1967-10-24

EXPO '67 STATEMENT ON FEDERAL APPROACH TO WINDING UP OF EXHIBITION

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question last week I understood that today I would make a statement on the federal government's approach to the winding up of Expo '67, which has proved to be the greatest world exhibition ever held.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: It has been at the same time a great Canadian achievement and a good, sound investment for Canada.
In its approach to the winding up of Expo '67 the federal government has premised its consideration on two major legal obligations by which it is bound. The first of these obligations is in article 3 of the protocol covering world exhibitions held under the auspices of the bureau of international exhibitions. Article 3 reads:
The duration of international exhibitions shall not exceed six months. This period is fixed from the time when the registration of the exhibition takes place, and it may therefore not be prolonged by the bureau except in cases of force majeure resulting from events which occur in the course of preparation for the exhibition, such as fires, floods, social disorders, which have the effect of making it impossible either for the exhibition to open on the date officially fixed or to function normally in the time assigned to its duration. Consideration of a request for prolongation, presented by the country organizing the exhibition is left to the bureau.
The government of Canada, which is a party to this protocol, is thus the government responsible for seeing that the conclusion of Expo, as such, is in full compliance with its provisions.
The second obligation relating to winding up is contained in the act to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation. It is by this act that parliament authorized the government to participate in Expo and section 19(2) of the act, dealing with the terms and conditions of winding up, is as follows:
The corporation shall wind up its affairs and dispose of its assets and liabilities within such time
after the closing of the exhibition and in such manner and subject to such conditions as the governor in council, with the concurrence of the lieutenant governor in council may prescribe.
Pursuant to this provision it has been agreed with the government of the province of Quebec that the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition as such will be wound up at as early a date as is practicable after October 29, 1967.
There are several other factors which have been of major significance in the federal government's approach to winding up. Foremost among these is that the board and management of Expo will use their best endeavours to obtain the maximum realization on salvage and disposal of assets. Provision has been made for this in the master plan.
Another major point governing our attitude is that in the early planning stages of Expo '67 it was agreed among the three governments that the operation of the La Ronde amusement area would be continued for two years after the expiration of Expo, and that this continuation would be on the same financial basis as the participation in Expo itself; that is, in the ratio of 50 per cent federal government, 37J per cent Quebec government and 12J per cent city of Montreal. In addition the city of Montreal undertook to purchase these assets at the end of the two year period at a price to be agreed upon. The federal government stands ready to participate in the continued operation of La Ronde on this basis.
A number of the participating nations have offered their pavilions as gifts. The federal government does not intend to avail itself of any of these offers but will not oppose their being donated to the city of Montreal or any other responsible donees, provided such gifts do not involve the federal government in any financial obligations.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m)
In accordance with the practice of many other nations, as mentioned, the Canadian government will offer the Canadian pavilion to the city of Montreal after its contents have been disposed of to the best advantage. Many of the exhibits and much of the equipment in this pavilion are on loan and must be returned by an agreed date. If the city does
October 24, 1967

Federal Approach to Winding up of Expo not wish to accept the building it will be demolished in accordance with the terms of the contract under which it was erected.
In our discussions to date we have advanced certain proposals which are still under consideration. Cite du Havre, which it will be recalled is the pier area adjacent to Montreal harbour, is now almost entirely federal government property. Accordingly the federal government will offer to purchase from the other parties their interest in the remaining assets situated on Cite du Havre after those structures which are of a temporary nature have been disposed of by Expo '67. In this area are Habitat 67, the administration pavilion, the autostad and other structures. The federal government is preparing a plan for the operation and development of this area.
By the same token the federal government will offer to the city of Montreal and/or the province of Quebec its interest in the assets on the Expo site owned by the city, on financial terms to be negotiated. Specifically this arrangement would apply to lie Notre-Dame and lie Ste-Helene, exclusive of the La Ronde amusement area.
The government of Canada has offered to grant to the city of Montreal a deferment of two years in repaying its share of the net deficit of Expo; that is, 12J per cent of the total net indebtedness. This will assist the city to carry out any plans it might have for the site. Discussions are continuing with the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal toward the working out of details in accordance with the foregoing principles.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Expo '67 will prove to be, among many other celebrations, the outstanding event of the centennial of the Canadian confederation. That tremendous undertaking, unequalled in the whole world, has given Canada an international and world stature.
People all over the world have become aware of the important role that our country can play, not as a military power ambitious to extend its supremacy over other continents, but as a peaceable nation seeking to promote among mankind a spirit of human solidarity based on Christianity. That is why it would be unfortunate if nothing remained of that achievement which has practically become the philosopher's stone of a human character in the twentieth century.

We must render unto Ceasars what is Cea-sar's, Mr. Speaker. It would be unseemly on this occasion not to pay tribute to all those who have contributed in one way or another to this unprecedented achievement. Politics aside, we must recognize that the Conservative government had the right vision when as early as 1961, they undertook representations before the Bureau of International Exhibitions in Paris so that Expo planned for 1967 would be held in Canada.
The late Senator Marc Drouin was one of the first and most ardent advocates of this undertaking. Through the spontaneous cooperation of the authorities in Quebec, in the city of Montreal, of businessmen, public men and the population as a whole, Expo '67 met with phenomenal success.
I think it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that the parliament of Canada express today their gratitude to the millions of foreign visitors who came to see us during Expo '67.
Mr. Speaker, in his statement, the minister gave a general outline of views we were acquainted with or that could be surmised, but I am somewhat surprised that the government have not taken this opportunity to bring down some suggestions as to the possible use of such constructions, buildings, of this incomparable centre of Expo.
Many possibilities have been suggested by all kinds of corporations, public bodies, intermediate bodies, as to the use that might be made of this site and of existing pavilions.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister has not mentioned any possibility except a few vague suggestions. For instance, on page 3 of his statement, the minister says that the government intends to share in maintening the operation of La Ronde, but he does not say how the government intends to deal with this question. Would it be in co-operation with the city of Montreal, with the provincial governments? How does the present government intend to help maintain this site? We do not know. And yet, the minister had a great opportunity to make known the views of the government in this matter.
The minister also says on page 4 of his statement that the federal government is preparing a plan of operation and development for Habitat 67, for the administration pavilion, for the Autostade, and for other buildings.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, many people are concerned over his vague position, if any, taken by the government authorities and
October 24, 1967

what plans the federal government intends to bring down on the use of the site which the minister mentioned in his statement.
Mr. Speaker, we of the opposition always have to make suggestions to the present government so as to bring about solutions.
Well, I take this opportunity to make a suggestion to the hon. minister. I think, for instance, that the possibility should be discussed of allowing foreign countries, exhibit-tors and participants to maintain their pavilions and finance maintenance costs, according to previous agreement, so as to hold annual exhibitions of their products. In that way, Canada would have no financial burden as each country would pay for its own administration and maintenance costs. We could continue to operate the international relations centre which lie Ste-Helene, La Ronde and lie Notre-Dame have become.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there is another possibility the government could have considered, that is transforming lie Notre-Dame into a vast university campus, as has already been suggested, or into a medical research centre by building a university hospital through a federal-provincial agreement.
Industry also have been invited to set up industrial research centres, to study air pollution, water pollution or similar projects.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to make another suggestion to the government, as no constructive suggestion has been offered by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I know that the matter on which he is now commenting is very important, but I have to remind him of a provision of standing orders to the effect that the remarks of a member of the opposition must be brief.


Georges-J. Valade: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention the case, and I had to take a little time before my remarks to emphasize the importance of the project and call the attention of parliament to this important event.
I should like to conclude my remarks by asking the minister whether he intends to request the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation to submit a report of its operations to the house, and then to refer it to a committee of the house for consideration of the operations of the world exhibition.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, with all due reservation and without alluding in any way to mismanagement or anything of the kind. I 27053-216
DEBATES	3417
Federal Approach to Winding up of Expo merely feel that parliament should be invited to examine the report on the operations and expenditures of this world exhibition.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Canadians are justifiably proud of the tremendous success which has attended Expo '67. If there are any Canadians who have an inferiority complex about living close to the most technologically advanced nation in the world I am sure such a feeling has been dissipated by the success of Expo '67 and the general success of our centennial celebrations in Canada this year.
One evening while flying from Montreal it was my privilege to sit beside an American who had spent most of his adult life in the entertainment field and who has visited every world fair in the past 30 years or more. He told me as his considered judgment that this was the finest world fair he has ever seen or ever expected to see. I think that is a very fine compliment to the people of Canada. I noticed that in the address which was given yesterday by Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, he pointed out that the Canadian fair with its very high quality compared favourably with his own country's world fair in New York, which he felt had been spoiled to a great extent by a high degree of commercialism.
I hope the Canadian people feel, as I am sure all members of this house feel, that we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who are responsible for the success of this project. I should like to extend on behalf of this party my congratulations to the minister, to those in the three levels of government who have devoted so much time and energy to this project, to the members of the board of the corporation and to all the staff and personnel who have made it possible for Canada to show the world what we can do when we set our minds to it as a united and determined people.
I do not intend to take any time now to make any suggestions with regard to the use which might be made of the various buildings. I hope the government is giving thought to this. Some suggestion has been made about making a part of the site a centre for international studies and a number of other worthwhile projects. I hope that at an early date the minister will tell us whether the government has any plans in this regard. I think it is sufficient at this time to say to the government, well done; the Canadian people are
October 24, 1967
3418	COMMONS
Federal Approach to Winding up of Expo proud of what you have been able to accomplish in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like, if I may, to congratulate the hon. minister of commerce (Mr. Winters) on his speech. The members of the Ralliement Creditiste on this side of the house are very proud of the results of Expo '67, a Canadian achievement, held in Montreal.
First, we should like to congratulate the promoters of Expo. X am always sorry when someone tries to make a partisan issue out of this and I want to mention that these promoters are great men, and that they have received the support of all Canadians from coast to coast.
I think Expo owes its great success to the good work and co-operation of the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. This success can be attributed to the co-operation of all Canadians from coast to coast. As far as the federal functions are concerned, I think that the minister made a very good point in saying that the government fulfilled its obligations to Expo.
Since the exhibition corporation will wind up its operations at the end of October, I am convinced that a report on the corporation will be presented to the house because it is always interesting for an associate, like the government, to have an idea of what took place during those six months, and I have no doubt that the minister will think it his duty to present the final report on Expo.
We are very pleased to hear the minister say that the government will participate for two more years in the operation of La Ronde. It means that for two more years direct help will be given to the metropolis. We are not jealous of Montreal because the authorities of that city acted in this way, but the people in remote areas have given up practically everything for six months, a year, two years for the success of Expo. It goes without saying that when Expo is over, the authorities of Montreal will have to think of something else. If suggestions are to be made, I feel that they should not come from the federal government which was only a collaborator but from the nerve centre, that is to say the Montreal authorities. They are the ones that should make suggestions to the federal and provincial governments.
Once again, I congratulate all those who
made Expo possible.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we join in the expression of appreciation to all those who carried through the plans for this great project in such a commendable manner. Our only regret is that many of us and many Canadians generally have not been able to avail ourselves of the opportunity to spend a longer period of time at Expo. Nevertheless we did find time to visit the site on several occasions, and feel that the whole project has been a real success from every point of view.
While I realize there will be a great deal of concern about the final disposition of the assets, including the buildings, after listening to the ministers' statement this afternoon we are assured that the interests of the Canadian people will be preserved.



TABLING OF LETTER RESPECTING RESTRAINTS ON JAPANESE EXPORTS TO CANADA

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of a letter dated October 17 from the Japanese charge d'affairs, informing me of the restraints which the Japanese government is applying on the export of certain products to Canada during 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, would it be agreeable that this letter in respect of restraints be printed in Hansard or Votes and Proceedings'!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I intended to suggest that with the agreement of hon. members the letter from the charge d'affairs be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these restraints are being applied by the Japanese government following consultations which began some months ago between representatives of the Japanese and Canadian governments. The restraint levels which Japan is applying in 1967 provide generally for orderly increases in exports over the 1966 levels.
October 24, 1987

A year ago, in announcing the arrangements for 1966, I mentioned that officials were conducting a thorough study of the Canadian market for man made fibre fabrics. Following this review it was concluded that Canadian producers of certain of these products were experiencing serious difficulties which to a substantial degree were the result of increased imports from Japan.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am now able to report to the house that there have been intensive and detailed discussions during the past several weeks between Canadian and Japanese representatives on these matters. The position and prospects of Canadian producers of these products and the levels and prices of Japanese exports to Canada of these products have been examined. As a result of these discussions we have concluded that it is now unlikely that Japanese exports of these goods in 1967 will exceed the levels attained in 1966. Further consultations with the Japanese authorities will be held as necessary.
Reverting finally to the present system of restraints, I should like to draw the attention of the house to an important point which is not mentioned in the charge d'affaires' letter. This is that this year we have found it possible to free seven products from restraint. These products are spun rayon trousers, spun rayon and synthetic innerwear, spun rayon and synthetic ribbons, cotton knitted shirts, other cotton knitted garments, bedspreads and polyester buttons. I am sure hon. members will agree that this substantial reduction in the scope of the export restraint system is a constructive further step toward the orderly expansion of two-way trade between Canada and Japan.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure all members of the house have been interested in listening to the minister's statement regarding Japanese imports into this country. This question first arose when the Conservative government was in office and I, as the minister responsible, had the job of dealing with it. The matter was worked out in the same manner as described in the minister's statement and the letter of the Japanese charge d'affaires. It solved a very difficult question at that time, and what has happened in the years since has proved it was worth while.
I feel sure the arrangement which has been outlined by the minister will work out equally well in the future. I have not had time, naturally, to discuss the particular
3419
Tabling of Letter on Japanese Exports items concerned with the industries involved. I intend to do this. In the meantime, from what I can see it appears that the arrangement which has been outlined by the minister should make it possible to continue our trade relations with Japan in a very satisfactory manner indeed.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, while I am sure the minister's announcement will be greeted with great satisfaction in certain quarters in Canada, I think we must view the announcement and the agreement it conveys with a certain measure of misgiving because it indicates, of course, some rather serious shortcomings in our economy.
I know the ability of the Japanese to export goods to Canada and compete successfully, and perhaps somewhat disastrously from our point of view, with Canadian products is very often attributed to the very much lower wages paid in Japan. However, studies have been made which indicate that the higher productivity per man hour in Canada to a large extent offsets this factor. I hope the government will consider this agreement as a stop-gap until they can engage in the restructuring and reorganization of Canadian industry which we on this side of the house have been urging for a long time now.
I notice that among the commodities included in this statement is steelware, stainless steel tableware, flatware. As much of the iron ore from which this tableware is manufactured is produced in my own province, in fact very close to where I live on Vancouver island, again this raises the question of the government's responsibility to take the initiative to establish the necessary secondary industries which would use our iron ore and thus control the import of goods in a more logical way by competing with producers in other parts of the world.
I think this agreement is indeed a stopgap. I also think we should regard it as a warning that our Canadian economy needs drastic revision and reorganization if we are to compete successfully in world markets and in our own market.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, on October 12 the hon. member for Peace River asked me whether the government would give consideration to updating
3420	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the material in the white paper on capital punishment. I now ask leave to table in English and in French the material which we have been able to update. I also request that this material be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings tor the convenience of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like the consent of the house to table copies in English and in French of the annual review of the external aid office for the fiscal period 1966-67.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in English and in French copies of a survey prepared by the Canadian Corrections Association entitled "Indians and the Law."


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. A. Byrne (for Mr. Macaluso) moved: that the fourth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, presented to the house on Friday, October 20, 1967, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-170, to amend

DEBATES	October 24, 1967
the Visiting Forces (North Atlantic Treaty) Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent American draft dodgers from finding a haven in Canada and thereby exempting themselves from United States military service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the mounting financial difficulties facing the government and the country, is the minister going to present another budget before the end of the year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if a decision to that effect is taken it will be announced in due course.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in fact considering presenting another budget during this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is always considering what would be in the public interest. This is one of the things that is being considered.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare following the recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council which points out that the economic climate in that area has deteriorated in the past 12 months and that there is considerable confusion as between the various federal and provincial agencies which are seeking to develop the area.
May I ask the minister whether he intends to take any steps to bring together the various federal and provincial agencies that are planning the economic development of the
October 24, 1967

Atlantic area, with a view to working out common objectives and a co-ordinated policy.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine the report to which my hon. friend refers before I make any comment.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
The hon. minister recently told us of his intention to call a national conference with a view to obtain suggestions on how to curb inflationary trends. Does he intend to indicate soon on what date this conference will be held, and can he tell us if his invitation will be extended to provincial and municipal officials?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I made the suggestion referred to by the hon. member, but the government is giving consideration to calling in the provinces for consultations on the financial situation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister has recently assured all of us that a cessation of the United States bombings of North Viet Nam would almost certainly bring about peace talks, can he now state his position in this regard in the light of the report that North Viet Nam has ruled out any possibility of negotiations before the United States presidential election next November and, to quote a highly qualified communist diplomatic source as reported in today's Gazette, "President Ho Chi Minh would not come to the conference table now, even if the United States unconditionally stopped bombing"?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I say that if the bombing were stopped
Inquiries of the Ministry this would certainly bring about peace talks, I said that if the bombing were stopped this would create a new situation and would put North Viet Nam in a position where it would have to respond positively to the initiative taken by the United States.
With regard to the stories in the morning paper to which my hon. friend addressed himself, I have no comment to make.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he be prepared to make a full statement on motions, if necessary, dealing with the serious depletion of the export market for wheat which is causing financial hardship to all farmers in western Canada, and inform the house what steps the government intends to take to regain those markets?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I assume the hon. member is not asking the minister to make
this statement now?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, Mr. Speaker, and I will
rephrase my question. Would the minister be prepared, not today but some time soon, to say on motions what steps the government intends to take at this time to regain the export markets that are being lost, causing financial hardship to all farmers in western Canada?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, of course this subject has been discussed recently in the house and debated fully. I am always very happy to inform hon. members to the best of my ability, but I think the most appropriate occasion to do so in this case would be on the next supply motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, related to a question I asked the minister the other day, namely whether he would table the international grains agreement. He said he would look into the matter and would indicate in a day or two whether he would be prepared to table it. Can he tell us now whether this document will be tabled?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to proceed any further on that matter, but I will do so and will report at an early date.
October 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does his statement that the wheat problem should be made the subject of a supply motion indicate that he lacks confidence in the government's policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the air to air missile known as the Sparrow which was to have been used on the CF-105 aircraft now been chosen as the air defence armament for the four new destroyer escorts which it was announced some two years ago were to be built?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this particular missile was adopted. The story to which my hon. friend is referring pertains to a firing system which must be developed in Canada in order that a Dutch control system for an American missile may be used. We are trying to develop the firing system in Canada and the appropriation of $7 million was for that purpose.


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Would he tell us whether the American missile he referred to is a modification of the Sparrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is in order at this time.



POSSIBILITY OP JOINING SOUTH AMERICAN NUCLEAR-FREE TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Latin American nuclear-free zone treaty would ban nuclear weapons from two thirds of the western hemisphere, and in view of the fact that the NORAD agreement is up for renegotiation at this time, has the government considered the possibility of joining the South and Central American nuclear-free zone as a positive step toward nuclear disarmament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question is much too general in scope and should not be asked at this time.



EXPO '67 POSSIBLE REQUEST BY QUEBEC FOR USE OF SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafoniaine):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister for Trade and Commerce in a position to tell us whether the Quebec government has made any suggestion or request as to the artistic, educational or scientific use of the Expo site?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, our co-operation in this field with the government of Quebec has been very close. I think they feel motivated, as we do, by the fact that we signed the protocol providing for the winding up of Expo, and any initiative in that regard would be apt to come from the city of Montreal.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, whom I welcome back to this house and who I hope enjoys good health. Now that the provincial elections are behind us and the minister may find it possible to convene the premiers some time in January to discuss the housing crisis in Canada, would he consider reconvening the committee on housing, urban development and public works in order that we may hear professional evidence from the housing associations as well as the financial institutions, thus gathering information which could be useful at the meeting in January which the minister proposes?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for his words of welcome. I am enjoying good health, thank you, benefited, in my opinion, by my absence from the house for the past ten days or so.
With reference to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member, may I say that the work of a committee of this house is the responsibility of the chairman and his committee. I will be very glad to discuss the suggestion made by the hon. member with the chairman, after discussing it with the Prime Minister and my other cabinet colleagues and learning their views.
October 24, 1967


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to see the house leader left out of this consultation. May I therefore ask him whether he would be interested in trying to convene the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his suggestion.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the order of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Fisheries, but first, I must confess that I find it hard not to congratulate him on having won his elections yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mongrain:: My question is motivated by a report printed in the great French magazine Paris-Match, under the title: "Have mercy on baby seals." Here is my question: Has the minister received recently any representations from other sources regarding baby seal hunting and does he intend to renew his efforts to put an end once and for all to these false reports which are extremely damaging to the good name of Canada?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I should like, in the first place, to thank the hon. member for his congratulations which normally should be directed to another Robichaud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Robichaud:: In reply to the question of the hon. member, I must advise him that the article published in the said magazine has been drawn to my attention on various occasions;
I have made public the action taken by my department, in order to control seal hunting operations on the St. Lawrence river and in the areas east of the Newfoundland shore.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that exaggerated and quite often untrue statements of certain representatives of the Humane Society have done irreparable damage to that industry and today some human beings are suffering from the harmful effects of that false publicity.
May I also add, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of this month, a meeting took place in Hamburg, with the representatives of Norway and Denmark, and I hope to be

Inquiries of the Ministry able to announce in the near future the additional measures which we intend to introduce to further control those hunting operations.
We have been assured by the countries concerned of their fullest co-operation.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Does the minister intend to have someone to reply directly to the magazine Paris-Match which has an enormous circulation in the world?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this suggestion into consideration.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries.
Is he aware of the fact that, in Paris and in some European cities, some advertising is circulated to the effect that Canadian seals are not sold? What does he intend to do in that regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In its present form, I do not think that the hon. member's question is in order.



REPLY TO PROTEST RESPECTING PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government received from the government of the United States a reply to the note sent to that government last week protesting the possible application of import quotas against Canadian goods affected by Kennedy round tariff reductions, and has the United States government indicated its realization that Canada will not stand for the application of such import quotas?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade
and Commerce):	Mr. Speaker, we have
received a reaction through diplomatic circles, but there has been no written reply and I am not aware we expected one. However, there is every indication that the government of the United States is taking our representations quite seriously.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his protest on behalf of the government, did
Ociober 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry he also protest to the United States government with regard to the United States dumping wheat in Canadian markets such as Japan, and has he received any reply in this connection?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether that is a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, it is all part of the discussion of the Kennedy round. The minister appreciated that and was about to answer.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I regret I have not given him notice but I know this subject is very much in his mind. Is the security council of the United Nations giving consideration to the grave incident in which an Israeli destroyer was sunk by Egyptian action, and are there any proposals for international action to prevent the repetition of incidents like this which might lead to a fresh outbreak of war in the Middle East?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the fighting in the Suez area has stopped as the result of a suggestion by the United Nations truce and supervisory organization that there be a cease fire. The Canadian position has been that a representative of the Secretary General should be appointed by the security council to act as a communications link between the parties. This is the minimum action that should be taken to meet the situation in the Middle East, and the Canadian delegation is working toward this end.
It has been suggested that before this appointment can be agreed to there will have to be an agreement by Israel to withdraw its forces beyond the present areas of occupation. In response to this, and I think rightly, Israel takes the position that there should be a declaration that the other side will forgo its state of belligerency. Until these two statements of principle are agreed to, I am afraid I cannot report that progress in these negotiations is taking place. However, we will persist in the view that the least that should be done is that a representative of the Secretary General be appointed in the absence of direct negotiations to try to bring the parties together.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now that no less an authority than the Toronto Globe and Mail has anointed him as the authentic voice in the federal government of business big and small, and has assured us that he is uneasy and sharply critical of overspending by government, can the minister assure the house that he will do all in his power to restrain the wasteful and extravagant expenditures that are being planned by his colleagues in cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
Has the minister received a telegram from the chief of the Pointe-Bleue band advising him that his department's projected works, approved by the government have not yet started? If so, could he tell us why?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be put on the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister promised that this week he would tell me about the C.B.C. station in Saskatoon. Since I know he has had an opportunity to discuss it with his colleagues I wonder whether he can tell me now.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member asked me about this matter yesterday as well; if it was not yesterday it was on Friday. I requested mercy then and he gave me mercy, and I hope he will give me another couple of days. We have been discussing it this morning.
October 24, 1967



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government received a request from the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture asking for a floor price for turkeys?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PILOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister is in a position today to reply to a question that he took as notice a week ago, asking whether he can tell us the present status of the long awaited report of the pilotage commission.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the first volume containing the principal recommendations of the royal commission on pilotage is expected to be available by the end of the year, and subsequent volumes containing additional recommendations will follow next year.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that several senior officers of the South Viet Nam navy are in Ottawa, is the government discussing with them the question of technical assistance or other forms of aid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question; I did not know they were here.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting house leader. Considering that two 27053-217
Inquiries of the Ministry elections have been held since the Canada Elections Act was substantially amended and updated, can the minister advise whether it is intended to have the act referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections this session?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to give the suggestion of the hon. member serious consideration.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question I asked him on October 11 regarding removal of the arbitration clause from tenders for ships submitted to his department?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think so. Treasury Board has decided that until such time as a firm policy pertaining to arbitration in connection with all government contracts is established between the government, the Canadian Construction Association and the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, use of arbitration clauses should be discontinued.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that in the tenders called for the new D.D.H.'s this clause is included? The minister used to be head of the department; is he aware that this clause is included in those tenders?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I apologize for not giving him notice.
In view of the fact that our colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) left yesterday on a trip to France, could the minister inform the house whether this tour has been organized by the French embassy, by the Department of External Affairs or by some theatrical agents from Pigalle?
October 24, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On Wednesday, October 11, 1967 I directed a question to the Prime Minister, and as reported at page 2984 of Hansard the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would wait until the minister comes back.
I now direct the question to the minister and ask him whether the government is considering reversing its announced policy and allowing the shack tents and portable cabins to remain at Waskesiu in the Prince Albert national park.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps when the question was asked in the first instance I might have suggested to the hon. member that it be placed on the order paper; it is possible that it would have been answered by now. I doubt whether this is the type of question which can be asked on orders of the day.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and is provoked by my fear that the grand little ship Grande Hermine may be trapped in the ice at La Ronde. Can the minister assure me that the ship will be removed and perhaps placed in the bay of Gaspe this fall?


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


James Russell Keays: I wish to discuss it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the rejection by certain important segments of organized labour and private business of


the call by the minister for voluntary restraints or guide lines in respect of wage demands, prices and spending, has the minister further suggestions to make to the house and country about his intention to combat inflation and the crushing level of the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is much too general in scope and cannot be asked at this time.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of a television report last evening I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a telegram from the prime minister of British Columbia with respect to wage-price controls. If so, has the Prime Minister replied to that telegram yet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question; no, in answer to the second part. It has not yet been answered.



OFFER OF CO-OPERATION BY ATLANTIC PROVINCES ECONOMIC COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to the offer of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council to make its services available in any capacity which will help to work out, in co-operation with the federal government and the provinces, policies and programs that will be helpful to the Atlantic region?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. We shall be glad to co-operate with them in these matters, and we welcome their suggestions.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my question yesterday bewildered the Prime Minister a bit. May I ask part of it again but in a different way. In view of the fact that a joint committee of both houses some months ago recommended divorce reform, and in view of the government having proposed that reform in the speech from the throne, when does the government expect this legislation to be on the order paper?
October 24, 1967	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be on the order paper very soon, I hope, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry it is not on yet.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will optometrists be included in the teams which are to be set up under the health resources fund, as recently announced by the minister, to ease the acute manpower situation in health care fields?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, I missed the first part of the question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I asked if optometrists would be included in the teams that the minister has announced are to be set up under the health resources fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should place that question on the order paper.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring my question to the attention of the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. On November 25, 1966, as reported on page 10345 of Hansard the hon. member for Kootenay West asked whether the minister had received any complaints of grave injustices suffered by some members of The 3 Cee's Association, Vancouver-Victoria island division. Can the minister advise the house whether that question has been looked into at this time?
I also wish to ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the minister could answer it tomorrow. Has the government considered appointing a committee to investigate the administration of the association and to ensure that members of the association are heard at meetings?


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult for the Chair to recall whether the question was accepted in 27053-2171
DEBATES	3427
Inquiries of the Ministry the first instance. If it was, then I assume that in due course the minister will wish to answer it. If it was not, the question ought to be placed on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask a supplementary question in the minister's absence. If the minister does not see fit to appoint a board or committee, would he consider inviting the representatives of this organization to make representations to the standing committee on veterans affairs?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I shall be glad to bring this subject to the attention of the minister.



EXPO '67

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO USE OF FORGED PASSPORTS On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any evidence showing that forged passports were used at Expo?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, no direct evidence has come to my attention.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister look into this matter?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be happy to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder how urgent
this question is.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a communication from lodge 419 of the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees in regard to large lay-offs of their membership by the Canadian Pacific? These lay-offs are alleged to have been brought about by a decline or recession in business. Would the minister look into the matter and make a statement in the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
October 24, 1967
3428	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources AIR TRANSPORT



GRANT TO TRANSAIR COMPANY OF CHARTER RIGHTS IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. B. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Does the granting of new charter rights into the United States to TransAir of Winnipeg indicate a change or readjustment in the terms of the present bilateral air agreement between Canada and the United States?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, since certain categories of people are speculating about whether they are to be included under the Unemployment Insurance Act, will the minister advise the house when he expects to have the bill amending that act on the order paper?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under study. I cannot give a definite answer today. It is an item on our priority list. I thought I had assured the house that no extension of classes of coverage is contemplated in the proposal that I hope to lay before the house later this year.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Does this mean that the government has no intention of including teachers under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that question some weeks ago. Even if the trend toward universality should continue the teaching profession would be pretty well down on any such list. For that reason the answer to the question is no.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

The house resumed, from Monday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hamilton (p. 3378) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas (p. 3383).



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at ten o'clock last night I had been dealing with the activities of the federal government in the field of pollution control as revealed by answers which had been furnished to questions that were placed on the order paper in March, 1966. I had said that we ought to know whether there has been a change in the situation that was revealed to exist at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would hon. members kindly continue their conversations outside the chamber. It is difficult for interested members to follow the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggested that the government's answers revealed that the activities of its various departments and agencies were miniscule, scattered and fragmented.
In this connection I wish to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 3, 1965. It referred to the recent federal government budget and to the fact that the government had provided for tax incentives to industry in relation to the control of the pollution of our lakes and rivers but had not provided for anything with respect to the discharge of gases into the air. The editorial reads:
At a recent conference on air pollution in Toronto, a businessman was reported to have said privately that "we need a kick in the pants." He admitted he could do more to eliminate the discharge of gases and dust into the atmosphere, but his competitors were not doing so and he did not feel inclined to prejudice his share of the market by increasing production costs when he did not have to.
This is an appalling admission. The authorities- federal, provincial and/or municipal-should establish proper standards and insist that they are maintained. They should be empowered to enforce severe penalties against offenders. The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers will be holding a conference next fall on pollution in all environments-water, air and soil. It is to be hoped that they will recommend vigorous action immediately.
I had occasion to draw this editorial to the attention of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), who was then minister of finance, and remind him of a contention I had earlier advanced during the debate on the budget that the federal government should offer the same incentives to reduce air pollution as were being offered to reduce water pollution even though, as I indicated at the time, the administration was making only a very minor effort in that field.
October 24, 1967

The editorial refers to the conference on pollution which was held in Montreal under the auspices of the council of resource ministers about a year ago. As I have mentioned previously in the house, I took advantage of the opportunity which was afforded me to attend that conference. As I have stated publicly on a number of occasions, I found it to be a most exciting event because of the wide variety of people	attending-scientific
experts, government officials at various levels, representatives of interested organizations, and so on. A stimulating exchange of ideas took place and I was hopeful that some definite action would result.
I did recognize, however, as I said on November 17, 1966, when I spoke in the house on pollution and the conference, that one could not expect the influence of the conference to be apparent immediately. Along with others in the house who have a particular interest in this subject, I think I may say I have been somewhat reticent in pressing this matter upon the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) who is the federal member of the Council of Resource Ministers. We recognize that the situation is a complex one which requires careful study and analysis before the government of Canada can be expected to bring forward concrete proposals for consideration by the house. Nevertheless, I think a year is more than enough time in which to have made a definite statement concerning the direction in which the federal government is prepared to move. We are still awaiting a statement of this kind. We did not get one yesterday when questions were raised in the house in the wake of a television program, though we had the right to expect this kind of information from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I should like to refer now to a question which was asked on February 24, 1967. It was directed to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) and is reported in Hansard at page 13431 as follows:


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his statement yesterday in Toronto that legislation concerning water and air pollution will be brought before the house this year, can he indicate when it may he put on the order paper?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I said I hoped a lot of the things I mentioned would be decided during the year.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he expects it to be this session or the following session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should think it would have to be in the autumn.
Policy Statement on National Resources
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of October. I do not know what people in the Prime Minister's part of Canada consider the autumn season to be, but in my view the autumn season is practically over. Despite this, the Prime Minister gave an answer yesterday which offered no indication that legislation would be placed on the order paper this session, no indication of the kind of legislation the government might wish to bring down. He simply said that this was the kind of thing which would have to be considered. That is simply not good enough.
When I spoke last November I put forward some of my own conclusions arising out of my observations during the conference. I said there seemed to be general recognition that the federal government had jurisdiction in certain aspects of this field and that most people agreed that authority for enforcement measures rested primarily with the provincial governments. Perhaps I can quote from the remarks I made in the house on November 17 of last year as reported in Hansard at page 10021:
There was general agreement, which certainly confirmed the view I have held for quite some time, that the only way in which this problem can be really attacked in a proper manner is if we in this parliament, through the federal government, exercise real leadership and guidance. Only when we can develop a national code and national standards based upon active and continuing research, so that the standards can be continually upgraded as new science and technology are developed, can we make continuing progress in this field which will lead to more uniformity across the entire country, thereby avoiding all the complications in the various fields of industry because of the existence of different standards in different regions or provinces of the country.
So far the government has given us no indication whether it agrees or disagrees with an approach of that kind based on conclusions which, as I said, appeared to be the consensus reached at the conference called to deal with the whole field of water, air and soil pollution.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The extent to which provincial authorities have taken action may be open to question. Reference has already been made to legislation within the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario. In 1966 one of the N.D.P. members of the British Columbia legislature introduced a bill to amend the pollution control act of that province in order to broaden the then very limited powers of the British Columbia pollution control board. These extended powers would have covered water, air and soil pollution. Whether or not the
October 24, 1967
3430	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources introduction of that bill was responsible, during the past session of the British Columbia legislature the provincial government introduced legislation to broaden the pollution board's powers and duties. It may not be a perfect piece of legislation. That is a matter to be debated in the provincial forum, but what I am suggesting is that there are indications that other levels of government, in particular provincial governments, have been taking action in this field in the interval since the conference on pollution was held in Montreal a year ago.
The time is past due when we should have at least a general statement on the policy and intentions of the federal government. We should at least be informed of the direction in which the federal government is prepared to proceed. I am not trying to suggest that within the past year we could have developed a national pollution standards code, based on research, covering all the complex causes of pollution, or that all the research necessary to cope with the problem could have been undertaken. I hope the ministers concerned will not try to misconstrue my remarks in that context because I do know the fight against pollution will be a continuing battle over a period of many years.
However, I believe this house is entitled to know whether the government is prepared to take this matter seriously, whether it has done anything in recent months to bring together and expand the efforts of its various departments and agencies to combat pollution, whether it considers new legislation is required to deal with the problem and, if so, what the general nature of that legislation will be. If the Prime Minister could have given us such a statement yesterday perhaps some of us would be a little less impatient today than we are.
In the light of the events that have taken place since last year's pollution conference I submit, Mr. Speaker, that so far as this house is concerned the subamendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), is well warranted and is one which all thinking members of the house should support.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is by way of an addition to the amendment. It calls upon the government to make a statement declaring its intentions and objectives


generally with respect to the matters mentioned in the amendment and then refers to:
-the need to take immediate steps to cope with air and water pollution, including appropriate national standards and any necessary amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.
It is evident that the amendment and subamendment are very broad in character and that it was impossible yesterday for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) to give a full account with respect to all the aspects covered by them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He did attempt to cover as fully as possible the matters raised in the energy field, but unfortunately he was unable to tell the house of the very significant activity that is taking place in his own department with respect to water control and water pollution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had unlimited time yesterday, as the minister replying to a motion of no confidence, why was it difficult for him to deal with this subject at that time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that the opportunity to use unlimited time ought to be exercised with some restraint even by ministers of the crown. I thought the minister's speech was quite lengthy and covered a great variety of subjects, and if he did not feel he ought to take more time to cover the water policy of his department the fault ought to be attributed to the broadness of the amendment rather than to any lack of desire on his part.
I was surprised that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), who just resumed his seat and who has shown such a great interest in the field of water and air pollution, should have been so unaware of developments that are taking place under the leadership of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Obviously the hon. member has not been receiving the releases from the minister's office outlining the very broad activities currently going on in this field. If he has not been receiving them I think he should arrange to receive them because they are a mine of considerable information on current activities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When did you get them?
October 24, 1967	COMMONS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The minister was kind enough to hand them to me a few moments ago, and I am even more impressed than I was before receiving them by the activities taking place in his department.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister allow a question? Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources send these releases to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), because yesterday he did not seem to know anything about them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Prime Minister has never posed as an authority on this subject like my hon. friend-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He ought to be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and maybe he can be excused, but my hon. friend cannot be excused in this field. There is considerable activity taking place. As recorded in Hansard of April 3, 1967, the minister gave a very extensive answer to a question on this subject, and much detail respecting the whole field of water resources is to be found in an appendix to that issue Hansard which extends to quite a number of pages. My hon. friend would have greatly benefited by examining it.
The hon. member talked about the policy proposals that emerged from the conference of resource ministers which considered the question of pollution control and asked, what is the attitude of the government in this respect? According to one of the releases which I have in my hand, in May of this year the minister called for the establishment of a national advisory council on water pollution on which there would be representatives of the federal and provincial governments, and pointed out that such a body had been proposed by experts attending last fall's national conference in Montreal. That proposal has received the endorsement of the minister, as have a number of other proposals arising from that conference.
The minister has also indicated that a new water act will be introduced. It is currently under preparation in his department, and maybe hon. gentlemen opposite will have more control over the speed with which this measure can be dealt with in parliament than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is admitted that the present Canadian water assistance act is inadequate. The new act will cover a number of important items that have been raised in this debate and will provide for much better coordination of federal activities in the field of
DEBATES	3431
Policy Statement on National Resources control over water pollution. It will create a vehicle for federal interministerial co-operation. Hopefully it will create a federal advisory board for the minister. It will create a national committee on water pollution. It will work toward a pollution abatement code. This is one of the items my hon. friend who just took his seat urged the government to consider. I should like to assure him that his good advice is currently being considered in the department and likely will be reflected in a measure to be placed before the House of Commons.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In addition to this machinery which will provide for better co-ordination and better advice in the field of water pollution control, it is also proposed that the relationship between the federal and provincial governments will be maintained and improved. Already the considerations involved in this particular proposal have been studied by the council of resource ministers. The resource ministers have been told what the thinking of the federal government is in this field. It is hoped that at the next meeting of the ministers a further discussion will be held and that there will be a further exchange of views on the items I have mentioned as the essential parts of a new water measure.
Depending upon the work we are able to do in dealing with other legislative items which now are on the order paper and which have already been announced for action, this bill will be introduced early in 1968. Therefore I believe the federal government is giving very strong and definite leadership in the field of water pollution. The impression should not remain unanswered that there is a drifting away, a chaos or a lack of planning in this particular field. I regret that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not have an opportunity to speak at greater length on this subject.
I should like to say by way of supplementation to the comments made about the activity of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that the Department of National Health and Welfare has for many years been closely associated with the work of the International Joint Commission as it relates to the matter of pollution of boundary waters which endangers health and property on either side of the boundary. For example, active participation in co-operation with other federal, state and provincial agencies is being maintained by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the current International Joint Commission reference
October 24, 1967
3432	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources study covering lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river.
Laboratories have been established at Kings-ston and Brockville to carry out the required chemical and bacteriological analyses. Additional laboratory facilities have been provided on board research vessels operated by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for deep water surveys throughout these waters. Technical assistance has been rendered to the Atlantic provinces in determining the extent of the pollution in a number of major watercourses. This, of course, has greatly aided the water authorities within these provinces in the implementation of remedial measures in respect of abating pollution. Technical services also are being provided to the Atlantic Development Board in its efforts to assist industries in those provinces with regard to the installation of necessary pollution abatement facilities.
My department, the Department of National Health and Welfare, also has been responsible for organizing, planning and co-ordinating the necessary field surveys required to evaluate the industrial waste discharged into fresh waters in the Atlantic provinces. During the past year alone 30 industries have been surveyed for this purpose. This provides the data which is necessary to determine the amount of financial assistance, based on the actual extent of pollution, which can be made available to the board through federal funds. Over the years engineering advice has been made available by the department on the required basis to other federal departments in respect of the control and abatement of pollution.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Do I understand from his remarks that the only policy the government visualizes is to give financial assistance to industry, or does the government also envisage requiring industry to spend some money itself to abate pollution? I am wondering whether the taxpayer will constantly have to pay for this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. I do not think that would be the policy of the government. I do not believe that is the policy which has been followed in respect of certain industries, at least in Canada, which have attempted to instal pollution control devices.
I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to the activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to the control of


pollution in connection with federal properties. In February of this year this particular responsibility was officially assigned to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
At the present time we are endeavouring to determine very specific objectives to protect the water bodies which are receiving wastes from federal facilities. We wish to be in a position to ensure that the proper objectives are submitted at the planning stages and at the time of approval of the final plans. In addition to attempting to secure the proper measures at the planning stage, evaluation or assessment studies will be taken at the required intervals to analyse the efficiency of federal pollution control plans and the quality of the water. Engineering resources are being directed to these programs. This includes the development of additional mobile and regional laboratory facilities as necessary to carry out this responsibility across Canada. Under this program close cooperation will be maintained with the provinces to ensure that the degree of treatment meets the provincial standards.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the minister again. Could he tell us how much money has been assigned for this engineering and research work as well as for the experts who have been assigned to make these investigations and so on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures but I will be glad to get them as quickly as possible for my hon. friend. I think the point of my statement is that the federal government is very conscious of its own role in the field of pollution control and is taking all possible steps to see that federal facilities are properly regulated to avoid any pollution. This is a special responsibility which has been assigned to my department by the government as a whole. We are trying to carry it out in the manner I have indicated.
The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam and his colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, referred to the unfortunate impression created by one or two questions which I answered on television on Sunday night. The indication was that I had portrayed a negative and indifferent attitude toward the problem of water and air pollution in Canada. If that impression was created I can only say there are certain risks attendant upon television appearances, especially when long interviews are later excised according to the requirements of the producer. It may be that the producer and the
October 24, 1967	COMMONS
performer ought to share at least equal responsibility for any impression that has been created by one or two statements that were made which I certainly would not retract but which, unrelated to the concern which had been expressed in respect of this problem, might have given the wrong impression.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The fact is that the Department of National Health and Welfare is fully aware of the serious problems presented by pollution of air and water in Canada and has two separate divisions devoted to the study and development of solutions to these problems. These divisions are located in the new environmental health centre which was completed in 1962. It has the most modern scientific facilities of this type in Canada and the laboratories compare favourably with any similar facilities in the world. The two divisions of this department work in close liaison with the provinces and provide technical and consultative services to assist in measuring pollution and designing necessary control techniques. This is done through research and collaboration in the development of design controls by officers of the department who maintain a very high level of technical competence in their own fields. They have benefited greatly from collaboration with their counterparts in the provinces.
I am sure we all appreciate the seriousness of the problems that air and water pollution pose not only for Canada but for almost every country in the world. Air pollution is now a common problem affecting cities in nearly every country of the world and is the result of human failure to realize that the atmosphere has a limited capacity to receive the impurities we have poured, and still continue to pour, into it. Not long ago we talked of air pollution in terms only of smoke and grime of factories, steam locomotives, and dirt and stench from industrial processes. Even these we were inclined to tolerate as a sign of our prosperity. These still exist but there are additional sources of pollution resulting from the operation of motor vehicles and airplanes, which have appeared on the scene in great and increasing numbers to add substantially to the problem of air pollution.
All of these sources, plus others of no small magnitude such as domestic heating plants, combine to add many tons of garbage to the air of any typical large city each day. You may recall that occasion in New York city on Thanksgiving week end in 1966 when 80
DEBATES	8433
Policy Statement on National Resources persons lost their lives as a result of pollution in the air. We all recall a similar incident in London in 1952 when a great number of deaths were caused by smoke and irritating fog. I believe that 4,000 persons lost their lives in London in 1952 and many other thousands were affected seriously as a result of this problem. Fortunately we have had no experience of that magnitude in Canada, and hopefully we will not have that problem at any stage in our future if we take the necessary steps to cope with the emerging problem of air pollution.
We all know that in our kind of society a certain amount of impurities will enter the atmosphere, and I think it would be very idealistic to expect the atmosphere of any large city to be country fresh. Of course we can depend to a certain extent upon the cleansing forces of the wind and rain because they do dilute and remove the airborne contaminants sufficiently fast to prevent an undue accumulation of consequent pollution problems. It is when the action of pollutants entering the atmosphere become so great and when the natural ventilating and cleansing processes of wind and rain are not in operation that we tend to have a problem and undesirable effects become noticeable. Sometimes, as in the case of Los Angeles, the local ventilation system provided by nature is not adequate to deal with the problem.
I say this as a background to a brief resume of some of the immediate activities of my department in the field of air pollution and what hopefully we regard as a component of a national clean air act which is now under consideration. I might say that the air pollution work of the department is at present undergoing substantial development. Earlier this year we brought on the staff of the department, in order to improve our personnel, a person who has had a great deal of experience with the government of Queensland, Australia, in respect of this problem. He is now our consultant on air pollution in Canada.
One of the most important projects now in progress is the establishment for the first time in Canada of an effective national sampling program. The work of the provinces is being co-ordinated and actively supported where necessary with staff and facilities to assess the nature and extent of air pollution in all Canadian cities where problems may exist. The major purpose of these studies is to accumulate data which will enable standards of air quality to be established and maintained.
October 24, 1967
3434	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources
My hon. friend placed a proper emphasis on the need for the establishment of standards. We certainly agree with that, and we believe that in order to establish proper standards we must accumulate the necessary data because without such information and without constant comparison of conditions and knowledge of effects on health, as well as a comparison with the situation in other parts of the world, any effort to introduce control programs would be very difficult.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the minister permit a question at this point? In relation to what he has just been saying could he give us some indication of the relationship, if any, which has been established between the meteorological service of the Department of Transport and his department?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not aware of any such relationship with the Department of Transport in respect of this particular national sampling activity. It may be that there is some exchange of information or facilities. I will be glad to check into that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While the minister is on this point perhaps he could inform the house how long this sampling has been taking place? Has it been going on for a sufficient duration to enable the officials to reach any conclusion, and has there been any consultation with medical research units which specialize in respiratory diseases in order to assess the results of this sampling?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am advised that the sampling process has not accumulated enough data at the present time to establish the necessary standards. Having regard to the whole field of the relationship between pollution and respiratory problems, this particular division would initially rely greatly upon the other supporting medical services within the department, and certainly as a backstop to their studies. My point is to underline the fact that we are aware of the necessity of these standards and are getting ahead with the sampling and the collection of data that will enable us to establish standards.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


David Lewis: When did this sampling begin?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The sampling process, or the measuring, has been going on for quite a long time. Since the arrival in the department of the person to whom I referred earlier there has been a great deal of consultation with the provincial governments and a


great deal of travelling around the country in an effort to put this matter on a national basis. On a similar basis we are conducting an over-all investigation of pollution by motor vehicles in Canada. Early experience in the United States is being closely examined and arrangements are being made to assess the extent and effects of motor vehicle pollution in various cities of Canada. Close attention is being given to the types of control devices used on motor vehicles and an assessment of their effectiveness in cold weather conditions is in progress.
Here I should like to emphasize that the existing approach to motor vehicle pollution control is not the final solution to the problem. My advice is that at best it is a stopgap and that we must search for more effective solutions to this problem. The devices currently being used have no beneficial effect on other potentially poisonous products such as nitrogen oxides which are also discharged by automobiles, nor do they apply to heavy trucks and other diesel vehicles which are frequently the main cause of complaint from the community.
We in the department agree that all measures which can reduce pollution, such as the devices being used by automobiles at the present time, should be used if they produce a beneficial effect. But this is only a beginning and there must be a continuing program of research in which real solutions are found. My department is planning in this respect and getting ahead with the job.
There has recently been verbal and newspaper comment about air pollution conditions, for example, in the city of Montreal. I think it is necessary to maintain a balance on the question of the dangers that actually exist from motor vehicle pollution. For example, there is no doubt that many residents of Montreal were extremely disquieted when told that carbon monoxide concentrations were recently at danger levels. It was reported in the press that the level had reached 10 and at times 50 parts per million for brief periods. It can be emphatically stated that these levels do not represent dangerous conditions.
The maximum standard set for industrial workers, which is 50 parts per million, is based upon continuous, eight hours per day exposure for a five day week. Workers exposed to these types of concentrations, or higher for shorter periods, do not as a rule experience any symptoms at all. Similar concentrations will be recorded in the vicinity of traffic in any part of the world and reports in
October 24, 1967	COMMONS
the literature of as high or higher concentrations have appeared for many years.
If these levels of pollution can be reduced without serious loss or disruption to the community, it is self-evident that action should be taken. However, we must not let that obscure the fact that many more serious problems of pollution, such as emissions from heavy industry, still remain to be controlled. We do not want to underestimate the importance of motor vehicle anti-pollution measures, but this is by no means the major problem of its kind facing Canada today.
We in the department are aware of the importance of this whole question. I do not want to go into all the things we are doing, but let me say just a word about the work that is being done. We are undertaking an assessment for the control of air pollution which occurs at the border with the United States, particularly in the Windsor and Sarnia areas. Research studies to determine the most effective ways of controlling air pollution at the source also form part of the current research work of the department.
We realize that while progress is being made the problem is of such proportions as to demand ever-increasing resources when these can be made available. There are many policy implications involved in the development of the components of a national clean air act that might be passed by the parliament of Canada. We are aware that the federal government must take an important and I think leading role in any campaign to control air pollution, and it must be able to fulfil this role by assisting in the co-ordinating of the work of the provinces and the many other agencies involved.
We have under consideration at the present time a number of elements or components that might form part of a national clean air act. The first is the establishment of air quality criteria and emission standards on a uniform, national basis, and their maintenance by an efficient monitoring system to ensure that continuous improvement is made; second, ensuring a uniform approach to the control of motor vehicle pollution and seeing that the requirements involved in such a uniform approach are constantly revised according to the latest available information and progress made at any time; third, the provision of technical assistance to provincial control agencies by means of advice from a specially trained organization within the federal government; fourth, the continuation of research into specific air pollution problems
DEBATES	3435
Policy Statement on National Resources and their effects upon human health and amenities as well as on livestock, vegetation and property.
Of course, as a further component the sources of air pollution within the federal government-I am not talking about the House of Commons-must be regulated by the installation of proper equipment to meet the most stringent emission standards. We think there may be a place for financial assistance to provinces, universities and other organizations to carry on research leading to the control of air pollution.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) suggested the possibility of an advisory council on air pollution or a group of citizens or officials, or a combination of both, which might advise the government or the minister on the control of air pollution in Canada. We are giving serious consideration within the department to this question.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested amendments might be made to the Criminal Code to cope with the problem of air pollution especially. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who spoke later in the debate, questioned the desirability or necessity of such action. I tend to agree with him on that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I said that would not be the only or main action in dealing with the problem and, if I may say so, that is all that was suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I tend to believe that the development of close consultation with the provinces to achieve the objectives I have outlined might be better in the circumstances than to use, as my hon. friend said, the punitive and restrictive provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May 1 ask the minister a question? In view of the fact that the two proposals he referred to are not mutually exclusive, do I take it the minister is suggesting that with all the co-operation and consultation with the provincial authorities, with which we thoroughly agree, in the final analysis an anti-pollution program can be carried out purely on a voluntary basis without any authority vested in the government to enforce compliance by some recalcitrant company which refuses to comply with the requests of either the federal or provincial governments?
October 24, 196?
3436	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not go that far. The point I was trying to make was that at the present time we think it would be better to proceed along the lines I have described than to undertake amendments to the Criminal Code. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested the calling of a federal-provincial conference to deal with the matter of air pollution in particular because the subject matter of water pollution and water control has already been before the council of resource ministers. At present there is a great deal of exchange of views between the officers of my department and officers in the provincial governments dealing with air pollution. Work in this field might be stepped up. It may be that the next step is the calling of a technical conference of federal and provincial officers on the question of air pollution, and perhaps at that time it would be desirable to convene the type of conference which my hon. friend suggests, after some very difficult and, as I understand it, technical questions are explored.
I have attempted in these comments to underline the seriousness of this problem as we see it, to try to put it in some perspective and to outline the items that we in the department presently have under urgent consideration and which might form the basis of action by the parliament of Canada to institute a national clean air act with a view not only to protecting the health of the Canadian population but also to maintaining the amenities of urban and rural life in Canada.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Speaker, before the minister completes his statement, may I ask him to tell us whether the government has done anything by way of research to explore what has been done in the heavily industrial areas of Europe such as the Ruhr valley? The inhabitants of that area have been putting up with pollution for a much longer time than we have here and surely they must have taken some action to cope with the situation. I wonder whether their experience has been looked into by the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The officers in the department are constantly examining the experience in all countries of the world as a basis for action in Canada. For example, not only have we examined the experience in Europe but also that in the United States, not only with respect to industrial pollution but also with respect to pollution from motor vehicles and so on. Their experience is not always a clear guide as to what we should be doing here.


Mr. Wahn:: With reference to the C.B.C. television program on air pollution which was shown last week end, could I ask the minister whether his department would not have jurisdiction under the existing legislation to take samples of the smoke from the plant which was portrayed in that program to determine whether in fact it is, as suggested, emitting poison in the form of fluorine which is affecting adversely the health of Canadian citizens and of livestock and destroying vegetation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The emission from a plant of the kind that apparently was portrayed on television is a well known cause of pollution. It affects the vegetation which is eaten by animals and thus a chain reaction sets in. As I understand it, this particular situation is covered by the Ontario clean air act. The Department of National Health and Welfare is prepared to assist in this situation and to provide any advice or technical assistance at our disposal, but we believe that before we step into this situation we should receive a request from the government of Ontario. If a request is made we will be happy to co-operate.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, obviously the steps which the minister outlined are necessary preliminary steps and if followed in a difficult situation they would be helpful. Therefore I should like to ask the minister whether he and his department have set some deadline or some target date by which some national standards will be set, subject to improvement in later months or years, or is this investigation to go on for a very long time? It seems to me that the problem, which as the minister said is world wide, is one that becomes worse daily and therefore a start on the setting of standards and their enforcement should be made fairly soon. I therefore ask the minister whether he and his department have set a target date by which time they will start setting standards.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At present I think we have a pretty clear idea of what we have in mind to cover this situation, and we propose to press ahead with appropriate recommendations to the government for its consideration which would then be dealt with by parliament. We have not set a deadline but we intend to move on it as quickly as we possibly can.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house, as has been indicated by several speakers, is a
October 24, 1967

rather unusual one for this type of debate. It accentuates the positive rather than the negative. It does not particularly criticize the government for sins of commission, which might suggest there have been sins of omission with respect to government policy on resource matters. Because it is a positive statement it has seemed to me, as I have listened to the spokesmen on the government side, that it has caught them unaware.
I am happy to be associated with the amendment as its seconder because it does provide the government with an opportunity to state in positive terms its policies, its programs and its objectives in the important field of resource conservation and the equally important field of resource development. I am going to emphasize in my remarks that part of the amendment which reads as follows:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
... this house is of the opinion that the government should state immediately its policy on national resources and clearly set out its intentions and objectives generally ...
Up to the present moment, Mr. Speaker, we have had three spokesmen from the government side. The first spokesman, who is a recent addition to the government side, assumed a rather belligerent approach to the problem. I do not think he is quite acclimatized following his transition from a member of the opposition to a member on the government side of the house. He even tried to draw me into the discussion before I had had an opportunity to make my contribution.
The attitude of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) reminded me of the approach that used to be taken in the house by a former member who moved from the role of an opposition member to the role of a supporter of the government almost overnight. He has not seemingly had too much difficulty in making the transition. I refer, of course, to the former member from Assiniboia in the province of Saskatchewan who is now resting peacefully in the other place. At one time he used to take the same belligerent approach to all matters.
The second spokesman was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin). I rather thought that the minister went on the defensive in his response to the amendment. We provided him with an opportunity to state in very specific and precise terms just what he, as the over-all co-ordinating spokesman for the government, had in mind regarding the problem of resource conservation and
DEBATES	3437
Policy Statement on National Resources development. He admitted that the government had been preoccupied with matters that were of lesser importance so far as the ultimate welfare of the people of Canada is concerned.
So that I will not be accused of misquoting the minister, let me draw the attention of the house to the minister's words in this regard, as reported at page 3396 of yesterday's Hansard:
I agree, then, that this discussion is useful, because it will provide, in my opinion, a welcome antidote to the obsession of some Canadians who visualize all our problems in Canada in the context of national unity.
As reported in the third paragraph on that page the minister went on:
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that the public, who has an understanding of those things, is quite aware that problems such as national unity, bilingualism and recognition of collective rights, are secondary as compared with the need for material security and the quest for individual happiness.
I could not agree more with the minister that this house has been too much preoccupied with these things of lesser importance, and in this regard I do not think that the government, which has the ultimate leadership of the house as its responsibility, is entirely free of guilt.
I think one of the reasons we are faced with the critical economic and financial problems that we have been discussing since parliament resumed is the government's neglect to deal in positive terms with the important subject of a national policy on resources, renewable, non-renewable and human. This is why-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? The hon. gentleman is a former cabinet minister in a Progressive Conservative government. Why did he not start along that line when he was in office?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has provided me at this juncture in my speech with the opportunity to indicate to the house, in anticipation of what I had intended to say later, that I think resource development was the keynote of the policy of the former government compared with the present government. However, I shall deal with that in detail later in my remarks.
To get back to the point I was making, Mr. Speaker, I think our current economic
October 24, 1967
3438	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources difficulties arise from the fact that the government has allowed parliament to be sidetracked on these less important divisive issues.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the third spokesman from the government side thus far, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who has just resumed his seat. He was definitely on the defensive this afternoon. We are used to this minister sounding off in resounding tones and indicating that everything in Canada is for the best under the leadership of this government. He was quite defensive and diffident in dealing with the lack of progress in the field of pollution both of water and of air.
What we should like to see, Mr. Speaker, and what we are asking for-there is still time; we have an hour or so before this debate concludes-is a clearcut statement from the government of intentions and objectives for the future, not a report of what has happened in the past. That was pretty well what the two ministers who have spoken thus far revealed in their remarks. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources went back to 1960 and then quoted figures which were current in 1963. I agree that there was a wonderful upsurge during that period under the leadership of the former government, but this is not what we want. Let us not dwell in the past. Let us deal with the problem as it exists at the moment, and let the government state what it intends to do in terms of arriving at concrete policies.
The federal government must provide national leadership in this field. It must provide the co-ordination that is necessary in the resource field in view of the problem created by divided jurisdiction. We have not had any specific information from government spokesmen about the intentions of the government in regard to these matters.
At the outset of my remarks I want to state that I, along with the hon. member for Kootenay West, believe that resource development is of fundamental importance not only in terms of the quality of life in this nation but also in terms of the economic well-being of all our people from one end of the country to the other. The hon. member for Kootenay West specifically asked me why I, as a former minister, did not do something about these matters. I think he will agree if he is objective that the outstanding policy of the Conservative government was one of development of our natural resources.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In 1961 we had an elaborate conference which was designed to come to grips in positive terms with matters that are still being discussed in the house today. Perhaps I should deal with that conference. We moved to set up a similar, comprehensive approach to problems of human resources. I shall not repeat in detail what was done. The hon. member who asked the question was in the house during that period, and if he speaks in this debate I am sure that he will confirm in general terms what I say. It is not good enough for us to look back over those years and speak about what was done then. We must use the body of information which was laid before the people of Canada and parliament in the resources for tomorrow conference. Governments in particular must use all this available information to bring about solutions through legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is my point.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Before this debate concludes that is what I wish to hear the government say. With the permission of hon. members I wish to refer briefly to what emerged from the resources for tomorrow conference of 1961. The conference was convened because of a growing sense of urgency and because we felt that Canada had failed to come to grips with her problems. It was a considered risk in the area of federal-provincial co-operation when the government of that day assumed its leadership responsibilities. Until then the buck-passing or log-rolling technique with respect to resources which came under the purview of the provincial authorities had been resorted to.
I read ministerial speeches which come across my desk in profusion. I am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will recall his appearance before the Canadian Bar Association convention in Winnipeg on September 1, 1966. The convention dealt with the subject of jurisdictional responsibility and I noticed that he was tiptoeing gently through the tulips on that occasion.
The national government must manifest leadership in this field. This must be done diplomatically, it is true. But it must be done if we are to have a national policy. Perhaps I should not speak of a national policy; perhaps the appropriate words are "federal policy". As the chairman of the steering committee which planned the resources for tomorrow conference, I remember being careful to use the phrase "co-equality" when addressing the participating ministers.

October 24, 1967

I wish to remind hon. members that the resources minister for the province of Quebec at that time was a man who has recently been prominent in the news, Mr. Rene Levesque. I always found Mr. Levesque most co-operative in matters that dealt with the development of an over-all national resource policy that would be in the best interests of the Canadian economy as a whole. If the Liberal party-and I am giving them friendly advice now-had kept Mr. Levesque occupied in this constructive and positive field rather than permitting him to detour into such divisive fields as national unity and so on, they would not have been faced with the unhappy situation which came to a head in Quebec city about a week ago.
I wish to remind hon. members that Mr. Levesque is one of the founding fathers of the resource ministers council. After that group was established he became its third chairman, functioning positively and making a real contribution during the difficult early days of that body's operation. There is a lesson for us all in this.
We ought to place emphasis on those aspects that bring us together, that unite us in common objectives and programs which are of general benefit to the nation, rather than placing emphasis on those things which divide us. We can well do without detours into such fields as national unity, bicultural-ism and all the other problems which have faced this parliament during the past few years.
Out of the resources for tomorrow conference came a fundamental principle which I think ought to motivate all Canadian governments. It added a new dimension to the concept of conservation. All members of the house are greatly concerned about problems of pollution and so on. I shall not delve into that aspect of the debate. We are equally concerned, I trust, about developing our resources, both renewable and non-renewable, to ensure their best economic use for the good of all our people. This is the accent that emerged from the papers, discussions and documentation of that important conservation conference.
Until then conservation had meant "preservation". By conserving we had meant that our resources would be saved simply by leaving them unused. This idea is a hangover from the frontier period of Canadian development when it was felt that our supply of resources was unlimited. Then we thought that when we had exhausted exploited and violated resources in one part of Canada we
DEBATES	3439
Policy Statement on National Resources had only to move to another part of what was considered an unlimited frontier and continue with the process of destruction. Suddenly we realized that the frontier in Canada no longer existed. We had to take a more positive approach to developing our resources.
Today we no longer merely preserve or save our resources. All our renewable resources particularly must be developed fruitfully to ensure their availability for future generations. If we are to develop our renewable resources without impairing them for future generations we must plan carefully and positively. In other words, this concept of conservation is a concept of management through which we shall bring about a continuing yield from our resources without impairing them.
0	(5:00 p.m.)
The resources for tomorrow conference gave rise to the basic principles of wise management and multiple use. The government has been extremely weak on these two points. It goes from one ad hoc solution to another ad hoc solution of these problems as they arise. In other words, the government is so busy facing the urgency of the immediate that it cannot see very much beyond its nose in respect of these matters. It is the old Liberal policy of laissez-faire drifting.
Let me be specific and apply these principles to one or two areas that have been outlined in the amendment, for example, in the field of non-renewable resources such as gas and oil to which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) devoted almost his entire speech and for which he was so roundly criticized by the new member of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle concentrated on one point, I am afraid it went right over the heads of hon. members opposite. They have not yet come to grips with the principle that he was endeavouring to have recognized by the responsible ministers.
It was alleged that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was critizing the National Energy Board. This is a typical red herring technique. At another point a Liberal spokesman,
1	think it was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, indicated that we on this side of the house, and in particular the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, were criticizing the United States federal power commission. If we review the hon. member's speech carefully we see he was doing neither of these things. In fact he was commending the National
Ociober 24, 1967
3440	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources Energy Board for the new element of stability and progress that it has introduced into Canada's energy policy since it was established. The minister himself recognized this when he quoted statistics showing the tremendous upsurge between 1960 and 1963, following the establishment of the National Energy Board, compared with the confusion that existed in energy policy prior to 1957.
What the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was trying to get across to the minister was that we recognize the important role of the National Energy Board and that at this important juncture in negotiations with the United States and the federal power commission the government of Canada or, as the amendment says, this house as a whole, should give some moral support to our own energy board in the critical negotiations taking place today.
We are not criticizing the federal power commission for its stand. It is defending consumers in the United States. What we are criticizing is the failure of the Canadian government to defend our own National Energy Board, and its failure to go over the head of the federal power commission, if necessary, so that we may have continued good relations between our two countries in the field of resources. Such good relations can only be achieved through mutual, intergovernmental understanding.


Mr. Pepin:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is the hon. member recommending that the government tell the National Energy Board to refuse the Westcoast application before holding a hearing and gathering all the facts?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member is merely suggesting, as has been the case in the past, that the National Energy Board be made aware that the government and this parliament are anxious to support the principles laid down in the National Energy Board Act whereby the welfare and interests of Canadians should be considered as being paramount, especially when it comes to the question of exporting our own natural resources. This is exactly what the government is not doing.
In this case there are two private corporations involved, Westcoast Transmission in Canada and El Paso in the United States. El Paso had agreed that the Westcoast company's proposal was acceptable to it. It was happy to get gas on the terms laid down by


Westcoast, but the federal power commission interfered with the happy relations existing between these two private companies. Surely one does not have to draw any diagrams in this respect.
When the United States government through its energy board tries to upset an agreement, which is in the best interests of Canadian producers and conforms to the regulations laid down in the National Energy Board Act, surely the only recourse is for the government of Canada to indicate through continuous consultation with the powers that be in the United States that this is not going to facilitate the happy relations which have existed between our two countries on export matters up to this point. As my father used to say, "A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse."


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is it the hon. member's recommendation that the government of Canada should have denounced the decision of the federal power commission before the second application of Westcoast came before the National Energy Board?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I simply do not understand why the minister cannot grasp the point. It was laid before him in a lengthy speech by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. It is so simple that the "wayfaring man need not err." The minister knows the other part of that Scriptural quotation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am trying to get from the hon. member exactly what he would have done, because the way I look at it is that we must first receive the decision of the National Energy Board. If that decision is a positive one, one favourable to the Westcoast new application, it will come before the government and the government must then decide whether to endorse it or not.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The point is very simple. The minister and the government should indicate that they strongly support the arrangement which was reached between the two private companies concerned. When I had ministerial responsibility we were constantly in touch and in consultation with our American counterparts because of the obvious, close, economic relationships. For obvious reasons I do not have that entree now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Was the hon. member in touch with the federal power commission when he was the minister?
October 24, 1967


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I said I was in touch with our counterparts, and the federal power commission is not the counterpart of Canadian ministers. At least I hope it isn't. I am sure the minister knows what I am talking about, if he only wants to understand.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It might be that the government's equivocation and vacillation just a year ago on the matter of the looping of the trans-Canada pipe line to the east aroused the ire of the F. P. C. and this is why it is making it so difficult for us at the present time. The minister knows that the government reversed itself in those very important negotiations, and yesterday I was very pleased to hear him defending the policy we recommended at that time and which was ultimately adopted by the government.
Let me conclude my observations on gas and oil by saying it is not enough to maintain happy relations, mutual respect and confidence between our two nations, to report from time to time that L.B.P. and L.B.J. have met at Hyannis Port, ushering in a honeymoon period, or have met down on the ranch and everything is wonderful between our two countries. We must have continuing contact and continuing consultation.
This is all we are asking the government to do. We want a positive statement clearly setting out its intentions and its objectives. Surely the consultations that were established back in the 1960's and the meetings which became necessary with the United States ministers in establishing the National Energy Board can be retained on a continuing basis so that we can avoid the sort of "High Noon" confrontation that is represented in the situation which faces Canada and its National Energy Board at this particular moment.
I trust that the government will yet take advantage of this opportunity to support members of the opposition-the point of view on this side of the house seems to be pretty solid-in urging the responsible political powers in the United States to be reasonable in these matters in the best interests of all concerned. It is not only in the field of gas and oil that continuous consultation is necessary. We also have international water problems. I know that during the days when I had some ministerial responsibility this was another matter we discussed with cabinet members in Washington. It could well be that in days which are not too far away the economic use of water will become even more important
DEBATES	3441
Policy Statement on National Resources than the exploitation of our gas and oil. For example, at present there is much talk about the billions of dollars in water which flow each year out of one province, the province of Alberta, and yet we have hardly begun to discuss these matters with the United States. We have not even co-ordinated our own domestic policies on water resources.
One of the basic recommendations which came out of the resources for tomorrow conference was that the government of Canada should set up an advisory committee on water in order to achieve consultation and co-ordination on policy right across the country. True enough, we have the resource ministers council backed by its secretariat, but that council cannot do everything. Unfortunately there has been a tendency on the part of the government to use the resource ministers council as an excuse in the same way as it has used the provincial governments. Time and time again we have heard it said that Ottawa cannot do anything because the responsibility rests with the provinces. Now we are hearing it said that Ottawa cannot do anything because the matter is in the hands of the resource ministers council.
In addition to the recommendation that the resource ministers council be established, another specific recommendation was that a national advisory committee on water be set up to deal with the problems outlined by experts on water pollution and also to deal with the very important question of the economic development and exploitation of this important resource. I do not think I need to go any farther in that regard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask the hon. member whether he is aware that last week an agreement was signed creating a Saskatchewan and Nelson river board?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That brings up the matter of the Prairie Water Conservation Board activities. The minister's question has provided me with the opportunity to deal with this point. Those negotiations started back about 1961. I am amazed that it has taken the government so long to come to a conclusion on these matters. I thought they were all set in 1963 to have this important study in respect of the Nelson river water basin concluded. The other day the minister tabled in the house the agreement negotiated over the period 1961 to 1967. That is not what one might call making very rapid progress in the field of water conservation.
October 24, 1967
3442	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member would not like to create the impression that this represents sins of omission on the part of the federal government. I am quite sure the present government continued quite aggressively what he says he had started.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This brings me back to the
point I made in my introductory remarks to the effect that the problem of resources development on the national level is a federal responsibility. The government of Canada must assume some leadership responsibility. Unhappily, the emphasis has been on the things which divide us rather than those which bring us together. The minister knows what I mean. He mentioned this yesterday in his speech when he said that we have not been able to get a basis of understanding among the provinces. Since he asked me a moment ago about the prairie water development agreement, I can only reply that I am surprised it has taken so long for this government to bring it to a conclusion when we were having such happy and cordial preliminary discussions as far back as 1961 and 1962.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What did you do in 1961, 62
and 63?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We were negotiating and on the point of agreement at that time. I cannot understand why it has taken so long. This is the reason I am critical of the statement the minister made yesterday.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister is going back into the past. He recited statistics concerning What had been done between 1960 and 1963 and so on. We want to know what the government is doing today. You cannot rest on the projects and programs of the past administration. You must seize the initiative and leadership in this field.
I should like to mention one other area of interest if time permits. I have in mind the matter of power development. Here, along with water, gas and oil, is one of the areas in respect of which Canada is rich in resources. Again, discussions were begun in 1962. A conference was held with all the provincial governments and a working committee was established so that we might move as quickly as possible toward the establishment of a national power grid on the basis of high


voltage and long distance transmission. What has become of that working committee? This is what we would like to hear about from someone on the government side. Is it working?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I answered a written question on this subject a couple of months ago.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The only intertie which has emerged so far is the grid that was established in 1960 in the Atlantic provinces under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. This is the only grid system which has been established in Canada. Why has it taken so long to move forward in this area where Canada is abundantly rich in resources? This is what we want to know. We are trying to find out what is going on over there. The government seems to be in a state of somnolence so far as these matters are concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, it is rather late in the day so far as this debate is concerned but there are a few brief comments I should like to make in respect of the matters which have been raised in the amendment now before the house. A number of members who have participated in the debate have mentioned the fact that the amendment is an exceptionally broad one. If one were to give it the fullest possible application it would cover almost every responsibility which comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It refers to the various kinds of natural resource development. It even brings up the question of human resource development. Even though there are many matters of real importance mentioned in the amendment, it would seem to me it is a rather general one upon which to vote want of confidence. However, as I have indicated there are a few comments I should like to make in connection with some of the matters which have been raised.
I am sure we all agree that one of the great needs of our country is to have a continuing development of our natural resources. In Canada we are exceptionally blessed with a vast store of natural resources. If we had the opportunity to scan an inventory of our resources I believe it would give most of us a greater appreciation of the great country in which we live and which we look upon as our home. I believe that the proper husbanding of these resources, including their careful
October 24, 1967

exploitation for today's needs and also their sane conservation for the benefit of generations to follow, is one of the great problems which faces any government. When we look at the amendment before us we see that reference is made to the development of these resources. It refers to energy, including gas, oil, electric transmission, and so on. It deals with water, and then branches out into a number of other areas of concern such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Then, moving even farther afield it brings in the important matter of human resource development.
We have listened with a great deal of interest to the various statements which have been made with regard to the gas and oil problems facing our country. We have listened to the discussion relative to the National Energy Board, the applications of the company involved to export gas, and so on. The policy of this party in this connection is that we believe in the export of these resources after it has been established that the needs of Canada and Canadians for the present and the future have been fully taken care of. We believe that in order to make this possible every effort must be made to facilitate the distribution of these resources in a manner which will be of benefit economically to our country, to the various areas in which the production of these resources takes place and, as I have said, to ensure that Canadians have adequate supplies of these valuable commodities.
I wish to mention in particular the subject of our water resources. This has become an increasingly important issue since it appears that the supplies of fresh water are becoming exhausted and that our friends to the south in particular are looking about in desperation for new sources of adequate fresh water supplies. It is not only the United States that is concerned about this problem. I believe that Canadians are more than ever becoming aware of the importance of protecting our fresh water supplies and doing everything possible to ensure that there is an adequate supply of fresh water in this country.
During this debate it has been pointed out that one can pick up practically any magazine today, particularly technical magazines but other magazines as well, newspapers, departmental reports and reports of various research commissions and committees and find that they all have a great deal to say about the problem of pollution of water, pollution of the air and pollution of the soil. I believe this is one of the major problems which confront us today. A short time ago I
DEBATES	3443
Policy Statement on National Resources read an article which dealt with the problem that our friends in the United States are facing. It pointed out that if the United States authorities would embark on a real crash program to purify the water they already have they would not be looking about so desperately for new sources of supply. It is because of pollution that they are in their present predicament. This should be a warning to us in Canada that unless we give attention to this matter and deal with it effectively we will reach a point where we will be in desperate straits so far as adequate supplies of fresh water are concerned.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The problem of pollution has been raised on many occasions from a national, regional and local point of view. Within the past two weeks I have received communications, as I suppose other members from British Columbia have, from organizations which are alarmed about the pollution problem in the lower reaches of the Fraser river. They point out not only the health hazard but the danger of this condition in relation to the fisheries industry. They have made representations that extreme care be taken to ensure that the situation is not further aggravated. They are urging that definite plans be instituted to clear up the problem in order that our waters can be made safe.
Pollution affects not only the waters of our nation but also the air, and ample emphasis has been placed on this danger this afternoon. Soil pollution is also becoming a problem. This was brought to my attention by one of my constituents who attempted to obtain an N.H.A. loan. He purchased a ten-acre plot outside the populated area of Abbotsford. When he made an application for an N.H.A. loan he was told that no loan would be forthcoming because of regulations in respect of soil pollution. This man intended to build a home on a ten-acre plot but could not obtain an N.HA. loan because of the danger of soil pollution. In spite of this we find that in many areas pollution is being looked upon with little concern and in many instances little is being done to solve the problem.
There are references in the amendment to agriculture, forestry and fisheries. In relation to recommendations in respect of agriculture, let me refer briefly to the submission to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on February 22, 1967. The brief deals with agricultural development and on page 44 we find the heading
October 24, 1967
3444	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources "Land Resources Study". I do not intend to take time this afternoon to read these recommendations because I assume that every member of parliament has already done so. Special emphasis is placed on the importance of land study in agricultural development, and I think this fits in very well with the reference in the amendment to the fact that consideration should be given to agriculture. The brief contains one recommendation relating to forestry which is of importance.
I have with me a memorandum to the government of Canada from the Canadian Labour Congress which deals at some length with these matters. It calls attention to and emphasizes the fact that these resources are important to the Canadian economy and the Canadian people. It urges the government to evolve an over-all policy in respect of the development of these resources, while at the same time applying conservation techniques. These policies must take two objectives into account. First of all we must exploit these resources for the benefit of those of us who are living today. We should not take the attitude that we dare not develop these resources but must protect them and deprive ourselves of the immediate benefits. There is a difference, however, between utilizing them for human betterment and wasting them. There is a clear distinction between these two propositions.
A recent letter published by the Royal Bank of Canada refers to this age as the "throw-away age" and it deals at some length with the wastage of not only material but human resources. There is a difference between wastage and the exploitation of resources for the advantage of society. Policies evolved by the government must be policies providing for the economic well-being of the people today while at the same time providing conservation for the benefit of future generations.
The ultimate purpose of the development of natural resources is closely related to paragraph (d) of the amendment which refers to human resources. The ultimate purpose of the development of our natural resources must be related to the full development of human resources. I hope the fact that human resources are mentioned last in the amendment is not indicative of the relative importance of human and natural resource development.
Let me deal briefly with the development of human resources. We are in danger of becoming engrossed with the physical and


material aspects of our society. We are becoming overwhelmed by advances in science and technology. We are awed by the magnitude of our universe and we are impressed by the concept of internationalism. In other words, so accustomed are we to looking at the big and spectacular developments of our age that we are inclined to overlook the principle that man is the most important unit in our society. Although the development of our natural resources is of great importance I believe supreme importance remains with the development of our human resources.
Today we consider the phrase "wastage of human resources" in the sense of a potential loss so far as society is concerned. We think of the little which has been done to assist the mentally retarded in reaching the highest degree of development and progress of which they are capable. We think of the members of our society incarcerated behind prison bars whose capabilities are being wasted so far as constructive, useful and creative activity is concerned. We think of the maladjusted and less fortunate individuals in our society. We must direct our energies and our dedication as well as our financial resources to the solution of these problems just as we direct them to the field of resource development. The same concern and endeavours must be applied to our human resources.
What are some of the things of importance to the development of our human resources? We think immediately of health, which is our greatest asset, and we think of the knowledge and skills required to enable us to take our proper places in this automated and technological era. We think of the importance of inculcating into the minds of our people a sense of values in respect of the development of our society and we think of the opportunities that must be made available to every individual regardless of his or her capability, social standing or economic position. We must create equal opportunity and remunerative employment and place them within the reach of all our people wherever they may live. We must bring the development of human resources to the point where each and every member of our society has the right to the opportunity of developing his or her personality to the utmost degree possible, the right to make a constructive contribution to society and the right to move forward with their fellow men in the creation and development of a society which will guarantee to each and every one the possibility of living in an environment consistent with the dignity of the individual.
October 24, 1967

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Not only must we emphasize the importance of the individual but we must recognize the fact that a necessary concomitant of this principle is an economic climate in which full opportunity is given for the exercise of individual initiative and the fulfilment of individual responsibility. I should like to emphasize once again that all our activities, all our endeavours, all our programs, all our projects, everything we endeavour to accomplish, are of value only as they contribute to the betterment of people. I think the scriptural precept, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath," was referred to yesterday. I believe we have to change it and say that the tremendous resources of this country are here for the benefit of mankind and everything we do must be directed toward the accomplishing of that objective.
I appreciate the opportunity of making these few comments on the amendment. Much has been said about the laxity of the government in meeting some of the problems that face us. They are problems that confront people everywhere and every level of government. I suppose that some conclude they can make a better contribution and deal with them in a more efficient way than others. But I trust we realize that in the working out of these problems it will take the very best of our collective wisdom, judgment, insight, industry, everything that we possess, to find their solution and to move forward into the better type of society that we all wish to see established.


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, like most hon. members, I am sure, I have followed with interest this classic example of the shotgun, machine-gun approach of the opposition. There seems, however, to have been one consistency throughout the speeches of all hon. members opposite and that is a considerable variance from the facts.
I wish I had before me all the statements of the previous Conservative speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale). It would appear to somebody outside parliament who had never before been in Canada, knew nothing of Canadian history or of the development of government in this country but had listened to the hon. member's speech from one of the galleries, that through some accident of fate a great and enlightened administration which had bestowed wonders on the Canadian people
DEBATES	3445
Policy Statement on National Resources had been unfortunately removed from office because of some miscalculation in 1963 and had been replaced by a government that had done nothing up to this time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The people realize that now. Look at the Gallup poll.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Nothing could be farther from the truth. The hon. gentleman opposite asked for federal initiative to be taken. When questioned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) he said, as he evaded and avoided the answer, that unfortunately the minister did not get the point. I agree with him. The minister did not get the point and I do not think anybody else got it. I have considerable doubt that there was any point in what the hon. member was saying.
It seems to me that a great many federal initiatives have been taken in the field of resources. For example, I could point to the work and programs of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development. The programs undertaken by this department are an example of a great and unprecedented initiative of the federal government to deal not only with human resources but, in specific areas, those natural resources which can properly be developed and exploited in conjunction with the beneficial development of our human resources.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Under our ARDA program.


Richard Joseph Cashin: In fact, one of the great things we are now discovering about the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, in contrast to the vague suggestions of the hon. member opposite, is this. Under the previous administration we had a shotgun approach to these problems and nothing of consequence was accomplished. It was up to the present administration, under the distinguished minister from the Magdalen Islands, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve), to establish a co-ordinated, comprehensive program to give meaning to what hitherto had been a fuzzy idea of hon. gentlemen opposite.
I congratulate the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in this respect because it is better to have six years of government with one fuzzy idea than to have six years of government with no ideas. I congratulate the previous administration for having produced something, fuzzy and obscure as it may have been but nevertheless a worth-while idea, during their six years in government.
October 24, 1967
3446	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statement on National Resources
If the Canadian people could have afforded to wait another generation that idea might have crystallized and we might have seen in the next generation the initiative that this government is now taking to deal with this problem.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Tell us about that initiative.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The first and most important initiative is the provision under the FRED legislation of a $300 million fund for rural development. The second is the recognition, hitherto ignored, of the need for co-operation and planning on a regional level involving the federal government and the provincial governments and, as important, the co-ordination of effort within these levels of government in order to achieve the ultimate objectives of the FRED program.
I shall read the objectives of that program because the hon. member opposite just asked me to tell him about the initiatives of this government. The hon. gentleman is like a horse. You can lead him to water but you cannot make him drink.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The wrong end.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Perhaps, as the hon. member has suggested, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has been taken by the wrong end.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is a typical remark of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald).


Richard Joseph Cashin: However, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite made one thing clear, namely, that they dismissed completely and paid no attention at all to some of the problems that have arisen in this field. I suggest this would have been a much better debate had they taken issue with the government on specific programs and policies which we have introduced. In that way they could have put forward constructive criticism. But it seems commonplace among members of the opposition to ask generalized questions such as, what are you going to do, when it is not their responsibility. During the course of this debate hon. gentlemen opposite have not offered anything that could approach constructive advice.
The FRED legislation provides the main basis for joint federal-provincial comprehensive development planning in alleged underdeveloped rural regions. It provides that areas, selected jointly by the federal and provincial governments, which are subject to widespread low income, possess major adjustment problems and yet have some recognized

development potential, are eligible for special assistance. Under the terms of this act and under the federal-provincial rural development agreements the program, for the benefit of hon. gentlemen opposite, involves the following: First, physical, economic and social studies and investigations of all sectors of the region to determine its developmental problems and potentials; second, the participation of local people through the establishment of rural development committees or similar bodies and, finally, the preparation of comprehensive development plans incorporating a broad range of projects whose purpose is to increase income and employment opportunities and to raise standards of living.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman has asked for an example. He has only to go to his own province of Manitoba to get an example of the working of this program, and I refer of course to the recently signed agreement.


Mr. Schreyer:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he mean to say that the ARDA or P.F.R.A. programs in Manitoba have been transferred into actual, tangible works?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I did not say they have been transferred into tangible works. Certain aspects of this program have only recently come to fruition. Certainly I make no suggestion that a miracle is involved. I leave such pie-in-the-sky sentiment to my hon. friend opposite.
Another good example is the northeast agreement in the province of New Brunswick. If there is any question as to how well this has been received by the people of New Brunswick we have only to reflect a little on the results of yesterday's election in that province. It is quite clear to me, if one looks at the results of that election, that the people of New Brunswick were satisfied with the initiative which has been taken jointly by the federal and provincial governments, notwithstanding the combination of the Van Home-Stanfield axis and their attempts to abort this program and progress in that province. Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, are now preparing similar programs. These are comprehensive programs which deal with the development of natural and human resources in these areas.
I suggest to hon. members opposite that this is a good example of federal initiative in this field. I am not suggesting that because the federal government has brought in a
October 24, 1367

good program the principles of which are correct we should not have constructive comments from hon. gentlemen opposite, but it is impossible to have a constructive debate if hon. gentlemen opposite refuse to believe that any such programs exist. The government has done something in these fields, and if hon. gentlemen opposite want to be helpful I think they should first address themselves to learning something about the initiatives of the federal government. I am quite sure that in many of these programs there is room for improvement and for constructive criticism. I suggest that would make a much more realistic contribution than the absurd statements made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who completely dismissed the fact that there were any developments or initiatives.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman referred to my remarks as absurd. That is merely his opinion. He is a master of absurdities.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I must suggest to the hon. member that I have received quite a good course in absurdities from hon. members opposite during the course of this debate and therefore I am quite able to judge them.
There is another area in which the federal government has taken an initiative so far as resources are concerned. I refer to the programs of the department of manpower, the specific purpose of which is to upgrade people's skills and give them opportunities to get better jobs. Surely this is one of the most significant initiatives taken by any government anywhere in the world to develop human resources. In dealing with a program of this magnitude there is obviously room for constructive criticism and for suggestions. Nevertheless, during the course of the speeches made by hon. members opposite in support of the amendment introduced by the former minister of agriculture never once did they address themselves to the existing programs and policies of this government which have received widespread support throughout the country and which are leading initiatives in relation to programs undertaken by governments in other countries. Not once did hon. members opposite offer any constructive criticism or helpful advice on how these federal initiatives could be improved.
Recently I had the opportunity to visit the province of Prince Edward Island and to obtain some first hand information on what the department of manpower is doing in that province to offer new skills and new job
DEBATES	3447
Policy Statement on National Resources opportunities to people in rural areas. I have seen the same program in operation in Newfoundland, and I am sure the same is true in other parts of Canada. There is also the manpower mobility program which is aimed at making it easier for Canadian citizens to move to areas where jobs can be obtained.
I should also like to make some reference to the policies of the Department of Fisheries. Hon. members opposite have said that the government has no fisheries policy. I point out that in 1964, at the calling of the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), a national conference on fisheries was convened which laid the groundwork for considerable development in that field in the three years since then. In fact these have been the three most dynamic years in the growth of fisheries in Canada. We have had, for example, a series of conferences sponsored by the federal Department of Fisheries which have led to practical results.
One of the most helpful conferences which the Department of Fisheries held as part of the fisheries policy enunciated at the federal-provincial conference in 1964 was the conference on herring in the Atlantic provinces which has led to a tremendous increase in the development and exploitation of that resource in the four Atlantic provinces.


Edward Nasserden: Particularly the red
herring.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The hon. gentleman opposite has brought in a red herring. Of course that is nothing new from my hon. friend from Saskatchewan. It is unfortunate he did not participate in that conference as I am sure he would have brought more brilliance to it than did some of his colleagues, and it is a great pity that some of his best remarks are made from his seat. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner adjournment I had mentioned a number of very significant initiatives which the present administration had taken in the field of resource development. I made particular reference to the initiatives taken by the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, placing emphasis on the fund for rural economic development and the steps that have
October 24, 1967
3448	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources been taken in several provinces in Canada to co-ordinate a comprehensive federal and provincial plan in order to develop resources, both natural and human, in these specific areas.
I also pointed out to the house that this contrasted with the shotgun or machine gun approach of the previous administration. I mentioned the fact that opposition speakers had made such sweeping generalizations as really to weaken their own arguments. Perhaps they would have been well advised to recognize the fact-and fact it is-that in a number of important areas the federal government has taken several important and broad initiatives.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there may perhaps be room for constructive criticism that would be helpful to parliament and to the country, but it would seem that the tactics of the official opposition have not really changed very much from what they had been in earlier parliaments. This I suggest affects seriously the credibility of the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite.
I would also point out in passing one oversight-as I am sure it was-in the speech of the former minister of agriculture, who was criticizing the government for 22 cent power,
I believe it was. I would draw to his attention that the administration of which he was a member sold power at the border for 24 cents. Although this was at a considerably later date in time from the 22 cent contract, I do not think that this action when he was a minister in that administration is at all in keeping with some of the things he would like us to believe as a result of the speech that he made in this house.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), in his usual style of oversimplification, also suggested that there was a dilemma, or something of that sort, over the type of policy that we should adopt in this country. On the one hand the leader of the New Democratic party suggested there is such a thing as a continentalist approach, while on the other hand he suggested there was a nationalist approach.
I hope that for the sake of this country and of this parliament there is a third approach, one not so ideologically hidebound or restrictive as that adopted by the leader of the New Democratic party. I should like to think that as Canadians we can take a pragmatic approach to the development of our resources and not be concerned about any taboos when it comes to dealing with other countries.


I have a tremendous fear that if the kind of thinking which is exemplified by the leader of the New Democratic party were to become widespread in this country we would in fact return to an isolationaist position which I suggest is not in keeping in this modem world. I also indicate, with all due respect, an inaccuracy in the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He said that power was being sold in Seattle at 22 cents. That is not correct; it is being sold in Seattle at 35 cents.
I also made reference before the supper hour to policies and programs of the government as far as fisheries are concerned. I draw attention to the fact that today in Ottawa a very important conference is being held which can have far-reaching effects on the development of our fisheries resource and the maximum utilization of that resource. The fish portein conference is being held this week in Ottawa, and this protein is commonly known as fish flour. Tonight in the Confederation room a number of members of parliament had an opportunity to taste food prepared with fish flour, and I think most came away with the impression that the development of fish flour has great potential.
As one who knows, like my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), I am sure that great progress will ultimately be made in the development of this protein for world consumption and that great benefit will accrue to the fishermen of eastern Canada largely as the result of the initiative taken by this government. However, I want my friends from western Canada to rest assured that world demand for flour will be such that they will be able to maintain their traditional markets. I think that the conference now being held, which is one step in a series of initiatives taken by this government in developing a fisheries policy, is another example of how absurd were some of the comments which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
The hon. gentleman from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) seems to have quite a gift for making the rather ridiculous and absurd seem plausible. While I envy him this gift, and while indeed at times by his mere demeanour in the house he may be able to convince us that he is speaking from Mount Sinai, anybody who takes the trouble to examine the facts will surely realize that in the field of fisheries resources-in fact, in the whole resource field-this government has
October 24, 1967

taken a series of initiatives in the development of broad and comprehensive policies, policies which must of their nature be changed as conditions change.
I made mention of the policies of this government in relation to human resources, particularly the program of the Department of Manpower and Immigration which is one of the most imaginative concepts undertaken by any government in any part of the free world. I also drew attention to the relationship of this department to the work it is doing with the regional economic and resource planning being undertaken by the Department of Forestry and Rural Development in co-operation and consultation with the provinces. Surely the kind of thing that is now emerging under a Liberal administration as far as the concept of ARDA is concerned is much more comprehensive and practical, and will have much more effect than the rather haphazard, shotgun approach envisaged by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in office.
I might say that as far as fisheries development is concerned-and I made reference to the great conference that was called in 1964-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In 1961.


Richard Joseph Cashin: In 1964 a great fisheries conference was called. I am glad to hear my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) make his usual contribution to the debate. I see that nothing much has changed about him since hon. members over there have taken new leadership.


Mr. Forrestall:: What happened to your leadership?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am glad to see the hon. members on the other side are so happy. They are still the same old bunch over there. I listened to some of their speeches.


An hon. Member:: Listen to this.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I see they have not lost the old touch.


An hon. Member:: Famous last words.


Richard Joseph Cashin: One of their friends in New Brunswick yesterday was closer in touch with realities than his friends here are. Even with the help of the great white father from
3449
Policy Statement on National Resources Nova Scotia, who showered him with affection, his party was unable to save the day in New Brunswick.


Mr. Danforih:: Worry about yourself in Newfoundland.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am glad to hear hon. members on the other side cackling. Their comments are so witty and original. I hope Hansard is getting them.


An hon. Member:: Worry about yourself.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I mentioned the 1964 fisheries conference. It was the first conference of a series and was instituted by the Minister of Fisheries. Its aim was to help to develop the catching of other species of fish-


An hon. Member:: Lots of fish here.


Richard Joseph Cashin: -in the Atlantic provinces. Until then the Atlantic provinces had depended on catching a limited number of fish species.


An hon. Member:: Something fishy there.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Unlike hon. gentlemen opposite, who know of only one sort of fish, the red herring, the people of the Atlantic provinces mean what they say. The development of our fishing resources brings about a development of human resources. It has great economic consequences for Canada, as has the development of other resources.
The Department of Fisheries has successfully undertaken in the four Atlantic provinces programs such as I have mentioned. Those programs are having tangible effects and are helping fishermen in those provinces to increase their incomes. At the same time the resources of the area are being diversified. Of course certain types of fish are overfished, but this problem the Department of Fisheries has dealt with previously and will continue to deal with.
In conclusion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member has
concluded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eight fifteen o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 56(4)(d) to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith the question on any amendment before the house.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

October 24. 1967
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux).


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted in support of the subamendment.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh).


Mr. Forest:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.
Ociober 24, 1967


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Speaker, I was
paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the amendment to the main motion. Is it the wish of the house that the bells be rung?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux).


Jean Casselman Wadds: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh). If I had voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
October 24, 1967
3452	COMMONS
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market [Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I was
paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). Had he been here and enabled me to vote, I would have voted for the amendment.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Ballard); had I voted, X would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion.



ALLEGED LOSS OF WORLD WHEAT MARKET

Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, my grievance tonight concerns the loss to Canada of the world wheat market and its effect on Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy in general. I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) were here tonight. However, in his absence I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) or some responsible minister on the government front benches will reply tonight to what I have to say.


An hon. Member:: They are all
irresponsible.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It may be asking a great deal to ask for a responsible minister to answer tonight, but I did my best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Tonight we do not want to hear any backbench speeches and excuses regarding this very, very serious matter. We want to hear from the front benches how the government intends to remedy the situation in which we find ourselves. I could speak tonight about the international wheat agreement, but why flog a dead horse? The front benches on the government side behaved like Nero; they sat and fiddled while Rome burned. They sit fiddling even now, while we are losing the world wheat market. I should like to read to the house part of an article
[Mrs. Wadds.l

I want to put some facts on the record tonight to assure the house that when I speak I have facts to back up what I am saying. I have said that in Alberta today there are 106 points on a unit quota. The farmer can sell 400 bushels of wheat. He might have 12,000 bushels but he can sell only 400. In Saskatchewan the story is different. There are 38 points on a unit basis there. In Alberta there are 220 points on a one-bushel quota. In Saskatchewan there are 399 points. In Alberta there are 189 points on a two bushel quota and in Saskatchewan there are 574. Is that not discrimination?
I am glad to see here tonight a fellow Albertan who represents the constituency of Medicine Hat. I am sure his constituents will be glad I brought this subject up and I am sure he will get support from the Alberta farmers tonight. I am sure he will say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) "Get busy and help farmers in Alberta. Equalize the quotas so our farmers will get some money". This is a local issue. The other day I asked a question in the house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not here but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) informed me that the farmers could take out cash advances. I am glad to hear about cash advances. Who brought in cash advances? It was the Conservative government that did so. All the Liberal government brought in was chaos, and they are bringing in more every day. Our farmers have wheat piled on the ground. They do not want cash advances; they want to sell that wheat because for the last ten years they have been used to selling it. When the Conservative government was in office we sold the wheat, and the Liberal government which followed it used our markets for four years and continued to sell wheat. Now we are losing our markets and wheat is piling up on the prairies. What is the government going to do about it?
Here is a telegram I received from two points ten miles inside the Saskatchewan border. It reads as follows:
Points nearest to us on Saskatchewan side are on two bushel quotas and most cases have room for three.
There is discrimination against farmers in Alberta. Recently I brought up in the house the matter of box cars. I was informed that these points could obtain all the box cars they wanted but they could not get a shipping order from the wheat board. I investigated this charge and I found that the terminals in Vancouver and Fort William are
DEBATES	3453
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market loaded with wheat, but one cannot expect the railroad to fill up their cars with wheat when they cannot unload them. That is the responsibility of this government. What action is it taking? It is taking no action. The Japanese market is lost to us and the Canadian government is doing nothing about it. We find that the Chinese are not interested in buying wheat from us at the present time, nor is the U.S.S.R.
This reminds me of that great film called "Mr. Pearson" which I saw one Sunday evening. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) sat in the car while the Russians bought some wheat. I say to the government, do not wait for them to drop in again because they might not do it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is like a goose sitting on its nest waiting for another egg to hatch. I wish the minister were here tonight.
It is the responsibility of this government, of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board to find markets for our Canadian wheat. The former minister of agriculture was criticized; but who sold our wheat? He and the former minister of trade and commerce travelled round this world and found markets for our wheat. Now we find it piling up in the prairies. How would members of the government like to change places with our farmers and sell 400 bushels of wheat to pay their operating expenses? This is downright shameful. The government is not interested.
Whom do we find here tonight? We find the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing). I congratulate him for being here tonight. He is making an effort to speak on different subjects, including housing. It is not his fault that he has to speak for others. Somebody said the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is here. I am sure he will be able to tell us what this government is going to do to straighten out the very serious situation we are facing today. The economic situation in Canada will continue to deteriorate unless the government makes an effort to find markets for Canadian wheat. Unless the government shows some interest in the wheat sales, the farmers will only be able to look forward to a five or six bushel quota. This is a serious situation.
* (9:10 p.m.)
It seems we are going back to the Liberal days of 1953 and 1954. I remember those years, Mr. Speaker, and what years they
October 24, 1967

Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market were. Let me give the hon. gentlemen opposite the benefit of the doubt and assume that the farmers will get, not a five bushel quota but a six bushel quota. This means that a farmer with a section of land and 500 acres sown to wheat will be able to sell 3,000 bushels of that wheat. In such circumstances how can the farmers operate and the economy remain stable? Let me remind the government that when the farmers do not prosper the economy of the country suffers. Nothing is more important to the economy of Canada than western and eastern Canadian agriculture.
What bothers me today, Mr. Speaker, is that for the last ten years the farmers of western Canada have been accustomed to selling their wheat. The Conservatives came to power in 1957, and in that year and the following year went to work with the Canadian Wheat Board to find markets for our wheat. We sold as much wheat as the farmers could grow. When our Liberal friends came into office they inherited the markets we had established, but these are now dwindling and nothing is being done to improve the situation.
I suggest it is the duty tonight of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell this house and the farmers of Canada that in conjunction with the Canadian Wheat Board officials the government will seek out markets for our grain. Ever since parliament resumed we have been discussing the international wheat agreement and the steps that should be taken by the government, but all we have had is evasive answers. I speak tonight on behalf of the farmers of western Canada and I plead with the government-if it is possible to plead with them-to do something to remedy the drastic situation we are facing as a result of the loss of Canadian wheat markets.
The farmers of western Canada see their wheat lying piled upon the ground. They have expensive machinery to buy, which increases in cost every year. That new machinery is being bought to replace the old, in the expectation that the farmers will be able to sell the wheat they produce. However, as I have said before, I predict that our farmers will be given only a five or perhaps a six bushel quota. The result will be that the farmers of western Canada will be placed in a very difficult situation, as will the businessmen.
I observe the Minister of Agriculture and the minister of northern affairs having a conference, and I hope that one of them is

going to reply. Perhaps the minister of northern affairs can get the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh)) to come into the house and reply. I have tried to be reasonable and I am pleading tonight that the government do something for our farmers. It is not enough for the government to say that the Russians are going to buy more wheat, that somebody will come along and we can let it pile up.
I should like to close by asking somebody on the front benches-I do not want a Liberal backbencher to stand up and make a political speech-to tell the western farmers what representations were made to the United States government before they started to fire sale their wheat. The farmers want to know what action the minister is prepared to take about equalizing the quotas which are so discriminatory to the farmers of Alberta and Manitoba.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we should like to know what the government is going to do to promote further sales of wheat. If they have nothing in mind, then let them come clean; let some member of the front bench tell the house that the Liberals, as in previous years, have failed, that they cannot handle Canadian wheat, that they cannot sell it and that it will pile up. Let them tell the western farmers not to expect more than a five or six bushel quota per acre this coming year, so that the farmers can govern themselves accordingly. That is only being fair to the farmers and businessmen of this country. As I have said, they were able to sell their wheat when the Conservative government was in office, and they now want to know where they stand. They do not want to overbuy in the matter of equipment and to find chaos across the country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will soon tell us when we can expect the old Liberal election promise of $2 wheat to come to fruition.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate, if only briefly, in view of the very serious situation faced by our farmers in marketing their grain, as so ably demonstrated by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood). As the hon. member mentioned, an expected over-all delivery quota of six bushels an acre means that at the end of the crop year there will still be a considerable amount of grain being stored on the farms. Under the circumstances I suggest the government consider revising the cash advance legislation in order to make more money available to the
October 24, 1987

farmers to meet the additional cost of production.
We on this side were pleased by the minister's announcement that the Japanese were resuming purchases of wheat for December and that they were giving consideration to their requirements for January and February. However, I should like to point out that the Japanese market is one of our traditional markets and that we lost a considerable volume of sales of wheat to Japan as a result of the United States price cutting which took place after the international wheat agreement was allowed to lapse. As this United States wheat has been sold, I am sure the loss to Canadian farmers will not be made up in their sales for this year.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The fact that this price cutting did take place points up the very obvious fact that the governments of the wheat producing nations, including the Canadian government, made a serious error of judgment in allowing the international wheat agreement to lapse until the end of this crop year. The government never told the story about those negotiations. Could it be that in emulating the dog, in the story of the dog with the bone, they dropped what they had for something larger? Surely it would have been good business to extend the old agreement until the new one was ratified by the participating governments. Whatever the cause of the lapse, we must realize that temporarily we face a buyers market. It may be a good idea to emphasize that this is temporary. The wheat producing areas of the world, such as Australia and Canada, suffered from a serious drought this year which could well change world supply conditions in the next year. The government would be well advised to avoid a price war and to emphasize to other producing nations that disaster prices do not change world wheat requirements. If one nation sells wheat below the cost of production it means that another nation will sell less of its wheat.
This does not mean that we ought not try to sell every possible bushel of wheat. I think the minister should take a more active part in negotiations, particularly with our traditional customers who have learned over the years to respect the excellence of our grading system and the baking quality of our wheat. Let me advise the minister to become acquainted with the wheat dealers of the world so that he, as a former minister of the Conservative government did, may also sell wheat.
DEBATES	3455
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market
Wheat sales in the past few years have contributed greatly to our national prosperity. They have figured largely in our balance of payments with other countries. The government, and particularly the Minister of Finance when he was minister of trade and commerce, urged our farmers to expand their wheat acreage. The government has an obligation to those farmers who took the minister's advise to expand their acreage; it has an obligation to enable them to meet their commitments during this crop year, and I hope the government acts quickly to honour its obligation.
Though we are in a surplus position, that is no reason for the government to put its head in the sand and throw up its hands. That is quite a feat-putting your head in the sand and throwing up your hands-but the government has done that before. The cabinet must display more energy in selling wheat. It must try to persuade other countries in the world that only so much wheat is consumed each year and that traditional markets should be left to traditional suppliers. Such a course of action is only reasonable and I hope the minister undertakes it quickly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is present. Unfortunately, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not present this evening to hear the remarks of the hon. members for Battle Eiver-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) and Lisgar (Mr. Muir).
Most members representing prairie constituencies do not pretend that the government does not face special problems with respect to wheat exports this year. It faces additional difficulties as the contracts call for wheat of certain grades to be sold. Fortunately, our wheat is of above average grade. This is so certainly in Manitoba. In the part of Manitoba that I represent, which is on the eastern boundary of the wheat growing area, for the first time in two decades wheat mostly grading No. 1 and No. 2 has been produced on most farms.
Answering the legitimate attack of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) and of my leader, in the closing days of September the minister announced that wheat would be supported on the basis of $1.95| for No. 1 Northern at the lakehead. In that announcement we see an important principle. Other governments which follow this one will have to adopt that principle if they are not to invite political disaster on the prairies. The government adopted the principle that
3456	COMMONS DEBATES	Ociober 24, 1967
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market when the vagaries of international trade affect wheat sales to the extent that wheat prices fall below the cost of production, thus inviting economic ruin for farmers, the government will intervene. As the Western Producer said in an editorial, the important principle of government intervention in such circumstances has been accepted. Though the government's announcement may not mean much in dollars and cents in 1967-1968, that announcement nevertheless is welcome because of the principle which demonstrably has been accepted.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and the Minister of Agriculture must still answer certain important questions. It must be remembered that on May 25 the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced in the house that the new agreement had been successfully negotiated and that it would take effect as of July 31, 1968. In the period between now and then the price to be negotiated for sales of export wheat would be in the same range as prices contemplated under that agreement. Perhaps I should not say that; I should not paraphrase. I shall quote direct from Hansard of May 25 where, at page 577, the minister is reported to have said this:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Hon. members will recall that the price provisions of the present international wheat agreement expire July 31. On the matter of price, 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.
Less than three months after that statement, the facts flatly and absolutely repudiated it. I should like to ask what the minister meant when he said "it is understood"? Did he mean there was some understanding given in written form, or did he mean it was simply a vague hail-fellow-well-met slap on the back type of arrangement made during the closing hours of the negotiations in Geneva last spring? I do not think it is good enough for a minister of the crown to give an assurance to the house on the basis of such an informal and casual agreement.
Fortunately for the minister, for his government and for the country the repercussions of that kind of sloppy negotiation were not really so severe, although one can argue that a price decline of 22 cents per bushel of wheat between April and September was more drastic than we would like. The minister should explain to the house how he could

get up and say it was understood the price range would continue in effect as though the new agreement were in force. This simply did not happen. The minister should have been more explicit as to the nature of the negotiations and discussions, and as to the nature of these "understandings."
Further, when I was speaking on September 27 in reply to the minister's announcement I asked him if it was not a fact that just seven or ten days prior to his making the announcement that the government was prepared to support the price of wheat at $1.95 per bushel he had categorically stated in a press conference that the government was not considering any form of price subsidy.
The reason I mention these incidents, Mr. Speaker, is to focus attention on the uncertainty, confusion and nrocrastination the government displayed with respect to the crisis which welled up last August and September over the price of wheat in international markets. This is one important feature of the problem that confronts western wheat producers.
Another problem which in an immediate sense is more pressing, one related to us by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, is that despite the suave assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and he is one who can give suave assurances-export movement of wheat from our terminal positions lagged in August and September far behind the movement of wheat in the same period last year, the year before that, the year before that, and the year before that again. In fact the lag in export movements from terminal positions this year was so severe that the amount exported in August, and in August-September combined, was less than half the amount exported in the same period last year.
This is pretty significant. Actually it is pretty frightening. It carries with it some very cold and bleak prospects. This is a problem the government must tackle with more energy, certainly more energy than it has been showing during the past few weeks. The problem is not difficult to outline. As the terminals slow down, the blockage moves back across our grain transportation facilities to the country elevators. The hon. member for Lisgar was absolutely right in saying that the government through the Wheat Board should take more effective steps.
If it simply is not possible to liberalize-I use the word liberalize in its generic sense- the federal cash advance legislation in order
October 24, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3457
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market
to make more money available to farmers, then the government should think in terms of at least increasing the amount paid on the unit quota delivered.
I know that any suggestion we on this side of the house put forward is unlikely to be met with acceptance by the government. I was just a young fellow then, but I clearly recall ten or 11 years ago when the farmers union, the C.C.F. and the Progressive Conservatives were advocating cash advance legislation. The government said this was impossible, but the Conservative administration took over and did it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Richard Schreyer: That legislation was practical to implement; yet many people in high places prior to 1957 said it was not feasible or practical. With respect to the problem now looming, I suggest that unless the movement of wheat from terminal positions can be increased and this may require special sales efforts-the government should think in terms of amending the cash advance legislation, or else think in terms of increasing the amount paid on the unit quota delivered. The government should do something, and not leave the problem to be borne solely by the wheat producers.
To give hon. members an indication of how drastic the problem is becoming I may say I happen to know that certain farm organizations are in process of sending trade possibility investigating teams to different parts of the world. One such team was dispatched by a prairie farm union to Japan at its own expense, in order to see whether some stimulus could be injected into Japan's imports of wheat from Canada. This indicates that many people do not have much confidence in the government's efforts, because they are sending these teams at their own expense.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If this should continue for another few weeks or months, then surely it would be legitimate to ask whether this government is carrying out the services for which its departments are being allocated public funds. Very unfortunately, in the months of August, September, and October to date it would seem that our record in export sales of wheat is not an improving but rather a deteriorating one.


Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in talking about this problem, which in the future I feel will be a great deal more
serious than it is today, I think it is wise that we should take a look at some of the statements which have appeared in the press. I am sure some hon. members will have read an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer of September 28, 1967, under the heading "Wheat Prices a Major Crisis". It begins by telling how Mr. Charles Gibbings has been very much disturbed by this crisis and quotes him as saying:
Canadian wheat producers are facing the most critical marketing situation that has existed for more than twenty years.
The United States is now pursuing a policy of selling wheat at whatever price is necessary to make sales. Through the government's failure to assess properly the world wheat situation, by being painfully slow in seeing what the Americans were doing, and by our brinkmanship at the negotiations table when the new wheat agreement was being concluded, we now find ourselves in the painful price position in which we are today.
The Globe and Mail of September 26, 1967, had this to say:
Canadian wheat exports in August showed a sharp decrease from August, 1986 and a substantial decrease from the ten year average for the month.
I could put these figures on the record, but I think everyone who is interested knows what the figures are. I think the most significant thing in the whole business is what happened to our Japanese market. Our sales to Japan this year were 1.8 million bushels and last year they were 6.9 million bushels. It is pretty obvious that our marketings have suffered very seriously. In fact we would not be talking about this if it were not true. Mr. Roy Atkinson, president of the National Farmers Union, charged on September 12 that the United States was slashing prices in a calculated attempt to scuttle prospects for a new international wheat agreement. I have been paraphrasing his words, but the idea was just as strongly expressed. Mr. Gibbings believes that all nations participating in the Geneva agreement have a moral obligation to observe the floor price to which they agree. You will notice, however, that he says, "moral obligation" and sometimes, unfortunately, in international business moral obligations are not held to very well.
As Mr. Gibbings put it, "Technical difficulties in completing the final document should not serve as an excuse to break the floor." Mr. Gibbings also said that he had sent a telegram to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) on Sept. 12, urging

October 24, 1967
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market the federal government to discuss the wheat situation with the United States. The minister did go to Washington on that date. The thing that astonishes me is that the minister, who had a distinguished business career, should have let a matter like this go on for over two months before he took any steps to correct a situation that was so very obvious. It should have been very obvious immediately after the conclusion of the new agreement that there could be great difficulties in implementing it. The agreement was not to come into effect until July of 1968. There would be no controls on anyone during the 1967-68 crop year. This point has been emphasized by every speaker so far tonight.
Mr. Gibbings stated most succinctly the following:
It will be noted that the United States price dipped below floor levels on July 13, the day alter 52 nations met in Rome to begin discussions about implementing the sixth wheat agreement. The implications of the cut-throat competition which has prevailed for some time are serious.
He went on to say that there is no present indication the United States intends to pursue any other pricing policy. Why then, if others could see what was happening, did our Liberal minister do nothing during this period? Earlier this year the United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Freeman, set an export target of 750 million bushels of grain for the United States. His policy also indicated that a smaller portion would be devoted to give away programs. This obviously put more pressure on the selling program. It appears therefore that the United States has embarked on a policy of selling more wheat for less money in order to achieve its marketing aim. Such a policy is an exercise in futility.
It has been shown time and again that lower prices do not increase human consumption of wheat. All that happens is that other exporters, if they are on their toes, also cut their prices and the amount which goes into the market remains the same. The relative sales should remain the same. It would seem evident that the minister and those who advise him clearly were not on their toes, because they allowed the United States to capture a great deal of our sales during the month of August and most of the month of September. How did we get into such a setup? Although I hate to think this is so, I believe we are forced to the conclusion that the Liberals have an entirely different attitude toward grain sales than the previous administration had. I think that attitude is
[Mr. Cantelon.)
entirely wrong. It is one which seems to say, "Keep hands off the grain board; let them make the sales". But this is not what happens in the world today. Every government takes a hand in the sales and uses what measures it can to promote those sales.
We got into it because of the way in which we proceeded to negotiate this new cereals agreement. Mr. Andrew Knight, who wrote an article on the Kennedy round cereals agreement, which was published in the Executive of July, 1967, headed it, "The Poker Hand that Failed Us." I recommend this to anyone who is really interested in this subject. He points out that in the week of April 15 most of the major powers in the Kennedy round tariff cutting negotiations were planning make or break negotiations which threatened to block the success of the entire round, as it affected cereals. At that particular time there were two weeks to go until the official deadline for the Kennedy round package, but the cereals talks that week never took place. Why did they not take place? They did not take place because the Canadian delegation did not turn up in Geneva. As one British negotiator put it, "The Cans are away playing brinkmen". This reminds me all too vividly of what happened in the spring of 1963 when our negotiators never showed up at Hong Kong until after the Chinese had concluded an agreement with Australia, and then we hastily sent them over.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
One can see why I feel that the government has adopted a strange attitude. I think this situation is far too important to be treated in this casual way. Wheat is one of our major exports; in fact, it is our greatest single export. For the last four years it has generated for us something like $1 billion in foreign exchange, and without this our country's prosperity during that period would have been nothing more than a pipe dream. In spite of this, our delegation casually failed to show up when they were expected. I do not blame the delegation, I blame the government for failing to see that they arrived on time.
The Kennedy rounds were completed more than a month later, and everyone seems to be very happy about what this will do for manufacturing and industrial production generally. However, in arriving at this position a comprehensive cereals agreement seems to have suffered very seriously. What is worse, in arriving at this agreement we have antagonized the United States unnecessarily.
October 24, 1967	COMMONS
There have been serious arguments about the access arrangements for Canadian and other wheat with the major importing markets of Europe, Britain and Japan. There have been long arguments about whether the big wheat exporters themselves should limit production in the interests of obtaining a stable market. These disagreements were so serious that by the final week of the talks the United States negotiating team voluntarily abandoned the cereal discussions in order, as they thought, to save the rest of the round. Perhaps this did save the remainder, but certainly it put us in an unenviable position this year.
The six European common market countries and Great Britain agreed with the United States and Australia, leaving Canada holding the bag. In view of the fact the United States is an exporter of wheat, it naturally agreed. The final wheat minimum was 11 cents below our asking price. Besides that, the scheme to finance the world food aid agreement provided only 4,500,000 tons. The grain producing countries, particularly the United States, wanted 10,000,000 tons taken off the world market and delivered to underdeveloped nations who otherwise would not have been able to use wheat to feed their peoples. They had to settle for 4,500,000 tons.
This left the United States with a serious problem of marketing a large quantity of low quality grain. As we all know, this has always been a big problem for the United States because they have always had a large quantity of grain of a quality much below what we market. This year in particular we find ourselves in a very difficult position when trying to compete with them, because we have produced an average crop of a very high quality. In my own constituency of Kin-dersley I doubt whether there will be any appreciable quantity of grades 2 or 3 grain.
It looks as though 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the crop in that area will be No. 1 Northern. That grain is of such high quality it will be extremely difficult to sell it on the markets of the world. We know that the lines-I almost said pipe lines-to and from the elevators are plugged from the country elevators to the terminals, and unless we can move this high quality grain I am very much afraid the situation will remain the same for most of the winter.
We also know that the railway companies have been doing their best, but there are 7,000 to 8,000 loaded grain cars sitting on sidings and in terminals. We will all realize that there is a tremendous blockage when we
DEBATES	3459
Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market reach the point that we can no longer move it at all. This whole situation has left the United States with a serious problem of marketing low quality grain. This is one of the main reasons the United States team set out deliberately to cut the price, and they began to do so almost immediately after the delegation left Geneva. It took the minister until mid-September to take the logical step of meeting them on a ministerial level to find an agreement.
The minister now thinks the decline has been stopped. The other day he even boasted a bit about the fact that the price had recovered a couple of cents; and so it had. He went on to make an announcement that wheat would be supported at the minimum price set by the agreement. He said that all graiji sold below that price would be subsidized to bring the price up to the minimum. This did help, of course, but I think members can gather from what I have said that unless we sell our grain this subsidization will mean nothing.
At the present time there seems to be very little prospect of our selling any grain. What this will do to the farmer who needs money, I am not sure, but he will be very embarrassed and not very favourably disposed toward the actions of this minister or this government.
In the four weeks of negotiations it seems clear that we came out with very much less than we expected. The question now is whether the agreement will ever be operative. The minister pointed out early this summer in the house that the old agreement had lapsed and that the new one would not take effect until July 31, 1968. In the meantime he has said that the law of supply and demand would govern world wheat prices. If he knew this then, and I am sure he did because he is an excellent businessman, it is very strange that he did nothing while the price declined under the so-called law of supply and demand. The minister ought to know that if the price stays under the newly negotiated minimum it is very doubtful that the new agreement will ever mean anything.
It is quite possible that under these circumstances importing countries will refuse formally to ratify this agreement. If enough of them do this the agreement will not become effective. This could place us in the middle of a price war such as that of the early 1930's. Some will recall that period when we all suffered, and may recall how we lost markets as importing countries subsidized their wheat
October 24, 1967

Loss to Canada of World Wheat Market farmers to protect them against low prices. We have never fully regained the markets we lost then in Europe.
While I think the long term prospects for grain marketing are good, the present prospects are not as good. We are going to have to be very careful and very sharp in this country to prevent further deterioration, particularly if we are going to convince the United States that price cutting will harm us all and may wreck the international wheat agreement which has been negotiated. I certainly hope this will not be the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(f) of standing order 26, to interrupt these proceedings and put the question to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Benson) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Maurice Rinfret: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 25, 1967