1967-05-24

MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT


Mr, Joseph P. O'Keefe (Si. John's East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-117, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. O'Keefe:: The purpose of this bill is to widen the discretion of the merchant seamen's compensation board so an allowance could be made to a person who undertook the care and maintenance of orphans of merchant seamen entitled to compensation under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
Under the present wording of the act the allowance is payable only if the person concerned moves into the house of the deceased seaman's widow. This bill would permit an allowance to be paid at the discretion of the board when the orphans are cared for and maintained elsewhere than in the former household in a manner satisfactory to the board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Have copies of the Hawthorn report, "A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada", been made available to all Indian bands in Canada?
2.	If not, for what reason?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes, a copy of the report was mailed to the chief of each band.
2.	Not applicable.


LOAN TO INDIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATION
Mr. Laprise: Did the government of Canada grant a loan to the government of India for the construction of a nuclear power station and, if so (a) when and for what amount was this loan made (b) what is the interest rate and what are the terms and conditions of repayments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The government of Canada has extended two loans to the government of India for the construction of a nuclear power station. They were provided under the facilities of section 21A of the Export Credit Insurance Act.
(a) and (b). The first was made on April 27, 1964 in an amount of $37 million, and the terms of the agreement provide for interest at 6 per cent per annum on the outstanding balance, with repayment of principal to be made in 31 semi-annual instalments beginning February 1,	1969. The second
loan was signed on February 28, 1967, and was in an amount of $38.5 million. Terms are similar, with interest at 6 per cent per annum and repayment of principal in 31 semiannual instalments beginning February 1, 1972.


INCREASE IN INSULIN PRICE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	To the knowledge of the government, has there been an increase recently in the price of insulin manufactured by Connaught Laboratories?
2.	If so (a) what is the amount and the percentage of increase (b) on what grounds has the increase been justified?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) The Connaught Medical Research Laboratories, Willowdale, Ontario have reported the following new schedule of prices for insulin effective April 1, 1967, as compared to the previous prices. The percentage increase varies with the type of insulin.
Questions

May 24, 1967
						New	Old	%
							Increase	
Insulin-Toronto	10	cc. - 40	units	per	cc.	0.90	0.83	8.4- 80	units	per	cc.	1.75	1.60	9.4-100	units	per	cc.	2.20	2.00	10.020	cc. -500	units	per	cc.	15.00	15.00	-NPH Insulin	10	cc. - 40	units	per	cc.	1.20	1.00	20.080	units	per	cc.	2.30	1.90	21.1Protamine zinc	10	cc. - 40	units	per	cc.	1.15	0.96	19.8insulin	80	units	per	cc.	2.25	1.85	21.6Lente insulin	10	cc. - 40	units	per	cc.	1.40	1.10	27.3Semilente insulin	- 80	units	per	cc.	2.65	2.10	26.2
Ultralente insulin
(b) The grounds for the increased price according to the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories are the continuing increased cost of supplies, wages and salaries.


SASKATCHEWAN-OIL COMPANY PAYMENT FOR SURFACE RIGHTS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): How many dollars per annum does the federal government receive for surface rights from oil companies working in the P.F.R.A. pasture Lomond No. 1?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: $34,000 from 165 leases.


C.B.C. INTERVIEWS WITH PERSONS REFUSED ENTRY INTO CANADA
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Since April 1, 1964, has the C.B.C. on any occasion sent a radio and/or television team abroad to interview persons who had previously been refused entry into Canada?
2.	If so, on how many occasions was this done?
3.	What was the total cost involved?
4.	Were any of these interviews broadcast and, if so, on what dates and on what programs?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. that to the best of the corporation's knowledge no C.B.C. team has been sent abroad for this purpose.


BUILDING FOR TAXATION DIVISION. REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What progress has been made in the erection of a building in the city of Ottawa for the taxation division, Department of National Revenue?
2.	When is it anticipated that this building will be completed?
[Mr. MacEachen.)
3.	What is the estimated total cost of the building?
4.	How many square feet of space will be provided in the building?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Tenders have been called and close on June 13, 1967.
2.	Thirty months from date of award or contract.
3.	It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders are opened.
4.	435,533 square feet of net usable space.


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, CHANDLER, QUE.
Mr. Keays: 1.	Has there been an agreement signed by the Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Company Limited of Chandler, Quebec, and the federal government concerning the construction of a wharf at Chandler and, if no agreement has been signed, is there one under discussion?
2.	What will be the cost of this project, when will it be undertaken, has the land been acquired, from whom, and at what prices?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes, the signed agreement was received by the department May 17, 1967.
2. The department now is in the process of acquiring land for the necessary right of way. The prices therefore are not yet set. Tenders for the construction will not be called until the right of way has been acquired. It has not been the practice of the department to give estimates of costs before tenders are called.


ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1. What will be the cost of the chapel and two additional workshops to be constructed at the
May 24, 1967

young offenders penal institution, Springhill, Nova Scotia, and what is the proposed completion date of these buildings?
2. What is the name of the contractor and was his bid the lowest tender received?


George James McIlraith: 1. The cost of the chapel and two additional workshops is $1,894,000. The completion date is October, 1967.
2. Simpson Construction Ltd. of Fredericton, N.B., who submitted the lowest tender.


POLITICAL, ACTIVITY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. MacRae: To what extent is it permitted for military personnel to engage in political activity in a federal or provincial election campaign?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The conditions governing participation by officers and men of the Canadian forces in federal and provincial elections are contained in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian forces (article 19.44).


REQUEST FOR WINTER WORKS ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration give some priority to the announcing of his department's policy on the winter works incentive program in order that municipalities may plan and budget in advance?
2.	If so, when may such an announcement be expected?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I understood that starred question No. 48 was called. Was I incorrect?


Mr. Speaker:: I must assume that it is the desire of the minister to let the question stand, since he is not answering it.


Mr. Marchand:: May I have the question stood, Mr. Speaker?
Question stands.


ASSISTANCE TO UNEMPLOYED ON BELL ISLAND, NFLD.
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many people have been moved from their homes on Bell Island in the last 13 months?
2.	What grant has been or is being made under the manpower mobilization program to each of said persons who owned a home?
27053-34J
Questions
3.	When did such grants commence, and will the government give consideration to increasing the amount of such grants?
4.	Of those who have left the island for other centres, how many are now gainfully employed?
5.	Would the government give immediate consideration to additional measures to alleviate the serious situation in which, through no fault of their own, the people of Bell Island find themselves?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. 1,745, including 470 workers and 1,275 dependants.
2.	The manpower mobility program provides for a grant of $500 to a homeowner who sells his home or buys a new one.
3.	April 1, 1967, and see (5).
4.	All workers were moved to gainful employment.
5.	As part of its active program of assistance, the government is continually considering, in collaboration with the government of Newfoundland, further action projects which will be implemented if they are practicable and effective.


IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPREME COURT (
[Stage Direction]
BUILDING	'I
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What alterations and improvements are being made to the Supreme Court building?
2.	When is it expected that such alterations and improvements will be completed?
3.	Will these alterations and improvements provide any additional court or office space and, if so, what?
4.	What is the total estimated cost of all such alterations and improvements?


George James McIlraith: 1. The provision of a judge's chamber; improvements to the registry office of the registrar's department of the Exchequer Court; the provision of reference room, duplicating and printing room, court exhibit room, and general storage area; improvements to the air conditioning systems; improvements to the lighting systems; and the conversion of a freight elevator to a passenger-freight elevator and the installation of a new small service elevator.
2.	It is expected that this work will be completed early in 1968.
3.	No additional court space will be provided. However, some of the existing space will be converted to office space for one judge, to a reference room, duplicating and printing room, exhibit room and for general storage.
4.	A contract has been awarded to M. J. Lafortune Construction Ltd. in the amount of $497,980 for carrying out this work.

May 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS	between what the consumer pays and what
FOR RETURNS	the farmer receives?


* GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS RECEIVING INCOME TAX INFORMATION
Mr. McCleave: To which department or agencies of government does the Department of National Revenue make available information from income tax returns?
Return tabled.


C.B.C. AWARDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
Mr. McCleave: How many awards for its educational programming have been made to the C.B.C. each year since 1955, listing the donor organization and the program receiving the award?
Return tabled.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the very orderly manner in which a presentation was made today by farmers from eastern Canada, respecting the serious situation in agriculture. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to say whether the request that was made by Her Majesty's opposition ten days ago, in an amendment calling for a price of $5.10 per 100 pounds of manufacturing milk, will be met and that this price will be made available to the farmers? Furthermore, having received these very thoughtful and direct representations from the farmers, is the Prime Minister now prepared to say whether an investigation will be ordered regarding the spread between the prices the farmer receives and the inflated prices the consumer must pay?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the representations which were received by the government only a few hours ago will be studied by the government with all the care they deserve, and when a decision is made in regard to those representations which are already in hand, that decision will be announced.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister say whether he will give consideration to having an examination made of the spread
IMr. Mcllraith.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: That examination, Mr. Speaker, has been made on occasion in the past by royal commissions, and it is a continuing question-


John George Diefenbaker: Not since 1935.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, since 1935. It has been investigated since then and it is continually under examination. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that the task force which is being set up, and which I hope will be announced shortly, will have this as one of the subjects for inquiry.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that it is anticipated that the security council will resume its meeting tomorrow to hear the report of the Secretary General following his visit to Cairo, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what position Canada will take on the security council in respect of the threat by Premier Nasser to blockade the gulf of Aqaba?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the security council had a meeting this morning. It was expected to meet at 10.30 as the result of an initiative taken by Canada and Denmark. After the hour when the meeting was scheduled to take place a number of powers thought it was unwise for the meeting to take place at that time.
The Canadian ambassador and others sharing his view persisted. The meeting did take place, and the Canadian ambassador made a statement. Council will resume again this afternoon at 3.30 and I anticipate, pursuant to instructions given by the Canadian government, that a proposal will be made in terms which will be referred to when the Prime Minister speaks during the course of this day. Canada has taken the position that in this very serious situation the security council should be in session, and Canada has taken steps to bring this about.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether the Canadian government intends to
May 24, 1967

suggest that the security council and the United Nations should undertake to reemphasize the freedom of access to international waters such as the gulf of Aqaba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a very important element. As I stated yesterday, it would seem there cannot be much doubt that under international law the right of free passage in the strait exists.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has information concerning whether or not the strait of-I think it is Tiran-is heavily mined and whether any ships have gone into the gulf of Aqaba since the threatened blockade.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assume my hon. friend is referring to the strait of Tiran. I have no confirmation of that news story.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to offer naval and military aid if the United States sixth fleet undertakes to protect shipping in the Aqaba gulf?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I know of no such proposal. In any event I am sure my hon. friend would appreciate that the seriousness of this matter does not warrant his usually very agreeable form of humour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is not humour at all. I say this very seriously. Is this problem to be left just to the United States to settle or, in view of the announced policy of the government, are we not prepared to assist with our naval and military forces.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I hope the United States will take a very vital interest in this matter. I also hope some of the other great powers will take a special interest in this situation. Having said that, I am not ashamed of the interest Canada is taking in the matter.


POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL OF CANADIAN MEMBERS OF GAZA STRIP FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the information the minister gave on television last night in connection with the withdrawal of the Canadian troops which formed a part of the United Nations force previously in the Gaza strip, would he now inform the
Inquiries of the Ministry house what the arrangements are in this regard?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker I did not discuss contingency plans in any detail, nor do I care to do so at this time. I did indicate, however, that we were sending three ships to the eastern Atlantic to be available in case of emergency. I gave this indication because the news media in Halifax had already become aware that this operation was commencing today, as a result of information received from some of the sailors who had been alerted. I thought in fairness it was the best thing to indicate publicly that these ships were being sent and that this was part of an over-all plan which would give us a maximum number of options in case the situation deteriorated. I declined then and I would have to decline now to elaborate on the details in respect of any possible operation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that last night on television the minister did go into some detail about the possible evacuation by air, land and sea, and in view of his statement yesterday that there was no plan for evacuating the troops from El Arish airport, which is the only one available, will the minister now tell us what he meant by his statement last night?


Mr. Hellyer:: I meant exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. There are three options available and we do not want to foreclose any of them. This involves the difference between contingency plans and what might be definite plans under certain circumstances having in mind political and other factors. It is because of this that I declined to elaborate yesterday and feel that I must decline to elaborate further at this time.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister told us that he thought Canadian troops would be the last to be removed from the area. Can the minister elaborate as to why that is so? Is it due to transportation facilities or the lack thereof?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think this question is in order.


Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether any ships on the Pacific coast are to be moved to the Atlantic coast, or is such a move being contemplated?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not aware of any such plan, Mr. Speaker.

May 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING OF GROUP OF TEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Some time ago I asked a question regarding the meeting of the financial officials of the big ten in Washington. This meeting now has concluded. The minister said that if anything came out of the meeting he would be pleased to provide the information to the house. It seems that at least there will be a meeting in July of the finance ministers of the big ten in which the Minister of Finance will be involved. Could he tell us anything about the type of matters which will be on the agenda for that meeting, and what Canada's policy will be in respect of the formation of a new international monetary asset?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I had a full report from my officials of the meetings which have taken place of the deputies of the group of ten ministers. The discussions have been very difficult indeed. I would be less than frank if I did not say that so far the results have been disappointing. However, I am hopeful that it still will be possible to emerge from the discussions with improvements in the machinery for creating international liquidity; and when the ministers meet, I hope in the first week of July, that will be the objective of the Canadian government.


' INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
Because of the growing discontent of the Confederation of National Trade Unions and the coming march on Ottawa of its members, does the government intend to finally recognize the confederation as a national negotiating unit and reform the C.L.R.B. according to a just and equitable concept?


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the lucubrations of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning France's imperialistic designs over Canada reflect government policy?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can categorically deny the suggestion that a member of the B and B commission expressed advance information to the effect that the government plans that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be abandoned because it is nothing but a relic from the Northwest Territories, or something of that sort.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the allegation referred to by the hon. member. Let me assure hon. members that this government has every confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to address a related question to the Minister of Transport. Is it intended during this session of parliament to introduce legislation which would unify the National Harbours Board police with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so that in the process the government could scheme to remove the term "royal" from the name of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: There is not a vestige of truth in that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the series of statements being made in various provinces to the effect that this nation is a creation of the provinces, and that provinces have treaty rights and are sovereign entities, does the Prime Minister not now think the government of Canada should convene a confederation conference rather than leaving this matter in the hands of the provinces or in a vacuum? Will he reconsider his previous refusal to convene such a conference? Certainly the cocktail gathering on July 5 cannot take the place of a conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I could of course draw quite the
May 24. 1967	COMMONS
opposite conclusion from the incident to which my right hon. friend refers and suggest that if in a major province of Canada the attorney general and the premier of that province are on diametrically opposite sides on this matter, perhaps we should wait a little while before we have a conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does not the Prime Minister consider that he has some responsibility to assure a reasonable degree of unity in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do I have to submit to such a gratuitous observation on the part of the Prime Minister and have no opportunity of answering it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I now wish to direct another question to the Prime Minister and ask whether it is his intention to allow the nationhood of Canada to be interpreted by various individuals across Canada, rather than have the national viewpoint given by a government that accepts some responsibility.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a free country and people can interpret things in their own way. But may I add, in view of what the right hon. gentleman said a few moments ago, that I always enjoy his gratuitous observations.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does not the Prime Minister think extreme viewpoints on opposite sides do more to divide this country than to unite it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Ontario will agree that this question tends to be argumentative.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the date on which the budget will be presented to the house been decided, and if so, what is that date?
DEBATES	523
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first half of the question is yes, and the date will be announced tomorrow.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. I would like to ask the minister whether he has received a resolution from the Saskatchewan Library Association urging him to retain the library book postal rate at the present level.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: I think I have received it, Mr. Speaker.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As there seems something strange in governments assisting libraries on the one hand and putting difficulties in their way through raising postal rates on the other, I hope the minister will reconsider this decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question.


PORK-INQUIRY AS TO REOPENING OF BRITISH MARKET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise the house whether the British market has been reopened to Canadian pork and pork products?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The announcement was made some time ago. Just to what extent the machinery has been fully implemented I am not aware at the moment, but I will be more precise at a later date.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the house that his department is making every effort to break into this market?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, sir.

May 24, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Does the minister intend to speak again some time this afternoon to the thousands of farmers now assembled on parliament hill?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr Speaker, at four o'clock the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and myself are meeting the delegates of the three farm federations to resume the talks launched this morning.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I meant by my question. I know he is meeting the representatives of the farm federations later on this afternoon, but does he intend to speak again to the farmers who are on parliament hill?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we had agreed with representatives of the farm associations to hold a public meeting from 1.15 to 2.30. This meeting took place.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as a second supplementary question could the minister tell me why a representative of each political party was not invited th;s afternoon to give his opinions of the Canadian dairy industry to this crowd assembled in front of the parliament buildings?


Maurice Sauvé: The farmers have asked to meet the government, Mr. Speaker not the opposition.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a third and last supplementary question.
Is the min'ster sure that the farmers simply wanted to meet the government and that they did not want to meet the members of parliament on parliament hill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Can the minister tell us whether during the negotiations which will take place this afternoon at four o'clock, he will be authorized by

the cabinet to negotiate with the farmers, and is he allowed a margin of negotiation in order to meet the demands of the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the question is out of order.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
In his opinion, do the farmers have a chance to receive $5.10 per hundredweight of milk?


Maurice Sauvé: The government will announce its policy in due time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotb'niere):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development aware of the fact that several Creditistes organizers participated in this morning's demonstration?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. [English]


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture may I direct my question to the acting minister and ask him whether the minister would say in the house that the statements made by the minister to the farm organizations outside the house today were factual.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I apologize for not sending him a written notice, but as the president of a farmers' organization I have been taking part in the farmers' march.
Would the minister inform the house whether it is his intention to ask the maritime union trustees to come before an appropriate committee to give a report at the soonest possible date?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that will be for the committee to decide. If the committee makes such a request, I have the assurance of the chairman of the board of trustees that they will be pleased to attend.
May 24, 1967


INABILITY OF MEMBERS TO ENTER CENTRE BLOCK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is more properly one of privilege. Although the time now is past three o'clock, a number of members of this house have been unable to get into the house because the doors of the centre block are locked at the back, the side and the front. I should like to ask the minister responsible for the policing of this place to at least make it possible for members of parliament to be in their places when the bell is rung.

The house resumed from Tuesday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply, and the amendment of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Lewis.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN POLICY
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, when speaking in this debate just before the house adjourned last night I had been dealing with the crisis in the Near East and had noted the fact that the precipitate order for the withdrawal of the UN force in the Gaza strip had severely injured the prestige of the UN and thereby decreased its ability to act as an effective instrument for the preservation or restoration of peace. I also noted that in my view it was essential that steps be taken, both in the short run and the long run, to restore and enlarge this prestige.
I had been dealing with the situation which had developed between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Since that time we have learned that the Soviet union has made quite a strong statement in effect supporting the Arab states, and the U.S. president, President Johnson, also made a strong statement in effect supporting the position of Israel, particularly in so far as its right to use the gulf of Aqaba and have free passage for its ships through there is concerned.
The threat of war breaking out between Israel and its Arab neighbours of course created a very dangerous situation and, as I noted yesterday, one which because of the geographical position of that area and the alliances involved could very readily spread and become a world conflict. The present threat of direct intervention by the Russians on one side and the Americans on the other
Foreign Policy
creates a situation which could and would be catastrophic, I think. Certainly I would hope that in the UN security council, which has been meeting this morning and is to meet aga n this afternoon, it will be possible to arrive at a meeting of minds between the Russians on the one hand and the Americans and the western countries on the other hand with regard to preventing the threatened conflagration and leading to an agreement between these two super powers, Russia and the U.S., that they will not engage their own forces directly on one side or the other.
The threat of involvement by these two nations, particularly the active involvement of the U.S. in a fighting role, is of course something which I think all the western world must look upon as extremely serious from their own point of view, especially as at the present time the United States has committed such a large proportion of its forces to the Far East that its active involvement in the crisis in the Middle East would I think create an extraordinarily difficult and awkward situation for all the western countries, and a very dangerous one for the whole world. It seems to me that the UN security council, of which both these countries are members, is the place where some agreement to contain this war should be reached, and particularly to ensure that neither of these great powers becomes involved in it in a fighting way.
We also learned last night, through the papers at least, that in order to enforce the blockade of the gulf of Aqaba which had been declared the U.A.R. had already sown mines, and it had been intimated that they had taken other measures to ensure that Israeli ships or ships carrying strategic materials to the Israeli port of Eilath would not be allowed to pass through. Of course this creates a situation where any attempt on the part of an Israeli ship to go through that gulf is very likely to start a shooting war. Under these circumstances I would hope very much that the state of Israel would not attempt to force or break this blockade immediately. There is no doubt that what is required at the present is time to try to get this matter resolved and a peaceful settlement made. Therefore I hope the Canadian government and other governments will exert what pressure they can on Israel not to try to force this issue immediately, because of the very grave threat such action would carry of the outbreak of a general conflagration in that area.

Foreign Policy

May 24. 1967
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Last night I started to say something about the long term measures, which I think are essential, which the UN and its member countries should take in order to make it a more effective peace keeping organization and restore its prestige. The first one I noted was that it must work to get rid of some of the basic causes of conflict that I mentioned, particularly the existence of more than a million Palestinian refugees who are in the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. There refugees constitute a possible source of fighting and difficulty between the Arab countries and the state of Israel. This is only one of what I might term the basic possible causes of conflict and one of the things which could produce a situation likely to lead to war.
I believe the United Nations must be much more active in attempting to resolve this problem which has been in existence since 1956. The United Nations has really done nothing more than feed these people on a semi-starvation diet. This is not good enough. I believe that until these people are dispersed by means of emigration to other countries, by absorption into the Arab countries or the return of some of them to Israel, the extremely strong feelings of hatred which exist throughout these areas will continue and will be reinforced by the existence of these refugee camps.
Another of the steps that the United Nations must take in order to make it possible for that body to carry effectively on peace keeping activities and the solving of problems such as the one to which I have been referring is the settlement of the payment of the costs of activities along this line as well as the general costs of the United Nations. One of the reasons the United Nations has not been able to play nearly as effective a part as it could is the fact it has not been in a position to deal with the basic problem of finding the funds for these operations.
In so far as peace keeping operations are concerned, we know that certain countries have refused to pay their share of the costs. This is a problem the United Nations has always tended to avoid and has refused to have a showdown with regard to it. Although the United States is the subject of condemnation in many parts of the world, as well as in the United States and Canada, had it not been for the regular and special contributions made by that country the United Nations likely would have gone bankrupt and probably ceased to exist quite some time ago. This

is not a problem which can continue to be swept under the rug. Something must be done about it if the United Nations is to be effective.
A third step which I think needs to be taken is to introduce a more effective voting procedure at the United Nations. As long as we have a situation in which a country like Cyprus with about half a million people and other countries with an even smaller number of people have the same vote as a country such as the U.S.S.R. with 200 million people and the United States with some 200 million or India with several hundred million, we have a completely unrealistic situation. I do not believe the United Nations can operate effectively in such a situation. There must be, therefore, a change in the voting procedure. There must be a weighted system of voting introduced into this body if it is going to continue to get support from the larger and more important nations. This is absolutely essential if the organization is to operate effectively.
I should like to say something about the withdrawal plans so far as the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza Strip is concerned. I must protest the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) yesterday refused to give us any information whatever when questioned in the house with regard to these plans. However, he then made a television appearance last night and gave a considerable amount of information. He has to some extent repeated today in answer to questions what he said on television but has refused to give any further information. On the basis of past experience I expect he will be appearing on television again to announce what is going to be done. This is a direct affront to the House of Commons. In view of the situation existing in the world today, I do not wish to introduce any partisan bickering or anything along those lines, but certainly information of this kind should be given in the House of Commons, not refused here and then given over television. I hope that the proper course will be followed in the future.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I should like to point out to the Minister of National Defence and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that there is a very natural concern on the part of all Canadians with regard to the situation of our troops in the Gaza Strip and what arrangements have been made to get them out, particularly if a conflagration should start there. This concern is felt particularly, of course, by the relatives of
May 24, 1967

these people, some of whom I know are extremely anxious. Therefore I believe it is the responsibility of the government to make public its plans for the withdrawal of our troops from the Gaza Strip. I do not believe it is good enough for the Minister of National Defence to say he does not think it would be wise to release the contingency plans. The point is there are several thousand relatives of the men who are stationed there who are very anxious about the situation and they have a right to know what arrangements have been made for the withdrawal of these men. In addition to the people directly concerned, to a lesser extent all Canadians are concerned. I understand the Prime Minister is going to speak later today, so I hope he will give some information about this matter and allay some of the fears which exist amongst the relatives of these men.
I do not know just what the minister meant by the statement he made on television last night that the contingency plans involve possible withdrawal by sea, by land and by air. Having been in that part of the world and spent some time there in the Rafa camp and at El Arish, I know there are only three ways in which troops can be withdrawn from there. The first means is by air from El Arish airfield, the only available airfield. The second means is by sea by very light draft vessels because only such vessels can get into the small fishing port of Gaza. The third means would be by road to Suez and Cairo. Another possible alternative, I suppose, would be by reopening the road from the Gaza Strip into Israel, but I do not believe that is a practical proposition with the two sides facing each other there.
These are the only ways in which you can get people out of the Gaza Strip. What arrangements may have been made with the Egyptians concerning the withdrawal of people by road to Suez and Cairo airport I do not know, but we should be given information. The answer the minister gave yesterday left the situation concerning the use of the El Arish airfield very much in doubt. From his answer I do not know whether we could still use that airfield. The minister said that he did not know whether the last Canadian aircraft had left there. If that airfield is not available we shall be reduced to two means of evacuation from that area.
Before finishing I wish to say something briefly about Viet Nam. On the face of it the N.D.P. amendment looks innocuous but I do
Foreign Policy
not think there is any question that the intention-and it should be taken this way-is to condemn the United States presence in Viet Nam and condemn the United States bombing of Viet Nam. The amendment calls on the United States to withdraw unilaterally from that activity.
I do not think that the passage of such an amendment in this house would do any good and it might do considerable harm. First, it would do no good because it would have no effect on the policy which the United States government might follow. Second, it might cause considerable resentment on the part of some members of the United States government and it might make it more difficult for us to exert useful pressure on that government. Third, such a motion would aid and comfort the government of North Viet Nam and the Viet Cong, leading them to believe that the United States will be forced to succumb to pressure to stop the bombing and to withdraw.


Mr. Brewin:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In just a moment. In my view the passage of such an amendment would more likely prolong the unfortunate situation in Viet Nam than end it. Would the hon. member ask his question now?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member not wish to comment on what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said during this debate, that we should ask for the bombing to cease. Does the hon. member not think that that request, too, would have the ill effects of which he has spoken as the consequence of passing the subamendment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: My personal view is that the cessation of bombing should go hand in hand with the withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops from South Viet Nam. That should be done as a matter of agreement. If anything like that could be accomplished we should all be in favour of it. I do not think that a demand on the United States unilaterally to withdraw its troops would serve the cause of peace. I disagree with any such resolution.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In just a moment. Many who violently condemn the United States action and presence in Viet Nam presume that the United States is there because of selfish, immoral or imperialistic purposes, and on that

May 24. 1967
Foreign Policy
basis they condemn not only the United States presence but everything she does. In my view there is no basis for this attitude. The United States is trying to preserve democratic government in South Viet Nam and has no selfish interests, apart from her interest in containing the general spread of communism. Those who condemn the United States in such strong terms never mention that she was asked by the South Vietnamese government to assist in the struggle against the Viet Cong and North Viet Nam.
I was glad to see that yesterday the hon. member for Greenwood did not presume that the United States was in Viet Nam for selfish, immoral or imperialistic purposes. He gave the United States credit for good intentions but said he believed the United States was following a course which would lead to disaster. There were, he said, differences of opinion. This, I think, is correct. Every party in the house harbours persons with different opinions about the situation in Viet Nam and about the best course to be followed. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) showed by his speech that he has his own opinion. These are all honest differences. But I do not think that those who believe that immediately the United States stops the bombing the problem in Viet Nam will be solved have any more information to rely on than have others who think differently.


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As soon as I have finished I shall be glad to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North has the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Those who believe that ending the bombing will immediately solve the problem have no more information to rely on or basis for their belief than have those who believe the opposite. I am certain that those advocating such a cessation have far less background information for their opinions than has the United States government which also has a responsibility in this matter. The United States is the supreme power in the western world and it is responsible for maintaining peace and containing communism. That being so, one ought to give the United States government credit for following its policies. Many think those policies are wrong. Personally I do not concur with everything the United States has done in Viet Nam and elsewhere. On the other hand, condemning the IMr. Harkness.)
United States generally is neither a reasonable nor an effective way of restoring or maintaining peace. I would be glad to answer the hon. member's question.


Murdo William Martin: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could tell us, from what he knows and from what he has studied, whether the United States bombing has increased or decreased the flow of troops from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is apparent, I think, that I have no direct knowledge in this regard. My general information is that the bombing has cut down what would have been a much larger flow of troops and supplies.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has now expired.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Prime Minister takes the floor I understand that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege must be raised at once. I am sorry that I have to come before the Prime Minister at this time but what I wish to say has to do with the conduct that was referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. This afternoon the doors of the parliament building were locked and the hon. member had to find his way in by indirect means. At 3.05 this afternoon the front and west doors were still locked, with the front doors being guarded by the R.C.M.P.
There is a long line-up of farmers outside the front door and it is strange they should be treated as though they were lawless individuals who endanger parliament. They have a right of public protest. Parl'ament does not belong to the government. After four years of indifference to the farmers this government closes them out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: It closes them out from parliament. These are not agitators. They are not lawless. They are entitled to be treated like other Canadians.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will wish to look into this question which was raised earlier this afternoon, as a matter of fact, by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).
May 24. 1967

I am privileged to participate in this debate after the very thoughtful contribution which has just been made by the hon. gentleman who preceded me. My first remarks will be directed to the subject of Viet Nam, the tragedy of Viet Nam, because by implication it is the subject of the amendment and, explicitly, the subject of the subamendment.
In moving the subamendment the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said he thought the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) must have had a sense of humour to have introduced his amendment and then suggested it did not involve the matter of confidence. Obviously it is a reflection on the government and a criticism of the policy of the government. The hon. member for York South must have exactly the same sense of humour, because the subamendment he introduced is of precisely the same character. It represents a vote of non-confidence in the policy of the government on a matter of very great importance indeed. We do not propose at this time to accept this subamendment because it represents, as the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me pointed out, a onesided approach to this problem. It deals with one aspect alone of that problem, though I agree it is an important one.
The view behind the subamendment is that we are not dealing with a case of aggression from the north, that in Viet Nam, as the hon. member put it yesterday, there is merely a civil war and that the United States had no right to be there from the beginning. In the hon. member's words-I took them from Hansard because I did not have the pleasure of hearing the whole of his interesting speech- "the world's mightiest power has intervened in a local situation". He went on to point out that Hanoi, on the other hand, had limited its activities in Viet Nam and had bombed nobody. On the basis of this statement and others he made he adjures us as follows: "Let us recognize these facts. What right has the United States to be there in that situation?" This, I believe, is the basis of his approach, and the approach of those who feel as he does.
I believe that the purposes and objectives of United States policy in Viet Nam were not aggression. I believe that the United States moved into Viet Nam in the first place to help South Viet Nam, at the invitation of the government of that country, to defend itself against military action and subversive terrorism aimed at preventing the people of that part of Viet Nam making their own decision
Foreign Policy
as to their future development and political institutions rather than having one particular solution forced upon them under the guise of a liberation struggle conducted in the interests of a totalitarian communist regime in North Viet Nam which has not allowed and does not intend to allow its own people any choice as to their social, economic or political system.
Mr. Bundy, who played an important part in these matters in earlier days as adviser on foreign affairs to the president, has written these words:
United States policy remains based on the continuing conviction that we should be ready to do our full share to help prevent the communists from taking south Viet Nam by force and terror.
We may not agree with this policy, but I think those words are a rational explanation of the policy followed by men in the United States who are men of good will and as peace loving as we are. I can understand their position in this regard. That does not mean a government in Canada has to support or approve all the measures taken or all the measures adopted by the United States forces in Viet Nam, let alone by the governments in Saigon-and remember there have been more governments than one-in achieving their purposes. And on occasions when I have felt it necessary to speak publicly and not confine myself to diplomacy-I do not care very much for the phrase "quiet diplomacy"; if diplomacy is to be any good it is bound to be quiet-I have made this clear.
I have spoken publicly when I felt it was necessary to do so and might be of some value. Two years ago in Philadelphia I proposed a pause in the bombing for what I thought would be a helpful purpose, and later I think I was the only head of a western government who publicly regretted the resumption of bombing. I still regret it. I think it was a great mistake on the part of the United States administration at that time to resume the bombing in the circumstances in which it was resumed. But this does not mean and will not mean, in present circumstances at least, that we should join that chorus which has denounced the Untied States for being in Viet Nam at all. That is a different matter.
If this is our position I do not think we will accomplish anything constructive by accusing the United States of sole guilt and sole blame for what has happened in that country and by doing so try to impose a kind of moral sanction against the United States. It seems to me

May 24, 1967
Foreign Policy
that anyone in the position of governmental responsibility-and I am certainly in that position-who adopted those tactics would by doing so cut or certainly weaken the lines of official communication between Ottawa and Washington on this subject and I cannot think any useful purpose would be achieved by doing that, especially if we felt we could use those lines of communication to give good advice to our friends. Yet to accept this careful and constructive course and reject more exciting courses of word and action means, obviously, that we will be sneered at by some who consider us to be a satellite or a lap-dog or some unpleasant animal because we are not willing to get up on a public platform and condemn the United States in a way which those who criticize us most harshly do not condemn the communist side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because we take this attitude we are accused of political immorality and of being faint-hearted in the cause of peace. I can accept that accusation with equanimity as long as I feel X am following the right course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the
Prime Minister will allow me a question. I have to say in prelude to the question that I agree entirely it is not a one-way street and that the condemnation of the Americans as aggressors is entirely unjustified. But using that as a principle, can the Prime Minister not go along with the statement made yesterday by His Holiness the Pope calling for an end to the bombing by the United States, fortifying as it did U Thant's statement that a continuation would be dangerous to world peace?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I go along 100 per cent with the statement made by His Holiness the Pope yesterday, because it is a statement which has been made on this side in the House of Commons, and outside it, when we previously advocated bringing an end to the bombing and, associated with that, an end to the infiltration of troops from the north into the south.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not a one-sided matter. There can be very honest, sincere, and indeed emotional differences of opinion on it. Last night I was looking over the record of the negotiation offers that had been made in the

last two or two and a half years, each one of which had been rejected by the government in Hanoi and accepted by the government in Washington. I am leaving out of these offers those made by the United States government itself.
These were offers made by the United Kingdom on February 20, 1965, by the 17 non-aligned nations on April 1, 1965, by the government of India, by the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth-and I was one of them who initiated a plan for a special mission to visit the capitals of the countries involved to explore the circumstances in which a conference might be held to end the fighting, and which was rejected by Hanoi and by Peking-by the British foreign secretary's proposal made in Moscow on December 2, 1965, by the proposal made by Pope Paul VI on December 19, 1965, by the proposal made by the Secretary General in April, 1966 and again in August
1966,	when he first suggested his three-point plan as the basis for a negotiated settlement, including the cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam, the scaling down of all military activities by all sides in Viet Nam, and the willingness to enter into discussions with those actually fighting; by the offer made by the Prime Minister of India on July 7, 1966, which was a detailed proposal for negotiations within the framework of the Geneva agreements and included a proposal to reconvene the Geneva conference.


David Lewis: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say Washington accepted U Thant's three-point proposal, including the cessation of bombing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is my information because the cessation of bombing was linked with the general talks, and that was repeated by the Secretary General later on December 30, 1966.
On October 24, 1966, the United Arab Republic, India and Yugoslavia issued a communique with a proposal for measures to bring about a negotiated settlement. On December 8, 1966 Pope Paul made another proposal. The British foreign secretary made one on December 30, 1966, as did the Secretary General again on that day; and on March 14,
1967,	the Secretary General made a further proposal, as my hon. friend knows, providing for general talks preliminary to the reconvening of the Geneva conference. In addition there were the two temporary cessations of bombing by the United States, but in all these cases where these proposals were made, and I repeat they were not made by Americans, they were not acceptable to the government
May 24, 1967

in Hanoi. This does not mean that we should not try to find some proposal that is acceptable to all parties, and of course we will continue to strive to do that.
The other day I read an editorial in a very influential Washington newspaper, the Washington Star. I believe it was in the edition of May 18, and I would like to quote one or two paragraphs from that editorial. The editor of the Washington Star says:
The time has come in the Star's opinion for the U.S.A. to stop bombing in North Viet Nam. We say this without the slightest apology for the administration's conduct of the war up to now. The decision to start bombing was necessary and right. An aggressor cannot be permitted to take for granted his security at home while he wages war on his neighbours. The policy of the careful escalation of bombing subject to tight restrictions on the choice of targets seemed likely to bring Hanoi to its senses and has had our full support.
But-
The editorial goes on:
-every military strategy must be subject to constant review and reappraisal. It is necessary to weigh the gains against the risks, to ask whether hoped-for results are in fact being achieved. It is necessary to watch for the moment where a change of strategy may produce a greater gain at a decreased risk. That moment has arrived. We should say nothing, explain nothing, set no conditions or limitations on our switch of strategy. We should simply stop bombing and see what the enemy does.


Mr, Lewis:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a position taken by one American newspaper, and it is a position taken by a great many Americans-


John George Diefenbaker: The New York Times is the same.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -including most recently a very prominent United States senator. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the administration in Washington is giving very careful consideration to this idea which has been repeated in recent weeks by many inside the United States.
I do not think, however, that the adoption of the subamendment by this house, by a parliament outside the United States, would serve the purpose that we have in mind of bringing this war to an end. It is a type of amendment which has not been dealt with by any other parliament friendly to the United States that I know of, and I do not think this kind of amendment would serve the purpose we have in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, if we begin to give this kind of formal parliamentary advice
Foreign Policy
from outside the United States it might conceivably have the opposite effect. I also think, Mr. Speaker, we should be careful not to put our hopes so high in regard to the abandonment of the bombing of North Viet Nam that we are likely to run into disillusionment if that should take place and fail. I myself would not attach excessive expectations to peace and a negotiated settlement if the bombing should end tomorrow.
We might as we have in the past-by "we" I mean the western countries, the friends of the United States-well run up against what has been encountered before, namely, escalation of demand on the other side. So I think it might be desirable to find out what the reaction in Hanoi would be to an immediate and unconditional end to the bombing of the north. Would they stop fighting and begin talking and, if they refused or attached a new condition, would the danger of massive escalation be increased? This is another factor we have to take into consideration. These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we on this side of the house cannot support the subamendment which is, of course, a motion of no confidence in the government.
Now I want to come to the other matter which has been engaging us, and rightly so, in this debate-the situation in the Middle East, in Palestine, the seriousness of which certainly cannot be exaggerated. As my right hon. friend said yesterday, and I am paraphrasing his words, it is hard to imagine getting closer to catastrophe than in the way we seem to have been drifting in the last day or two. I, as have other members of the house, have had some connection with this situation for a good many years, in fact since I first went down to the United Nations at the end of the war when the state of Palestine was established by United Nations action.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The basic issue in this situation it seems to me, as has already been mentioned in this debate, is the recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security. The rejection and repudiation of that basic right has been over the years and is now a source of our danger. It is not the immediate manifestation of that danger but it certainly is a source of it. So long as Israel's neighbours, or some of them, refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state, then we move from one crisis to another. We already have moved from one to another over the last 10 or 15 years. Israel, of course, also has the basic obligation, which I

May 24, 1967
Foreign Policy
am sure she accepts, to live without provocation and threat to her neighbours and in accord with the United Nations decisions which gave her birth. This is the continuing issue.
There is, however, an immediate crisis arising fundamentally out of this issue which now threatens war. I am perhaps repeating the obvious but the danger point it seems to me, and perhaps the most dangerous point, is the situation in Sharm el Sheikh. The troops of the United Arab Republic now control this port in the Gulf of Aqaba. In 1957 we spent days and nights arguing about this particular aspect of the settlement which it was hoped would have been reached at least in accord with the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the ground they had conquered. They made it quite clear at that time that they visualized a package deal by which, in return for withdrawing from vital strategic points, and especially from Sharm el Sheikh, they would be protected against action from those areas, and particularly this point, which would prejudice and destroy their own national interest. They undoubtedly feel they have a commitment to that effect.
We need not go into the legal situation. Perhaps it should be sent to the international Court of Justice for judgment, but before the International Court of Justice could render a judgment many things would have to be done to avoid trouble because the Gulf of Aqaba now is of vital importance to the existence of the state of Israel. From 90 to 92 per cent of her oil goes past the strait of Tiran and into the gulf to the port of Elath. That certainly is one very dangerous point.
The second dangerous point is the Gaza Strip which now has been taken over by what is called the Palestine Liberation Army, a part of the force of the United Arab Republic. This army is composed of men devoted, and fanatically and sincerely devoted, to what they believe to be the liberation of their homeland. They are there now in the Gaza strip with 300,000 Palestinian refugees. If there could be a more explosive situation than that, I do not know what it could be.
The third point is the Syrian border which has been the scene of terrorist incidents and activities in recent weeks and which perhaps has been the occasion for the development of the recent crisis, which can explode at any minute. The fourth danger point is the possibility of excessive reaction or retaliation by land, water or air against provocations or terrorist incidents.
The feeling of some of the people on the spot is, "Let's force this issue and have it over." That can be just as dangerous as the development of the other three points I have mentioned-the temptation, if you like, to pre-emptive a war. There is another danger, the danger of expanding this conflict if it takes place and if the United Nations is not able to limit it as it was earlier. There is the danger of the United States lining up behind one party and the U.S.S.R. lining up behind the other party. I cannot imagine a more frightening danger than that because, without the United Nations intervention, that could turn what might be a local conflict into a global tragedy.
Behind all the dangers we notice now, from press, radio and television reports, the danger of inflammatory statements and attitudes- the war of the air waves, the demonstrations, people marching down the street shouting, "We want war". These are the poor deluded people who would be the first to suffer from war. A leader in that part of the world is reported as having said the day before yesterday, "They threaten us with war; our answer is, we welcome war".
All this adds up to a terrifying situation. So what do we do about it? We all have our responsibilities as members of the United Nations. We have decided, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) mentioned yesterday, that we will try to discharge our responsibility by getting this matter before the security council of the United Nations as quickly as possible. Yesterday the members of the council from Canada and Denmark asked for the convening of the security council. That meeting is taking place today.
Whenever this world gets into trouble, where does it go? It goes to the United Nations. The worse the trouble, the more important the United Nations becomes and as soon as the trouble is settled or put aside for the time being by the United Nations, it is then forgotten and everybody falls back on their own nationalist pride, privileges, fears and hatreds. But at the moment we all say, "Let the United Nations take over". I do not know of anything else which could do it better, unless we had a conference of the four great powers. If they could work together, that would be equally effective and more effective if they worked through the security council in doing it.

May 24. 1967

Our ambassador to the United Nations in dealing with this matter this morning had this to say:
In calling this Security Council meeting we are suggesting that council should exercise its responsibilities under the charter to deal with the kind of threatening situation which the Secretary General has not only reported to the Security Council, but has regarded as sufficiently serious to assume the responsibility for undertaking a personal mission to the area.
The situation as the Secretary General rightly reported to the council has shown signs of "increasingly dangerous deterioration" for some time.
Tension also grew as a result of terroristic and sabotage activities on the borders of Israel and Syria and the Secretary General reported that the functions and resources of UNTSO had not enabled that organization to arrest these activities.
In recent days there have been statements by the President of the U.A.R. and the Prime Minister of Israel which face us with the danger of direct confrontation between the U.A.R. and Israel over the question of access to the Gulf of Aqaba.
In face of this rising and dangerous state of tension means of bringing influences of moderation to bear in areas through U.N. far from having been increased have been decreased at the very moment of crisis by withdrawal of UNEF.
The principal means to balance this deteriorating situation through the U.N. has been the mission of the Secretary General himself.
I believe at this stage the most useful contribution which this council can make to this grave situation is to reinforce the current efforts being made by the Secretary General to preserve peace in the area. This is the purpose of what we are suggesting the council should do. We should at the same time urge that no member state of the U.N. take any action which would either prejudice the success of the Secretary General's mission or worsen the situation.
In the face of grave facts, in the face of the mounting threat and fait accompli, how can the international community discharge its collective duty unless the moral influence of the Security Council, which is charged under Article 24 of the charter with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security precisely "to ensure prompt and effective action"-and I underline these words-is brought to bear upon the seriously deteriorating situation in the Middle East?
This, in sum, is the aim of our initiative. Canada is a friend of all the nations of the area and has always striven to help by whatever means we can to maintain peace and stability in the area, and to assist those in trouble and distress. What we now ask is that the Security Council, and in particular all of its permanent members who bear special responsibility, add the weight of its influence collectively by asking that no member of the United Nations take any action which would worsen the situation and to jeopardize the efforts of the Secretary General to preserve the peace. This is what we ask the Security Council to do at this stage; we believe it can do no less.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I hope that in due course it will be able to do more. Certainly at the present time the
Foreign Policy
important thing is to do nothing to exacerbate the situation, and that applies, as my right hon. triend suggests, to the government of Israel which should be very careful about unnecessarily running any so called blockade if that would provoke the kind of retaliation which might have overriding results.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister allow a question? In view of the admonition uttered by the representative of Canada at the security council yesterday, is it a fact that the United States, through its ambassador designate Richard Nolte, advised the Egyptian foreign minister Mohammed Riad that Egypt should be warned that the United States will use force if necessary to hold open the Gulf of Aqaba for Israeli shipping, or is that statement merely one of speculation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot confirm that, and so far as I am concerned it is speculation. At this time only the United States could confirm the authenticity or otherwise of that story. I know that individual governments feel that they have their own special responsibilities and commitments, but I would hope that all these will be made secondary to the greatest commitment of all today, their duty as members of the United Nations security council. This will, of course, require moderation, tolerance and patience on the part of everybody concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that each of the five major powers has the power of veto, has there been any indication that the U.S.S.R. is viewing this matter through the eyes of the Prime Minister in the way he has indicated in his statements today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly hope that to be the case and that they will work with the other permanent members of the security council. As my right hon. friend knows, there has already been a proposal made that these powers meet as a committee, and it would be very helpful if that could be done. As soon as that meeting takes place I hope it will be possible to bring other activities within the ambit of the United Nations security council.
Having regard to the situation that we face in the security council, our ambassador and the ambassador of Denmark have moved or are about to move in the security council in New York the following proposal, that the security council, having been seized with the current situation in the Middle East, express

May 24, 1967
Foreign Policy
full support for the efforts of the Secretary General to pacify the situation and request all states to refrain from any step which might worsen the situation, and invite the Secretary General to report to the security council upon his return so that the security council may *continue its consideration of the matter. I hope a resolution of this kind will be accepted by the members of the security council and that it will at least hold the line for the time being. Nothing can be more important than that. There will have to be subsequent steps, but I often wonder why, as the result of these critical situations in respect of which we find ways and means of avoiding open conflict, we cannot go one step forward and find a continuing solution to those things which brought about the conflict in the first place. That is something for the future.
There are things which we can do in the United Nations in the immediate future. This has been a great blow in one sense to our peace keeping ideas and hopes. However, peace keeping itself becomes more important than ever in the light of what has happened in the last three or four days. If the United Nations emergency force had not been withdrawn this situation might not have developed. The lesson to be learned from that is that when we send these United Nations peace keeping forces into these difficult areas we must do our best to make sure they have the foundation on which to act and that their work cannot be sabotaged except on order from the United Nations agency which sent them there.
This did not happen in respect of this United Nations emergency force. I remember very well the background, and I am not being critical of the Secretary General because I have no doubt that on an examination of the documents one would come to the conclusion that what he did was right in terms of the documentary evidence. There was a special arrangement made between Mr. Ham-marskjold and President Nasser. I objected to that arrangement at the time because I thought it might cause a lot of trouble in the future.
At that time we did not follow this preferable course because we had to get these people over there quickly in view of the fact the war was going on, and if by this kind of an agreement, very fuzzy in its language-Mr. Hammarskjold was a past master in this regard-the U.A.R. would accept this force, we thought we had better not go into the legalistic details too closely but get our troops on the spot.

This force was there for over ten years under this arrangement. This situation does not apply to Cyprus because we have a security council resolution as a basis for authority in that regard. What we have to do now is not weaken in our pursuit of peace keeping under the United Nations but strengthen our activities to obtain better peace keeping arrangements. I do not think there is any possibility of reviving this United Nations emergency force which certainly served gallantly for ten and a half years and has earned the gratitude of all the nations of the world. All the Canadians in that force have earned our gratitude over the last ten and a half years.
There is United Nations machinery available, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday, including the United Nations truce supervisory organization and the four mixed armistice commissions, three of which are operating on the borders of Jordan and Lebanon and in Cyprus. The fourth has not been operating in respect of the United Arab Republic partly because it was not needed so much there in that the UNEF was located there, and partly because the Israeli government did not recognize its activities.
We can use this machinery in the hope that we can get the United Nations presence back into that area. What we and all the peace loving governments must do today is try to keep that blue flag flying between possible combatants. If we can do that we will have accomplished a great deal, even though the force may not be armed with the heaviest and most modern weapons available. 1 am not sure this would preserve the peace in the present circumstances but I think it would help, and I hope the security council will be able to take this first step by passing this first resolution. We are not sure of that but we hope we will be able to move further and at least consider this United Nations machinery which will do this job in perhaps a different way, by patrolling the boundaries and keeping the combatants from fighting each other.
In the meantime we are facing a dangerous and critical situation from hour to hour and we can only hope that no one in any country directly concerned, irrespective of the emotions of the moment or what might seem to be the possibility of emotion, will do anything or say anything which will start off what is bound to be a bloody war in that area and what might be a bloody war in a much greater area.
May 24, 1967


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister answer a question? Is he prepared to say something now about the plans for the withdrawal of our Canadian troops in the Gaza Strip?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have discussed this matter with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) who yesterday mentioned two sets of plans. There is the United Nations plan, which is a very carefully prepared plan for the evacuation of all members of the United Nations force. So far as we know, the United Nations authorities think that plan will be adequate, provided of course that the roof does not fall in.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the trouble.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the trouble, but they are very much aware of it and as a matter of urgency they are trying to bring their plans into line with that possibility. Meanwhile, as the Minister of National Defence has said, we have moved three ships in that direction and have worked out an emergency plan which we hope and believe will take care of our people. I hope that as soon as it is possible the Minister of National Defence will be able to give the house all the details in that regard.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit one brief question. Could he give us any idea, or does he have any suggestions, as to why the Egyptian government has taken this action at this particular time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have my own views that I would be very glad to discuss with my hon. friend, who I hope would be very interested in my views as I would be in his. But I do not think I should discuss them in public; they are just speculative on my part.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister answer a question before he sits down? Do I take it from the Prime Minister's remark that the position the Canadian representative on the security council will take is that all nations, including Israel, should have free access to the Gulf of Aqaba as an international water and that no nation, Egypt or any other, should have the right to blockade or block access to a free port?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We believe that under international law, and especially since the convention was passed in the United Nations in 1952, I think, or 1953, these are international waters and the ships of all nations have access
Division
to them and passage through them. There are a good many cases of international law dealing with this matter. This particular United Nations treaty, however, has not been signed by the U.A.R. and the government of the U.A.R. has not admitted the contention that they are international waters. But we certainly think so, as do most countries in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being four fifteen o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Tuesday, May 16, 1967, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.


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


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I was paired. Had I been free to vote I would have voted against the
subamendment.


Mr. Brown:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Hopkins:: I was paired. Had I voted 1 would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Grills:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr, Nicholson:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


James Elisha Brown: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Lee Elgy Grills: I was paired with the hon.
member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: I was paired with the hon member for Melville (Mr. Or-miston). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Smith:: 1 was paired with the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve).


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, since this is a period during which grievances may be expressed I would like to call attention to a subject which was raised earlier by the 23,000 farmers who have come to Parliament Hill. I believe this is an important matter and I was surprised to learn there is apparently considerable resentment on the part of the farmers as to the hearing they were given. I listened carefully to the remarks which were made by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauv6), who I felt was very rough with the people to whom he spoke. I also listened carefully to what was said by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). To some extent I sympathize with one or two of the points he made.
When the Minister of Agriculture replied to the farmers' representations after considering the brief presented by their executive, he said
Problems of Farmers
he was often perturbed because representatives of some sections of the agricultural industry presented requests to parliament which were not necessarily in harmony with requests made by other segments of the industry. This is a legitimate point to make. It is my understanding that over the years it is not often a group of farmers has come to Ottawa pledged to seek a common goal which would result in a better deal for farmers as a whole.
I believe that the difficulties being encountered today by the dairy industry, though it is true they are in the forefront as a result of government policy, are only part of a larger problem which confronts our farmers, namely, that the prices they receive for the goods they sell are not enough to enable them to expand their enterprises and keep them up to date. The farmers to whom I spoke today were concerned not only with subsidies. They were concerned about the difficulty they encountered in raising sufficient money to turn their farms into economic units. They were concerned because the money they earned was insufficient to meet the costs of their operations.
Dairy farmers in my own area at the present time are having to spend from $500 to $1,500 on bulk coolers. This would represent a perfectly legitimate cost to the industry if the producers were receiving anything like the prices which consumers pay for their products. But this is not the case. Not long ago I was going over the books kept by my brother who runs a dairy farm in northern Ontario. He is a producer of fluid milk, selling about 70 per cent of his milk apart from his quota. Last year this milk went for manufacture and the government paid a subsidy in connection with it. This meant his price was somewhere in the five dollar range. This year the fluid milk price was $6.60 and the price of the milk sold for manufacture was $4.25, less delivery charges in each case. When the price was averaged out the milk was showing a return of approximately $4.50 or $4.60. The reason it is hard to calculate exactly is that there is a dairy requirement in the fluid milk quota which varies anywhere from 5 per cent to 15 per cent, and this is sold at a secondary price within the fluid milk market. This makes it difficult to calculate exactly what the total price is to the farmer.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If the farmers in my area were able to get $6.60 per hundredweight there is no question

May 24, 1967
Problems of Farmers
that they would be able to afford the expansion which is necessary to retain the fluid milk market in the position it has occupied in the dairy industry. It would allow them to upgrade their milk, to put in bulk coolers and to handle their own depots if that is what they desire. The farmers in my area are good businessmen, and in the communities of New Liskeard, Haileybury and Cobalt they have their own dairy.
They found that in operating a fluid milk dairy in a fluid milk market they had to have the machinery to handle the secondary milk and the manufacturing milk. The farmers sold their manufacturing milk to the dairy, which established a quota. However, it was not long until this became a great cost to the dairy and the dairy fell weeks behind in its payments to the farmers. Before the farmers were able to arrange a sale of the dairy they themselves were carrying about a month's cost of the operation of the dairy in the form of non-payments from the dairy.
I raise this to point out that the problem is not only in the one field. It exists in a number of fields. When the farmer who is in the fluid milk field, receiving a fairly good price in that field, enters the manufacturing milk field a problem is immediately created. My brother is not a big farmer, but certainly the family "has been in the dairy industry for quite a number of years. He is running a very effective and efficient operation, and in the manufacturing field he has about the maximum quota available to the manufacturing producer. In other words, his surplus runs somewhere about 300,000 pounds per year in the manufacturing field.
He has admitted, and I am sure most other farmers would agree, that farmers would be much better off if the milk price were $5 and they d d not get the $6.60. If they could sell all their production at $5 the farmers would probably receive an increase in price of anywhere from 25 cents to 75 cents per hundredweight over what they are now getting on their total production.
The fact is that the federal government has got into the quota business in the manufacturing field. A producer of over 300,000 pounds is not a large producer. His stock would probably total about 25 cows, not a big dairy operation. Anything he had over that would be surplus to the manufacturing quota and would be sold on the market at $3.54.
Today the farmers are not only concerned about the dairy problem but about the overall farm problem as they see it. They are
[Mr. Peters.1
faced with a labour shortage. The cost of farm labour is very high. Farmers have received very little co-operation from the federal government to allow them to bring in people to work on their farms. However, there has been some immigration from places like Holland, and on occasion there has been migratory help from Mexico and other countries. In the main farm help has been accidentally secured and very temporary.
Many farmers get casual help off the street, workers who come in for a day and who want to get paid at the end of the day. After that the farmers do not see them again. Anyone who works on a farm knows that is not the kind of help that is required even in the emergency situation of harvesting production.
During the meeting in Ottawa today the farmers also talked about eggs, about the poultry problem and about potatoes. There were delegations present from New Brunswick. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and from as far west as Alberta. The case they presented to the government is an industry problem. It is not confined to a specific part of farming but is a general farm problem.
The government has said that it is embarking on a program which will eliminate small farms and create economic units. It says that the farmers on these economic units will automatically be placed in a reasonable financial position. In my opinion this is not correct. It will again create a class of farmer who cannot make a living on the farm and we will reach a position where all farmers will be eliminated except those operating on large amalgamated or co-operative farms. This may be good enough in Russia, and it may be good enough for the Liberal party, but in my opinion it is not good enough for the members of the farm population of this nation who want to operate their own farms independently, with sufficient capital gain to take care of the expansion that is necessary and will continue to be necessary if they are to meet the commitments of the farm community toward the hungry people of our country.
I have suggested many times, although this is not accepted by the majority of farmers, that the only solution to the dairy problem will be the pooling of the total production of the dairy industry. The industry itself will have to be directed for the simple reason that the federal government will have to establish a marketing agency to dispose of dairy produce. The directing body will have to tell the manufacturing industry to produce skim milk
May 24, 1967

powder when it is needed for a certain market, and to manufacture cheese when it is specifically needed for another market. If that is done I believe that the people we have on the road selling farm produce will be able to compete in world markets and will be able to sell far more agricultural production than is now possible. The system we now have is creating shortages. We have cut off the small farmer, the guy who took a can of cream down to the dairy on the week end. We have cut off the man who had four or five cows and who wanted to get a farm but could not get a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation.
The Farm Credit Corporation will not lend money to someone who wants to enter farming. It will only lend to people who have so much collateral that they really do not need a loan from the corporation. We do not have the machinery to establish new farms. We do not assist the establishment of new farms unless we are certain they will be in a position to be economically self-sufficient. The Farm Credit Corporation will, like a bank, only lend money to someone who has more than enough collateral and good prospects.
The federal government must provide more money to allow for expansion. Many people have been writing to me complaining about this problem. I am sure I get a letter every week from someone who is not smart enough to realize that the federal government is not going to lend him money to go into farming. These letters say, "I was raised on a farm. My wife was raised on a farm. We moved into a city. We have been kicked around from job to job, from unemployment insurance office to unemployment insurance office, and now we want to go back and establish a farm. We know where there is a farm available for so many thousands of dollars which we believe would be suitable. We have talked to the people who have it and we think we could make a go of it. However, we have talked to the Farm Credit Corporation and to other lending agencies and they say no money is available for us to go into business."
Maybe these people would not make a go of it but, Mr. Speaker, they were raised on a farm and I say that those who have been raised on a farm have a pretty good idea of what farming is all about. They know you do not start at the top. They know you do not start with a registered herd of cattle in a nice big barn. They are well aware of the fact that it takes two generations, but they also are aware of the fact that if they work 15 or 16 hours a day and if the facilities are available
Problems of Farmers
and other criteria are met they have a good chance to make a living.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
These are the type of people who came to Ottawa today. They did not come here only as dairy farmers or grain producers; they came here as farmers. I think it is about time this government decided how they can help these people if they want to help them. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) is here. I believe he will remember that when he sat on the other side as minister of agriculture he had the idea-it certainly was an idea which I and many farmers across this country bought-that if we were to start a short range program this would not be satisfactory and that what we should have is a long term program which would meet the needs of the farm population and the industry involved. For this purpose we developed the program commonly known as ARDA.
I believe ARDA has accomplished many things. However, after listening to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, who is responsible for ARDA, speak to the farmers a few hours ago I wondered whether he really had read what we wanted to do when we set up ARDA. The political patronage which is going on in respect of ARDA is not what it was set up for. It was set up to be a long range program for the benefit of agriculture. It was not set up to give patronage to a few people in a few counties who may be friends of a few members or members collectively. I believe this is part of the problem. Most of us look to ARDA as a means to end some of the problems.
I heard the minister stand up and say that we were going to end the problem of those in the Ottawa valley who are almost hillbillies. These are the people who live on rocky farms where they must farm between the rocks. This is all right when you have a team of oxen and a total production of four or five acres, but how can you drive a tractor around those rocks? It was said that these farms would be made into units which would grow trees instead of rocks and weeds. What happened? Nothing happened; they are still there.
We have had some good schemes. We developed a scheme in the interlake area of Manitoba which is the biggest patronage organization I have ever seen. The government of Manitoba loves the government now in power in Ottawa because they have spread patronage in the interlake area. This area is

May 24. 1967
Problems of Farmers
supposed to be a pattern, but if this is to be the pattern then I do not want anything to do with it. ARDA could be better than that. I understand there is not much difference between what has happened there and what has happened in the Lake St. John area. Do not forget that there were many farmers from the Lake St. John area here today. When they pound on the govenrment's door the government is too scared to let them in. These are not farmers from my area. They are farmers from the areas not far from the area of the minister who has done a great deal to stir them up. I believe there is something wrong with the government's attitude toward the farmer.


Auguste Choquette: Why do you say that when there are farmers in the gallery?


William Arnold Peters: I do not know whether there are farmers in the gallery.


Auguste Choquette: Do not say the government did not let them in. They were let in.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe they did. I certainly do not wish to emphasize that point because it is not the po nt I am making. The point I am attempting to make is that they came because they want to know what is happening. ARDA may be much more important than what they are here for. ARDA was intended to bring about the solution of a number of problems. It was not our intention that under ARDA the provincial governments would be able to use the money for handouts in various areas. I had expected that the federal government would have control over it. Exactly the same thing has happened in the Department of Industry. The provincial government gets control of the money and uses it for handouts. This does not solve the problem on a national scale.
These people who are here today are interested in a solution on a national scale. If the government does not face up to the need for a solution to the agricultural problem, the day will come when it will be in serious difficulty. Some of these people live on farms in which they have a $50,000 investment. At the end of the year they have a net profit of $500 or $600. They legitimately and properly come to parliament now for a solution to their problem. If a person were to run any other kind of a business with a $45,000 or $50,000 investment and a similar return, obviously he would be out of business in a short time. None of his creditors would carry him for the 30 days necessary to get stock on the shelves.

This is the position in which we are placing the farmer.
We are lucky that for 20 years our farmers have been able to live off the depreciation wh.ch normally is allowed in a business. No farmers are putting away a depreciation allowance. I know people who live on farms and have never put anything back into those farms. I know this because I was in the second generation in that area. I know now, however, that farmers buy fertilizer by the carload because they find it is necessary to put back into the agricultural land some of the things which were taken out without any provision being made to replace them. It is difficult for them to do this with their current operating expenses.
It seems to me that the government should read some of the speeches which were made a few years ago. I can still remember the hon. member for Moose Jaw standing up in this house and telling the minister of agriculture of that day to get off his fat surplus and go out and sell wheat. I can remember when the government decided to do just that. They went to Poland, Czechoslovakia and finally to China. Eventually Russia came to us to buy wheat. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should say that I was not referring to the present member for Moose Jaw. I was referr ng to the member who preceded him, H.s Worship "Scoop" Lewry of that city. The fact is that the government sent out teams. The former minister of trade and commerce is remembered favourably by me because of the fact that he sent out teams to sell. They went out and sold. I really can see no difference between the situation then and the situation today in respect of the dairy industry and other farm commodities. This includes soybean producers, poultry producers, and others.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We can produce in this country and if we are going to have economic farm units we must produce to capacity; otherwise there will not be people on these farms and they will be idle. If we produce to capacity we can outstrip our ability to consume and we must get out into world markets and sell our produce.
It is surprising that a country of this size is importing millions of pounds of cheese, in fact almost as much as we sell. It was interesting to note that at a cheese party to which I was invited the other day about 40 different kinds of cheese were being served but only three of them were made in Canada. The first,
May 24, 1967

which could be sold internationally, was Oka. The second was Canadian cheddar of various grades, medium, mild and old, and there were fancy cheeses produced by Black Diamond and Kraft.
The Department of Agriculture has done nothing about the fact that we are buying more cheese than we are exporting. Obviously it would be possible for us to manufacture Camembert and other types of cheeses that are imported, just as we have manufactured various types of wine. These cheeses may have different names but I am sure we could find markets for them just as we have found world markets for Canadian cheddar.
As the world population increases and the demand for more food grows I am sure we can produce more products. We will then be able to lend other countries the money to purchase our products just as we did in respect of our wheat sales to Poland and Czechoslovakia. We heard a great deal of outcry from various people about lending money to communist countries to purchase our products, but I wonder how many of those same people today would advocate a discontinuance of this practice. After lending these people this money through the international exchange fund we found that at the end of the stated term the product had been sold.
My grievance is not mine particularly because I have no cattle on my farm and I do not farm it. It is the grievance of the 20,000 people who came here today from the immediate area and the other 20,000 who did not come. The government will have to call a federal-provincial conference with the farm organizations in order to outline honestly to the farmers what they ought to do. This conference should listen to the problems of the farmers, although obviously the farmers are going to ask for more than they expect and will be told they will get less than we could give them. In any event we must solve their problems before they become acute.
The agricultural industry is the backbone of the very fabric of our economy. Agricultural problems cannot be solved by subsidies or stop-gap payments such as the $200 per farmer because these are only temporary measures. A long range program must be developed as quickly as possible. A serious investigation of the ARDA program must be undertaken by the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development this year. If we are to develop a long range program as a solution to the agricultural problems faced by the farmers of Canada we must develop it on a different basis from our present programs.
Problems oj Farmers
The government must present a better image to the farmers of this country than the image presented to them this afternoon or it will never solve the problems. This will not only be to the detriment of the farmer but also to the detriment of the nation.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to realize that we are perfectly aware of the crucial problem facing the farmers, and I should like to ask him whether he does not think that, in the past four years, the government has done a lot to improve the fate of the farmer?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do agree. Ever since I came here ten years ago the government has worked hard year by year to solve the immediate problems. The beauty of the ARDA program was that it was intended not only to provide stop-igap assistance to farmers but something that would be of future benefit to them. It was my hope that as a result we would be able to look ahead and see a much broader picture which would give some hope to those people who have been hanging on for so long in the hope that some beneficial change would be made in the field of agriculture.
It is my belief that the present Minister of Agriculture deserves a great deal of credit for setting up the manufacturing milk policy. This was a step in the right direction, but I think he will eventually find that he will be playing one farmer against another because he did not also establish a policy in respect of fluid and bulk milk. I am sure he will find in the long run that this neglect will prove disadvantageous to Canadian farmers. I am happy to agree that the present Minister of Agriculture has done his share in the stop-gap program, just as other ministers in other governments have done, but the farmers are not going to be satisfied with only stop-gap arrangements.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal first with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Qu'Appelle wish to comment on the same matter raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming?

May 24, 1967
Problems of Farmers


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The grievance raised by the hon. member for Timis-kaming can be dramatised by the fact that the farmers of Canada, who represent the most stable element in the population, have seen fit to leave their farms during the busy spring season to come here by the thousands to present their case to the government. Surely this is an indication that something serious is amiss.
I recall that during the first few weeks after I became minister of agriculture I made a national television broadcast pointing out to the people in the cities that if one compared agricultural income with that of any other segment of our society one would find that agricultural income was steadily declining, not only in relation to the working man, with whom the farmer should not be compared, but in relation to the independent businessman who has a similar type of investment and the same long hours of work. At that time I asked the people in the cities of Canada to give their blessing and backing to my efforts to get farm income moving upward in order to provide reasonable equity compared with other segments of industry in Canada. During the time I held the portfolio I tried to complete some basic agricultural reforms to which I intend to refer later.
In view of the difficulties faced in the last four years by the agricultural industry, resulting in part from the tremendous revolution in machinery and technology and capital investment, I have taken the position that this industry needs all the help it can get. I do not intend to bore the house with figures indicating the tremendous adjustments that have been made in the last few years by the farming industry in order to keep up with technology and mechanization, but I am going to say what I have wanted to say for the last four years but have kept quiet because of my reluctance to hinder the efforts of my successors in trying to bring some form of assistance to the agricultural industry in this country.
Let me now say what I have held in abeyance because I felt that any minister facing the tremendous difficulties involved should be given every opportunity to solve them. There has been talk in the house over the last four years about the necessity of a national farm policy. We have had policy studies, and now we have task forces. All these devices are delaying tactics which indicate to me that the government does not know what to do and does not know where it is going.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is the essence of the difficulty. I do not think we need a study to tell the farmers and the people of Canada that our agricultural industry, as was stated by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), has reached a level of productive efficiency beyond the capacity of the domestic market of this country to absorb. It is as simple as that. Fortunately for those of us who come from the west we have an organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, through which we can channel this additional production because of increased productive efficiency and make it available in the markets of the world.
It is true that by using the traditional method of cash sales by the Canadian Wheat Board our exports were lower by 275 million bushels a year. When our government took on the responsibility of making credit sales and used the technique of the long term agreement with state run nations, mostly communist, when we made these two major businesslike approaches to the market exports climbed to the present level of approximately 600 million bushels a year and we could sell another 200 million bushels if we had the grain.
The interesting thing about these facts is that exactly seven years ago the farmers of western Canada were just as angry, just as frustrated, as are the farmers of eastern Canada today and those all across this country in the dairy industry. When I went to the farmers in 1960 and asked for their help and co-operation in backing me in a program of going out to sell their wheat abroad, asked them to give me time to demonstrate that it would be better for all of us if we sold our wheat abroad, and said that the maximum price would rise 50 cents a bushel when they were only asking for 20 cents more a bushel, the farmers gave me that breathing time. I think we demonstrated to the satisfaction of most people in western Canada-this area has never been traditionally Conservative in politics but when elections are held the people forget what the political names are and remember that ours was the first government in their living memory that ever tried to do something dramatic on their behalf-that we had the answers to some of these problems.
By staying together the farmers have developed a voice. In 1965, because of the incompetence of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and his failure to support them in that crisis, we saw the price of wheat drop 17 cents. The farmer was told he was selling so many bushels and making so
May 24, 1967



much money that he would not notice the drop of 17 cents a bushel. The farmer gave his answer on November 8, 1965, by cleaning out every Liberal in western Canada except one in the city of St. Boniface. I ask hon. members to look at a record of wheat prices since. Amazingly they started to climb back to the maximum the minute the farmers stuck together. Therefore I think the lesson of this march should be clear to the government.
I recall reading about and watching on television a similar march that took place in Quebec city a year ago. In the province of Quebec 10,000 farmers were trying to tell their story to the provincial government of that day. Not much was done to assist the farmers. Three months later the government of that province changed. That is what happens when farmers stick together. Forty-eight counties of Quebec saw to it that the government changed. I would remind the government that in their indifference in handling this delegation today and telling them they are coming here to strike against the public interest because what they are asking for would cost $90 million, and the government is busy with Viet Nam and the Middle East, they ignore the basic fact that there will be support by the people for a government only if there is no poverty and no injustice. And there is injustice in the income that the agricultural industry is receiving today. That is why the farmers are here.
The farmers who are here today on this march are not on the verge of extinction because of marginal land ownership. These farmers are not the ones who cannot adjust. These are the best farmers in Canada, led by the most responsible farm organizations in this country. Who has ever told this house that the U.C.C. is a radical, revolutionary group? Who has ever told this house that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is a radical, revolutionary group? These are the most stable groups in the body politic of Canada. They asked the farmers to come to Ottawa to add weight to the briefs they have presented to the government in the last four years, and the farmers have come here. This demonstrates the deep feeling among farmers in respect of their problems.
I am going to divert for a moment to point out what I think is an opportunity for the government to get out of this dilemma. I hold in my hand a pamphlet put out by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool entitled "Famine In The Future." It arrived this week in the mail of hon. members. I ask hon. members to read 27053-35J
Problems oj Farmers
this booklet and then they will see the answers to the problems of farmers in every industrial nation of the world, not only Canada. In this book we are told by the best mind in Canada today on agricultural policy, Dr. Menzies, that we have to face the facts, that by the end of this century we will have to feed approximately six billion people in the world.
The F.A.O. has pleaded with the nations of the industrial world to forget national differences, to forget their day to day problems and face the fact that today the nations of the world are facing a crisis. What do the nations of the world need? I can put it in two words-food and fibre. The F.A.O. in 1949 requested that greater effort be made in these fields. In 1959 it pleaded with the nations of the world to take action to solve these problems. The situation was so serious in 1964 that the F.A.O. issued a special report in which it asked for co-operation, and the answer it received from Canada was: We will set up a task force to study the matter.
It may be asked what this has to do with the debate we are holding today and the grievance we are discussing. It is a fact that we are not fighting communism in the world today. What we are fighting in the world today is poverty and injustice all over the world and not just in Canada. As the President of the United States told the American Congress, all the nations of the world must ask their producers to go full out and produce the food necessary to carry the world over the next 20 years and give our world institutions under the United Nations and through joint bilateral programs and so on a chance to build up the productive know-how because the next 20 years are the crisis years.
What do the people of the world want? They want proteins, proteins in milk, proteins in poultry products, proteins in red meats, proteins in soybeans. What nation is better prepared and more able to produce these things than Canada?
The dairy industry of Canada is frustrated today because of a surplus of 2 per cent milk. Because we can produce more milk than can be consumed in our cities the dairy farmer's price has been held down. What are the solutions to these problems? There are two solutions in my opinion. One is the short term solution of a subsidy to raise the price to that which will produce a bare living standard; otherwise all the investment in this very expensive industry will be lost. The other choice is to remember the salient fact that I brought out earlier, namely, why should there be a

May 24, 1967
Problems of Farmers
crisis in the dairy industry when the world desperately needs our proteins, when the world desperately wants skim milk powder and butter oil? Bring the two together and you reconstitute homogenized milk.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We have the technology and the ability in Canada. All that is stopping us from curing this problem is the psychological block in the minds of the members on the front benches of the government. I recall meeting with the ten provincial agricultural ministers in 1961 and obtaining an agreement from them that the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal minister of agriculture would sit down together, forget partisan politics and do something to cure the problem facing the dairy industry. We agreed upon a plan.
At that time the government of Quebec was Liberal, the government of Ontario was Conservative and so was the federal government. We forgot that one government was Liberal and the others Conservative and we agreed upon a joint plan. That plan depended on Quebec passing legislation to give power to the farmers to form a single milk organization which would control the production and distribution of milk in Quebec and across the boundary in Ontario. Ontario had the necessary legislation but it had to persuade the various milk organizations in that province to accept the eventual liaison with Quebec, following which the federal government would take the surplus off the market and make sure that the price of milk would rise to such a level as to give the farmers a fair return without the necessity of a public subsidy. That was the simple, honest and straight forward plan which we accepted.
I do not hold it against the government of Mr. Lesage that he gave higher priorities to education, social welfare, hydro development and so on. However, the fact remains that his government did not introduce that legislation until the spring of 1966, and Ontario's efforts to bring its organizations together were thwarted until the Quebec government made the first move. The Quebec Liberal government fell in 1966 and another one took its place. Several weeks later the ministers of agriculture of Quebec and Ontario met in Montreal and agreed to come to the federal Minister of Agriculture and suggest to him to forget partisan politics and come together on the old agreement of 1961. What happened then? Somebody thought there should be a political battle between the federal Minister of Agriculture and the Ontario minister of

agriculture, and that is the reason the plan was not accepted. That is the reason for the farmer's march on Ottawa which is taking place today. The fact is that the government has marked time ever since and has decided upon subsidies, which the farmers know is no answer to the fundamental problem.
I can speak with some feeling on this subject. In 1958 I undertook a survey of the eastern half of my riding of Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan. I found that half the farmers had a cash income of less than $1,000 a year. Today when I go through those same areas I find that as a result of fundamentally sound agricultural policies the farmers who were getting less than $1,000 cash income have incomes of $6,000, $9,000 or $13,000 gross which gives them a net income of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. I saw a change in these people. Although they have to raise their families on $700 or $800 a year and their only chance to enjoy life is to go to a fair once a year, and although they are in debt up to their ears, they know they are doing something worth while, first, because at the present time they have enough money to meet the heavy debts incurred in the purchase of machinery, land and fertilizer and, second and above all, they know they are helping to feed the hungry people of the world.
I suggest that a parallel situation exists in Canada in the dairy industry and in the fishing and forest industries. The world is in desperate need of the products of these three industries. I think that the farmers, the lumbermen and the fishermen would not only feel happier if their pockets were a little fuller but also if they knew they were helping to meet the great challenge of our day, namely, the famine which faces the world. I think this is both the long range and the immediate solution.
A moment ago I mentioned the need for fibre, lumber and newsprint. The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned reforestation. I recall that in 1962 and again in 1963 I proposed, on behalf of the government of that day, that we should take 20 million acres of abandoned farms in eastern Canada and spend on them $2 billion during a ten-year period to develop a commercial type of wood. The farmers in those marginal areas would have benefited from 90 per cent of the $2 billion which would have been spent on labour in the planting of and looking after trees. This would have been tied up with the expansion of the beef industry, so that the income of the people in these areas would
May 24. 1987

have been given a boost. I am speaking of the Bruce peninsula, the clay belt, the Ottawa valley, Lac Saint-Jean, and right down through Gaspe and the maritimes.
The proposal to spend $2 billion to reforest 20 million acres was described by the Prime Minister of this country as a policy for dogs. He visualized dogs being very happy with all those trees. That was all that his wisecracking mind could see. He did not even know that to spend $2 billion on this type of project would not only produce an income which would carry these people over the intervening years when the trees would be growing but that in 35 years time they would be worth a minimum of $12 billion and, with present prices, more likely $24 billion. Whenever a government can spend $2 billion which will produce $24 billion a generation later, that is a good expenditure. A capital value of $12 billion to $24 billion added to the beef and the recreational industries of these areas, would have meant an increase in income of at least $600 million to $700 million a year. It would also provide us with the foreign exchange which this country so desperately needs. But above all it would make thousands of farmers know that they were needed not only in Canada but in the whole world. They would feel satisfaction in that as they helped to raise their own incomes they were helping to feed, clothe and provide shelter for the people of this world.
That program has never been mentioned by the government in the house since it took office. Apparently they still think of it as a policy for dogs. A farmer does not care what he grows, whether it be dairy cows, beef cattle or trees, as long as the income from his acres is giving his family a livelihood and the possibility to raise his children in dignity. This is what I hold against the present government.
I mentioned earlier that by being united the farmers can achieve much more than if they divide into various groups. I mentioned the case of the 10,000 farmers who marched on Quebec city last year. I mentioned the fact that as a result of their march they went back to their counties and brought changes to the rural areas in Quebec which brought about a change in government. I also gave the example of how the western farmers, after 40 years of fighting each other, learned to work and vote together. I will give one more example because we in Canada are not alone in facing these problems. The same surplus of dairy products exists in the United States. Our surplus is 2 per cent while the surplus in
Problems of Farmers
the United States is 3 per cent. The reasons for the surplus are the same in both countries. The companies in both countries which buy the dairy products from the farmers are more disposed to sell them in the cities. It never enters their mind that the people of Formosa, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Indonesia want what the farmer is producing here. They continue the routine of selling to the cities. The companies in both countries are equally guilty.
While speaking on the question of farm activity in the United States, I would suggest that hon. members take a look at Hansard of last February or March where they will find the debate on the estimates of the former minister of trade and commerce. At that time I told him that if he was not going to act with regard to world wheat prices I would. I asked the farm leaders in western Canada to approach the farm leaders of the United States and to suggest to them that we should all stand together in trying to get the United States government to change its mind on wheat prices.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I have given public credit, and I do so now in this house, to Mr. Gibbings of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Mr. Atkins of the National Farm Union and Mr. Runciman, who made these contacts with their counterparts. I went down and met the farm leaders of the United States in the office of the secretary of agriculture in Washington. I told them what I was going to do. The farmers asked the government of the United States to change its attitude on wheat prices but the government refused. The farmers gave them their answer in November last by cleaning out 23 of the 24 Democrats in the farm areas.
My point, therefore, to the farmers who are gathered here today is that although you only comprise 10 per cent of the population of Canada, which is far from the days when the figure was 30 or 50 per cent, if that 10 per cent learn the lessons of the last few years and stick together, not only in the west but in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, they can achieve the same result as the United States farmers achieved last year when they forced the government of that country to change its attitude on world wheat prices.
Agriculture is a basic industry but we have to get across the idea in the cities that unless agriculture is prosperous Canada is not prosperous. It seems odd that we should have to learn this lesson the hard way. You will recall that when the tremendous wheat sales took

May 24, 1967
Problems of Farmers
place in 1961 they coincided with the movement of the economic barometer for every industry in this country. Within weeks the hard industries, such as farm machinery and trucks, moved up. Within months the steel industry and the mining industry began to move up. Employment moved up and wages moved up. There is an immediate reaction upon industry that serves the Canadian people when agriculture is prosperous. If there is an upsurge in manufacturing it takes two or three years before the results are felt by agriculture. However, when those engaged in agriculture get any money the results are felt immediately in the whole economic community. This fact has been admitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in the present government and by the head of the Bank of Canada. Everyone accepts this principle. However, the government is failing to put it into practice. The health of agriculture is basic to the health of the country. That fact can be demonstrated to your heart's content.
It seems odd that in China today this subject is being debated. The cadres want to industrialize very rapidly but the government says no, we have to build up our farm industry. A great debate is going on because the Chinese government learned in 1959, 1960 and 1961 that if you let your agricultural industry drop, as they did when they moved the labour battalions to the cities to build the schools and roads they needed, then the whole economy almost collapses. They have had to go back and do it the hard way. Do we in Canada have to learn that lesson? We have to remember at all times that the agricultural industry, even if only 10 per cent of the population is engaged in that industry, must be kept not only to feed our own people but to help in the task of feeding people all over the world. It is for this reason agriculture must be basic.
I should have liked to continue and explain the principles of ARDA as a long range approach to the problems of the marginal farmer. This program is designed to help him with his difficulties and enable him to take advantage of all these opportunities. I would have liked to talk about changes that should be made in the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Farm Credit Act and the Crop Insurance Act.
I should like to remind the government that in the committee on agriculture and colonization in 1963 and 1964 members of every political party, Liberal, Conservative, N.D.P. and so on, agreed upon a fundamental program to help the eastern fanner in connection

with feed grains. We sat here all that year and waited. When the legislation came before us we found that the government had apparently ignored the basic conclusions upon which all parties had agreed in a quiet, constructive committee. I mention these things because it grieves me terribly to recall that the proposed feed grain assistance act which I introduced in the house in 1963 never saw the light of day. It was to be one of the basic pieces of legislation, along with ARDA, which would give eastern farmers the same uplift the farmers of western Canada had received. So the eastern farmer has waited all these years since 1963 and all he has received is talk. He has never had action.
I do not intend to criticize the principles of ARDA. I believe they are essentially sound. But I feel the minister has been more concerned about politics in the province of Quebec than he has been with using that legislation to do what it was primarily designed to do. The legislation was designed to get the local people, businessmen, professional people and farmers, to forget partisan politics and work together to raise the income level of the community. If the program has become a means of pouring money into an area in the form of subsidies, studies or surveys without the fundamental participation of the people in their own future, then I say that the government has destroyed or seriously hurt a very sound bit of legislation.
I could go on indefinitely. However, I believe I have said enough to indicate that the problems of the marginal farmer are still with us. Every time I look at the figures and realize that 83 per cent of the farmers of Quebec are below the minimum standard of a modern industrial state, that 87 per cent of the farmers in the maritimes are below this standard and 60 per cent of the farmers across the country are below the standard, I realize that the problems of the marginal farmer are still with us. When you are the author of legislation you naturally feel that your child is being neglected, and you hate to see this.
I know the minister made a tremendous effort, after waiting a year with no action, to learn how this legislation operated. I know his civil servants made an effort to get the program started. What I do know now is that the very dreams we built together are disappearing because the people see no hope and the minister spends all his time on politics and none on the problems of these marginal farmers. Our problem today, as I say, is not fighting communism. Our problem today is
May 24, 1967	COMMONS
fighting poverty by self-help rather than handouts. Our problem today is to fight injustice by doing those things that give people hope there will be some answer to their problems.
I do not pretend, Mr. Speaker, that all the problems were solved when I was minister or that they will all be solved in the future. However, I do know that an honest effort was made, and I hate to see us marking time. I hate to see this pre-occupation with things as far reaching as the Middle East or Viet Nam because the root problem is the same. If we were more concerned in Viet Nam with the division of land between the landlords and the peasant, I believe an answer would come more quickly. However, with the world appealing to us for help, with the FAO asking for help, the people of our generation in Canada must ask if we are going to be able to meet these requests. I want to be able to meet this challenge in my generation, not by handouts at home or by handouts abroad but by the adoption of the principle of self-help.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, according to the motion adopted on May 16, 1967, I must now put the question. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair. [DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Defence Production
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Department of External Affairs
Department of Finance
Department of Fisheries
Department of Forestry and Rural Development
DEBATES	547
Business of the House
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Department of Industry Department of Justice Department of Labour Department of National Defence Department of National Health and Welfare Department of National Revenue Post Office Department Department of Public Works Registrar General Secretary of State Solicitor General
Department of Trade and Commerce Department of Transport Treasury Board
Department of Veterans Affairs Proceedings reported.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I would ask
leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of referring certain estimates to standing committees. I should not have asked for leave had I not had discussions with the various house leaders.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Leave is not granted, Mr. Speaker. There will be more tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: May we know tomorrow's business?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we propose to deal with item No. 3, the resolution to amend the Immigration Act. If that resolution carries we intend to proceed with item No. 6, second reading of Bill C-106, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Then we propose to call item No. 10, second reading of Bill S-6, to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act, and we shall follow that with item No. 8, second reading of Bill S-4, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 25, 1967