to the country as a whole. The situation generally discourages the initiative of small, private enterprises, and it creates great problems for politicians in all parties, no matter how thick skinned they may be.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I believe that all parties in opposition will support the government in any measures they take to improve the situation. The producers of farm marchinery should be made to close their doors tomorrow morning if they are not able to explain in black and white why we have seen farm machinery costs spiralling. This kind of situation exists in many areas. Perhaps we are to blame in the first place. The same thing applies to the cost of construction. We wonder why the cost of housing has risen. We seem to forget the 11 per cent sales tax and the increase in interest rates. This situation exists with respect to the cost of farm machinery.
If it is our fault, we must take steps to remove some of the blockades that exist. We must exert pressure on the people concerned to reduce the cost of farm machinery so that our farmers will be able to obtain a profit at the end of the year. All the profit should not go into the hands of the farm machinery companies but should be available for the betterment of the farmer and the Canadian people as a whole.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the two matters I wanted to place before the committee. This is the responsibility of the government. I refer to the spiralling cost of farm machinery. The same thing applies to the cost of producing any commodity in Canada, but at this time we are dealing with the situation confronting our farmers. We must also guarantee to the farmer that he will be able to
[Mr. Langlois (Megantic).l

sell his products. The government has a responsibility in this regard. I am looking forward to hearing the minister's explanations and his intentions in this regard.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I intervene in the debate today, and for the first time from this side of the house, because it is certainly an important and serious matter when there are major fluctuations in the selling price of Canadian wheat. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Bow River. It seemed to me that he had ready a very great speech, if I may use that word, and somehow or other after the minister had completed his statement the steam had disappeared from the speech the hon. member intended to make.
I listened also to the other hon. members who have spoken. The hon. member for Springfield complained that action was not taken in July and August. I listened to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. What he said was very interesting, because he was prepared to give me a great deal of credit for having so soon influenced the government in taking the action which the minister announced today.
I appreciate that kind of accolade but am afraid the facts will show that I do not deserve it. The minister made a speech in Winnipeg on Tuesday, September 14, to the Kennedy round trade opportunity seminar. At that time he made it very clear that he and his government intended that the farmers of western Canada could expect the mini-nums reached under the new agreement in Geneva to be those at which wheat would be sold. I will quote from the minister's speech. He said:
I do not wish to go Into detail at this time but I can assure you that every effort is being made to sell maximum quantities of wheat at the best possible prices. Although (the) agreement (is) not yet in effect, I hope wheat will trade within the maximum and minimum. If not, then special consideration will have to be given to what steps can be taken to ensure that the wheat board gets the minimum price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is only two weeks ago that the minister made it very very clear that the government intends to see that the Canadian Wheat Board will obtain at least the minimum price for distribution to farmers, as agreed to in the new wheat agreement. So, while I thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke I am afraid that my being on this side of the house began some time after the minister had made his and the government's position clear in so far as this matter
September 27, 1987	COMMONS
is concerned. There is one other matter with which I should like to deal.


An hon. Member:: What about $2 wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to answer questions from now until six o'clock if there were time. However, I wish to complete my remarks. I can see that other hon. members wish to speak on this subject. The hon. member for Rosthern, for example, is very anxious to get into the debate, as is the hon. member for Macleod and perhaps many others. I think one or two questions at the end of my remarks would be in order, but I do not want to use up all my time because there is very little left.
I think there is one other major point that should be raised because of what the hon. member for Springfield said. He complained that the government did not take any action during the months of July and August. I should like the hon. member to know that September 8 was the first day that the selling price of Canadian wheat was below the minimum price. Within three days the minister was in conference with the appropriate officials in Washington to try and reach some kind of understanding to correct this situation.
I can remember an incident when our minister was three days late arriving in Hong Kong. That was in 1961. I should like to talk about that. The situation now is quite different. Those three days taken by the minister were used to set up some positive plans, for fruitful discussion and positive action. I do not think hon. members opposite would like to talk about the three days that elapsed between the time positive action was taken and when somebody had to hurry to Hong Kong to make the announcement. There is quite a difference in the three days.


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, the hon. member will not permit a question because there is not sufficient time, and that is the only reason. If hon. gentlemen opposite would care to do their homework they will find that immediately after the discussions which the minister held in Washington the price of wheat started to firm up.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Too late, and 15 cents too low.
DEBATES	2571
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps hon. members opposite would like to talk about the relationship of the government to the wheat board, and so on, so far as selling on foreign markets is concerned. I have sat in this house and listened to all the statements about the great job done by the previous administration in their aggressive selling of wheat. The hon. member for Bow River made that statement again today.
The only inference that can be taken from that remark of the hon. member for Bow River is that today the Canadian Wheat Board is not selling wheat aggressively. I do not accept that suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Mr. Churchill:: The government should take some action.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government has taken some action. It has already taken enough action today to take the steam out of all the speeches that were going to be made this afternoon.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Don't count on that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What would hon. members opposite have done? Would they put the Canadian Wheat Board into a price war with the United States treasury?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We would not let the United States take over Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think they would, and I do not think that the hon. member for Bow River really seriously suggested that no appropriate action has been taken.


Mr. Roxburgh:: He is a cattle man anyway, not a wheat farmer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think the Canadian Wheat Board has acted very correctly and responsibly in adjusting prices to meet the new competitive situation in the world.


Mr. Rapp:: Tell that to the farmers in Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Bow River also told us how sad he was that we had lost a portion of the Japanese market, and certainly that is a very serious loss. But I wonder whether the hon. member has done his homework in this respect too. Is he aware, for example, that as far back as 1964 there was a very aggressive undertaking by interests in the United States to set up a number of schools and seminars in Japan to train Japanese bakers in future to use American winter wheat?
In this regard I should like to read a short extract from the Searle Grain Company Limited weekly letter for July 8, 1964:
In a further effort to expand utilization of United States wheat in Japan, U.S. wheat growers, in co-operation with several other groups and agencies, have just launched an intensive regional program of training the future leaders of Japan's baking industry on the proper use of flour milled from U.S. wheat blends.

DEBATES	September 27, 1967
The article goes on to indicate that there had been a very aggressive program in an attempt to get these bakers to use flour with the higher content of United States winter wheat. In spite of all this the Canadian Wheat Board since that time has been able to hold and expand the volume of wheat going to Japan until now. I think we should commend the Canadian Wheat Board on this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes-until now. How this man opposite can change.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This man opposite has not changed. He has always been an ardent supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board and remains so today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And of the Liberal government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will forget that untrue statement that was flung across the house a number of times, namely that this member was ever opposed to selling wheat to Communist China. That statement is false, and as far as I am concerned they know it is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about your leader at that time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He will have to answer for what he said. I will answer for what I said, and I did not say that. If hon. gentleman had read the press the next day they would have found that the hon. member for Medicine Hat disagreed with that statement; they forget that.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think the government has taken appropriate action, that the trend has now been reversed and the price of wheat is moving up again. I think that is commendable. Much remains to be done and I hope that the minister and his department will finish the work. What is clear to me even today is that the wheat board, with full co-operation from the government, is doing everything possible to sell the maximum volume of wheat at the best price which is obtainable. Their record of action during the past two or three weeks bears that out in very clear terms.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of those occasions, having listened to the speech we have just heard from across the way, when one should reflect upon the history of the party to which the hon. gentleman belonged and the stand it took regarding sales of grain by Canada, particularly during the period when the former leader of the
September 27, 1967

opposition was prime minister of this country and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was minister of agriculture.
The hon. member across the way indicated that he was never against wheat sales to China, yet he ran in more than one election campaign as a candidate for a party that was against those sales.


Mr. Jorgenson:: No principle.


Edward Nasserden: I have heard his colleagues in the party to which he once belonged speaking on platforms across the prairies, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, and reiterating time and time again the shortcomings of the former Conservative prime minister and minister of agriculture because they had entered into these sales. I think it can be said that the hon. member himself at times questioned the advisability of making sales on a credit basis; he will not deny that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Medicine Hat dissociated himself from that statement the day after it was made.


Edward Nasserden: At least he admits it was made.
I now turn to the question before the committee today. The announcement made by the minister was one that the producers in western Canada will appreciate. The people in western Canada would have appreciated it a lot more were it not for the fact that they know there will soon be a general election in the province of Saskatchewan. The Liberal candidates who were traveling up and down the province last week were not able to talk about provincial politics at all. The question being fired at them was: What are you doing to get the government at Ottawa to do something about the price of wheat and the falling grain sales which are taken place in this country?
This is why we have had the announcement today from the government. There is nothing in it which bears any relationship to the promises which were made during the last election campaign as hon. gentleman opposite went across the country declaring they would give the grain producers $2 wheat. Where is that guarantee of $2 wheat? How was this subsidy to the grain producers of western Canada arrived at? Any way you look at it, it is a makeshift which has been put forward at the last minute to help a provincial premier try to salvage something

Supply-Trade and Commerce from what is happening in the province of Saskatchewan at the present time.
I think of the statements made by officials of the grain trade in western Canada and compare them with the statement made by the minister today. The minister said he was in Washington on September 12.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The minister came back from Washington, and what action did he take? He comes to the House of Commons and says to the people of Canada, "We will support the price of wheat; we will pay the grain producers of western Canada the difference between the price they sell at on world markets and the price set in the international wheat agreement". Unless I am mistaken, this is an indication that the minister's mission in Washington failed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Edward Nasserden: The minister expects continued sales of grain at prices lower than the minimums set under the new international wheat agreement. That is the only conclusion one can come to. Yet the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that all will be well as a result of the action that has been taken today.
Charlie Gibbings, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, had this to say, according to the Globe and Mail of September 13. The article comes from Regina.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Listen to what he will say tomorrow.


Edward Nasserden: I know what he will say tomorrow. He will say that this is a makeshift policy embarked on by this government; that it has absolutely no relation to the cost of production today; that it has no relation to the promises made by the Liberal party in two or three election campaigns to the producers of western Canada. That is what Charlie Gibbings and the farm leaders of western Canada will say, though they will thank you for the pittance you have given them.
When I congratulated the minister last summer on the progress he was making in western Canada and the image that he was building, I hoped that my praise would not go to his head.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't congratulate him
again.
2574	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edward Nasserden: I can tell the minister on this occasion that price alone is not bothering the tanners of western Canada. The 590 million bushels of carryover is bothering them, as well as the fact that sales have slumped and that we have lost markets to other nations. These things are bothering them. Then, this minister says and the hon. member for Medicine Hat says: "This government acted within a period of three days." Where have the minister and the government been since last June when prices first began to decline? Does one wait for a catastrophe to arrive, or does one look at what is happening, recognize the trend and try to stave off the trouble, thereby saving the taxpayers of this country something in the process? That is what the government that preceded this one did.
On the front benches of the opposition side of the house sits an hon. member who was the minister of trade and commerce in the former government. He and his prime minister went to Washington to stave off problems similar to those we are now experiencing. That was back in 1958.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Well, we have not got the $2 wheat that the government promised; we have not even got the old promise, that they were to give to the producers in western Canada $1 a bushel more on the first 300 bushels of wheat. That, also, would have cost the treasury a great deal of money. The government's action does not recognize the serious problem caused by increasing costs that bear heavily on individual producers and the agricultural industry of western Canada and other parts of the country. During the past year these costs have risen at a tremendous rate.
I see that the minister who is in charge of housing is in the house. Well, there is a housing crisis in this country; there is also a crisis in agriculture, in international affairs and in national unity. There is a crisis in almost every area in which this government has responsibility. Yet always the answer that the opposition has been given has been: "We have taken action; let us wait and see"; or, "We will take action tomorrow;" or "A royal commission is to be set up to study the problem."
The role of the opposition in Canada has been questioned by some during the past several months. The role of the parliamentary opposition is to warn of what may take place in the country, to warn of what may take

DEBATES	September 27. 1967
place in housing, agriculture or international affairs. This government was warned of what would happen. The former minister of agriculture, who is not here today-


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Edward Nasserden: He is where he should be today.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Edward Nasserden: Explaining to the farmers of Saskatchewan some of the shortcomings of the administration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: -of the administration that sits on the government side. I want the Prime Minister to consider what I am about to say. The Canadian Wheat Board should be under the Minister of Agriculture. This is where it was when we formed the government. Today's announcement does not take into consideration the welfare of our grain producers. This policy is a makeshift; if the board were under the Minister of Agriculture we could hold him responsible. As it is, the Minister of Trade and Commerce can say: "Agriculture is under the Minister of Agriculture and I cannot answer for him." So, we can have this buck passing between ministers.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce would not do that, I know. He does not like the idea that the Minister of Agriculture can do anything in a better way than he can, but that is an aside.
As I said, the Canadian Wheat Board should be under the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce could have met United States authorities at any time since June, discussed these matters, and protected not only Canadian producers but also the integrity of the international wheat agreement. The producers of western Canada fought for this agreement over the years. They cherish it and it is something they will defend with their last vote and their last dollar. Members of the government should remember that. When the government say, "We had to wait until the price of wheat went below the floor" is to admit that this problem did not get the consideration it deserved. That made me really disappointed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have a high regard for him; I thought he was coming along fine. In fact, I
September 27, 1967

was looking forward to the day when he might be the leader of his party.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: If he thinks that the government's action will enhance his reputation, he had better think again. I say that in all sincerity. The producers in western Canada will not be fooled. They will know that the government acted only because of the general election presently being fought in Saskatchewan. They will know that the government acted in this way only because they were unable to secure the co-operation and understanding of United States officials. And that, my friends, is very serious; it means that the ministry has been unable to come to terms in this regard with the administration in Washington.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I can only hope that the minister's optimism will be justified and that the price of wheat will recover. If I understood him rightly, the hon. gentleman referred to the law of supply and demand and indicated that price was a decisive factor in the movement of grain. Those who are producing grain not only in Canada but elsewhere in the world know that one of the reasons for establishing an international wheat agreement in the first place was a realization that price has very little to do with the movement of grain; there are other factors which enter into it, the urgency of the need, for example, or the availability of funds to finance sales. This is why the wheat agreement was negotiated with China on a credit basis resulting in the movement of wheat which had been piling up for years on the farms, in elevators and at terminals under the former Liberal administration.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the minister for the action the government has taken. It will reassure farmers that some kind of floor under the price is being provided. But it represents far less of an assurance than the farmers might expect from the government at this time. We can only hope that the minister's optimism is justified and that he will not lessen his efforts to influence the United States authorities in connection with their sales program.


Lawrence E. Watson: In the few minutes at my disposal I do not intend to deal as fully with this subject as I had planned. I wish to say that my hon. friend from Bow

Supply-Trade and Commerce River and my hon. friend from Rosthern have given forcible expression to the feelings and thoughts of the farmers of western Canada and I simply add that I agree wholeheartedly with the statements they have made.
I wish, also, to tell the minister that we in western Canada do appreciate the statement he made this afternoon. It reminds me of the story about the boy putting his finger in the whole in the dam. That is exactly what has taken place in this case. The dam has begun to leak. The government has seen the problem and this is a stop-gap measure. The farmers of western Canada believe they are encountering one of the most serious problems they have faced for many years. They are concerned about the market situation and the events which have led to the recent drop in wheat prices. They are concerned, too, about the price of wheat, though this has been taken care of temporarily. I wish to refer briefly to the transport situation as far as grain is concerned as well as to the urgent need for finding markets for that grain. We all know that the farmers of western Canada have all along been carrying the burden of current wheat prices entirely on their backs. They feel they have been battling the entire resources of the United States treasury allied with all the other main exporting countries, since up to the present Canada has been the only main producing nation which has declined to subsidize growers. This is our main concern.
I should like to know-and the minister is no doubt in a position to tell us-whether the subsidy mentioned today will apply to all the grain produced and sold in the current year or whether it will apply only in respect of grain which is exported. We in western Canada are very much concerned lest we return to conditions which prevailed between 1953 and 1957 when we saw our stocks of grain pile up on the farms and in the country elevators to the extent of 700 million bushels. It was only through the aggressiveness of the former Conservative government and the minister of agriculture at that time that this situation was changed.
I wish to read an article which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail, a Canadian Press story from Winnipeg. The headline reads: "Wheat Exports Off Sharply". This is the crux of the problem facing Canadian exporters today.
Canadian wheat exports in August showed a sharp decrease from August, 1966, and a substantial decrease from the 10-year average for the month.
September 27, 1987

Increased Interest Rates on Mortgage Loans
Exports of 24.4 million bushels were 39.8 million below the 10-year average, the Board of Grain Commissioners reported yesterday.
Principal markets for August's exports, with comparable 1966 figures in brackets-Britain five million (five million); the Soviet Union three million (8.9 million); Belgium and Luxembourg 2.6 million (2.9 million); Italy 1.9 million (1.5 million); Japan 1.8 million (6.9 million).
This is what farmers are concerned about. Why has there been such a rapid decline this year? Is the minister doing all he can, along with other members of the government, to maintain our markets or is he sitting back and letting the great country to the south, the United States, which has been subsidizing its farmers all along, continue to undersell us at the expense of the Canadian producer?
The last report of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool estimates that 320 million bushels of wheat will be produced in western Canada in the current year including 17 million bushels of durum. In addition it is estimated there will be 50 million bushels of oats produced and 63 million bushels of barley. The total comes, in all, to 433 million bushels according to the figures reported in the Globe and Mail yesterday.
Our farmers realize they have had a strike on their hands in western Canada-the seamen's strike-and that up to the present grain has not been moving. The situation is becoming serious. I feel it is time that every point in western Canada was placed on a one bushel quota and I urge the minister to impress on the wheat board the importance of getting the quota opened up. Farmers and businessmen are complaining bitterly; I need not tell hon. members of this house that the lots of implement dealers are packed with new machinery which they are unable to sell.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Farmers are experiencing the pinch. They need money because their notes are coming due on the combines and tractors they previously bought. They are in dire need of money as quickly as possible.
The farmers have been reasonably content up to the present time, but now there is a great deal of uneasiness among them. The softness in world wheat prices has the farm community aroused. There is widespread fear that the United States is going to embark on another world wheat price war, and we would like the assurance of the minister that this will not take place.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that this situation has come about. The drop

in the price of wheat will not show up until the final payments that the farmers receive in 1969. At the present time, most people in Canada do not realize that the full result of what is taking place will not show until that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. I think this is agreeable to the house leaders.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HOUSING


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 
Michael Starr: You will need to.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: But one thing is obvious, the government must look, and Canada generally must look, to private lending institutions to increase substantially their participation in that part of the housing requirement which traditionally is a commercial lending operation, specifically home owner and rental housing for those who can afford housing on an economic base.
As I have just indicated, the government intends to devote a larger proportion of its resources to the social needs of the lower income groups and to the trouble spots resulting from the fantastic urban growth that has taken place, in order to provide improved living conditions in urban areas.
It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the prime N.H.A. interest rate, that which I have just announced, is the maximum rate. Within the wider spread provided between bond yields and the new N.H.A. rate private lending institutions have the opportunity to initiate lending at rates below the maximum.
Increased Interest Rates on Mortgage Loans


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the minister has had to make the announcement which we have just heard. It is a sad story for all the hopeful who thought the government has some concern about their plight, especially those citizens who are looking for proper shelter. The cost of rental housing is getting beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen and we can only look with despair to the immediate future. This new addition to costs by the increase in the interest rate charged on loans will simply inflict a greater degree of suffering on those who are experiencing the acute crisis in housing.
This increase in the interest rate is just more conclusive proof of the government's determined refusal, since assuming office, to look ahead and adopt those measures which could sidetrack the influences which obstruct the path to a stable economy.
The government simply would not face up to the fiscal and economic crises of the day. It would not adopt the fiscal measures needed to combat inflation and rising prices, rises which have made an excessive demand on wages and led to imminent unemployment. The government has left it to the governor of the Bank of Canada to make the move because it did not have the gumption to do so. This is all strictly as a result of the announcement made by the Bank of Canada yesterday. It is due to the fact that the government did not face up to its responsibility of changing its fiscal measures and policies. They have left it to the Bank of Canada to come to the rescue of the Canadian economy. We have foreseen the further implications in this announcement. I hope that during the debate tomorrow we will be able to delve further into certain consequences of the increase in the interest rate.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) is an admission of the complete and utter bankruptcy of this government so far as housing policy is concerned. As a solution to the housing problem, the words that have been given to us today are just so much eyewash. We feel that what is needed is a direct approach to the problem of housing. When I say a direct approach I have two things in particular in mind. We in the New Democratic party believe we will have to get away from private lending institutions for the
September 27, 1967
2578	COMMONS
Increased Interest Rates on Mortgage Loans building of houses and will have to concentrate on the making of direct loans. Reference has been made to the Bank of Canada. We will have to make more use of the Bank of Canada for direct loans.
When I urge that we come at this problem directly, my other point is-and I think the Economic Council in its fourth report said something to this effect-that housing should not be just a pawn we play with when fiddling with economics but that it should be a concern in its own right and a major concern of government and parliamentary policy, not something to be played with as this government is doing.
The suggestion that the maximum rate under N.H.A. loans be raised to 8i per cent as a means of solving this problem is a suggestion which is ridiculous coming from anyone, and especially from a responsible minister of the crown. I noted the way the minister said that the government in effect is getting out of the business of helping individuals with homes so that it could put more money into other important social areas. It was this that brought the word "eyewash" to my mind. If this government were doing anything significant in the field of public housing, housing for the elderly, for students and in the field of urban renewal, then the suggestion might have some meaning.
We have not had an opportunity, for this brief statement, to get hold of the statistics, but everyone knows the statistics indicate that precious little is being done by the government in these important social areas about which the Minister of Labour now speaks. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the worsening we have seen in the last year or two so far as housing is concerned will be accelerated by this proposition. With this figure of 8i per cent we will add to the burden in respect of getting houses built for our people. The building of houses is not just something that should be carried on for the purpose of making a profit for private lenders or private builders. Housing is not just something to be played with in an effort to adjust the various factors in our economy. Housing is one of the most basic essentials for people anywhere and one of the most basic essentials of this modern kind of society in which we live.

I call upon this government to stop playing with this problem and come directly to the whole problem. As the minister has said, a great deal more will be said about this tomorrow by him, I hope, and by members of this group, but I want to say tonight that we regard this statement as very disappointing. We did not think that even this government would go that far. We say this is the kind of thing which will rob this government of any confidence it ever had on the part of the Canadian people.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I should like to say two things about the minister's announcement. First of all, 8!, per cent interest is a grievous rate of interest. I hope that we will have an opportunity to work out the mathematics of $12,000 or $15,000 lent or loaned over a space of 15 or 20 years so that we and the public will have a better idea of exactly what it will mean.
What I regret most about the minister's statement is the tendency to confuse cause and effect to some extent and to blame the situation on the rush toward urbanization, the rush to the cities in Canada. I know this is going on. I know this is a world-wide phenomena and one cannot lay the blame for the whole thing on the government. It seems to me, however, that some of the blame for the acceleration of this problem can be laid on the shoulders of the government because the government has denied N.H.A. lending through placing restrictions on the loans which can be administered in areas which could benefit from it. This applies particularly to the problem of sewage disposal which goes far beyond the wishes and demands of the local health units. The minister knows of what I speak.
I think Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could correct this aspect which accelerates the rush to the city which this afternoon the minister has blamed for the crisis which now confronts him.
At 6.18 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in Committee of Supply this day: ]



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 28, 1967