1968-11-19

[Stage Direction]
Second report in French and in English of standing committee on fisheries and forestry-Mr. Crossman.
[Note: Text of above report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-130, an Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Application restricted to physical movement).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, this bill follows a resolution passed in May 1968 by the Canadian Trucking Association and a similar resolution passed by the Quebec Trucking Association Incorporated.
The purpose of this bill is to provide that, when the owner of a motor vehicle transportation business operates both at the interprovincial and provincial levels, only the employees assigned to the operation of vehicles used for interprovincial transportation should be subject to application of this legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement yesterday that in the reassessment of defence policy the government is considering the kind, quality and number of armaments that we will want to commit to
NORAD. In light of this, will the Prime Minister say whether, as a result of the agreement signed last March, Canada considers itself committed to participate in NORAD until May 12, 1973?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, NORAD is a control device. It is not one to which any specific number of men, arms or materiel are committed. Each of the members of NORAD decides the input that it will place at NORAD's disposal. The agreement can exist essentially with very little arms from one side or the other. We are a member of NORAD. We have renewed that agreement. The number and kind of armaments put at the disposal of NORAD on the Canadian side is a decision for the Canadian government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Canada's continuation in or withdrawal from the NORAD agreement prior to 1973 is one of the matters under examination in the review of defence and foreign policy. My question is directed not to what arms might be provided but to whether we would stay in or withdraw from the agreement itself. Is this question under review?


Mr. Trudeau:: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we decided to withdraw our arms at the disposition of NORAD, technically we could stay in the agreement but it would be of very little avail.


Mr. Woolliams:: It would be a breach of agreement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why I am indicating that from our point of view the crucial matter is the amount of arms we want to put at the disposition of NORAD. If, as I said, it were practically nil, I suppose that under this hypothesis the agreement would become defunct.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then it would perhaps be correct to say that the continuation in or withdrawal from NORAD itself prior to 1973 is a matter that comes within the terms of the reassessment and review?

November 19, 19G8
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, indirectly, Mr. Speaker. Once again I am looking at the hypothesis that we would put no arms there. Then you could say the agreement is continued but there is nothing in it. Therefore the important aspect of the review is what we want to put in. We may decide to put in much more; we may decide that NORAD deserves a much larger commitment of Canadian arms, in which case I would not be prepared to say the agreement would no longer be in effect.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the NORAD agreement specifies that the agreement may be reviewed at any time at the request of either party, is the government giving consideration to asking the United States government to review jointly the NORAD agreement in the near future, or has the Canadian government already made such a proposal to the United States government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, we have not, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could advise the house whether the government of Canada is committed now to supplying any equipment, replacements or additions under the existing agreement, or whether in the view of the government any such equipment can be withdrawn at any time. Are there any commitments with regard to supplying equipment now under the NORAD agreement presently in effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As has just been indicated by the previous question, the matter of equipment can be decided from time to time. NORAD is a framework of joint control by the two governments and, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, this joint control exists over the arms that each side decides to put in under the NORAD agreement. It is this decision that we are reviewing now along with other decisions; what kind of a defence policy we need, whether in or out of NATO, in or out of NORAD, and so on.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that all aspects of NORAD and of Canadian-United States defence in general are being reviewed at the present time, would part of that review consist of the possibility or likelihood of the stationing of additional United States troops in Canada should we decide to reduce our arms commitment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course it is a possibility, but I would not suggest it is a likelihood.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister deny or confirm reports that there is a growing divergence of interpretation between Canada and the United States as to whether the new NORAD agreement allows for the inclusion of an antiballistic missile system-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask the Prime Minister or a minister to confirm or deny reports.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman could indicate whether the establishment of the light anti-ballistic missile system in the United States will come under the organizational command of NORAD.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to check, Mr Speaker, but my recollection is that it would not.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. In view of the fantasy, the almost make-believe world that is being placed before us by the Prime Minister and woven by him from day to day, does he not think the Canadian people have the right to fuller information than the uncertainty that is being given to the people of Canada today, in particular today on the question of NORAD? Instead of all this confusion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -does not the Prime Minister think the time has come to give them facts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I think the Canadian people have the right to full information. The trouble is that we are in the process of reviewing our policy, and if we were to tell them of our policy before reviewing it, there would be little purpose in reviewing it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We feel it is not beyond the tolerance of the Canadian people to understand that there is a need once in a while to review some of the basic policies which have been established by this government and by previous governments over the years, or over the generations, and I think it is not too much to ask the Canadian people during the
November 19, 1968

period of this review to accept the assumption that the government may or may not change its mind.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say this to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They laugh at the matter of defence on the Liberal side of the house, do they?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a subject affecting the life and the future of Canadians. I ask the Prime Minister now whether he will give this house an opportunity at an early date to discuss this matter and make known the views of the Canadian people as represented by members here, so that at least parliament will not be a one man show determining the future of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the review of defence and external policy upon which the government is engaged include a precise assessment of areas in the world where we might increase our external aid if we have money to spare after cutting back on defence expenditures? Can the Prime Minister say what emphasis is being placed on this aspect of the review?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat what I believe I indicated a few days ago to the leader of the New Democratic Party. The question of external aid or international development assistance is very much present in our minds, and we are looking at this aspect of our foreign policy not only with a view to increasing it if possible but also with a view to determining in which areas of the world we could usefully spend more for the people concerned.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I wonder whether I could rephrase the question I asked a few moments ago and ask the Prime Minister whether the government of Canada is finding any special difficulty in reconciling its interpretation of the NORAD agreement with that of the United States, in connection with the ability of the NORAD agreement to allow for antiballistic missile defence capability.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There have been no difficulties whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Does the Prime Minister agree with the contention that Czechoslovakia upset all our plans in this regard?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I would ask the Prime Minister when he intends to show to the house the results of Marshall McLuhan's instructions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we have reached the point where we might go to another subject.



AVAILABILITY OF VACCINE TO COMBAT INFLUENZA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question which has been posed previously to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious hold-up in the United States in the manufacture of a vaccine against the newly found Hong Kong flu virus and the extreme urgency of production, would the minister indicate to the house what the situation is in Canada and when he expects the vaccine to be ready for distribution here?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave the hon. member an answer previously, but I assume he was not satisfied with it. I will be pleased to look into the matter again and give him a further answer.



ONTARIO-REPORTED INTENTION TO REDUCE PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I think I should address to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or perhaps to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having in mind the announcement made today by the Ontario provincial minister of health that Ontario intends to reduce the price of drugs by at least 15 per cent in the next two months, would the minister consider similar action on the part of the federal government?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has already made his speech on second reading of a bill designed to deal with this over-all subject matter. That

November 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry bill will proceed through its various stages and will certainly supplement any effort the provinces may make along the lines given in the story to which the hon. member refers.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the increasing tempo of monetary crises at the international level would the government undertake to have the Minister of Finance make a statement in connection with the present crisis the first time he is back in the house?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I believe the Minister of Finance is due in the house tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and he may well want to answer that question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not my question. I am asking whether the government is prepared to have the minister make a statement. It is a very simple question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The very simple answer is that if such a statement is found useful by the Minister of Finance he will make it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Without comment, Mr. Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister received any reports with regard to the present crisis from Canada's representatives at the meeting held last week end to deal with this particular situation? Perhaps the Prime Minister might consider some of these monetary crises of rather grave import so far as Canada is concerned also.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to the first is yes, and to the second, I do, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the course of displaying his mastery of the house perhaps the Prime Minister could indicate whether Canada has made any commitments with regard to credit swap arrangements to support the franc.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no commitments. We are of course watching the international monetary situation very intently, but we have no means of predicting what might be done by any of the
[Mr. Munro.l
European governments concerned. We are watching the developments from day to day, but we have not been asked as yet for any specific commitment.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it true that the Hercules aircraft affected to the transportation of food and goods to the Biafrans are no longer in any condition to take off?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, the Hercules aircraft in Fernando Po was used this very day to transport refugees to Dahomey and our authorities allowed that aircraft to carry other refugees. I can even add that this aircraft might be used to carry drugs from somewhere in Europe to Nigeria.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday he was asked a few questions about the coming conference with the provincial premiers in Ottawa. I should like to know whether that conference will be open to television like the first conference in February, so that all Canadians can see the talent and diplomacy exercised by the Prime Minister which we see here every day.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member would not want this to become a one man show. This would displease the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I can say, however, that I have suggested to the provinces that if they are agreeable to this we would have this conference open to television.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, on October 18 I addressed
November 19, 1968

a question to the Prime Minister in which I asked him whether at the federal-provincial conference in December the question of raising minimum wages across this country could be considered, because of the importance of raising the living standards of the four million Canadians who live in poverty. Has the Prime Minister arranged to have this matter placed on the agenda of that conference to be considered at that time?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Arising from the discussions at the conference last February we are putting on the agenda of this conference the subject of regional disparity. This will permit us to correct some of the economic inequities which concern the hon. member so deeply.


George Harris Hees: Because the question of raising minimum wages is so fundamental and important I ask the Prime Minister whether this matter could be considered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When put as specifically as that, I fail to see that it should be the subject for a constitutional conference. I know of nothing which would prevent the provinces raising their minimum rates, or that would prevent the federal government raising its minimum rates in areas under their respective jurisdictions. I fail to see how this is a matter for constitutional debate.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister not agree that if the Prime Minister and the government would set the example by raising the minimum rate, which has not been done for three years, this might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's final supplementary is argumentative.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works in relation to the construction of a new highway bridge across the Fraser river, built by a Chilcotin rancher named Rudy Johnson. In spite of the fact that no public money of any sort was spent on this useful public work, does the minister plan to accept an invitation to the official opening ceremonies both as an honoured guest and as an interested observer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has conveyed his invitation.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he received a telegram this morning from the Liberal association of Burnaby-Seymour strongly protesting the fact that the Prime Minister obviously does not know who the Liberal member for Burnaby-Seymour is?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Who the hell is he?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Oh, let him answer.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not receive such a hypothetical telegram. If it is of interest, and for the record, I never suggested I did not know who the member was. I asked, sotto voce, where the hell the minister was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Oh, no, that's not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question was in order in the first instance. I allowed the Prime Minister to answer only because the hon. member suggested I should do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know where the minister is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest there should not be a supplementary question. If the hon. member has another, I will allow it.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Agriculture was expressing government policy when he stated to a meeting last night that many farmers were ignorant of the basic economic laws of business management.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
2908

November 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry CROWN ASSETS



REPORTED INTENTION TO SELL SABRE JET PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Defence Production. Would the minister advise the house how far negotiations have proceeded with regard to the sale of 26 Sabre jets to a United States arms dealer.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the 26 aircraft to which the hon. member refers have not as yet been declared surplus to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. There may be some confusion in that earlier a set of, I believe, some 22 airframes were offered for sale, and a separate set of 25 Orenda engines. This is the only equipment which has been declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. No decision has been made with regard to the disposal of this equipment. If the F-86's are turned over to us we will decide as a matter of policy what will be done with them, but so far they have not been turned over to us.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Is the
final decision on this being left until after the government has completed its review of defence policy?


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whif-by):: Would the minister assure the house that the purpose for which the private citizen and the principal for whom he is acting want to buy these planes will be made clear to the government before they are sold?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes; I can give that assurance very categorically.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question arises out of the answer given to the first question. Could the minister tell us why Crown Assets Disposal Corporation would dispose of 22 airframes and 25 separate engines when these put together would make up total aircraft?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is not necessarily so, in view of the fact that the planes have also been stripped of all instruments, all firepower and that type of thing. However, I repeat what I said a moment ago, that no decision with regard to the disposal of even airframes or engines separately has as yet been made.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, would the minister then in future see that such news reports are authentic and that the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production to clarify an earlier matter. Did I understand the minister correctly to assert that the government would seriously consider the possibility of selling military aircraft in usable condition to a private purchaser, rather than selling them as disposable material, or scrap material?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is the same question that was asked before. I simply stated that there are at the moment no flyable aircraft being offered for sale or turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The indication is that within the next few months some F-86 aircraft will be turned over to Crown Assets. When that happens, I undertook to make a policy decision, and I assured the hon. member that at that time, in making that decision we would be very sure that we were completely aware of the ultimate destination and use of such equipment provided, in fact, the decision was to sell it in flyable condition.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Secretary of State or the Acting Secretary of State if he will look into the newscast of the C.B.C., since it comes within his responsibility, and ascertain why they are permitted to make announcements in reference to government sales of surplus aircraft and start a protest movement throughout this country, with protest letters and wires coming to members of parliament objecting to a sale with regard to which the C.B.C. has said a private American has made the highest tender.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware of the advertisement published today in the
November 19, 1968

newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec City concerning the Kierans act, or Bill No. C-116, which reads as follows:
To our regret, we have to increase our subscription rates-mail delivery-from $15 to $30 yearly as from April 1, 1969.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should put his question now.


David Réal Caouette: Is the minister in a position to tell us what steps he intends to take to prevent such increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The right honourable member for Prince Albert.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the minister was ready to answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CRITERIA CONSIDERED IN CLOSING OF OFFICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Postmaster General.
For a month or so, members have been receiving letters from the Postmaster General regarding his decision to close down post offices in the various ridings. In my constituency, three post offices have already been closed down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must ask a question.


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Here it is.
On what basis does he apply such a policy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister for a general statement, which the minister should do on motions.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I can give a reply in a few words.
Two or three conditions are required to close down a post office. For instance, when a post office serves fewer than 30 families, when the income is less than $1,000 and when the administration costs of the office amount to $2,000 or $3,000, and when it is possible to introduce a rural route service, then the closing down of the post office is considered.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Does the minister also take into account the fact that although a post office may not be profitable, it does help the people?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: As far as we are concerned, a rural route service helps the people better.



REQUEST FOR STAMP COMMEMORATING JEANNE-MANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Since the international convention of nurses will be held in Montreal, in June 1969, would the minister be willing to issue a postage stamp representing Jeanne Mance, the first Canadian nurse belonging to the laity?


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



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the number of veterans who today find themselves in a very difficult position by reason of the high cost of living, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs let the country know when the legislation in respect of increased pensions and war veterans allowances will be before the house, and in particular, when the necessary resolutions will be placed on the order paper?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there was an increase in pensions of 15 per cent in 1968. This matter of increasing pensions is always under consideration, and any announcements to be made will be made in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask about war veterans allowances. Is any consideration being given in this regard; and when the minister is answering perhaps he will also tell the house whether it is because of this reassessment of defence policies that no action is being taken for the veterans.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No, Mr. Speaker. Obviously there is no relationship at all between the two. The matter of allowances is always under consideration.

November 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry HALIFAX-REPORTED REDUCTION IN HOSPITAL SERVICES
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs relating to a statement he made in the house on Thursday last, in which he indicated there were no cutbacks in administration at Camp Hill. Having assured the house that no cutbacks have taken place, can the minister now assure the house that there is no intention of cutting back?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can. There were no cutbacks, and there will be none.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to say when his department will be substituting the card system for the list system for identifying Indian people who are entitled to free drugs, to which he referred last Wednesday.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We certainly hope to start dealing with this in the next month to six weeks. As I understand it the list system is only practiced in British Columbia.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, when this system is brought into effect can the minister assure the house that this will completely do away with the lists which are now on hand in various drugstores throughout British Columbia?


John Carr Munro: I certainly think so, and this will be a far better system.


Robert Simpson: Would the minister consider withdrawing these lists and having them returned to the departments from which they were issued?


John Carr Munro: With the card system, that is what we have in mind.



CARE OF INDIANS IN TUBERCULOSIS AND MENTAL HOSPITALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising from the minister's undertaking to the federal-provincial national conference that the decision to turn over responsibility for Indians in tuberculosis and mental hospitals in the provinces would be reconsidered by a senior committee of deputy ministers. Will the minister say whether this review has been completed and, if so, with what result? If it has not, can the minister advise when he expects the review to be completed?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this reconsideration put forward, was to have further studies by such a committee. The committee is just getting under way now. As I indicated, it is a committee of officials and deputy ministers, and it will take some time before that review is completed.



REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPER ON SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in view of the very serious increase in cancer of the lung with its very high mortality and morbidity, and the established link with cigarette smoking, whether he will advise the house if a white paper will be tabled, and when the house may expect it.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer at this time to take this question as notice.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question now becomes a supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a result of the bulletins published by his department and various other publications, indicating the increasing incidence of lung cancer due to heavy smoking, I was wondering whether the minister was considering giving up reading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 19, 1988



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries having regard to the petition he received on behalf of Newfoundland fishermen of the northwest coast for the purchase of dried salt cod and the closing of tenders yesterday. Can the minister advise whether the price as requested in the petition will be met?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements claimed to have been made by the Minister of Defence Production that merchants are acting in poor faith in respect of this plan, can the minister say whether the present arrangement of having merchants tender to the government for the purchase of the fishermen's fish is going to have the effect of tragically low prices being paid to the primary producers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the question as asked is not in order.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the other day, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked what had happened to the amendment projects to the Indian Act to which my predecessor had referred, as reported in Hansard on December 11, 1967.
The former minister was then considering some political matters concerning the Indian Act, following meetings held with Indian representatives. These questions were published later in a booklet entitled Choosing a path, which was forwarded to all the Indians. There is no provisional text of the new Indian Act at the present time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked him a question, which he promised to answer today, about the deportation of Canadian journalists from Mexico.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Presideni of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question was whether the embassy in Mexico City was aware of the deportation of two Canadian citizens. The answer is yes; on November 15 the embassy became aware of the story of this detention and deportation. Representations were made to the government of Mexico by our ambassador, who was advised that the two Canadians in question had been detained and deported in their own car to the United States for an offence against the Mexican government regulations relating to the making of films for export purposes. The ambassador protested the lack of advice of this detention and the lack of accessibility by the consular service to the two Canadians, but the deportation had already been carried out.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because time is of the essence. Has he received any complaints from the national parks, and in particular Jasper, in reference to a breach of confidential tenders with regard to land being let for the tourist trade in that area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any complaint in that connection, but I can assure the hon. member that I will inquire to determine if there is something unusual.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister makes the

November 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry investigation will he check to see whether there was any breach of confidentiality, in that tenders were opened prior to the date and shown to other people tendering?



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister designate for communications. Will the minister advise whether he will be making an early statement in the house on the lofty question of telecommunications, and especially the results of the Canadian mission to France?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet met with the officers who were spending some time in Bonn last week at the European space conference. I do not anticipate immediately making a statement to the house, but I am certainly anxious to make one when the circumstances justify it.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister give urgent consideration to investigating complaints directed against the federal-provincial resettlement program in Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CHURCHILL, MAN.-NEGOTIATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say when he will be in a position to indicate to the cabinet proposals for the development of the town site of Churchill, as indicated by the Prime Minister on October 28?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the review in this regard is almost complete and that this will be referred to the cabinet for decision at a very early date.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the gradual extension of the principle that pensions, having been put into effect, have to be escalated, and in view of the urgency of extending this matter and putting it on a universal basis, has the minister yet established in his department a committee or task force to study this whole question?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I believe, earlier this session by the Prime Minister, the whole question of our various welfare programs is under review.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; pardon me for being persistent. Is the particular question of escalating pensions that have been put into effect included in this review?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, all matters pertaining to our welfare programs are part of the review.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Richard in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 20925-1, 21045-1, 22001-1 and the heading thereto, 22002-1 and the heading thereto, 22003-1 and the heading thereto, 26325-1, 40938-1, 42761-1 and the heading thereto, 42762-1 and the heading thereto, 44043-1, 44047-1, 47600-1, 56400-1, and 69315-1 and the enumeration of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. House again in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Customs Tariff. The text is attached to Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, October 22, 1968. Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, November 14, I was participating in this debate. At that time I said that when one considers the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, commonly known as the Kennedy round, one thinks of the words fait accompli
November 19, 19G8

because it was put into force as of January 1. I also stated that when one reviews the Kennedy round-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I would ask the indulgence of some hon. members and request them to take this opportunity to go behind the curtains and carry on their conversations elsewhere, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John Gilbert: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that when one considers the effect of the Kennedy round negotiations one finds no substantial reduction in effective protection resulting therefrom. In some cases there is higher protection than there was before. This has been the finding of the Economic Council of Canada which made a detailed study of the Kennedy round recommendations. They found that there was no reduction in effective protection as a result of these negotiations.
One of the recommendations the Economic Council of Canada made was that there should be an accelerated reduction of tariffs as one way of dealing with persistent price and cost increases in Canada. This recommendation was rejected by the Prime Minister in his statement on September 12, and has been rejected by the Minister of Finance in his recent budget. The approach of the Minister of Finance to the handling of the price and cost increases we are experiencing in Canada has been to create a slack economy, to create more unemployment. This is contrary to one of the methods recommended by the Economic Council of Canada.
I said on that evening that Canada must have a free trade policy in order to develop her economic and productive strength. The experience Canadians have had has been that restrictions have been imposed by the government which have hindered the development of a real free trade policy for Canada. One of the major restrictions in this regard has been our monetary policy. I stated that our policy with regard to a fixed exchange rate and our attitude and policy regarding foreign exchange reserves have created restrictions on the development of a free trade policy. I quoted extensively from statements made by the present Postmaster General to develop this point. Since many people believe that when we in the New Democratic party set forth a principle that principle is not regarded as having any validity by the people in government, I am going to quote again
Ways and Means
from what the present Postmaster General said back in 1967. I should like to refer to an article he wrote entitled, "The Nation Keepers", in which he referred to foreign guide lines to Canada's economic future. At page 214 the author develops the principle that Canada should have an aggressive trade policy and states:
If Canada pursues an aggressive free trade policy it is obvious that our fixed exchange rate policy will not work. We will have to go through so many fundamental changes in industrial organization that only a freely moving rate will be able to adjust to the productive process and measure our success or failure in achieving our aims. As J. E. Meade has written, there is no choice for free traders. "Free trade and fixed exchange rates are incompatible in the modern world." This is particularly true for Canada which depends on trade, has a heavily protected manufacturing industry, and is much affected by the slightest changes in the economic policy of its neighbour. Free trade will bring a more efficient use of our resources and expand our possibilities of growth, but these changes cannot possibly work their way through the economy within the constraints of a fixed rate.
These statements were made by the present Postmaster General, and I have yet to hear a government spokesman, including the present Postmaster General, give any forward push to these very necessary principles with regard to the foreign exchange rate policy or foreign exchange reserves. We in the New Democratic party have advocated this principle for quite some time. When we have the Postmaster General enunciating the same principle, when we have the Financial Times of September 23 setting forth the necessity of solving this problem, when on November 14 we have the president of the Royal Bank, Mr. Earl McLaughlin, stating that the exchange rate policy and the foreign exchange reserves are imposing restrictions with regard to free trade, one would hope that the government would take immediate action to achieve the release of these restrictions and have a more definite free trade policy.
The second proposition I set forth last week was that we should examine the industrial structure of our Canadian economy. This, of course, necessitates an in-depth study of foreign ownership in Canada. It was for this reason the Watkins committee made a thorough study of foreign ownership and structure in the Canadian economy. The report to this committee states that in 1964 we had $27 billion of foreign investment, 86 per cent of which was United States investment; 12 per cent investment from the United Kingdom and 8 per cent from other countries. I understand that a projection of the $27 billion in

November 19, 19S8
Ways and Means
1964 reveals that the figure is now close to $35 billion. When one reads that in certain industries such as automobile parts and rubber United States investment is 97 per cent, that in chemical products there is 78 per cent control, that in electrical apparatus there is 77 per cent control, one can appreciate the impact of foreign investment in Canada.
It was for this reason the Watkins committee went into such a detailed study concerning the problems of extraterritoriality, branch operations in Canada and multi-national corporations, and an effort was made to determine just what penetration had been made in these particular areas. Mr. Watkins, who was the chairman of this committee on foreign ownership, in an article written for a magazine called Executive in August of 1968 set forth his views concerning foreign investment. At this stage one is not complaining about the general problem of foreign investment because we in Canada invite foreign investment. However, one has to look at the penetration that has been made and the consequences that may follow this domination of our Canadian industry. Mr. Watkins said:
The amount of foreign investment, or foreign ownership, is not an issue in and of itself. There is no virtue in trying to minimize it for its own sake. I suspect that most people in this audience would readily agree with that proposition. If so, you ought also to agree that neither is there any virtue in trying to maximize the level of foreign ownership in Canada for its own sake. Unfortunately, some important groups in this country at least give the appearance of having fallen victim to the latter fallacy.
Then he sets forth just what the approach of Canada should be.
What we should want is to maximize the net benefits from foreign investments, in order to have as large benefits as possible, by increasing benefits and decreasing costs. Basically, this means using public policy to increase the economic benefits and decrease the political costs from foreign ownership. It means using foreign investment in such a way as to get the largest possible increase in the standard of living for Canadians, and to get the smallest possible reduction in our sovereignty and our economic and political independence.
I am sure that Canadians would agree with the ultimate goal for which we are striving with regard to the part foreign ownership should play in the Canadian economy. This is why the Watkins report recommended tariff reductions so as to increase economic benefits from foreign investment. As Mr. Watkins says, Mr. Chairman:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Tariff reduction is not a universal panacea to solve all our problems, as some of my colleagues

in economics seem sometimes to imply, and it might well exacerbate some of these problems. The structure of Canadian industry is frequently one of too many and too small firms. There is a need for fewer and larger firms, or rationalization.! Tariff reduction, by permitting import competition, provides a spur for rationalization and some protection for the consumer after rationalization, but it does not in itself provide the means for rationalization. There remains a need for capital, for leadership, for planning.
This is why the Canadian economy must face the problem of extraterritoriality. The approach of the Watkins report to this problem is this:
The actual problems of extraterritoriality arise for Canada from the intrusion of United States law via the medium of the American-controlled subsidiary resident in Canada with respect to trade with certain Community countries, with respect to compliance with the decrees of American courts in the matter of anti-trust policy, and with respect to American balance of payments policy.
In each case, the report put forward recommendations that would create Canadian law and administrative agencies that would attempt to nullify and countervail the American intrusion. United States law and policy forbid, in effect, American firms and their subsidiaries to trade with nations designated as enemies-Mainland China, North Viet Nam, North Korea and Cuba. The report recommends that Canada create a government export trade agency to oversee such Canadian trade with these countries as is consistent with Canadian foreign policy, and, as a last resort, require American controlled firms to fill bona fide orders which would otherwise be lost to Canada.
One of the approaches taken to extraterritoriality is the setting up of an export trade agency to take care of the problem that has confronted Canadian subsidiaries of United States parents in regard to trading with the enemy legislation and so forth.
The approach to branch plant operation can be stated in this way:
But the real issue in this regard may turn out to be whether American-controlled firms are able to enter into rationalization agreements promoted by the Canadian government. American anti-trust law may inhibit such activities on the grounds that they involve collusion between firms. In so far as rationalization programs appear to be essential if Canadian industrial efficiency is to be increased in a dramatic, but orderly way, it is important to have the Canadian interest clarified. Present rudimentary consulting arrangements between Canadian and American authorities amount to little more than the Canadian authorities being kept informed. The strengthening of these arrangements hinges on Canada articulating its interests so that they will be given greater weight by the United States. This will require a clear Canadian legal position which the American parents of Canadian subsidiaries can point to when they are asked to do things which violate American law but are desired by the Canadian government.
November 19, 1968

The balance of payments problem was set forth by Mr. Watkins in these words:
The issue of the application of United States balance of payments policy to the subsidiaries of American corporations has been very much alive in recent months. While the United States has been applying voluntary controls for some time, it issued new mandatory controls on direct investment just as the report was being completed. Since the report was issued, Canada has been exempted. Given the disastrous consequences of these controls for the Canadian dollar, the exemptions can only be regarded as a welcome development.
The other more important matter, Mr. Chairman, is the problem of the rationalization of Canadian industry. I think it is agreed among Canadian manufacturers that they must broaden the base of exports. At the moment we have a 65 per cent dependency on exports to the United States. As one studies the problem one feels that Canada has opted out in favour of economic integration with the United States. I think this was the main contention between the hon. Walter Gordon, who stood for nationalism, and Mr. Winters and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, who stood for continentalism. It appears at the moment that the continental-ists have won out. One feels the gradual opting out by the government in favour of economic integration with the United States.
When one reads the speeches of the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce one feels that he simply takes as an accomplished fact that we should follow the course of economic integration. I find it quite strange that this minister, in view of the riding he represents and the province from which he comes, would accept this as almost a fait accompli.
We have also been given guide lines for the good Canadian, corporate citizen as set forth by the former minister of trade and commerce. It has been said that this approach is the Boy Scout approach to the tackling of the main problem of rationalization and the penetration of foreign investment in Canada.
The problem of rationalization, Mr. Chairman, is not an easy one. I can recall sitting as a member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs and hearing the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce setting forth a particular problem. This gentleman is also president of Electrohome. He said that in Canada there are nine manufacturers of television sets, seven of which are U.S. owned, the remaining two being Canadian owned, Electrohome and Clairtone.
Ways and Means
With regard to Clairtone, Mr. Chairman, one can appreciate the problems that that company faced in Canada. It was part of the program of the government of the province of Nova Scotia to help the company in their financing so that they could penetrate the northeastern sector of the United States. However, they have run into difficulty, and without the aid and assistance of the government of Nova Scotia they would experience real problems.
So far as Electrohome is concerned, when they attempted to penetrate the U.S. market they found a resistance by the dealers in the U.S. in the matter of servicing these Canadian produced Electrohome sets. One readily appreciates the problem of rationalization in this instance of seven U.S. owned companies and two Canadian owned companies in a rather large field of endeavour.
Turning to the automobile industry, Mr. Chairman, we in Canada are almost 100 per cent dependent on the U.S. owned automobile industry in Canada. A small country like Sweden, with less than eight million people, has been able to stake out for itself an automotive industry which has been very successful not only in Sweden but has expanded to England, France, Italy and Japan. Yet, as I say, Mr. Chairman, we in Canada are almost 100 per cent dependent on our United States friends.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The
hon. member for York North.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested to hear hon. members speaking in this debate and the variety of points they expressed.


Mr. Saltsman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would excuse me, I believe the hon. member for Broadview received the consent of the house to continue for a few moments to complete his speech.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. No such permission was requested and that is why the Chair did not ask for it. If the hon. member for York North is willing to allow the hon. member for Broadview to continue his speech, I will ask for the consent of the committee.

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means


John Gilbert: If I can have only three more minutes I will be able to complete my speech.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Would the hon. member for York North allow the hon. member for Broadview the time to complete his speech?


Barnett Jerome Danson: By all means, Mr. Chairman.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for York North and all members of the committee for permitting me to complete my speech.
I pointed out the problem we have with regard to the automobile industry. It could be said we have the same problem with regard to the chemical industry in Canada because between 70 and 80 per cent of that industry is foreign owned. If anything has come out of the Watkins report it has been the recommendation that we develop the Canada Development Corporation which would attempt to spur more activity with regard to Canada's participation in exports. It would provide the necessary capital and impetus to develop a strong Canadian economy which would not be totally dependent on foreign ownership.
There is also the problem of research. Research must be initiated by the government to give some of the industries in Canada the necessary know-how and help in order to compete with foreign companies.
I was hoping to speak on some of the problems that Canadian industries experience in Canada with non-tariff items. However, I will leave that to the next opportunity. I wish to express again my thanks for the extra time given to me.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest to hon. members speaking in this debate and have noted a variety of viewpoints expressed. These have all indicated the hope of increased trade, or perhaps I should say a continuing increase in an already expanding trade pattern which is very gratifying indeed.
There are those who advocate virtually unbridled free trade and those who tend to overprotect. In my opinion the answer is one of balance. This word "balance" has become a favourite of mine in recent years, and perhaps that is why I am a Liberal. Some call us a party of the middle of the road, which may be just another way of expressing balance. We in this party run the whole gamut of viewpoints, bringing about the creative tensions that result in solutions which do in fact give balance to our policies.
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).!
I might say that previously my favourite word was "dispassionate", but I do not think one can make progress, or even workable political decisions, completely devoid of passion. Here too we must seek a balance between overemotionalism and clinical objectivity. I might say that as I grow older I have an increasingly nostalgic attitude toward passion, or, as some say, "nostalgia just is not what it used to be".
I too look forward to the day when we can have true free trade. To rush into this blindly, however, would be the height of folly. It is necessary to exercise a healthy degree of economic nationalism to prepare ourselves for the increasing degree of free trade which we are currently experiencing and which we face in the future. Very much the same applies to our increasingly international society. Our internationalism must be tempered with a realistic degree of nationalism in order that we may contribute, compete, and even survive as a nation.
These are ideals to which we aspire, just as a just society is an ideal. Without such ideals we have either no purpose or a distorted purpose on which to base our present policies and actions.
I was very much impressed with the message of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance last Thursday night when he explained some facets of the results of the Kennedy round negotiations. When the machinery tariff legislation was being prepared I participated in representations by my industry to the Department of Industry and the Department of National Revenue. We were apprehensive about some aspects of this legislation and saw many possible loopholes. Since the Kennedy round reductions have been in force we have found that these apprehensions were unfounded. The proper administration of the legislation and, more important, the spirit of the legislation, have resulted in a far more favourable economic climate and the elimination of much which was distasteful in prior legislation.
My own company is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of machinery for the plastics industry, and I am aware of what have proved to be ill-founded concerns on behalf of our industry. Even so, I was pleasantly amazed to learn from the parliamentary secretary that there has not been a single complaint. This has very much affected my attitude toward the proposed anti-dumping legislation as a member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs which is
November 19, 1968

studying it. We have tended to look at every conceivable abuse of the anti-dumping code that is possible, both by industry and by improper administration by government. In hearing the representations from industry groups I sense the same type of apprehension that existed prior to the implementation of the tariff legislation to which I previously referred.
I doubt that it is possible to draft legislation that is absolutely foolproof. If it is possible, I suspect that the result would be bad legislation, legislation so tight and so completely restrictive that it could prove negative in its implementation.
What we have in the proposed anti-dumping code is a distinct improvement over prior practices. It depends for its effectiveness on an alert business community and its intelligent discretionary interpretation and administration by the appropriate government officials. This has been demonstrated in the machinery tariffs, and I have no fear that it will be any less effective when the new anti-dumping code is implemented.
What we are dealing with is a new spirit in international trade negotiations, a spirit which gives greater opportunity while at the same time giving reasonable and necessary protection. It is true that we are somewhat vulnerable, but only if we sit back and let the legislation become more effective than our energy and our spirit of enterprise. It presents a challenge to Canadian industry to compete, but it also offers us the great opportunity to exploit export markets that were virtually denied to us previously. If we cannot survive in this new atmosphere it will only be because we do not deserve to, and if we cannot survive under this new set of conditions we will be annihilated under free trade.
The automotive trade agreement is another example of change which many feared but which is resulting in benefits to our economy that were otherwise unobtainable. This particular legislation is not without its difficulties or its dangers, and to these we must be alert. The net result to date, however, has been an unqualified gain commensurate with fairness to both countries involved. If it were not for its scale it could well be looked upon as prototype legislation, the pattern of which might be followed by other industries. It may prove to be the most desirable method of achieving free or close to free trade which we can devise and still retain our sovereignty.
Ways and Means
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The message I am trying to convey is that we, and by "we" I mean industry, labour and government, must be prepared not only to meet change but to seek it. We must look for greater opportunity, which will require greater inventiveness, imagination, skills and plain hard work. At the same time, we must exercise due and reasonable caution to make certain our legitimate self-interests are properly protected.
It is in this vein that I approach the report of the task force on the structure of Canadian Industry, familiarly known as the Watkms report. I have made only a cursory study of it and my observations are necessarily subjective, as the proprietor of a modest business largely confined to the plastics industry. My associations are overseas to a great extent, but also largely in the United States, and involve close associations with leaders of multi national companies, particularly in the chemical industry. It is with this orientation that I view the report.
I think, however, that the Watkins Report deserves serious study. My observations at this time are necessarily short and superficial. They are intended, however, to introduce and stimulate further discussion on a subject which has been much misunderstood. In Professor Watkins' own words:
If all of our proposals were put into effect, Canada would still have one of the most liberal policies toward foreign direct investment in the world. Foreign corporations should still find Canada a profitable place to invest.
I think Professor Watkins is purposely understating in this context as we would still have more liberal policies than almost any developed nation in the world, nations to which foreign capital is flowing steadily.
In my opinion, the spirit and direction of the report are not at all incompatible with maintaining the necessary climate to continue to attract foreign capital and know-how. The exception is a possible distasteful reaction to the establishment of a state trading agency to deal with communist countries in certain, well defined situations. The intent, as specifically defined in the report, however, is not without merit. It deals with licensing arrangements, amongst other things, which are frequently the easy way of doing things but which have restricted Canadian companies to the domestic market. Some method of incentives to permit export could be devised. The waiving of the withholding tax on royalties could be considered. Perhaps the production

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
of certain items under licence for export, or export to specific markets, would prove a practical compromise. The greater the export freedom, the greater the incentive. British Commonwealth and other markets could be negotiated. In cases where the product name or design are not the major consideration, where patents or technology are the prime benefits, marketing could be done under a different trade name and with distinctive styling and the entire world market opened up including, or even excluding, the licensor's domestic market.
The report also deals with joint ventures, which I believe require particular encouragement. In many cases a Canadian distributor develops the Canadian market which is then taken over by the foreign manufacturer, who then establishes his own manufacturing facility in Canada. Frequently, the Canadian distributor seeks another similar foreign manufacturer to represent and the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum.
Where the Canadian company is competent, the foreign company should be encouraged to establish a joint venture. My company has had specific experience in this area and is currently forcing negotiations to this end with a leading United States company. The American principals, in turn, are endeavouring to acquire complete control. This could result in (a) the loss of the market by my company, (b) its acquisition by the United States company, or (c) a disassociation of the companies, with the American company establishing its own facility, possibly with government aid, and my company endeavouring to start from the beginning, engineering a new product line and attempting to compete with the one we established in the first instance.
With adequate government encouragement, this situation could be avoided. At present a Canadian company is subject only to its own position in the Canadian market, as opposed to the already established position and far greater resources of the American company.
It is particularly interesting to note that when my company attempted to get federal government assistance some years ago to establish a Canadian facility it was completely frustrated. The Department of Industry did not have an appropriate agency. The closest to such an agency was PAIT, and while its objectives are admirable, its interpretation of its function was far too narrow to be of benefit. In one instance alone this could have established a three million dollar business, two-thirds of which would have been export

and the remaining third replacing imports. This was a unique opportunity, and one which no longer exists as foreign companies have since seen and seized the opportunity in what would have been the export market. Without the export market the economics do not justify Canadian engineering for the domestic market. Thus, approximately a million dollars of imports continue and two million dollars in exports are lost.
Another area is assistance to firms in designated areas. Assistance to firms establishing or expanding in designated areas does not, I believe, differentiate between Canadian or foreign controlled companies. I think it would be beneficial to give Canadian companies some additional assistance. It may be well worth considering extending the benefits by a given percentage, maybe 50 per cent, or even 100 per cent, to companies controlled domestically. This should provide incentive for the establishment or expansion of small industries. Unfortunately, the smaller companies frequently do not have the personnel, resources, or the time to pursue the government sponsored programs.
This same problem also applies to Industrial Development Bank assistance. Skilled industrial development officers of the Department of Industry could well advise and expedite far more effectively than at present.
Then there is the matter of guide lines. Government guide lines for good corporate citizenship on the part of foreign companies in Canada are solely dependent on the good will of these companies for effective implementation. Generally they are for motherhood and against sin and are largely ignored, or only lip service is paid to them. I would urge something more effective, with emphasis on incentives rather than penalties.
It may well be worth considering appointing government liaison personnel to work closely with foreign controlled corporations in assisting them to co-operate with our guide lines policy. In the case of new companies entering Canada, they could well assist these companies in locating in this country, establishing domestic contacts and sources of supply, while being guided in the direction of good corporate behaviour.
In my own contact with senior officials of Canadian subsidiaries of foreign corporations, most of whom are Canadians, I have found them eager for more specific guide lines and requirements. Only in this way can they influence their patent companies in New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, or wherever they may
November 19, 1968

be located. These people are practical businessmen and they abide by the laws. If we do not provide more than pious platitudes, they will naturally react in a platitudinous manner.
Research and development, another concern, at present receive assistance in well defined circumstances. There is, however, a need for a more open-ended and open-handed approach. I would suggest that smaller companies be given grants, or preferably tax abatement, for a more free-whelling approach to research and development.
Some time ago I suggested to the Department of Industry that benefits might well accrue to the company and economy if qualified engineering personnel could be hired to seek out areas for development. Such a program might initially involve the hiring of only one person who might well spend the first six months or a year reviewing existing products, scanning the markets, investigating customer requirements domestically and abroad for new equipment or products. A 50-50 cost-sharing program was suggested for a specific period and with a ceiling on expenditures, after which time progress would be reviewed. Following such a period, the arrangement could be continued, terminated, or moved to another agency such as PAIT, if there was sufficient promise. Reasonable care would have to be exercised to ensure the integrity and capability of applicants. The term "reasonable" is used advisedly. While the majority of efforts might well prove fruitless, a small percentage of successes could well pay off handsomely from a brainstorming approach throughout industry. We need a lot more daring.
It is interesting to note that there is an agency called PIDA. This is the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Agency. I just happened to learn about PIDA when studying the new drug legislation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. From what I have seen of the PIDA plan, it could well serve as a pattern for the type of research encouragement that would give all facets of industry the type of incentive assistance needed for accelerated research and development. This could also ferret out development oriented small companies which could contribute mightily to our progress.
What about selling some of our assets to foreign companies? The sale of minority interests in Canadian corporations to foreign companies with facilities or expertise which may aid materially in their growth might be worthy of consideration.
Ways and Means
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
An example, which for any number of reasons may not be desirable, is Polymer Corporation. Last summer a senior official of an American based international chemical company asked my opinion on the possibility of purchasing Polymer Corporation. I had just become a member of parliament at the time and I did not know it was not mine to sell. He indicated it was felt that currently Polymer has not maintained the growth and profit potential others felt achievable or in keeping with the chemical industry in general. Of course I felt there was no way that this crown jewel of crown corporations could be touched by foreign capital.
If, however, the foreign company could make a significant contribution to the growth of Polymer, perhaps a compromise approach should not be discounted. I therefore asked my friend-I was bargaining on your behalf, gentlemen-if his company would consider purchasing 49 per cent. They wanted 100 per cent. On being pressed he said they would consider 50 per cent. On being asked if they would consider 49 per cent as the only possibility, he answered affirmatively.
The point in this exchange was to determine how much Canada can get when we are in a position of strength, be it Polymer Corporation, mineral deposits, or any other assets which are attractive to foreign interests. I suspect that we could do appreciably better than we have in the past, particularly on new development, with the Canada Development Corporation providing the domestic capital where it was not previously available.
The converse may also have merit. Canadian investment in non-resident foreign companies, particularly to acquire technology, markets and management, may well be worth consideration. Within a week of the previous exchange on Polymer Corporation last summer I was visiting a privately owned U.S. corporation in Indiana, with which my company is associated and which is a world leader in its field. The purpose of the visit was to determine the reason for certain inefficiencies which were developing. Following exploration it became apparent that some of the frequent failings of several generations of family management were responsible.
It is quite likely that this company could be acquired and part of its production transferred to Canada. It is engaged in the production of machinery of which Canada is a major importer. The potential of the company is sufficient to maintain the efficient operation of

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
the American facilities without considering export from the United States. Similar Canadian facilities such as Canadian Vickers, Canadian Machinery Company, Dominion Engineering, Sherbrooke Machineries, John Bertram and Sons, and many others, frequently operate below capacity or on a boom or bust basis.
The Canadian and export production, even some of the United States requirements of the Indiana company, could be manufactured in Canada in what are currently marginal operations. Excellent second echelon management and engineering skills already exist in the American company, though these may well be dissipated if the existing family management continues its rather demoralizing course.
The point I am trying to make is that Canadian industry might well join the growing family of international corporations. A company like Polymer, already international but with a relatively restricted product range, may well develop better by association and the sale of minority holdings to a foreign company. It is possible that by a sale for stock it could acquire a controlling interest in the foreign company. This might be a good reason to sell 100 per cent. By selling 100 per cent of a company like Polymer to a much larger American company this might give us the leverage to control. We should not discount these things completely. Failing this, however, the proceeds from a cash sale of minority stock could enable the crown or the Canada Development Corporation to acquire a foreign company that would be profitable and also facilitate the establishment of heretofore unavailable major Canadian operations.
Subsequent to the establishment of the Canada Development Corporation it may be wise to include in our guidelines or legislation-I prefer legislation-a proviso that in the event of sale of a controlling or significant interest in Canadian companies the Canada Development Corporation be given the right of first refusal. This should go beyond the present intent of discouraging further Canadian companies being sold to foreign interests, but to apply particularly to assets already foreign owned, the recent Brinco-Rio-Tinto-Bethlehem deal being an example where it may have been prudent to have Canadians, through the Canada Development Corporation, in control of the Churchill Falls development. In any event it would have been somewhat gratifying to have at the least Canadians participate in a decision affecting a major natural resource and public utility.

All of this, Mr. Chairman, must include a study of our educational goals. Education in the various skills requisite to an industrial economy cannot be overlooked in any program or legislation for Canadians to assume a more effective role in their own future. The superior management skills of the United States are sadly lacking in this country. Top calibre graduate schools in management, as well as engineering, law, economics and other fields, are essential if we are to keep pace in a far more complex and highly technological society and economy. The federal government could set the pace by determining which of our universities are best suited to establish schools of international stature in specific disciplines and providing the necessary funds. Highest priority should be given to schools of business management.
As I said previously, these are in the nature of random comments from perhaps a narrow viewpoint. My hope is that they may help get the Watkins report off the shelves in government, academic and corporate offices and into the arena of political discussion, which is where we are now and where my hon. friend from Broadview was when he spoke.
We must avoid being overprotective in our approach. Industry does not require coddling; in fact it suffers from it. It does, in our particular Canadian economic milieu, need the proper climate and encouragement which only government can, and should, provide. As a Canadian businessman, however, I welcome the challenge of the opportunities and competition of a free and open market as long as it is on more or less equal terms.
In my short experience here we have spent a great deal of time, quite properly, discussing the problems of agriculture and fishing. Those from urban areas fully understand that all parts of this country and all aspects of its economy are interdependent. I am sure that those from non-urban areas are equally aware of this and will be equally interested. These exchanges in this house are invaluable in making us aware of one another's problems and sensitive to them. It is only in this house where one can gain this vital perspective, or I prefer to say balance.
Before concluding may I express a word of caution. We must be well aware that the problems about which I have spoken are not the fault of foreign investors. They are problems for which we can only blame ourselves. It is therefore critical to our friendships, international relations and our economy that
November 19, 1968

we do not misconstrue evidence of enlightened self-interest manifested by talk of reasonable economic nationalism. When we speak about foreign investment we are almost always thinking about American investment and American economic, as well as potential political, domination. It would be a tragic error to carry this even close to the point of anti-Americanism for we have no better friends anywhere and our present high standards of living would not have been possible without them.
In my rather extensive relationships with American businessmen I have found them warm, fair and energetic friends who exercise their own reasonable degree of self-interest, combined with a unique generosity that we should nurture and cherish. They are a more vocally patriotic people than we are, but when one explains to them our own love of country, our own social and economic aspirations, they almost always respond with understanding. If we set down reasonable, clearcut rules rather than vague guide lines I am confident that they will continue to participate with us to our mutual benefit.
Quite restrictive rules on foreign investment in countries with far less in common certainly have not deterred the irrepressible and admirable American businessmen. There is no reason to believe that our own really quite modest and positive actions would lessen their desire to profit with us rather than unduly exploit us, because we designed our laws to encourage this or, more accurately, failed to design laws to prevent it. The danger is not from initiative abroad. The danger is from lack of initiative right here.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of the study of the budgetary resolutions concerning the customs tariff to make new representations to the government to get it to grant the necessary protection to two very important industries for the province of Quebec in general and the city of Saint-Hya-cinthe in particular, namely the textile and the footwear industries. Those two industries are now facing very serious difficulties and unless the necessary steps are taken, they will both be forced to reduce their staff considerably, a move that will affect the economy of the cities concerned.
Mr. Chairman, the difficulties which the textile industry is now experiencing did not arise suddenly. In fact, I have here some
Ways and Means
newspaper clippings which indicate the difficult situation in which the textile industry finds itself.
For instance, on December 16, 1966, the Montreal Star published an article entitled "Cotton Mills Upset by Blended Imports" which mentioned the concern felt by Canadian industrialists about imports.
On April 5, 1967, one could read in the Montreal Matin an article entitled "Dominion Textile shuts down the Merchants plant in Montreal". There again it was a plant without enough orders which had first to reduce its staff and then close down.
On April 3, 1967, the newspaper La Voix de VEst pointed out that the Thor Mills company was faced with a drop in production. The management had to lay off temporarily a number of employees, which caused some concern not only among the workers but also among the municipal authorities.
On May 15, 1968, La Parole of Drummond-ville, stated the following:
Templon Spinning Mills is facing serious difficulties because of imports.
Mr. Webster, vice-president of the company, warned employees accordingly.
According to the March 16, 1968 issue of La Voix de VEst, lay-offs at Esmond Mills, of Granby, resulted from a lack of orders.
We know also, and I dealt with that recently, that Goodyear Company had to lay off 170 employees. Yamaska Shirt Limited, of Saint-Hyacinthe, had to reduce its staff by half, and Victoria Shirt, of Arthabaska, had to close down.
In the Globe and Mail this morning, I read a report to the effect that some Canadian companies had lost as much as 35 per cent of the Canadian market because of imports.
Such a problem, Mr. Chairman, is enough to disturb us and I think the government should take the necessary steps to reassure manufacturers as well as people working in the plants.
Apparel Manufacturers Council of Canada is supposed to meet the cabinet this week and make representations. This manufacturers association would like to set up a quota system restricting the total amount of clothing imports into Canada. We know that at the beginning of last October, representatives of the textile industry, as well as representatives of three trade unions of the province of Quebec, met the cabinet to make known their views and requests that restrictions be imposed on imports of textiles coming from

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
countries where the income is a great deal lower than that of Canadian workers. It is most important that the government should deal with this matter immediately, instead of waiting until it is too late.
According to the Apparel Manufacturers Council of Canada, in certain sectors of the industry, the Canadian market has diminished from 95 per cent to 60 per cent since 1957. These facts, Mr. Chairman, cannot be mentioned without saying or implying that a number of Canadian workers have lost their jobs.
Last year, for example, the Canadian textile industry had about 95,000 employees and produced 1 billion dollars' worth of goods. If there is nothing to protect in this industry, I wonder with what industry the government should concern itself. The most worrying competition is that of the low income countries. We are forced to compete with countries which pay their workers 30 or 35 cents an hour, whereas Canadian workers are paid well over $2 an hour.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for our industries to continue to operate, it is necessary that imports be appraised almost at the same level as the corresponding Canadian products. Otherwise, the textile industry-maybe also the shoe industry-is doomed to disappear, sooner or later.
In 1967, for example, always according to the association I mentioned above, there were 74 fewer clothing manufacturers than in 1966. Within twelve months only, Mr. Chairman, 74 closed down. In my opinion, that is a reason for the government to act. If it wants to establish a just society, it must see to it, first of all, that Canadian workers are treated fairly.
Of course, the question is not to stop trading with foreign countries. We are all in favour, provided that it is not always at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to make a few remarks concerning the shoe industry.
The shoe industry is also faced with very unfavourable conditions because of imports from underdeveloped countries. I have here a brief presented to the federal cabinet on November 16, 1967. In this booklet, we see for instance that the leaders of the industry are concerned about the fate of their industry, sooner or later, if their recommendations to the government are not implemented soon.
In this brief, I read the following:
In 1965, 1966, and earlier this year, the Shoe Manufacturers Association submitted to the Canadian committee on tariff and trade a series of
[Mr. Ricard.i
briefs dealing with the Kennedy Round then in progress. In the hope that the document and representations contained in these briefs can prove useful to those who, in the future, will study the problems of the shoe industry, we are including copies for reference purposes.
We are deeply interested in the work of your committee for, in the past, the Department of National Revenue did very little as a result of our reiterated protests against the low and ill-founded customs appraisal on shoes, which are increasingly exported to Canada from Czechoslovakia and other communist countries in Central Europe.
The existence of a situation that is clearly detrimental to a specific segment of the Canadian shoe industry is the very basis of our claims and problems, as yet unsolved, which we have time and time again been submitted to the federal authorities with regard to the dumping of Czechoslovakian shoes; consequently, the Shoe Manufacturers Association considers that it is urgent and imperative to pass legislation conforming with the GATT anti-dumping code and the legitimate aspirations of the shoe industry in Canada.
What dangers do the officials of the shoe industry foresee? I continue my quotation:
The dangers threatening the shoe industry are above all, as follow:
(1)	Japan, Hong Kong, Pakistan, India, Formosa, countries where the wage level is very low, and where the law of supply and demand frees a huge quantity of shoes for overseas dumping;
(2)	Czechoslovakia, Poland, China and other communist countries where industries are owned by state controlled agencies that can sell goods elsewhere, at any price, the production cost of which no one knows;
(3)	European countries with low wage scales, such as Spain and Italy.
And the officials remind us that:
The Minister of Finance stated that the government "intends to see to it that in Canada the anti-dumping duties are promptly and efficiently applied".
Mr. Chairman, when one knows that, since 1963, 29 shoe factories were forced to close down and that, among those, 13 were located in the province of Quebec, it is easy to understand why I should want to point out to the government this important matter of the progressive loss of industries which, at one time, were closely related to the economic structure of our cities, particularly in Quebec.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
And the last part of the brief reads as follows:
We firmly believe that a full definition of the domestic policy of the federal government is essential to issue directives:
(1)	To those whose responsibility it is to formulate new legislation;
November 19, 1968

(2)	To those who are appointed to see to it that the legislation to be amended is administered quickly and effectively;
(3)	To those who could appear before the new board to ask for its help.
Could we be allowed to say with the greatest conviction that at the same time the code is put into force, it will be most urgent to make important changes in the organization and operation of several government agencies which administer the code and the Customs Act, as otherwise footwear manufacturers will have to face dumping and discrimination on a larger scale.
The words "quickly" and "effectively" used by Mr. Sharp should be printed in large type and posted in all offices occupied by senior officials who administer the code.
Mr. Chairman, in view of what that brief says, it is easy to see that the business leaders in the footwear and textile industries are worried and asking to be protected, not in such a way as to eliminate competition but to continue in business, because they are convinced that they contribute to the development and the growth of our country.
Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed, before ending my remarks, to read a few extracts from a speech made by Mr. F. S. McCarthy, vice-president of Du Pont of Canada Limited, at the round table on the industry's opinion about Canada-U.S. free trade, at the annual congress of the Canadian Textile Institute held in Quebec City on June 14, 1968. I quote:
As a Canadian and businessman, I feel that the growth and development of the Canadian economy "if not the Canadian identity itself-are seriously jeopardized. That danger is imputable to the ever-spreading belief that free trade-or at least a much freer trade-would indisputably be advantageous to Canada.
A little further, he said:
I maintain that the amendments to tariffs and anti-dumping policies by the Kennedy Round agreements will have a very unfavourable incidence on the Canadian industry of synthetic fibres. Any other measure for the total abolition of tariffs and anti-dumping policies would gradually emphasize such an incidence to the point of stagnation and eventual disappearance of the industry in Canada.
Those are very serious warnings which should not be dealt with without due consideration.
Further, Mr. McCarthy said:
However, as free trade will have the effect of eliminating as it were the reasons for the existence of Canadian manufacturers of synthetic fibres, there would be no reason for enlarging existing plants. Any increase in the demand on the domestic market would rather be met by a slight increase of production in United States plants or by a
Ways and Means
marginal enlargement of established plants. Likewise, existing Canadian plants would not be modernized for producing new improved products which will surely appear on the market. This means that, in an industry such as that of synthetic fibres, where products and manufacturing processes change with a startling rapidity, established plants would not be long in becoming obsolete.
Similarly, as free trade eliminates the possibility of manufacturing new products in Canada, there will be no more justification for assigning expenditures to research in our country.
That is indeed a very dark picture, but there is even worse. In view of the strong American hold on our industry, the logical attitude in the face of an essentially North American market would tend towards centralizing the decisions within the American parent company; this means that the Canadian industry would become a mere subsidiary within the overall organization. Indeed, production costs in Canada could be reduced by transferring numerous administrative functions to the parent company. However, that would mean a loss for Canada of administrative, management, technical and research positions.
Mr. Chairman, I trust the parliamentary secretary to the minister (Mr. Gray) will take into account the warnings of a competent businessman and see to it that our industry is not constantly struggling against increasing difficulties which result in Canadians being thrown out of their jobs while they deserve to be protected and to earn an honourable living.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Chairman, when the Kennedy round of negotiations was first undertaken there were great hopes and expectations as to what might be achieved. Now that the negotiations have been concluded we can take a look at the results. I think it will be generally agreed that there have been modest though significant achievements in some areas of world trade. However, in spite of the progress that has been made I think we should take care not to overestimate the impact of the changes that have resulted from this round of negotiations. This point was made by Mr. David Slater in an article in "The Canadian Banker" of autumn, 1967, when he concluded:
One should thus be sceptical of the allegations that tariff levels on industrial products will be at very low levels after the Kennedy round agreements are in force.
These gains could be wiped out very quickly if there are any significant changes in world attitudes toward trade and trade problems. I think this fact does demonstrate the need for continuing efforts to free world trade from both the tariff and the non-tariff

November 19, 1969
Ways and Means
barriers which still impede the free movement of goods. Some of the concerns with respect to trade and the changes that are being introduced in the house at this time have already been discussed by some of my colleagues, and I do not intend to go over the same ground again. However, I would like to take two areas of concern and discuss them this afternoon. The first area is with respect to some of the concerns regarding the agricultural industry. Agriculture, of course, is very vitally concerned and interested in the Kennedy round agreements.
First of all, one development of the negotiations was the conclusion of the international grains arrangement. I think it was generally agreed that this was a distinct achievement in the field of world trade. However, in spite of this achievement and the gains made, it is now apparent and clear that there are some very serious problems with respect to world trade in grain. These problems have developed in spite of the achievements accomplished through the conclusion of the international grains arrangement. The details of some of these problems I will leave for discussion on another occasion.
I think we should also take note of the general pattern of tariff changes which has resulted from the Kennedy round, particularly with respect to the impact upon industrial products and agricultural products. Mr. David Slater, in the same article to which I referred a few moments ago, also commented on this aspect of the negotiations. Mr. Slater stated, as found on page 6 of "The Canadian Banker" of autumn, 1967:
The Kennedy round negotiated a multi-national cut in tariffs on industrial products. Aside from a new international cereals agreement and small cuts on a limited range of agricultural tariffs, little agricultural trade or protectionism was revised. A great disappointment is the failure to reduce significantly the high levels of agricultural protectionism now in the world. We shall deal almost exclusively-
Then he proceeds to deal with some of the aspects of the industrial tariff changes. Later in the same article Mr. Slater notes:
-the maze of agricultural protectionism and barriers to agricultural trade, which has been accentuated since the early 1920's, remains virtually unchanged by the Kennedy round.
In noting the tariff reductions that have been made in the field of agricultural products, we note that the United States has made some concessions. Some of them have been significant concessions. However, Canada has also made concessions in some agricultural products. Some of the changes as they affect

Canada and the United States were summed up in "Foreign Trade" of July 1, 1967, when it was stated:
Canada and the United States are providing free entry both ways for apples, turnips, maple sugar, maple syrup, certain berries, many grass and forage seeds, hay and straw. Duty reductions of 50 per cent, in parallel with the United States, are made on fresh pork and fresh carrots. In addition, out of season rates are reduced or removed on certain fresh fruits and vegetables, including brussels sprouts, corn on the cob, parsley, radishes, green onions, apricots, sour cherries and plums.
There is a distinct impression and a suspicion in some areas of the agricultural industry that Canada did not come off quite as well as it might have in its negotiations with respect to agricultural products. I have made inquiries of farm organizations in some circles to find whether a full analysis has been made anywhere of the impact of the Kennedy round negotiations on the agricultural industry. While such an analysis may exist, my own search did not turn up an adequate analysis of this matter.
There is great concern with respect to this problem because of the general state of the agricultural industry at the present time and because of concern for the impact of these changes on particular aspects of the Canadian agricultural industry or particular sectors of that industry. The fact is that the agricultural industry is concerned because we see examples of tariff changes which are being applied for on some products of importance to farm people. Most recently there has been an application for an increase in the tariff on twine, which would certainly add to farm costs. As has been noted by the National Farmers' Union, any price increase resulting from the imposition of a tariff on imported binder and baler twine would be borne solely by farmers who possess no means of passing on cost increases.
In some of the hearings in the finance, trade and economic affairs committee, which were referred to by a previous speaker, evidence was taken with respect to the proposed anti-dumping code. One area of concern with respect to the anti-dumping code was its impact on a number of agricultural products which are produced in Canada but which have to face competition from end of season surplus exports from the United States in particular. It was noted by some of the experts who were called before the committee that in fact the anti-dumping code would not help to deal with some of those deeply rooted problems within the area of the specific problem being dealt with in the anti-dumping
November 19, 1968

code. I think this illustrates some of the problems with which we have to wrestle and be concerned about.
I would urge that the government give full study to the impact on the agricultural industry of the various changes and that it keep a continuing watch on and give continuing consideration to the situation facing the agricultural industry, among others. After all, Mr. Chairman, Canadian agriculture does have a vital stake in free trade in the world. This was pointed out in a report on the Conference on International Trade and Canadian Agriculture which was held in Banff in January, 1966. Dr. W. J. Anderson noted in summing up the papers that were given at that conference:
What should be Canada's attitude towards freedom of international trade in agricultural products? The answer given by the participants, expressed in the final statement, was that freer and expanding trade in these products would be in the best interests of Canadian agriculture and of the country as a whole; they further recommended that the achievement of freer trade, including agricultural products, should be a major objective of governmental policy.
One area of concern, as I was trying to point out a minute ago, is the suspicion and concern that possibly Canada gave more than it received with respect to tariff changes involving agricultural products. The Conference on International Trade and Canadian Agriculture also considered this matter quite extensively, as I have noted. Dr. Anderson, in the article to which I have just referred, went on to discuss further Canada's role with respect to agriculture and world trade. The following question was faced by the conference, according to Dr. Anderson:
What could Canada do to Implement the role of freer trade in the world at large?
He noted a number of discussions that had taken place, as follows:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The participants concluded that there was an important place for multilateral discussions with the objective of reaching comprehensive agreements on major commodities. These arrangements would be made between importers and exporters covering all aspects of trade, including conditions of access and levels of prices. If it should not be possible to follow a multilateral approach to commodity agreements, then the conference recommended that the next best would be to obtain organized access to the markets of individual importing countries by special arrangements between suppliers and importers; the conference noted that there was already an example of the application of that technique contained in import arrangements used by the United Kingdom.
Ways and Means
We should note as well, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is the fourth largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. Canada, in considering its possible role with regard to the agricultural industry, has to note its position in relation to other countries in the world. This point was also discussed at the conference in Banff in January, 1966. Dr. Anderson, in summing up some of the papers presented to the conference, noted some of the points we need to keep in mind. He said:
A significant point brought out by MacEaehern was that Canada maintains an over-all comparative advantage to the rest of the world in agricultural production. There is a relatively stable advantage in a number of products which include wheat, barley, flaxseed, rapeseed, milk production, grade dairy cattle, some cheeses, tobacco, turnips and some fruit. Then there is a competitive advantage relative to the United States which varies by seasons and regions, and includes feeder and slaughter cattle, hogs, eggs, apples and potatoes.
The competitive advantage which Canada enjoys relative to the rest of the world has been reduced over the past decade or so; this change has been masked by the magnitude of the wheat exports in recent years. MacEaehern listed many factors that had contributed to rising costs of production including the high level of industrial activity which served to increase farm wages 4 to 6 per cent per year. The price of purchased inputs has increased at about 3 per cent per year and certain inputs, for example, fertilizer, are more costly in Canada than in most countries. The gain in productivity of about 3 per cent per year has offset some of these costs but not enough to improve the net income of agriculture.
MacFarlane noted that restraints on trade account for much of the pattern of structural changes in importing countries. These restrains tend to. distort the comparative advantage of most farm products. He suggested that Canada may have lagged in the adoption of farm business organization and practices consistent with rapid improvement in efficiency. He said that there is need for improvement in the internal organization and operation of Canadian farms and in product and factor markets. He deemed it particularly important that the relationship of the agriculture of the United States to Canadian agriculture be critically examined in view of its importance as our largest market and strongest competitor.
This, I think, does demonstrate the need for particular concern when the government has tariff changes under consideration. I do not raise the problems affecting the agricultural industry in any way to the exclusion of the problems that will be faced by some other industries as well.
There is a second major point I should like to discuss, and that is the need to achieve some shift in Canada's trading pattern. I think it is recognized and does not need any elaboration that trade with the United States

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
plays a very large role in Canada's total trading pattern, and that some persistent problems have arisen and have continued as a result of this trading pattern.
In discussing this topic, of course, I think we do need to use some common sense economics, if I can put it in that way. I believe it is only natural that Canada should have a great deal of trade with the United States. After all, it is our closest neighbour; it is a country with a high degree of technical and industrial organization. It is only natural, therefore, that a great deal of trade can be carried on by Canada with the United States to our best advantage. However, I think that the point has been made, and can be made quite validly, that it would be to Canada's advantage if we could shift some of our trade to some other parts of the world, countries which would like to trade more with us in order that they could obtain the currency with which they would be able to buy some of the products we export to our advantage and to the advantage of the importing countries as well.
I should like to suggest that one area in which we need to attempt to achieve some shift in terms of our imports is with respect to our trade in light consumer goods. Most of our light consumer goods we now obtain from the United States. I suggest that many of these goods could be obtained from countries other than the United States to our advantage. These goods obtained from other countries would be cheaper or as cheap as goods coming from our present source.
This course would not result in the loss of any jobs for the people of Canada. It would give other countries the purchasing power that would be necessary to purchase some of our exports. It would produce a better balance of trade between Canada and the United States as well as between Canada and some other countries with which we trade. This does not happen at the present time. There is no real impetus to achieve such a shift in trade. I would suggest that this is because there is at the present time a high degree of United States ownership of much Canadian industry and of significant segments of our retail and wholesale distribution systems. This situation develops as a result of the ver-within some of the multi-national corpora-tical internal lines that have bee ndeveloped tions which now have such an influence on our own economy and on the economies of other countries in the world. I suggest, therefore, that the Canadian government needs to

take very strong steps, and needs to take them urgently, to redirect our trade and to achieve a better balance of trade. I stress the fact that the field of light consumer goods is one in which we could take a first step to achieve a better balance of our trade pattern in the world.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Rodrigue:: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to listen to the statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard). There is really an alarming situation in the textile industry and in the shoe industry.
Let us look only at the changes that have taken place in the Canadian imports of synthetic fibres. Canadian exports of synthetic fibres and other synthetic products have gone up from 191 million square yards in 1966 to 196 million, but they have not reached the record figure of 197 million square yards of 1965. A large increase in the volume of clothing imports explains the great change that has happened last year on the market by comparison with the previous year. The imports of synthetic textiles-fabrics, various products and clothing-reached in 1967, 123 million square yards, as compared with 113 million in 1966. On the other hand, imports of clothing amounted to 33.5 million square yards in 1967, compared with 21 million square yards in 1966, which gives an increase of 57 per cent.
Due to the increase of Canadian imports and shipments, the total apparent market of synthetic textiles made in Canada rose from 292 million square yards in 1966 to 306.2 million square yards in 1967. Since imports grew more than exports, the part of the total market taken by the domestic industry declined from 61.3 per cent to 59.8 per cent. This, in part, explains the capital expenditures of the last few years. For the year 1967, the amount of capital expenditures is estimated at $51 million, compared with $54 million in 1966, and $88 million in 1965. Moreover, in the year 1968, capital expenditures are expected to be close to $40 million.
This means that there is no longer any confidence in the textile industry. Due to the new free trade agreements among several countries, our position will be even worse, because our population is ten times less than that of our largest competitor, the United States. Even though tremendous efforts have been made in the field of investments during
November 19, 1968

the last ten years and everything possible has been done to reduce administrative costs, to improve our production methods and to decrease our prices, we must meet the very substantial competition from our neighbour to the south that is capable of producing twenty times as much as we can. Although some of their industries do not control their production methods as efficiently as we do, they are still capable of flooding our markets with their surplus products. Furthermore, profits realized by the textile industry do not encourage more investments. For some years, profits have decreased to such an extent that even new investments deriving from those profits have become almost impossible. The situation is really alarming.
Moreover, the majority of the textile industries are located in the province of Quebec and, within a few years, we shall have to deplore the loss of many jobs, which will significantly increase the number of the unemployed in the province of Quebec.
I should like to tell the hon. minister that several textile industries in Quebec are faced with another problem which, in my opinion, is rather significant. It will be necessary to study manufacturing and production costs because of the fact that most of the raw materials have to be imported from outside Canada or from neighbouring provinces, which contributes to increase tremendously the transportation costs. Then, these people have to export their products to large cities, such as Montreal, Toronto, etc. and this contributes to a tremendous increase in transportation costs.
It might be advisable and important to review the transportation problem as far as the textile industry is concerned because, in my opinion, this problem is already relevant in several cities which will be affected in the future due to the competition from foreign industries.
The shoe industry is struggling with exactly the same problem because it has barely 40 per cent of the domestic market, which means that roughly 60 per cent of the shoe industry market is in the hands of foreign industries. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) mentioned certain countries in Asia; to those, France, Italy and many other European countries should be added, since they have become the main exporters of shoes to Canada. It might even be advisable to conduct a little investigation
Ways and Means
here, in parliament. We might find that many of us are wearing shoes made in foreign countries.
We certainly cannot categorically oppose the Kennedy Round agreements because we must accept foreign trade and even further consolidate our own position in foreign markets.
On the other hand, we must recognize-I accept the fact as it is presented to us- that foreign goods must be bought if we want our country to sell abroad.
Those are roughly the considerations I wanted to add to the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Mr. Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few comments to make on this legislation. First of all I should like to comment on the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe which were reinforced by the hon. member for Beauce. I feel a measure of sympathy for the textile and shoe industries which are facing problems today. As one who has lived in Canada for 40-odd years and has had to put up with a similar number of winters, I cannot help wondering, especially during recent winters, why the Canadian clothing industry has not produced clothing that is more adequate for our winter conditions. I do not care whether more adequate protection is given to us in the form of underclothing or overcoats, but our present products do tend to be inadequate for current Canadian winters.
I suggest that if the clothing industry had specialized in this type of clothing it might not only have a goodly percentage of the Canadian market but would also be exporting clothing. In northern Canada the most adequate type of winter wear is one suit of caribou skin turned inside and another suit of caribou skin turned outside. I suggest that people living in the north deserve something better than this. Our winter clothing is bulky, awkward to handle and unattractive in appearance. It is high time the Canadian clothing industry took a really serious look at dressing Canadians in more adequate fashion for our winter weather.
I do not intend to discuss the tariff legislation to the degree the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for York-North did. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York-North on his mental initiative in trying to solve some

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
of the problems of Canadian ownership, trade with the United States and so on. Since he is a backbencher and not a cabinet minister I presume he has been speaking for himself and not indicating government policy. Nevertheless I congratulate him for looking for solutions.
I should like to put in a word of warning here, Mr. Chairman. It seems that those fine fellows the Americans always seem to come out best in a trading deal. I have a great deal of respect for the trading policy of the down east Yankee, but I suggest that in improving our associations with the Americans so far as trade is concerned we should take a great deal of care that we do not come off second best, as I suggest has frequently been the case in the past.
The continuing expansion of the Canadian economy demands that we continue to seek an ever larger market for our products both at home and abroad. We should resolve not only to increase sales but to seek a wider base for trading by diversifying our products and by trading with more countries.
I should like to pause for a moment and suggest that in trading with the new nations of the world we establish a base market which might continue for some time to come. Once having secured a foothold in a foreign country or in a country that likes our products, that country may continue to buy from us for several reasons. First, they like our products. Second, a series of service outlets has been set up to service the products. Trade names become almost part of the industry. Take, for example, aspirin. This is now almost synonymous with a headache tablet. Frigidaire is almost synonymous with refrigerators.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If we can establish such a market in some of these new developing countries, we may be able to trade with them for a long time to come.
I would even suggest that we might consider giving a little credit and further encouragement to exporters. When one considers what some other countries are doing one realizes immediately that if we wish to continue trading on the international market we had better be prepared to do something about it. We must remember that the United States has raised its export promotion budget by $200 million, is presently planning a substantial increase in the guarantees and credits

provided by import and export banks, and that the United States administration is also introducing a new export subsidy program. This is what another country is doing, but what are we doing in an effort to expand our trade? In view of the increasing competition from foreign countries I believe it behooves us as Canadians to display some initiative in establishing some of the products that we have for sale and selling them to other countries. As we do so, perhaps a longer production line will bring about a lower unit cost to Canadian consumers.
I would suggest also-and perhaps this is a negative comment-that we should consider the fact that we may be shut out of some markets. I noticed a comment in today's Globe and Mail, which was also made on television last night, that the Canadian government is actually fearful of what Richard Nixon, the new United States president, is going to do so far as trade is concerned. We all realize that the European common market was set up to benefit Europeans. At the time I thought it was a good thing, but when we actually see them discriminating against us in protecting each other I suggest that it is not always as beneficial as it might be.
One wonders, when one sees some foreign countries establishing for political reasons such things as hedges with regard to flour, for example, whether they would not be wiser to buy flour from us. It behooves us to try to broaden our trade in every possible way with as many countries as we can and increase our sales abroad of items that we produce in Canada. In effect we are not so exposed to any currency block and we have a wider base than many other countries. Canadian politicians tremble when there is an election in the United States. I believe we should try to avoid such reactions and by doing so widen our trade with all countries in the world.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few comments to the discussion by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) and by my colleague for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) concerning the shoe and textile industries in Canada.
It is well for the government to make statements concerning the abolition of customs tariffs in order to encourage exports of our products, etc.
November 19, 1968

However, it must be realized that Canada having only 20 million people, our production per capita is approximately one fifth that of the Americans and this means that production costs are higher than elsewhere. As a result, countries buying our products must be granted subsidies.
In shoe industry, for instance, there are extensive Japanese shoe exports to Canada, in addition to our trade with France and Asian countries. The situation is the same with regard to textiles, because of our trade with Japan and the United States and due to some American control on our industry.
As I was saying, production costs are somewhat too high in the United States for economic reasons resulting from higher salaries. Some firms have chosen, like the United States to establish plants in Japan where salaries are definitely lower than in the United States. Consequently, it is cheaper for Americans to have certain products manufactured for themselves in Japan and to dump the goods in other countries. Canada is also subject to this dumping policy, as are other countries importing American products.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, we are looking for markets. This is the reason why ministers are now visiting South America with a view to finding markets for textiles, shoes, lumber and clothing, produced in Canada. Our ministers are travelling all over the world and naturally we have to grant subsidies or price reductions to those countries so that they can buy our products. However, let us not forget that those reductions are paid off eventually by the Canadian producer.
In short, we are becoming mere producers, who are not making any profits on the sale of our products. Even though it is necessary to find markets, we are not considering seriously the only possible market, which is the Canadian market. There are people who need those products right here in Canada. Indeed, there are in Canada at the present time some children for whom it is almost impossible to buy shoes so to enable them to attend school, and nobody is even considering the possibility of making grants for them. We are making some to the Chinese to purchase Canadian wheat; others are made to the United States to enable them to purchase our products; but the government forgets to make grants or pay a compensated discount to our Canadian consumers.
Ways and Means
If the government would consider that, Mr. Chairman, we would arrive at an acceptable solution which would enable us to sell our products. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) recently made a quite interesting statement. I wonder whether it is because he is a Creditiste at heart, but on November 18-that is quite recently-during a speech delivered to the Institute of Agronomists of Central Ontario at the Seaway Towers Hotel in Toronto, he said the following:
May I say first, Mr. Chairman, that the agricultural problem in Canada has nothing to do with how to produce because we know that.
Can one imagine such a statement on the part of the Minister of Agriculture or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who tell us that our problem in Canada consists in increasing our productivity.
The Minister of Agriculture even said in Toronto that we know how to produce. We know that, but that is not the problem.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The minister stated:
We know how to produce and in large quantities, enough for ourselves and for millions of other people throughout the world.
It is the Minister of Agriculture in the Liberal government who makes this statement.
And this is just the beginning. Just give them an incentive and the Canadian farmers could not only double but, I would bet, triple their production within a few years.
The Minister of Agriculture in the Canadian government says that we could triple our production; therefore, the problem is not one of production.
It seems to me that the obstacles to the increase of food production throughout the world are not of a technical nature. The difficulties relate to distribution, marketing, politics and planning.
Those are the words of the minister.
Mr. Chairman, this distribution problem has been with us for the past 25 years and what we are considering now is not a production problem but one of distribution of wealth in Canada. We forget to distribute it in Canada and we seek means to distribute it outside Canada. We are looking for markets throughout the world but we forget the domestic market, the Canadian market. There are 400,000 unemployed in our country who ask for the purchasing power required to purchase this production. This is indeed a market. Let us stop paying subsidies abroad, or let us continue to pay them if we have surpluses, but let us give first the compensation discount

November 19, 19G8
Ways and Means
to the Canadian people, the Canadian consumers, those who dedicate themselves and their work to the development of the Canadian production. Canada is not developed by the monkeys in the palm trees of Florida but by Canadian human beings, from all the provinces. We do not know how to dispose of our excess production. Everybody complains that there are too many goods, too many clothes. Plants are closing down because there are too many goods. In order to allow these plants and industries to resume production, emissaries are sent to all countries of the world, Africa, Asia, Europe, the United States, South America, Portugal, Spain and France, to find markets. What a situation! What a sight we are! We are laughed at because we cannot solve our domestic problems, while our first market is in our own country. That is where we should have a compensated discount for the Canadian people. However, there is no compensated discount at present for mothers of families, needy mothers in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, or large families. Prices, however, are increasing. Instead of giving a compensated discount to the Canadian workers, their income tax is raised, and then we are told that this is necessary to fight inflation.
We go to foreign countries to which we are ready to sell at a discount and grant any compensated discount in order to get rid of Canadian-made goods. Then we say that we are getting richer, that we are enriching the country, the Canadian people. All that is exported from Canada, we say, makes us richer. And if we import something into the country, then we say it is a trade deficit. That business of ours is really clever. Good accountants are at the service of the country, Mr. Chairman, and they know what the score is. As we say, they know their business.
Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come when the government has to consider the problem that faces us in Canada.
We agree that we must trade with other countries. But we have industries which manufacture products that can be exported easily. However, the government tells us that it cannot help them. I am referring to the gold mines.
Our entire production of gold is bought in advance by the United States. However, when we ask the government for subsidies to help our existing gold mines and to develop new ones, the government says: No, we would rather have them closed. They are kept in operation for social purposes only, in order
[Mr. Caouette.l
to support families in the areas of Malartic, Val-d'Or, Rouyn-Noranda and Normetal and to allow them to die a slow death because, one says gold costs $43 an ounce while we sell it $35 to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the government has to grant more subsidies and compensation for all the products exported by Canada to the United States or elsewhere than for the gold we export to the United States.
We are sure that all the gold we produce will be sold to the United States but we are not sure that all the wheat, textiles and food we produce will be.
The government says: We cannot do it; we would prefer to close the mines because we have to pay a subsidy of $8 per ounce for the production of gold. Such is the logic of the government. Dozens of new mines could be put in operation in our regions because all the production is bought. That would enable us to cancel our balance of payments deficit with the United States but the government says:	No, subsidies have to be
granted and we must not act too quickly.
However, in every other field of Canadian production, the government is ready to grant subsidies of up to 50 per cent. I would like to know at what price we sell our wheat to communist China, to Czechoslovakia or to Russia. No minister dares to rise and tell us what price we receive for the wheat sold to those countries.
The only thing we are told is: We have sold that many million bushels. But when we ask about the price, we are always given the same answer, that it is not in the public interest to reveal the settlements granted to those countries.
Production is the only thing that is in the public interest. To dispose of our produce, the government will give them, if need be, to other countries, but it is not in the public interest to know. That is a bright solution.
Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Kennedy Round, call it what you will, call it the Gray Round, or any other round, it is not the solution to the problem. A while ago, I said that we must import from other countries. That is true. We want to export to balance our purchases, to have a favourable balance of payments with other countries. We therefore do not want to buy more from oher countries than we sell to them. Only, I maintain again that the best market is the Canadian market. But, for the Canadian market to be satisfactory, Canadians must have purchasing power.
November 19, 1968

If the compensations, a compensated discount, or the subsidies-and I repeat this because some ministers have a hard time understanding it, although my friend for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) understands this very well, but there are some who do not-are every bit as important to Canadians as they are to foreign countries.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
A while ago I said Canada had 400,000 unemployed. Those are the official figures, but there are others who are not registered. Some of them are not on the lists, but there are thousands who cannot find work and to whom $36 a week are given. What do you want a family-head to buy with $36 a week? Some people have not paid their rent for 5 or 6 months, have run up bills at the corner store for 5 months, 6 months or even a year. They are literally dispossessed because they do not have any purchasing power. Instead of giving them allowances, some compensation or a compensated discount on the goods they need, they have to pay new taxes. I mean direct taxes on income, the taxes which are reflected in increased prices. Some would claim that they are checking inflation while in fact they practice inflation through taxation to the detriment of our Canadian workers.
The unemployed in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver or in Rouyn-Noranda are not asking for charity from the government. They do not like to draw unemployment insurance benefits only for the fun of it. These people ask for the right, the permission to earn their living honestly and honourably. They are not asking for anything else, but to produce more, and everyone knows that we could increase our production two, four or five times in a few years, if our economic system were organized in such a way as to satisfy the needs of our people: Produce to serve, produce to feed somebody, to feed our Canadians. Our production should first of all serve Canadians, and then, we could offer our surplus to other nations. Imports, yes, but exports also.
However, Mr. Chairman, we must begin by ensuring economic stability in our own country. Let us begin by stabilizing our own affairs. Let us give Canadian citizens purchasing power proportional to our production. Compensated discounts and the Kennedy Round will then no longer exist in order to satisfy a few financial interests, but will be used in the best interests of the Canadian
29180-185J
Ways and Means
people, by establishing a logical and objective economic system which will put the actual wealth of our country at the service of the Canadian people.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something about the effect of the Kennedy round negotiations on the grain growers of western Canada. Traditionally we in that part of the country have been in favour of free trade, or one might say freer trade. I suspect the reason has been that living in the middle of a continent we have to move our products either east or west to Canadian markets and to world markets. In passing I may say that Canadian markets are very important to us. The people of Quebec, Ontario and the mari-times purchase our grains to feed their livestock and poultry. We cannot disregard the needs of people living in those trading areas because they, like us, are citizens of Canada.
As an individual I question the benefits that the Kennedy round negotiations brought to prairie farmers. If there are benefits they have yet to appear. Prior to those negotiations we had the international wheat agreement, which was working well. It included not only the so-called western nations but also the U.S.S.R., the most powerful nation behind the iron curtain.
In 1959 I sat in on the renegotiation of the I.W.A. Russia sat as an observer, and in 1962 it became a signatory to that agreement. But as a result of the Kennedy round negotiations among western nations, held under the GATT, we closed out participation by the U.S.S.R. in the international wheat agreement. As a result the U.S.S.R., one of the world's; most important wheat and grain producers, is: no longer bound by the terms, prices and trading arrangements made under the international grains arrangement, as the new agreement is called.
I watched with interest as the Kennedy round negotiations proceeded. They were slow and painful. Almost at the final point it seemed we would not reach any agreement on trade in grains. It was my impression that we moved from the international wheat agreement into the GATT negotiations largely at the insistence of the United States so that it would have access to European markets for its feed grains, a commodity as important to the United States as wheat is to Canada. But no sooner was that new agreement negotiated than the United States cut the price of its wheat exports and Canada encountered one of the toughest sales periods in a good many

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
years. At the time the new grains arrangement was announced by the government of the day I noted it was stated that Canada had gained access to $1J billion worth of trade into the United States, but from our experience since then I doubt that our grain growers have gained very much.
Recently I examined press clippings covering the period from 1967 into 1968 when the Kennedy round negotiations were in progress, when they were completed, and when we moved into the present crop year. Looking at them it was as though a dear friend was in hospital and was getting worse every day until you thought you would get the news that he had expired. Some of them are headed, "No Basis For Final Bargaining," "Wheat Talks in Geneva May Hurt Farm Earnings," "Wheat Slump Hits The Prairies," "Far East Wheat Sales A Must," "Take a Chance Wheat Agreement Is U.S. Plan"-I thought that was a lovely one-"Wheat Exports Down By Half," "Wheat Situation Getting Serious Grain Board Chief Says," "Continued Lack Of Wheat Sales Worries the Growers," "Canada Losing Ground In the World Wheat Market," and so on. These tell a story.
Since becoming a member of this house I have told the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that prairie farmers deserve a statement from him telling them where the agreement, reached as a result of the Kennedy round negotiations, is taking them. Some day we may have some reason for optimism. Some day we hope to have news that the patient is not going to die but may live a little while longer.
In various parts of Canada agriculture is in serious circumstances. I doubt very much that all the answers can be provided by simply tinkering with trade barriers because there are forces at work which disregard trade barriers. When a sugar company in the province of Ontario closes down its plant and the farmers have no place to take their sugar beets we have an example of a decision made in an area of agriculture which has nothing to do with tariffs or government policy unless such a policy exists somewhere behind the scenes, and I would not accuse any government of being behind the scenes in a deal like that. In some areas such as this decisions are made which cannot be affected by a simple, ordinary tariff approach.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We have free trade in respect of farm machinery with perhaps some exceptions, but
[Mr. Gleave.l
anyone who is close to the scene knows that the prices of farm machinery have doubled and trebled over the last several years. Then we have the astounding situation of seven Ontario farmers going over to England and proposing to bring back seven tractors on which they will save $20,000. This is unbelievable. So the problems facing farmers will not be affected very much by tinkering with tariffs. I believe we must look farther than a simple manipulation of tariffs if we are to deal with the situations which face us.
On the editorial page of the Financial Post of May 23, 1968 there is an editorial headed "The French Wheat Gimmick." The French made a sale to China and for every bushel delivered at $1.18 a subsidy of $1.69 has been paid. The article states:
Where did the money come from to pay that subsidy? It came from E.E.C's-
The European economic community.
-devastatingly protectionist mechanism, the variable levy on agricultural imports. This makes sure that the domestic European producer will never be undersold by anyone outside E.E.C.
Was this the result of the Kennedy round negotiations? Was this the kind of access we gained in the western European market? Was there a gain for the farmers of Canada as a result of these negotiations? If there was, somebody should tell this house so. The article goes on to say:
Under the new international grains agreement, negotiated as part of the Kennedy round package and due to come into force July 1, the quality of wheat handled in the current French sale would have a minimum delivered price of around U.S. $1.60 per bu. The 42c. difference between $1.18 and $1.60 would be enough to keep large numbers of producers in the grain markets.
So we made the deal. Similar or even more severe protection exists in the United States. Then last night the Minister of Agriculture decided to tell the farmers the facts of life. While speaking to a group of agronomists, some of them, I suppose, employed by government and some by private industry, the minister, according to the Globe and Mail report, accused the farmers of basing their case on half learned lessons in economics, of ignoring social and economic realities and of trying to stand in the way of change. Today I asked the Prime Minister if this was the opinion of his government. I did not receive an answer. Does the government really believe this is the type of farmer we have in Canada?
November 19, 1S68

The article continues:
For instance, what could or should a government do for a farmer who finds himself in financial straits because he paid more for a farm than it was worth, or bought more machinery than he could afford?
The minister charged that farmers who protested to Ottawa that they were losing money on corn production did only half the calculation. Is it the role of the Minister of Agriculture to describe the farmers of Canada in this fashion? The Globe and Mail is read very widely in eastern Canada. I think it is a very excellent newspaper. It is read by a great number of city people. Does the Minister of Agriculture wish to leave the impression with the city people that this is the kind of farmer we have operating our farms? If this were true it would be bad enough. Since it is not true it is worse. I do not intend to put everything in this article on the record. However, it says that the farmers have overfinanced themselves and have painted themselves back into a corner.
I would like to quote from the following report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Thursday June 13, 1968, concerning a farmer who farms on the Regina plains. He is farming an economic unit in that area. He owes nothing on his land. His land is debt free. He has not gone out and bought a lot of high priced land for which he could not pay. His machinery investment is moderate. His repair bills are heavy. In 1960 he spent $1,139 on repairs and overhauls. We know that the farmer who does not go out and buy new machinery pays the money out in repairs. Any farmer knows this. He knows there are two ways to do it. This farmer had $8,300 in cash receipts on the delivery of 6,800 bushels at his country elevator. He had $3,700 as the final payment received in the income tax calendar year of 1967 on deliveries in the 196566 crop year and he had $515 in patronage dividends. Although he produced 9,200 bushels of wheat in 1967 he was able to convert only 6,800 bushels into cash because of tight delivery quotas. His problem was not high-priced land or high-priced machinery; it was low delivery quotas. He could not move his product.
I suggest that this man is probably typical of many farmers who are farming in western Canada and also in Ontario. Let us face the facts. If we have some hundreds of thousands of farmers, and we have, they will not all be experts. Does anyone insist that the total labour force in an industry such as Imperial Oil should all be experts? Does anyone insist
Ways and Means
on an assurance that all the people in business are top businessmen? After all, we are human beings. Some of us are short, some of us are tall and some of us are better equipped than others. Not only business management on the part of the farmer is a factor in this situation but also the circumstances which affect him not only in Canada but in world trade, including the health of world trade. Also involved is the cost of money which, incidentally, went up to 7f per cent and 7J per cent the day before yesterday so far as farmers borrowing from the government are concerned. These things all have an effect. The cost of the things the farmer must buy on the industrial front is also a factor, and these costs are affected by our trade patterns and by the powerful industrial combines which exist in this country.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Do we have free trade in the petroleum industry, particularly in relation to the products the farmer uses? We have an oil policy in Canada which operates so that certain Canadian oil-producing areas will serve certain parts of Canada and other areas will serve other parts of Canada. If you purchase petroleum products for use on the farm in western Canada you pay a uniform price. I suspect this is the same in the east; the prices will be uniform there also. In other words, to use an economic term, the price is an administered one. These are the situations with which farmers must live.
A recent bulletin issued by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool states that a sufficient number of cattle are now being sold by farmers directly to packing plants to support the forecast that in the immediate future we will reach a point where there will be no longer a sufficient number going to the public yards to establish prices. Will we then have a free market, competition or free trade? I hope these things will be of concern to the Minister of Agriculture.
During the election we heard a lot of talk about national marketing boards, but I have not heard much about them since I arrived here. Let me suggest to the government that it had better be concerned about the situation facing the agricultural industry in western and eastern Canada. I assume an unhappy situation exists in eastern Canada if the delegation of farmers who took the trouble to drive two or three hundred miles on tractors to parliament hill is any indication. I have spent most of my life on a tractor and the last thing I would do would be to drive one 200

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
miles on a highway. They are not built to travel on highways.
We must recognize this situation in developing our trade and financial policies. We have been very fortunate in Canada in that we have had lots of cheap land and a highly skilled labour force in the agricultural field. We have also had self-employed farmers who have used the technology available to them to the point that they are now actually beginning to get into trouble because of overproduction. Let me say again that we must adopt trade and financial policies which will allow these farmers to stay in business in order to continue to provide Canadians with cheap food, and they have been getting cheap food. Several weeks ago in a debate in this chamber I said that Canadians have been getting cheap food and are well fed, and I cited statistics in support of my statement. Let us direct our policies so that this situation continues.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. members who have spoken during this debate for their contributions. I can assure them that their very interesting comments have been carefully noted.
Let me remind the committee of what the government put forward as its aims when entering the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations. I shall paraphrase the remarks of a previous minister of trade and commerce who was the minister of finance at the time he made a statement to the finance committee of the house when it was studying these resolutions in the spring of the year. There were certain broad considerations which were followed in formulating the tariff offers the government made in the Kennedy round. First of all, the government wanted to make certain that there was a reasonable over-all balance, in practical trading terms, between the tariff concessions we got and those we granted. Therefore every effort was made to obtain every worth-while tariff reduction offered by other countries but, of course, we gave no more than we got.
Second, we took account of how our tariff concessions and the export benefits we obtained could contribute to the balanced growth of the Canadian economy. We wanted particularly to help our secondary industries to break out of the confines of our small national market. This we could do by getting reductions in other countries' tariffs and by cutting the costs of producing in Canada for those new and expanding markets. That is
[Mr. Gleave.l
why our tariff cuts on raw materials, semifinished goods and on production machinery are an important part of the Kennedy round settlement for Canada.
Third, we sought and obtained a more reasonable degree of balance and reciprocity for each major sector of our economy and for each region.
Fourth, we wanted to ensure that through the Kennedy round Canadian consumers would benefit from greater international competition.
The tariff reductions consented to by Canada covered about $2.5 billion in imports, of which about $2 billion came from the United States. At the time the then minister of finance spoke, on the other hand, the export benefits obtained by Canada from its agreements with major trading partners covered, including wheat, over $3 billion of export trade. That was the current situation at the time the then minister of finance reported to the committee.
I should like to point out to the committee of ways and means that it is significant that in such markets as the United States and the European common market the average level of tariffs on manufactured goods will be below 10 per cent when the results of the Kennedy round are implemented. Because of the across the board tariff cuts made by our major trading partners, export opportunities will open up for the first time for a very wide range of Canadian manufactured goods. Let me suggest, however, that it is not only our manufacturing industry that will be in a position to gain. The scope of the negotiations was such that nearly all commodities, including the products of fisheries, agriculture, mining and the extractive industries, will be in a position to benefit from the lower tariff barriers facing our goods in the export markets.


An hon. Member:: Would you permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps I could accept questions after I have completed my remarks.
The first round of cuts under the tariff changes has been in effect on a provisional basis since January 1, 1968. This has provided almost a year of experience and observation with respect to the operations of our economy and, more particularly, of Canada's international trade in conjunction with the tariff changes in question. I think we have had a chance to see what has actually been happening to our country's trade since these tariff changes came into effect on a provisional
November 19, 1968

basis on January 1 of this year. It is not just a matter of forecast or estimate; we have some definite results to look at.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think it can be said that the results are certainly very encouraging. Last year the government set a 1968 export sales target of $12.3 billion. In a speech given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the Canadian Export Association on October 21, he pointed out that the Canadian export performance to date has been more than consistent with this goal. In the first nine months of 1968 our merchandise exports reached $9.9 billion, up $1.6 billion or 18.4 per cent from the same period last year. Meanwhile our imports have risen at a slower rate, by $811 million or about 10 per cent. In consequence I think we should be pleased to note that Canada is well on its way to achieving a $1 billion merchandise trade surplus this year. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce pointed out that this will be the largest favourable trade balance recorded in the post-war period. Therefore our over-all balance on current transactions, though still in a deficit position, will be much improved.
From a commodity standpoint, we can note that about two-fifths of this year's export gain consists of automative products. However, the gain is not limited, obviously, to increases in exports of automotive products. In fact, other products have also contributed importantly. These export products include copper, iron and steel, lumber and woodpulp, nickel and aluminium, petroleum and natural gas, and aircraft. I think these figures I have put on the record confirm my earlier remark that the results so far for Canada's trade since the Kennedy round changes were given effect to on a provisional basis have been most encouraging.
When the hon. member for Perth spoke on behalf of the official opposition he raised some question about the impact of these tariff changes on our trade with the United States.
I think it is important to observe that on the basis of the most recent trade statistics released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the initial trends following the introduction of the first tariff reductions last January for Canada and the United States can be considered to be quite favourable from a Canadian point of view.
Although both our exports and imports are increasing, the increase in exports is much greater than the increase in imports. Indeed, in the first nine months of 1968 our exports to
Ways and Means
the United States were actually greater than our imports from that country. The hon. member for Perth commented on what he considered was the need for greater progress in dealing with non-tariff barriers. It would seem to me that certainly there was some progress in this very important area affecting international trade. One achievement was the negotiation of the agreement setting up an international anti-dumping code. As this committee of ways and means knows, the draft bill in the form of a white paper to implement Canada's commitment under this code in a legislative way is currently under detailed study in the finance committee of this house. I suggest that members of the house might want to reserve their more detailed comments on the proposed legislation until the committee hearings have been completed and it has been returned to the house by the finance committee.
I would also like to point out that a special committee of the GATT is working on a program of study of the remaining non-tariff barriers to determine their exact extent and nature. I believe its intention is to formulate a program for working toward their elimination. The Minister of Finance yesterday in a speech in New York pointed out that further progress in the elimination of non-tariff barriers is one of the major tasks before the trading nations of the world, a task that still has to be accomplished in large degree although, as I have said, with the agreement setting up an international anti-dumping code and the program of work of the GATT committee, I think some progress in this area has in fact come out of the negotiations for the Kennedy round.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on some of the points raised by hon. members who participated in this debate. The hon. member for Waterloo noted what he considered to be potential dangers in the general freeing of trade and cited as an example what he said was happening in the farm machinery industry. Yet if I understood correctly what the hon. member for Broadview was saying, he felt we were acting too cautiously and perhaps had not gone far enough in cutting tariffs. This might help to prove that the government in its negotiations has in fact achieved a proper balance in the interests of Canadian industry and workers.
The hon. member for Waterloo suggested, if I understood him correctly, that Canada will not automatically benefit through freeing of trade. I point out to the committee that the

November 19, 1968
Private Bills
government has in fact put into effect measures to help Canadian industry and workers to take advantage of opportunities created by the Kennedy round tariff negotiations. It has set up the new, special adjustment assistance program as well as the machinery program which will be formally implemented by the passage of the legislation before us. In addition, the increased efforts of the trade and commerce department are all aimed at ensuring maximum benefits for Canadian industry and workers from the opportunities provided by the Kennedy round.
As I have already pointed out to the committee, the average level of tariffs of our trading partners when the Kennedy round changes are implemented will be below 10 per cent on manufactured goods. Therefore the degree of concern expressed by the hon. member for Waterloo about the lack of opportunities for our manufactured goods in foreign markets should be lessened by the opportunities created by this general lowering of tariffs which previously stood in the way of our manufactured goods.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is
my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Administration of Justice-compensation for innocent victims of criminal acts; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-union dispute respecting reporting of Ottawa conference.
It being six o'clock p.m., the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. C-103, respecting Atlantic Peat Moss Co. Ltd.-Mr. Breau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.

On clause 1-
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


Mr. Fortin:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Without prejudicing in any way Bill C-103, I should like to point out that a study of the said bill was made in committee on Tuesday, October 22, 1968 and that only the English version of the committee report was published, so that the French-speaking members can hardly understand what this is all about.
My question of privilege was merely intended to point out this fact.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member's remarks have been noted and I am told that the French version will be distributed right now.


William Arnold Peters: With regard to the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say I do not believe the hon. member was referring to the bill but to the report of the meeting of the standing committee which was held on October 22. This report is not available in the French language. It is my understanding that we should not proceed with the bill until the evidence is available.


Albert Béchard: Order. We regret that we are unable to provide the French version of the proceedings of the committee on Bill No. C-103. We are told it is not available at the present time.
Under such circumstances, progress must be reported and we will have to deal with another private bill. It is nevertheless understood that this bill will not lose its place on the order paper.

Is it agreed that the committee rise and report progress and that this bill will not lose its place on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) wishes to say a few words before you report progress.
November 19, 1968


Albert Béchard: The committee has decided to rise and report progress. However, if it is agreed we will listen to the hon. member for Gloucester.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Chairman, if it can be of any help to the hon. member, I could sum up the evidence of the company's spokesman. I am sorry that the matter is put off because the evidence is not lengthy. I could sum it up and then answer all the questions of the hon. members because I have here a statement which has been submitted to me by the company. It may be of use.


Albert Béchard: Does the committee agree?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the meaning of the remarks of the previous speaker with regard to the brief he has received. I make it a matter of principle because I have no intention of promoting dissent or preventing the co-operation of this house. Everyone will agree on that. For the information of all members and so that a serious and thorough study of the matter may be made-I must say that I do not wish to kill this bill but rather to make a positive contribution to it-I think that it would be in order to get the French version of the committee report. It must be emphasized that it is the report of a parliamentary committee.
Moreover, the hon. member refers to a brief which would have been submitted by the corporation. In my opinion, such a move would be extremely welcome by the Frenchspeaking members. In fact, we would like to get the French version of this report. I think that the hon. member who spoke before me will agree that our study thus could only be improved.


Albert Béchard: Is it agreed that this bill will retain its place on the order paper and that the committee shall rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In the
circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would agree unanimously to 29180-186
Private Bills
revert to the business which which was under consideration at six o'clock, namely, the Customs Tariff resolution?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is
agreed?


William Arnold Peters: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the trouble we are having it might be advisable to call it seven o'clock. The reason I make the suggestion is that a number of members, even the government representative who is presenting the measure on behalf of the government, are absent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in my regular seat. I was in a ministerial seat earlier during the consideration of the resolution but I should like the record to show that I resumed my accustomed place in the house and I am ready to proceed with the bill.


William Arnold Peters: I should like the record to show that too. I had expected to see the hon. member in a different seat. However, I am sure that the members of all parties were expecting private members' hour to continue and that they would not be involved. Some members have left the chamber, so I would ask the house leader whether he would consider calling it seven o'clock?


Thomas Miller Bell: I believe the latter part of the hon. member's suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is a good one. Many members have departed from the chamber in the expectation that private members' hour would continue. Even though I do notice some government members ready to proceed, we would prefer that it be called seven o'clock and that there be no prejudice to private members' hour. This should not count as a regular private members' day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that we will resume in committee and suspend the sitting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bechard in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 20925-1, 21045-1, 22001-1 and the heading thereto, 22002-1 and the heading thereto, 22003-1 and the heading thereto, 26325-1, 40938-1, 42761-1 and the heading thereto, 42762-1 and the heading thereto, 44043-1, 44047-1, 47600-1, 56400-1, and 69315-1 and the enumeration
[Stage Direction]
November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Albert Béchard: It being seven o'clock, the sitting is suspended.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned for the supper hour I was attempting to respond to some of the very interesting comments that hon. members had made during the consideration of this resolution in this committee of ways and means. I believe I was saying that I thought the lowering of the tariffs of our trading partners with respect to manufactured goods would be opening new opportunities for Canada's secondary industry.
The hon. member for Waterloo made some reference to the auto pact, and I believe expressed the view that progress had not been as rapid as should have been the case. I think I should point out that there have been thousands of new jobs, and new and expanded plants created as a result of this pact. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, when he spoke to the Canadian Exporters Association a few weeks ago, said that notable progress under the automotive products agreement has been realized, but that these gains must be maintained and indeed expanded. He went on to say that two way trade has increased from $760 million in 1964 to $3.3 billion in 1967, and that this figure will be even higher by the end of this year. In the 1968 model year more than a million vehicles were manufactured in Canada, compared with only 700,000 in 1964. Canadian exports of vehicles and parts increased from a value of $123 million to more than $2 billion in the same period. Employment in the automotive industry has reflected its general expansion with the creation of some 17,000 new jobs.
The hon. member for Waterloo questioned whether recent labour contracts had resulted in meaningful wage parity. Certainly the unions representing the workers in the auto industry believe they have met with success in recent negotiations in moving toward wage parity, though it is my understanding that these moves are linked to productivity.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the figures demonstrate the increased employment and new and expanded plants that have
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beehard).]
resulted from the automotive pact. Speaking personally, along with this improvement it seems to me that companies in the industry could do somewhat more than they are doing at the present time by way of giving advance notice to workers, and also to government, of technological change, so as to make it easier for workers and government departments that are attempting to assist them to adjust to the impact of that change, and to lay-offs, which in most cases are only temporary while various plant expansions are being carried out.
Perhaps I can discuss this matter at greater length on another occasion, perhaps during the estimates of the Department of Labour or Department of Manpower and Immigration. Still, it does seem to me that the government has in fact created a number of programs to assist not only industries but the workers involved to take advantage of the expanded opportunities presented by the Kennedy round tariff changes.
I have already referred to the adjustment assistance program, Mr. Chairman. We should also note new and expanded programs of the manpower department with respect to retraining and, if necessary, mobility, as well as job placement and counselling.
I believe the hon. member for Broadview spoke about views expressed in the recent Economic Council report in connection with the level of tariff cuts that the Canadian government is proposing to this parliament, to put into effect its commitments under the Kennedy round negotiations. My understanding of what the Economic Council actually said, Mr. Chairman, is that it did not seem to have definitely and firmly recommended that Canadian tariffs be reduced beyond the levels agreed to under the Kennedy round. What the council said in its fifth annual review, as reported at page 197, was that unilateral tariff reductions-and I am now quoting the report-
-perhaps in the form of an accelerated reduction of Canada's Kennedy round tariff reductions, might well be appropriate if the recent high and persistent general price and cost increases were to continue in Canada.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, such a statement is not exactly the same as a firm and definite recommendation. The hon. member for Broadview, in commenting on this point, seemed to equate effective protection with the degree to which Canadian producers can keep prices high without foreign competition. In fact, the nominal, as opposed to the effective, rate of duty on an industry's end product
November 19, 1968

places a ceiling on the price that the industry can charge for the product and I gather, still not charge more than the laid down cost of the imported product. Effective protection merely measures the extent to which the industry can increase its value added per unit of output because of the tariff structure-in other words, the extent to which it can be less efficient in processing than its foreign competitors. I am informed that Canadian levels of effective protection, at least before the Kennedy round, were not too far out of line with those of other countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
The hon. member for Broadview also expressed some concern at what has been said in the United States about what might be termed moves toward increased protection. We should note that the Minister of Finance, in his speech in New York yesterday, seemed in effect to caution the United States on the effect that moves toward increased protection in that country, would have on its trading relations with its neighbours and trading partners, including Canada.
The hon. member for York North made some very interesting comments and was able to base them upon his own personal experience as a manufacturer, as someone who was meeting competition in Canada from abroad and also competing with others in countries with which we trade. Certainly it is very good to hear from him as someone in the machinery industry, and to learn that he agrees that the machinery program has been working relatively smoothly.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe, for Beauce and for Temiscamingue (Messrs. Ricard, Rodrigue, and Caouette) have dealt with the problems of the textile and shoe industries. I can assure them that the government is well aware of the problems and difficulties of those industries.
I also wish to assure them that the tariff reductions applicable to those industries are very low. For instance, for the textile industry, in general the Canadian tariff has been reduced by only 2.5 per cent and, in several cases by only .5 per cent. I must add that tariff reductions, for the shoe industry, are also very moderate. In addition, those reductions have been extended, in most cases, for a maximum period.
I believe those members also spoke of another matter, dumping, and as I have said, 29180-1861
Ways and Means
the bill that is based on the international anti-dumping agreement has been referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs which is in the process of studying all the evidence of the industries affected by this bill.
We will have the opportunity of continuing our discussion on this bill when it is sent back to the house by the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, a number of hon. members also made comments with respect to the agricultural sector. I am informed that the agricultural package, while it can be described as being of somewhat modest size, is actually reasonably balanced between the United States and Canada. I understand that in terms of our trade with the United States we gave and received concessions on agricultural products to a trade value of about $95 million per annum each way.
With respect to the question of our sales of wheat, the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce discussed this question in some detail when he spoke to the meeting of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool just a few days ago on November 4. I think it useful to recall that at that time he said that the government is well aware of the long, hard struggle that went into developing a system of orderly marketing under the wheat board for western Canada. This concept of orderly marketing is still valid and will continue to serve as a base for our wheat marketing policies. The principle was carried into the international sphere where it served as a basis for the international wheat agreements and now for the international grains arrangement. The other major exporters have all expressed their determination to observe the terms of the arrangement with respect to minimum prices and to achieve the objectives of the arrangement.
Finally, on this point I can say that on October 10, 1968 the International Wheat Council issued a press release in which it stated that the members of the prices review committee of the International Wheat Council representing the major exporting and importing interests declared their satisfaction with the way in which the convention had worked during this period and with the fact that the international grains agreement is an effective force in the international trade of wheat.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Canadian government favoured the

November 19, 1968
Ways and Means
holding of the Kennedy round tariff negotiations and participated actively in it. It worked to get the best possible results for Canada, and the government is now recommending to parliament that legislation be passed to implement these results. The original Kennedy round agreement called for legislative implementation by July 1, 1968 by the countries signing it. As we know, the government negotiated an extension to January 1, 1969, a date which is not too far away.
I would therefore commend to this committee of ways and means the passage of this resolution. I believe it would certainly help to show that Canada's attitude, along the lines of what the Minister of Finance said in New York yesterday, is not favourable to what seems to be a greater interest in protectionism on the part of some of our trading partners, and it will confirm Canada's intention to compete vigorously in international markets in a way that would help the expansion of Canada's industries. On balance, therefore, I suggest to this committee that this legislation is and will be beneficial for Canada, and I invite the house to support the passage of the resolution.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I wished to ask the parliamentary secretary a question earlier on but he preferred to leave it to the end. I do not know if I understood his meaning correctly. As I understand him, there would be a general reduction of tariffs on Canadian commodities going into the European common market over the period of time as a result of the Kennedy round. Might I ask him what the schedule will be for the reduction of tariffs on wheat and feed grains going into the common market? In other words, what access do we have to this market in western Europe?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would be very happy to attempt to give the hon. member a detailed answer to his question. However I suggest that since, at a later stage in this debate, we will hopefully be in committee of the whole house we can again have an informal discussion on these matters. I hope therefore that the hon. member will permit me to reserve the answer to his question until that time, when we will be able to go into it in the detail he wants.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Japanese market. My understanding is that as a result of the Kennedy round the United States was conceded a reduction in the tariff

on soybeans going into the Japanese market, and the tariff on Canadian rapeseed going into the Japanese market remained as it was. Can the minister tell me if this was so, and what was the concession made to the United States on soybeans?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I do not have available before me information about concessions won by our trading partners, but I can certainly get that information. I cannot comment directly with respect to the duty on rapeseed moving into Japan. If my recollection serves me correctly, we did win certain expanded export opportunities with respect to rapeseed. Again I would ask the hon. member's indulgence to permit me to give him a more detailed answer not only with respect to the Canadian commodity in question but with respect to the concessions won by the United States in which he is interested, and allow me to present this answer in a more detailed fashion when we are in committee of the whole house on the bill itself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. He gave some figures showing the growth in exports for the first nine months of the year. I wonder if he can give us any figures on the growth in exports to countries other than the United States.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I must apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I have the total figures but I am not sure whether I have figures for all our major trading partners here. If the hon. gentleman would allow me a minute, perhaps I could get them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to take up the time of the committee. The parliamentary secretary can give us this information at some other time.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 2 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
[Editor's Note: For Customs Tariff items agreed to in Committee of ways and means, see Votes and Proceedings of October 22, 1968.]
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-131, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
November 19, 1968
[Stage Direction]


The house in Committee of Supply, Mr. Richard in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $31,015,000.
The Acting Chairman IMr. Richard): The
revised estimates of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, will be found at page 392 and the following page of the blue book, with details beginning at page 394.
John Angus MacLean: I propose at this time to take up only a few minutes of the time of the committee on the first item because I can speak later on this subject as it is covered by item 40. However, I feel I am perfectly in order in referring to it now.
Some time ago the government of Prince Edward Island formed a delegation to come to Ottawa to speak to the federal cabinet and particularly to the Prime Minister to impress on the government the need for the construction of a permanent link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I believe the delegation demonstrated conclusively that in the long run the building of a permanent link would be in the national interest and the most economic course to follow, bearing in mind the projected cost over the years ahead of maintaining the present service. Just as important, perhaps, they impressed on the federal government the need for making a decision at the earliest feasible date. It is of course understandable that the government of Prince Edward Island will be placed at a disadvantage in its planning for the future if it does not know what decision the federal government will reach with regard to this proposed transportation link.
This is a subject which is of tremendous importance to the inhabitants of Prince Edward Island. People in other parts of Canada may not fully appreciate how vital it is; in some areas it may be considered that the estimated expenditure is extremely high in relation to the population concerned, and so on. I should like to point out that this is a project which would be of benefit not only to Prince Edward Islanders, although it would be of great economic value to that province, but to all Canadians who travel to Prince Edward Island, especially during the tourist season. As a matter of fact the great congestion which occurs during the summer months is occasioned chiefly by visitors from other parts who wish to make this trip.
Supply-Public Works
I suggested that the estimated cost might seem extremely high in relation to the population concerned. However, we should bear in mind that the cost of government generally is high. The federal government is now spending yearly about half as much as this causeway will cost for this number of people in every part of Canada, so what Prince Edward Island is asking is that over a period of years the federal government designate for the building of a causeway about twice the annual expenditure that it expends on this number of people in all parts of Canada.
Ever since confederation, transportation has been a subject of such importance that islanders generally consider this project to be a matter of top priority as far as federal expenditure is concerned. This view is not limited to those who live on the island. Perhaps I might read into the record a telegram which was recently sent to the government by the Maritimes Transportation Commission. It is dated November 7, 1968, and reads as follows:
Maritimes Transportation Commission directors meeting in Moncton yesterday expressed concern over possible indefinite postponement of or outright cancellation of the construction of a permanent link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.' This commission reiterates its position that permanent link is imperative to reduce costs of transport and to overcome increasing delays hindering the movement of products and people between the island province and the mainland. Over its more than forty year history this commission has been constantly aware of difficulties of traversing the Northumberland strait_
difficulties which have frustrated and, without a permanent link, will continue to frustrate the economic development of the province. Even with increased ferry service in recent years and with planned improvements at terminals which this commission welcomes, no solution short of a permanent link will solve the delays and costs incurred by tourists, businessmen and trade and commerce travelling to and from Prince Edward Island. The Maritimes Transportation Commission endorses the principles of the brief presented by the government of Prince Edward Island to you and your colleagues recently relative to the construction of a permanent link and we urge your government to take immediate and effective action to bring about within a reasonably prompt period the completion of the Northumberland crossing project in which 12 million dollars have already been invested.
J. M. Crosby, Chairman,
Maritimes Transportation Commission
I think most Prince Edward Islanders agree completely with the sentiments expressed in this telegram.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In passing I want to say that the fine new ferry which has been provided, the John

November 19, 1983
Supply-Public Works
Hamilton Gray, is welcomed and appreciated by Prince Edward Islanders. I know it is not the direct responsibility of the minister, but no doubt the Department of Public Works is involved in some way. Prince Edward Islanders would not want to appear to be ungrateful for what is being done, but they feel that continued expenditure along this line will not solve the problem in the long run, and they are most concerned that the government will make an early and favourable decision in this matter.
I do not want to press the minister for a reply at the present time. If he tells the committee that he is not in a position to make a definitive answer at this time, that will be understood, but I do say we have already passed the time when the Prime Minister expressed the hope that a statement would be made in the matter, finalizing the position of the federal government. We hope and urge that such a decision will be arrived at within a short period of time. All Prince Edward Islanders, I think all people from the Atlantic provinces, and I would hope many, many people from the rest of Canada will look forward to a favourable decision by the government on this very important project.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, with brevity, but with the utmost sincerity, I would like to support the arguments which have been marshalled by my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque. If I do not speak at length, it is not that I am not deeply concerned about this project. Indeed, it is because I have been so deeply concerned, like my colleague, that I have been discussing it for a good many years in this parliament and elsewhere.
I, too, am hopeful that the minister, who is I believe a minister who has some understanding of national problems, will see the compelling urgency of this project being put forward.
We all know that in our part of Canada the economic situation vis-a-vis the rest of Canada is not very hopeful, and the only way to make it more hopeful is of course to make a rational assault upon those things which put us at an economic disadvantage. As all the experts and certainly all the public men for many years have realized, one of the great disadvantages which our part of Canada has undergone and borne, as this country was created in its peculiar nature, is the problem of transportation; and the four provinces, the maritime provinces, are the ones which have the greatest and most acute economic pains from their transportation difficulties.

We have watched and studied with a good deal of concern statistics, studies from the Economic Council of Canada and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics about the widening prosperity gap. It is terribly important that our produce, our fine agricultural produce, and our excellent products of the sea should get to their markets as quickly as possible. It is extremely important that our most expandable and expansive industry, namely tourism, be furthered in every possible way. There are now about a million people coming to Prince Edward Island every year. It is a direct loss of revenue when any people find that delays in the ferry transportation cause them to turn away to some other province, very nice but not quite so nice, like New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.
I think, apart from all the arguments which have been marshalled before this government, and by our premier-and I support everything he and his cabinet said-as my colleague suggested, and indeed underscored, it is sound economy to build this permanent link and build it as quickly as possible. I know of no bridge, highway or turnpike which has upon it a reasonable toll, in an area where there is much traffic, that is not self-amortizing, usually in a time shorter than those who created the structure predicted.
The cost of maintaining the ferries is increasing. It is escalating year after year. The more traffic and people, the greater is the total cost and the greater the per unit cost. Therefore the soundest economic solution, a permanent crossing, is what is needed at the present time. I agree with my colleague when he says we are delighted with the new boat, but we do note it has been announced that two of the existing ferries will be withdrawn from service. So we get one and we lose two.
We can project that there will be a heavy increase in traffic, so I would say to the minister that this is not only something that Prince Edward Island wants-of course it does,-but it would be one forward step which to a degree would cope with the economic disparity which our part of Canada suffers. We know, Mr. Chairman, that no country can be truly prosperous if any region thereof is lagging behind the national average in those economic facts of life which make for the good society and for the just society, so with all the urgency I could command I recommend to the minister a quick move on this measure.
November 19, 19G8

It is not for me tonight to talk about recriminations or refer to promises that were given and have not been fulfilled. We are not interested in making political capital. We are not interested in castigating people who made promises. We are interested in helping our region, and this is the responsibility of the federal government, and only the federal government, in the field of interprovincial transportation and communications. I would appeal to the minister to use his great power of persuasion to see that the government moves quickly in a project which he can, I am sure if he sees it inaugurated, look back upon with great pride as being one of the contributors to the economic well being of a great and important part of our country.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I would like tonight at the beginning of my remarks on the estimates of the Department of Public Works to say a few things of local interest. I do not intend to deal at length with provincial or national matters; I would like instead to keep to local works, which is a matter of interest to most hon. members, I think.
The only way for the citizens of the riding of Abitibi that I represent to have access to the sea is through James Bay in the north. I would like to point out to the minister that an access road from La Sarre to Rupert House, near James Bay, is now under construction. We hope that road will soon be open to traffic and that the Department of Public Works and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will cooperate with us to build the harbour facilities needed in that region.
This evening, I would like to restrict myself to the best organized part, I would say, of the riding, and remind the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) that in some parishes works have already been carried out as, for example, the construction of launching ramps for pleasure boats; I wish particularly to draw his attention on the way some of these works have been carried out. Up to now, the purpose was to make some facilities available to tourists, and promote trade and certain industries. Unfortunately, I noticed myself-and others noticed it also-that these works were not carried out satisfactorily, so that after hardly a few months, the facilities are breaking up because engineers did not take into consideration the nature of the soil
Supply-Public Works
where wharfs and launching ramps were to be built.
I would like particularly to draw to the attention of the minister the wharf which was built just 2 years ago on lake Turgeon; that wharf is almost useless because the road leading to it is in such poor condition. It would have been easy enough to build a breakwater to prevent the water from damaging the road to the ramp.
I think that the minister should ask his officials to visit the area, especially lake Turgeon, the wharf on lake Macamic, the wharf used by the people of La Sarre on the river of the same name and several other places. I feel that the minister should ask the inspectors of his department to examine the works to ensure that they are repaired and maintained in good order so that they may be used by the people.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should like also to call the attention of the minister to another point which concerns my riding more directly, that is the little town of Duparquet. I should like to ask the minister officially-I know that he has received requests to that effect from the Fish and Game Association of Duparquet-to order the dredging of rivers flowing from Duparquet lake, and the installation of buoys on this lake so as to avoid the rather frequent accidents which occur there. I know that, in 1950, such buoys were installed, but it seems to me that since then, this service to the people was not maintained.
Many tourists, in ever increasing numbers, spend the summer season in that area to go fishing or, in the fall, to go hunting. Many tourists even come from the United States to spend a part of the summer in the area, in order to enjoy the beauties of nature. Therefore, the Department of Public Works should carry out certain improvements in order to facilitate access to the natural beauties to be found there.
Moreover, the minister is perhaps aware that the Quebec government passed very recently a resolution approving an expenditure of about $20 million for the development of the whole north-western part of the province of Quebec, which is to include a tourist centre in the Duparquet area.
I think the Minister of Public Works should co-operate with the Quebec government in the developments which it is ready to undertake, in order to turn this area, which is no longer a mining area, into a tourist

November 19, 1968
Supply-Public Works
centre. The town of Duparquet was once a mining town, as we know, but the underground resources were exhausted and it has practically become a ghost town. A small population has remained thanks to the tourist trade attracted by the beautiful lake and the lovely surrounding countryside.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I will say tonight, hoping that the minister will be able to ask and convince the Treasury Board to give him the funds required for the development he wants to undertake in that area.
I have here a letter I have just received, telling me that a launching ramp will be built at Lake Hebecourt, if it is financially possible.
I hope that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will be able to give the Minister of Transport the funds required for the development of that region of the province of Quebec.
As I said at the beginning, we have no access either to the sea or to the great St. Lawrence river and we don't have great harbours or the great facilities of those other regions. However, our area abounds in beautiful lakes and great tourist attractions. All that is needed is to develop and improve them.
Therefore, I hope that the minister will make a study of the whole region, in order to bring about all the necessary improvements.


Mr. Winch:: the financing and planning of this project. This is a major project which will affect the entire lower mainland, particularly the north and south shores of Burrard inlet. We must know what the situation is in order to make plans for freeways, throughways, the changing of streets, approaches and expropriations. Let us know what the present position is in respect of designing and planning. Surely some indication can be given to the city of Vancouver as to when this is to be constructed, whether it will be a bridge, a tunnel or a combination of the two. The city should also have an indication of where the project is to be built. This is the sort of thing that should be planned. We are interested to know what the government has in mind and what the minister has planned.
We should also like to know what the minister's plans are respecting the promise of the previous minister of $200 million to $300 million expenditure, in co-operation with private enterprise, to extend the waterfront from the end of Granville street east. This has been talked about for many years, and it has been our hope that this was not only in the planning stage but that construction would commence immediately. We should like to know at least what is being done in designing, and when this project is to be commenced. The previous minister of public works indicated that it was his hope the first phase of the bridge would be started in 1971, the second phase in 1973 and the third in 1975. We should like to hear something about this. If the department is going to begin the first phase in 1971, which is not too long away, let us know now what the plans are.
It is my understanding that in order to carry out this project the old federal building, among others, will have to be torn down. If this is true we should like to know why thousands of dollars have been included in the estimates to cover alterations and improvements to this old federal building. This is what has been taking place for a long time. On other occasions before a decision had been made as to which department was to occupy this building, electricians have moved in, put in new outlets and made various other changes. The department has eventually moved in, has decided the changes were not what they wanted, and within a week or two the changes have been torn out. I am not kidding; within one week these changes have been torn out. This sort of thing takes place all the time.
A few weeks ago during the budget debate I heard that the minister was going to visit
Supply-Public Works
the building in Hull occupied by the Queen's Printer, of which his department occupies a floor and half. The department immediately put painters to work at nights and on Saturdays for a week or two. Do you know what happened? I hope the minister does not have to pay for this. He did not go over at all, but sent his deputy. The deputy I had timed, and he was there exactly 17 minutes. About two or three weeks work at nights and on Saturdays was done to paint this area, in anticipation of the minister's visit. Surely that is not planning or looking ahead, but rather a waste of the taxpayers' money, or a misuse of money which could be used to greater advantage.
We should like the minister to tell us about future plans not only in respect of buildings, bridges, roads and tunnels but also as to harbour development. I am not referring to the Roberts Bank project. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway spoke about that matter when these estimates were before us a few days ago. I know she would not want me to speak on this occasion and delay the committee because she is very anxious to receive answers to the questions she put to the minister at that time.
At this time I should like to ask about planning of the inner harbour at Vancouver, from the Lion's Gate bridge down to the city of Port Moody. This is part and parcel of the harbour, and there is a vast area of potential development there. I realize the minister might say the harbour development does not come under his jurisdiction, but under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. I realize that, but I also know-


Mr. Mongrain:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps I may be allowed to complete my remarks in this regard. Then the hon. member can ask as many questions as he likes.
I know that the harbour commission comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, but as a member for an area of Vancouver, who has been in the house for some considerable time, I also know that the harbour commission can do the planning, but when it comes to the actual work, such as dredging, it is up to the Department of Public Works to undertake that work. That department must decide how much it requires to assist in harbour development in Vancouver.
Just before this session commenced I had the opportunity of spending a considerable

November 19, 1968
Supply-Public Works
amount of time with the chairman of the harbour commission in Vancouver. I should like to thank him for his explanation as to what was going on, and for the information he supplied. It is my understanding that the harbour commission has completed certain plans in harbour development down as far as Port Moody. This commission is aware of the absolute maximum amount of dredging that can be done, and is aware of the tonnage of the largest ship that could possibly make use of the harbour, in view of the clearance under the Lion's Gate bridge. They know exactly the width of the harbour from the Lion's Gate bridge to Port Moody. The commission knows exactly what can be done and how it should be done. It is also aware of what the owners of private piers, wharves and facilities are prepared to do, if larger ships can make use of the harbour. The commission knows how much these people are prepared to spend on this project. We know that there would be tremendous savings, and that this project should be developed now. It is not such a stupendous project, but it would be of great benefit to the people, and would assist in the efficiency of this inner harbour.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
This matter was referred by the harbour commissioners of Vancouver to the Department of Public Works who do the dredging and provide in the estimates for this work, as hon. members will see if they look at the estimates. It is my understanding that the department is not going to do the dredging as one job, but is planning and thinking-or it was a few months ago-of doing it in three different stages. The first stage is to lower the harbour bed five feet in some areas, at a future time to take it down another seven feet, and the third stage is to take it down to what is the ultimate in the dredging of the inner harbour. To my mind this is just plain nonsense. It is not looking ahead; it is not planning; it is not efficiency; it is not the best use of public funds.
I know there is not a confounded cent in this year's estimates for the dredging of the inner harbour, but if my information is correct in about February of next year there will be in the estimates the sum of $1.5 million for this dredging, and this will be for doing one-third of the job. How can the government expect the private owners of the facility to be able to do their planning and long range thinking in this respect? One has to do long range planning and thinking when dealing with world shipping, because contracts are

set for long periods of time. These people cannot do their thinking, planning or provide for the allocation of money with which to carry out additional dredging because of what I think is a blindness on the part of the Department of Public Works.
I have been trying to give the committee a few of the features of Vancouver with regard to which looking ahead and planning is necessary. I am certain that what I have had to say about Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia applies to almost every constituency of Canada in which there is a need for looking ahead and planning. Therefore, while I hope I may receive a specific answer with regard to the specific planning which interests me as a representative from British Columbia, I also hope we will receive an explanation from the minister of the over-all planning visualized by him and his department. I sincerely hope I will not be proven wrong when I close, as I opened my remarks, by saying it is my understanding that it is the pride and joy of the minister that he looks ahead and plans. Please, sir, do not let us down.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, is my hon. friend willing to answer my question now?


Harold Edward Winch: Let me hear the question first.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: We have been very much interested with all the questions he has posed to the Minister of Public Works. Here is my question: Does my hon. friend think we can expect that the other Mr. Winch will soon be in a position to give the government an answer to those questions.


Albert Béchard: Order. The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be lengthy in my remarks tonight because when these estimates were presented to the house earlier I talked at length on the problem just enumerated by the hon. member for Vancouver East, namely the lack of planning in the past with regard to deep water harbours. I wish to deal with the problem of deep water harbours in southwestern Nova Scotia.
I would simply like to know

and the minister knows what I am talking about because he was here the last time I discussed this matter-what are the department's plans for the development of deep water harbours in southwestern Nova Scotia. The government has provided subsidies for building larger and better boats, but there are no facilities for these boats. The wharves are crowded. There
November 19, 1968

is on the east coast a great future for the fisheries, but the fishermen need these facilities. In my speech, which is recorded at page 2400 of Hansard, I mentioned Parkers Cove, the combination harbour and a permanent crossing for Tiverton. I mentioned the Wedgeport area, West Head and many other places. I would simply ask the minister to tell us what his plans are for the development of such deep water harbours.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the estimates of the Department of Public Works I would begin by saying that there are in the constituency of Churchill a number of projects which come within the jurisdiction of this department. However, there is one area which is at the present time waiting anxiously for a decision for the department. I refer of course to the town of Churchill. The people who live in Churchill are waiting to see what will happen with regard to their desire for redevelopment of the townsite.
It is interesting to know that for a number of years, I would say possibly since 1959, the federal Department of Public Works has been more or less designated as being in charge of the future developmentof the Churchill peninsula. The people living there are extremely anxious to learn the proposals the minister's department is going to offer to cabinet in relation to this development.
As the minister knows, Churchill is made up mainly of federal government employees, National Harbours Board employees, Department of Public Works employees and Canadian National Railways employees. Therefore it has been felt by previous governments, and I hope by this government, that at least 75 per cent of the obligation for the development of the townsite of Churchill falls upon the federal government. Many people who have followed with interest the problems of the people of Churchill often wonder why these people who are living within a community inside a province feel that the federal government has an obligation on their behalf to provide services which are normally provided by a municipality, town or city. However, Churchill happens to be in a vastly different category because were it not for mainly federal government establishments there would be no community whatsoever, apart from possibly a few native people. It is admitted, of course, that there are at Churchill a number of provincial government employees.
Supply-Public Works
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
However, if one were to take a census I am sure he would find that something over 75 per cent of the people in Churchill are there as a result of federal government establishments. Before I make a plea to the minister with regard to the plans of the federal government for the development of Churchill, I should like to say that the people feel there are certain things they are desirous of having. I refer to such things as new land areas available, private ownership of housing and a full business development. They are interested also in consideration being given to the site of Fort Churchill being brought within the boundaries of the town for taxation purposes. I believe the minister and his officials should give serious consideration to a gradual withdrawal from some consumer services, thus permitting a gradual takeover by private enterprise. I believe the Murray B. Jones report recommended this procedure and suggested the new business tax revenues would augment the residential property taxes revenue.
There was a period of time when National Defence was strongly entrenched at Fort Churchill. A number of commercial services built up as a result, and at that time possibly they were necessary. However I would say that with the phasing out of the military establishment at Fort Churchill and the replacement of the personnel by public works employees, it now seems as though a careful look should be taken at the possibility of gradual withdrawal of some of the services which are available to the people, so that private enterprise could take over. Some of the areas which I suggest could be taken over by private enterprise would be structural contracting, probably transport services, vehicle maintenance, plumbing and electrical contracting, painting and possibly laundering and cleaning services. These could very easily be carried out by private enterprise. The people of Churchill have felt this way for some time, and I am sure there are a number of people there who would be willing to invest money in these various businesses.
The ironical part about the situation is that it seems many of the federal employees who have been transplanted into Churchill have gradually taken over the operation of some of these services. I must say that I have not seen evidence of a takeover by federal employees in all the fields I have mentioned, but in many cases federal employees have taken over some of these services. If they are being

November 19, 1988
Supply-Public Works
provided with facilities to operate these services at nominal sums on government property, you can understand the consternation this creates amongst people who would like to operate these services in the townsite of Churchill.
I plead with the minister for an early decision by his department on some of the recommendations of the Murray B. Jones report. This report was developed partly as a result of the efforts of the federal government under C.M.H.C., through the co-operation of the province of Manitoba. However, I believe the people of Churchill contributed some 12.5 per cent of the cost of making the report.
There have been many reports over the years concerning the possible development of the townsite of Churchill. For some reason or other, these reports have never resulted in any development whatever. Some eight years ago, at a time when the Department of National Defence had an establishment in Churchill, a plan was presented by the federal government for the development of a new townsite some five miles removed from the present one. Unfortunately, but possibly for justifiable reasons, this plan was not accepted by the people of Churchill. Shortly after that, the military base was phased out, and for the last five years relatively no encouragement has been given to the people of Churchill to expect that there would be a development of their townsite. I know all the reports have suggested quite substantial outlays of money in relation to the development of this town-site. However, I believe I can speak on behalf of the people and tell the minister that, while consideration may be given to a plan to develop the town, if some means could be found to provide the people with sewer and water systems within the present townsite I am quite sure they would be willing to wait a little longer, until a complete development plan could be agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments.
I am certainly not casting any criticism the minister's way when I say this, but I know from discussions with him that he feels one of the things Churchill should do is become incorporated. Many people have this idea. The people of Churchill themselves have considered the possibility on many occasions, but for reasons of their own they have decided not to become incorporated. I only hope that the minister, in looking over the possibilities and the recommendations of the Murray B. Jones report, will not come to the conclusion that nothing can be done for the town of

Churchill unless it becomes incorporated. I can assure him that if he does this, all he will be doing will be handing the ball back to the people of Churchill. He will be saying: Until you become incorporated, we have no further responsibility.
I would ask the minister to take particular note of the words of the Prime Minister on October 28 when, in my opinion, he accepted responsibility for the federal government. The Prime Minister stated, as reported at page 2090 of Hansard:
After having met the premier of Manitoba, there was an exchange of correspondence. I wrote to him indicating that certain proposals that had been made by him were under review by us-
I do want to make it clear that the ball is now in our court and that the cabinet will be receiving from the Minister of Public Works very soon according to my information proposals about measures that can be taken with regard to the city of Churchill.
He advanced Churchill to the status of a city in quick order. I am sure the people of Churchill would be very pleased to remain a community, provided they can get the services for which they are not only asking but which I feel they are justified in having.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister went on to say:
I hope nothing in my previous answer left the impression that we were waiting for the government of Manitoba to act. I want to make it clear we hope to come forth with some proposal very soon.
I am very interested in the words of the Prime Minister when he said that "the ball is now in our court", indicating that this question is possibly far removed from the political football that the people of Churchill have tabbed it for many years. I only hope that the Minister of Public Works and his staff will realize the importance of bringing down proposals as quickly as possible. I think I can say that my understanding of the position of the province of Manitoba is that they are quite willing and prepared to meet their share of the obligation in developing this town as quickly as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief remarks at this stage of the debate on item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Public Works and call to the attention of the house a particular matter. I would like most of all to draw it to the minister's attention, even if I have to
November 19, 1968

come back later in the debate to other special matters.
Mr. Chairman, as the member of parliament for Lotbiniere, at the very beginning of the session I got in touch with the various departments to get information of particular interest to the population of the riding of Lotbiniere, about statistics, salaries, in short everything.
At the same time, around the middle of September, I asked the research branch of parliament to make a study that could be classified under this heading: Works carried out by the federal government in the electoral riding of Lotbiniere. I therefore asked the research branch of the parliamentary library to make a list of all the works already carried out or to be carried out in the riding of Lotbiniere, as well as the nature and the cost of the said works.
The research branch did a wonderful job, Mr. Chairman. The researchers took the trouble of getting in touch with all departments. They took the liberty of disturbing some officials in their sleep-because some of them were asleep-and finally around the middle of November I received from the research branch of the library the following letter about public works. I would like to quote that letter signed by Mr. Laundy, director of the research branch that did such excellent work:
Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed the study on "Federal Government Works in the electoral riding of Lotbi-ni&re".
It is now obvious, Mr. Chairman, that it concerned works. And therefore, the departments most concerned in this matter is obviously that of Public Works.
In the second paragraph of his letter, Mr. Laundy says this:
We regret not to have been able to send you this work earlier. Our research were complicated due to the fact that the federal riding of Lotbiniere does not coincide with the provincial riding.
This is quite understandable, and I do not blame the department for that. But in the third paragraph, Mr. Chairman, things get more complicated, and that is the reason of my intervention.
On the other hand, the Department of Public Works that had promised to send us certain information did not do so until several weeks later.
I would say several months later, since I requested that study in the middle of September, and it came only in November, and is still far from being complete.
Supply-Public Works
I go on with my quotation:
Finally, we received the document which appears in appendix "C"-
of the document they sent me-
-and which does not permit us to assess accurately the expenses made by the federal government in the riding of Lotbiniere.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the research service, though it has experts on hand, has not yet found what works were carried out by the federal government in the riding of Lotbiniere. If the Department of Public Works itself, with its employees, its experts, its figures, its projects, its classification, cannot say what works it has carried out in the riding of Lotbiniere, I wonder how one can expect the hon. member to inform adequately the people he represents on the works carried out by a government or a given department. It is an absolutely paradoxical and unacceptable situation.
I continue to quote:
We have tried to reconcile the information given in that document with the figures quoted in the house on October 23, 1968-
I had to ask dozens of verbal or written questions, to help the research section to arrive at specific conclusions, since the department was unco-operative. This is why my answers, which in fact were questionable had to be used. Nobody wants to answer, Mr. Chairman.
I continue to quote the director of the research section:
As a result of the difficulties which we met, we applied again-
This means that the researchers had previously contacted more than once the Department of Public Works.
-we applied again to the Department of Public Works which was unable to tell us how those figures could be reconciled.
Mr. Chairman, who ever heard of such an administration? It is fantastic and unbelievable!
We can fight and struggle and resort to all kind of devious means to obtain the relevant figures, but the officials assert: "We know nothing about those figures, we never heard of them, but we do know that certain projects have been completed". They are then asked, on the basis of the answers given to the questions put on the order paper and those provided by the research section, if they can give further information. The experts of the research section try to reconcile the answers.

November 19, 1968
Supply-Public Works
Since the whole thing was as clear as ditch-water, they contacted the people who were supposed to know and the end result was a complete imbroglio.
Therefore, it appears that even the officials of the Department of Public Works cannot get together on the figures with which they supply the members.
Mr. Chairman, this is unheard of, this is fantastic. I continue:
However, we were promisedcontinues the director of the Research Department-
-we were promisedand I add-on several occasions-
-written supplementary explanations upon our request. Therefore, we are taking all necessary steps to obtain this supplementary information, which we will forward to you as soon as we get it.
The purpose of the work which I had requested from the Research Department was to find out in detail, since it was not mentioned in the revised estimates, what projects had been carried out by that department in the electoral riding of Lotbiniere. I wanted to know in order to fully inform my constituents of the help given by the federal government to those dynamic people who are so much in need of it.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We therefore come to the following conclusion: the research section of the Parliament Library which does a tremendous job, and is made up of people of goodwill, of extreme competence, was unable to do a complete job. The researchers excuse themselves; the fault is not theirs but, doubtless, according to some employees of the research section, that of the department or of some of the employees of the Public Works Department.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to specify that I am not blaming the situation on the minister himself; I know he has other things to attend to, but I should like to ask him, expressly, to order an inquiry in his department as soon as possible in order to find out why his officials refuse, knowingly, to give replies to hon. members.
I think that no matter what party any member belongs to, he has the right to know what the government is planning to do or is doing in his riding and for this reason the Minister of Public Works should have an inquiry made in his department so that in future his department will give the same close co-operation as the other departments give to

the research service set up to inform all members.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it is essential before we consider statistics and shuffle through many projects which are in many cases very desirable-and as I said earlier in my speech, I do not want to deal with particular points-to bring up this point so that the minister will see to it that some changes are brought to this factual situation which is completely unacceptable.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the great needs of the riding of Lotbiniere, and particularly to those of the region of Bois-Francs, in order that a federal buildnig might be constructed in the very dynamic municipality of Victoriaville. The need is urgent. At the present time, the offices of the Manpower Centre are perched, so to speak, on the third floor of the Victoriaville post office which- although I do not mean to compete with the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Ca-ouette), who said the other day that a post office in his riding looked like a hen house- looks like a hundred year old hen house.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to bother the minister about this. I know he takes it seriously. As a matter of fact, whenever I have raised the question with him, he has considered it carefully. I wish to tell him we are getting impatient, especially the people in the riding of Lotbiniere and in the area of Bois-Francs, and we are awaiting a favourable answer from him because we would like to know exactly where things stand concerning the construction of a public building in Victoriaville.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask again the minister to order a complete inquiry among officials of his department, so that in future those officials will no longer refuse to supply information which is not absolutely confidential, and to which members are entitled, regardless of their party affiliation, in order to do a better job and to inform their constituents.
I shall therefore hope to receive soon in my office the answer of the minister to the request I have presented to him, and I hope that the officials in the gallery are listening attentively and that they will refresh the minister's memory. I think that all hon. members will recognize that we have a right to be informed and that this right must prevail over the interests of civil servants.
November 19, 1968


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise
merely to say a few words by way of support for the arguments advanced by several hon. members opposite respecting the necessity of the Northumberland causeway to Prince Edward Island. While these hon. members have presented the case for the causeway very well, it might be useful if support from both sides of the house were indicated for this very important project.
I think we all realize that Prince Edward Island is one of the poorest areas of the country, in terms of its possibilities for industrial development. It may be that at some stage in the future oil will be discovered. Companies have searched there before for this valuable product. It may be that great industrial complexes will be built up, but this does not seem within the realm of reasonable expectation. What would seem to be more likely is that advantage could be taken of those resources that are naturally already there, and these resources are principally in the areas of farming, fishing and the tourist industry.
I would like to take the tourist industry as an example of the development problem the Island faces. All those of us who have waited in the long line at either Cape Tormentine or Borden know of the wait of five, six, or seven hours which may occur before ferry space is available to take one across. There is no doubt that this is not only a factor which makes the life of the tourist going to or from Prince Edward Island more difficult, but it is also one which inhibits the tourist trade both by reputation and by experience. On almost any summer day one can sit there in a car and see a number of other cars leaving the line because the people are no longer willing to wait. It has been estimated in a survey conducted by the Stanford Institute that the tourist capacity of P.E.I. could easily be some 3.6 million tourists, and yet at the present time facilities are able to take over only some 400,000 tourists a year. If we were going to have enough ferries to carry the maximum number of tourists across, instead of the four ferries which we have had during recent years in active service, we would have to build 32 ferries at a cost of some $14 million per ferry. According to my calculations this amounts to more than the highest estimate of the cost of the causeway. I present this merely as an example of the potential for development if this valuable transportation link were built.
Supply-Public Works
This is not merely a matter of importance to those people who happen to be citizens of Prince Edward Island, or even to those who happen to want to visit there to spend part of their summer on the beautiful beaches of that fair isle. It seems to me it is important to all the people of Canada to aid in the development of this province, rather than continuing in the tradition of handouts. It is important to aid in the development of those resources which are naturally there, which are those that can most adequately be built upon by aid from the federal government.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I would not want anything I have to say to be misconstrued as being critical of the minister, either personally or in the carrying out of his duties to date. I want to say also however that it is difficult to be too critical of the policies of the Department of Public Works as they have been carried out in the past two or three years.
I begin my remarks by saying that, like my colleague from Vancouver East, I want to make some reference to the notion of planning in the minds of those responsible for this department. It is pretty difficult to understand what possible notion of planning this department can have when it succeeds in bringing before us estimates calling for over $40 million in the construction of buildings here in the capital city area alone, at the very time when costs have risen to an all time high-the cost of money, the cost of land and other factors. We look at the estimates and we see an appropriation of over $41 million for the construction of office space and buildings in the capital region, and an appropriation requested of something like $16 million for rental which, I take it, is for rental of space in buildings. Last year the former member for Carleton, Mr. Bell, and I filed questions on the order paper having 10 or 12 parts to them, in an effort to get information from the department as to what their building or office space rental policy was.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We sought to ascertain how much they were paying per square foot, whether the department had agreed to lease space before construction began, and so on. More than five months elapsed and eventually the house was dissolved; the answers to these questions were never provided by the department. I am glad to see that an hon. member of the Conservative party has re-filed a lengthy question

November 19, 19G8
Supply-Public Works
on the subject of departmental building practices. I hope the minister will take the time necessary to check into what the department has been doing in connection with rental policy. I am informed on fairly good authority that there has been a slip-shod and neglectful approach to the renting of space-that whole floors of newly constructed, privately owned buildings have been leased by the department at high rents, and then allowed to go unused for months. I am told that after being vacant for several months-and this is space for which $5.85 a square foot is being paid-staff would be brought into this accommodation, but not in sufficient numbers to make complete use of it-a space intended for 35 or 40 people would be used by only 10 or 12.
On October 1 of this year an article appeared in one of the Ottawa papers about departmental policy with respect to building construction. According to this article the Department of Public Works had somehow changed its thinking, and has decided to pay more regard to suitability for function than to the notion of prestige in connection with office buildings. If this is so, it is a welcome development and I should like to think that the new Minister of Public Works has something to do with this change in outlook. We are offered, as an example, a set of figures relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare Building at Tunney's Pasture. Judy's tower, it was called. This was to have cost $10 million for 18 floors 220 feet high. Since then, apparently, even though construction costs have risen, it has been possible for the department to estimate that it can be built to 23 floors, 30 feet higher overall, for $3 million less.
If this is the result of applying the policy of suitability for use, rather than prestige, I pray that the department will stick to its guns and follow this new policy. If it can get more space for less money, if it can build for $16 a square foot instead of $23 let us have more of it. But I know that the department must be under pressure from other departments of government to slip in a few extras so as to provide a building with a prestige image. Maybe a time will come when the government can afford prestige buildings. But that time is certainly not now, when we seem to be encountering all kinds of economic and financial difficulties, when the government is under pressure from the provinces and from many other quarters to embark upon increased expenditure. Here is one area in which money can be saved. So far it has not been considered. The health and welfare

building at Tunney's Pasture is one example. The National Arts Centre is another. The example now being set by some ministers of the crown also leaves a great deal to be desired.
At a time when the government cannot find enough money to raise the pensions of superannuated civil servants there is something obscene about pouring $46 million into a National Arts Centre, and about providing office space for cabinet ministers which one does not measure by the square foot but by the acre, complete with luxurious carpeting, expensive wood panelling, coloured telephones and all that kind of nonsense. Who needs it, except perhaps ministers with a more than usually developed egotistical sense? I know this does not apply to the Minister of Public Works, and I hope he will see to it that the Department of Public Works is able to resist pressures for prestige office space and prestige office buildings.
It is my understanding that the Department of External Affairs is to have a new building soon. This is a senior department and I would be very surprised if it did not attempt to use seniority and muscle to get a prestige building. The argument will be that such a building is necessary in order to give an impressive image to visitors from foreign countries. I suggest this is a poor argument. If Canada wishes to impress people from other countries it could best do so by providing more in the way of foreign aid. We are a young country with a great future, and we should be prepared to do more to help less fortunate nations. There should be no need to resort to such artificial things as prestige, connected somehow with office buildings and their appointments.
There is something basically unfair about spending more than $40 million on office space here in the capital at a time when it is difficult to find money for very necessary public works in other regions of this country. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville referred to the need to build a causeway for Prince Edward Island. The hon. member for Vancouver East complained of the extreme difficulty of access to the airport at Vancouver. Many other examples could be given. In my own riding there is a crummy old bridge which can only be used under restriction because the department cannot find a couple of hundred thousand dollars to get it fixed. The industry of the area, which depends on trucking, has been placed at a disadvantage for two years because trucks have to be re-routed for 15 or 20 miles, and
November 19, 1968

this will continue as long as this crummy old bridge stays unrepaired.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I do not know how many studies have been made. The department has tested it on a number of occasions. Its first finding was correct. The eastern approach to the bridge was weak and unable to support heavy loads hitting the ramp at high speeds and so the weight restriction was imposed. But one would hope that after the passage of a year there would be some definite indication that at least there would be a timetable for repair of this bridge. However, there has been nothing of the sort. My latest information, provided by the minister himself, is that the federal government is not going to negotiate with the province of Manitoba to see about cost sharing this bridge over the St. Andrews lock and dam. This is a federal structure and has been so since about 1910. But although this would cost only a few hundred thousands of dollars, or thereabouts, to the federal government in cost sharing with the province, I point out that up to this point in time the federal government is pouring money by the millions into projects which, instead of being built and conceived in terms of function and use, have all too often been thought of in terms of prestige and glamour, and of satisfying the ego of some of those who occupy the buildings in question.
I wish to tell the minister that no one expects him to come before the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts to tell the committee how it was that the initial estimate of $18 million for the construction of the arts centre in Ottawa somehow escalated upward to $46 million or $47 million in the end. He was not the Minister of Public Works at the time the difficulties were experienced. But I wish to tell the minister that his immediate predecessor in office, who was invited by the committee to appear before it in order to give an outline of the sequence of events that led up to this drastic increase in the cost of construction, does not want to come before the committee. He is invoking some rule of parliamentary precedent, but I think that some of these days we should ask the house for unanimous consent to allow the former minister of public works to appear before that committee in order to give us the facts.
It is not fair to expect the deputy minister of public works to answer all of the questions inasmuch as in the end the matter comes down to certain policy decisions taken in the
Supply-Public Works
department. How in fairness can the minister, or rather his predecessor, expect the deputy minister to be in a position to answer questions in that respect? This was the experience in the committee.
The basic question is that the costs escalated from $18 million to $46 million. On four or five separate occasions it was necessary to go before Treasury Board to get approval for upward cost revisions. Who made these decisions? Who recommended to Treasury Board that all this be approved? We cannot get the final answer because the minister who was up to his neck in that whole matter will not say, and he will not come before the committee.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a quick reference to one other item. It has to do with the matter of river bank stabilization. To my surprise I found that the federal government shares the cost, and sometimes pays 100 per cent of the cost of river bank stabilization, even if the work involved be undertaken to protect privately owned property against river bank erosion or slippage.
I am not quarreling with the principle of whether or not the federal government should pay out money to protect the banks of rivers running along the front of property that is privately owned. I am not quarreling with that for the moment; but I do wish to say that for the past five years I have been unable to get any clear indication of the criteria that go into the decision making by the department as to what particular application for federal cost sharing for river bank stabilization will be approved or not.
Quite often one or another province, one or another municipality within a province, jointly or separately will make application to the Department of Public Works for cost sharing to shore up and stabilize river banks involving private property and sometimes municipal property. From my experience to date the federal government has not shown any easy inclination or quick intention to get involved in that kind of expenditure. Yet according to a return furnished in reply to an order of this house just a few days ago I found that in fact the federal government had disbursed sums in the amount of several hundreds of thousands of dollars to help pay for, and in some cases totally pay for the cost of such river bank stabilization work.
I know that the minister, when he was minister of Indian affairs and northern development, was in the habit of answering some of the questions asked and criticisms made during discussion of estimates, by letter. I
November 19, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion hope in this case he will give some indication as to the standards or criteria which lie behind the decision taken by the Department of Public Works as to whether or not a particular application for river bank stabilization cost sharing will be accepted.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, in many ways this is a rather mundane subject to raise during consideration of the estimates, but when one looks at the estimates and sees how the Department of Public Works over the past few years has spent money with abandon in many instances, one need not apologize for trying to find out why it is so hard to get a few thousand dollars, or a few hundreds of thousands of dollars to do some needed public work in some other region of the country removed from the national capital. I hope the present minister will be more responsive to the requests made of the Department of Public Works by provinces in the east and in the west, and show a little less solicitude for prestige building here in Ottawa.


Albert Béchard: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, if I might rise on a point of privilege, since it is obvious that our time has run out and that these estimates may not be before the committee again for some time, perhaps I could have the indulgence, and the minister could have the indulgence of the committee for just a moment to tell me when the government may be in a position to make an announcement regarding the causeway to Prince Edward Island?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the adjournment motion perhaps in response to the hon. member for Malpeque I could indicate that, subject to discussions with his colleagues and other hon. members opposite, it would be our intention to call the estimates of the Department of Public Works again a week from tomorrow, that is, a week Wednesday, so that we will have an opportunity to have further discussions on these estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
perhaps some answers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And, with
patience, perhaps we could. In the meantime,

as announced last night, we will deal tomorrow with the Department of Justice, on Thursday with the Department of Labour, and on Friday with the Department of Transport.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I directed the following question to the Minister of Justice:
In view of the rejection by the law enforcement board of Ontario of a claim for compensation by the dependant mother and survivors of Larry Botrie, the Toronto cab driver who was killed by a criminal recently, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation during this session to compensate innocent victims of criminal acts?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, for the moment I think the definitive word on that subject was pronounced by my colleague, the Solicitor General before the committee on justice and legal affairs.
When the same question was referred to the Solicitor General he indicated that it was not the intention of the government to bring forward legislation at this session.
I should like for a few minutes to refer to the particular case of Larry Botrie. This was a young Lebanese man who came to Toronto eight years ago and worked with his brother as a taxi driver. In the month of April this year he picked up three young passengers aged 23, 15 and 14. They told him that they wanted to go out of town, when in fact they planned to tie him to a tree on a lonely road and steal his money and his car. On Yonge Street, north of highway 401, Botrie became suspicious of his passengers and asked to be paid in advance. When they refused he turned into a Shell gas station, telling his passengers he was going to call the police. In the front seat the 15 year old pulled a bread knife from under his jacket, held it against Botrie's chest and told him to drive on. At the same time the 15 year old yelled to the 23 year old passenger in the back to get the gun which was hidden in the rear seat.
Botrie pulled the knife from the hand of the 15 year old, jumped out of the car and shouted to the gas attendant "Get the police".
November 19, 1968

Boyd, the passenger in the back seat, pulled the trigger of the gun and Botrie fell to the ground. When he was on the ground and began to crawl he was shot twice and killed. Shortly a police sergeant arrived and faced the same gun of Boyd that had killed Botrie. The sergeant took out his gun and shot and killed Boyd.
When Larry Botrie came to Canada he worked as a cab driver and sent some $35 a month to his widowed mother in Lebanon. It cost $4,000 to ship his body home. In early November this year a provincial agency, the Law Enforcement Compensation Board, heard a claim for compensation for Larry Botrie's dependant mother, and his survivors who paid the funeral expenses. The board rejected the claim on the narrow ground that the act says compensation will be paid for any person killed or injured in or resulting from assistance given a policeman in making an arrest or in keeping the peace. In other words, it is necessary that assistance be given the police while a policeman is on the scene; he must be there. On that narrow ground the board rejected the claim.
You will note that the legislation is not in respect of compensation for innocent victims of a crime. This is the reason I asked whether the government intends to bring forward immediate legislation to compensate the victims of criminal acts. It is no answer to say that this is a provincial matter because it falls within the area of law enforcement and therefore is not a federal responsibility. I should like to remind the house that the R.C.M.P. has a contract of law enforcement in all provinces of Canada, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. There is no reason that there should not be included in that contractual obligation a provision by which there would be compensation for victims of criminal acts of violence.
At the last session the hon. member for York-Humber brought forward a private members motion recommending that a compensation board be set up to help innocent victims. The principle of the motion was accepted by the government and the matter was referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs, before which experts appeared and gave evidence with regard to other acts in other jurisdictions. I could rightly say that there was general agreement with regard to the principle. What has happened? The federal government has taken no action. In the meantime two provinces of Canada, Saskatchewan and Ontario, have brought forward legislation.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Ontario act is far too narrow and really does not solve the problem in respect of compensating the innocent victims of criminal acts. The Saskatchewan act is a much better one, which brings together the wisdom and the experience gained from the existence of acts in other jurisdictions.
What is going to happen? If we leave this to the provinces we are going to have a hodgepodge of different acts across the country, with differences concerning jurisdiction, the type of acts giving compensation, and differences with regard to the amount of compensation. The result will be that Canadians by and large will not be treated fairly in respect of this serious problem.
What we need is a federal act embracing the best legislation, based on the experience of other jurisdictions, notably England, New Zealand, California and New York, all of which have had working experience with this type of problem. We owe it to the memory of Larry Botrie and all other citizens-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know how concerned the hon. member is about the progress of the wellbeing of our citizens. That concern, however, is shared by all hon. members.
The desire to improve our laws must be accompanied, more specially in the case of the party in power, by a concern for preparing laws which are constitutional. As a matter of fact, the hon. member understood that difficulty when he himself said that such legislation comes primarily under provincial jurisdiction. Although the R.C.M.P. may, by contract, be active in certain provinces, this does not in any way alter this principle.
Now, to my mind, there should, first of all, be an agreement between the provinces and the federal government in order that an act in keeping with the constitution might be passed.
At any rate, the Minister of Justice knows the Saskatchewan laws, as he does that which is known in Ontario as the "Good Samaritan Law"; the same applies to the studies made by Osgoode Hall, and the report of Mr. Feeney of Ottawa. All those works are now being studied. Let us hope that some day we will be able to pass a law which applies to all Canadians.
November 19, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- UNION DISPUTE RESPECTING REPORTING OF OTTAWA CONFERENCE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my appearance on the late show arises from a situation which developed as a result of the dominion-provincial conference held in two areas in Ottawa a number of days ago. The C.B.C. had assigned one Ron La-plante from the province of Quebec to come to Ottawa and record a part of the proceedings, but because of a jurisdictional dispute between two unions his copy was treated as hot copy, and he could not make his reports.
This situation has many ramifications, a good number of which distressed me. I do not believe in seven minutes I could deal with all the distressing points, and I certainly do not think I could resolve the jurisdictional dispute between the labour groups, because I am not aware of all the facts. The situation which took place then I am sure could take place again and again. Because I do have good information that the situation as it existed then has not been resolved, I thought it would be worth while to present this matter to the house during the squawk show this evening.
e (10:10 p.m.)
I was a member of the committee of the House of Commons which dealt with Bill C-186 during the last session of parliament. I know how I and other members of the committee agonized over the problems of seeing that working people were represented by the labour union that they felt best could serve their interests. I know that we also had many discussions in that committee about the dangers, if national bargaining units were broken down into regional bargaining units, and where this would lead us. Even without the benefit of Bill C-186 perhaps we now have our answer in what happened with regard to our national broadcasting system as it attempted to report on this dominion-provincial conference in Ottawa. Therefore I feel that in the public interest this matter should be raised here.
There is of course the issue of freedom of the press and the public's right to know, and our rights as people in a nation not to be hurt or hindered in our knowledge by regional battles. I do not know whether Mr. Laplante, for example, was brought in to present a particular point of view, the Quebec government's point of view, let us say. He must

have been there at the request or order of management for some particular purpose which would have helped each one of us understand a little more about that conference.
If this sort of incident were repeated, one could foresee that planes would be grounded in Montreal on their way from good old Halifax to good old Ottawa because the stewardess on the Montreal to Ottawa run carries lemonade as efficiently but wears a different union label, say, than the pilot on the plane. That sort of situation of course would be ridiculous, but I suggest hardly more ridiculous than what I know of the incident I have mentioned.
I do not think we can build a nation when there is a possibility that squabbles between groups, who one might think would have the same interest but are really competing with each other, would result in the action that was taken in this particular case. I know from newsmen-and I used to be a newsman-that the battle for the union in Montreal was a very hard fought one. I know there are probably some scars left by it that will be around for a long, long time. But the fact is I very seriously question that the sort of thing that happened in the Laplante incident should have happened, and I would like some assurance in this respect. I suppose the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stanbury) will answer, but I really think it is more a matter within the purview of the labour department. On behalf of the Canadian people we would like some assurance that this sort of thing is not apt to happen again.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this serious problem to the attention of the house. He will recall that last September the Canada Labour Relations Board certified the Confederation of National Trade Unions as the bargaining agent of C.B.C. newsroom employees in Montreal and Quebec City, who were formerly represented by the Canadian Wire Service Guild, the union representing other C.B.C. newsroom employees.
I am informed by the C.B.C. that a Montreal based reporter was assigned to cover the federal-provincial conference for C.B.C. radio news as a Quebec specialist. The reporter was a C.N.T.U. member, and the C.W.S.G. maintained that coverage of news outside of Montreal and Quebec City falls within their jurisdiction. Consequently, the C.W.S.G. refused to
November 19, 1968	COMMONS
allow the reports by the C.B.C. Montreal reporter to be aired, despite efforts by the C.B.C. to have them broadcast.
Now, the C.B.C. advises that it attempted to arrange a meeting between the corporation and the two unions, but this attempt was unsuccessful. The C.B.C. has assured me it is continuing its efforts to resolve this jurisdictional problem, but failing this the matter
DEBATES	2957
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion may have to be referred back to the Canada Labour Relations Board for a ruling. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all the facilities of the Secretary of State, and I am sure of the Minister of Labour, are entirely at the disposition of the parties to this dispute.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, November 20, 1968



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
Second report in French and in English of standing committee on fisheries and forestry-Mr. Crossman.
[Note: Text of above report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]