1969-12-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Reid.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to announce to the House that Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh have graciously agreed to visit Canada in 1970 for the purpose of joining in the centennial celebrations of the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh plan to spend ten days in Canada, arriving in Frobisher Bay on Baffin Island on the afternoon of July 5 and departing from Winnipeg on the evening of July 15.
I am sure that all Canadians join with me in welcoming this news and extending to Her Majesty our sincere good wishes for a pleasant and enjoyable visit.



COPPER AND NICKEL EXPORT CONTROL-STEPS TO ASSURE SUPPLY FOR CANADIAN USE

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The strikes in the copper and nickel industry that have recently been settled have caused, as this House knows, disruption in the supply and trade patterns of these metals, not only in Canada, but in the world. During the period of the strikes the
government did not interfere with the usual trading patterns for these metals in view of the undesirable implications for industrial and trade relations.
The strikes are now over but the House will appreciate that it takes some time for the producers to reach normal production levels. The government wishes to ensure that as soon as reasonably possible, taking into account the dislocation to be overcome, the legitimate needs of Canadian users of these metals be met in full.
Accordingly, under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act, Canadian copper and nickel producers will be required to supply all the legitimate needs of the Canadian consuming industry by January 1, 1970.

In the case of copper which is now under export control, this reflects the policy indicated in my statement to the House on April 1, 1969.
In order to ensure an adequate supply and distribution of nickel to the Canadian consuming industry and to prevent the drain of such supply to higher priced foreign markets, the government has amended the export control list to include nickel in all forms to all destinations.
As hon. members are aware, about 95 per cent of Canadian production of nickel is exported and it is important that our export customers be dealt with equitably in this period of readjustment. Therefore, in addition to the question of supply of metal to Canadian users, this action will have the effect of ensuring that the normal channels of trade are utilized fully to supply traditional export consumers of nickel and of avoiding diversion to higher priced markets outside Canada. Canadian nickel producers are working to reestablish the usual supply pattern to their export markets as soon as possible.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
In addition the government has placed an embargo on the export of nickel scrap, except under permit to a primary producer. Export permits for other forms of nickel will only be
December 5, 1S69
1630	COMMONS
Steps to Control Copper and Nickel Exports issued to nickel producing companies or to companies who produce the product described in the permit.
These controls will take effect immediately on all forms of nickel, except scrap. In the case of nickel scrap, in order to allow for any necessary and reasonable adjustment in the market place, the embargo will not become effective until two weeks from this date.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will adhere to your admonition and be quite brief and reasonably non-partisan in my reply. The minister, with his usual courtesy, sent us a copy of his statement. Unfortunately it only fell into my hands a very few minutes ago and I did not have a chance to read the statement of the minister on April 1, 1969, which no doubt would have made things much more clear to me than they are now.
I understand very well the purpose in making such provision as is essential for the normal requirements of Canadian consumers of these resources, and to the extent that the minister's statement indicates this we have no objection. I do think, however, that it might well have been possible, despite what the minister said at the beginning of his statement, to indicate at some earlier stage what the intentions were so that there would be less of a problem in the normal flows of trade in these products.
I also point out that Canada as a trading nation must be very careful, particularly in the very unfortunate situation we are in now with some of our primary resources which are the subject of considerable trade export from Canada, that we not do anything to dislocate the normal flow and antagonize people in those countries with which we have such a strong flow of trade. I am sure the minister needs no caution; he has had enough from this side of the House in the last year or two. With that caveat I leave this issue.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement today is a clear indication of the government's power to act when it chooses to take a stand. I for one am happy to see that the government is moving in this direction because for years we in Canada have been faced with a situation that as the major producer of nickel in the world we have been unable to supply the needs of our own Canadian secondary manufacturing industry. This action will go some way to meet that problem. The effect of this move will be to stimulate Canadian secondary


manufacturing industry. I hope the minister will liberally interpret its legitimate needs because the possibility now exists that Canadian secondary manufacturers will wish to enlarge their production, and their use of nickel. I hope the government will take this into account.
But, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to take a second step. For a long time we on this side advocated the first step he has taken. It has been a long time coming and we are now glad to see it happen. But the minister has to go beyond this and establish a two-price system for nickel in Canada, one price for exports related to world markets and another price for Canadian manufacturers based on the cost of production in Canada, because at present the cost of nickel does not depend on the cost of its production but responds to costs around the world. It is an intolerable situation for a country like our own that we have to be tied to the international speculative price of nickel. There should be a fair price for our manufacturers that will give them a chance to develop and enlarge their operations.
I hope that within a short period of time the minister will be able to stand up in the House and say we are moving away from the traditional government position of subsidizing and encouraging raw material exports to a position of encouraging secondary manufacturing in Canada.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: I hastily took note of the minister's statement which makes us realize that we are now at a rather difficult stage of in the evolution of the labour movement. This should give cause for reflection to the true advocates of collective bargaining. The many conflicts which develop into strikes of all kinds are not indeed an indication of mutual understanding.
The government is compelled today to take a positive stand so as to avoid difficulties in business. Of course it has our support, under the circumstances, but I take this occasion to state that those in favour of strikes today will find reasons to go on strike tomorrow.
A perpetual renewal leads us to deadlocks and contributes to maintain, to the detriment of interested parties, a climate of collective misunderstanding, unwanted by the majority.
Exceptional conditions now prevail due to a strike we have heard about, but a clear stand should be taken and the labour legislation should be amended so as to meet the needs of our society.
December 5, 1969



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while we are still on motions I wonder if I might raise a point regarding the order of business for today. I notice that the Government House Leader is not in his seat, but the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt might take note of my suggestion.
I believe that later today we are to deal with the second reading of Bill C-157, having to do with provisional payments in respect of unthreshed grain in the Prairie provinces. The members of our party who will be taking part in this debate would be quite happy if the bill, instead of being sent to the standing committee, was sent directly to the committee of the whole in the hope that it might be put through most, if not all, stages today. I make this suggestion now while we are on motions in case any negotiations are necessary to make that change in the motion as it appears in the Orders of the Day.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


Gerald William Baldwin: for leave to introduce Bill C-167, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed in 1934 by the then Conservative government to assist farmers who had suffered economic loss over a period of years. The government utilized federal jurisdiction to reduce debts to manageable proportions, reduce interest and arrange for orderly payment over an extended period of time.
The act remains on the statute books although it only applies to debts incurred prior to 1945. Because of severe financial hardship at the present time as the result of weather conditions, combined with the inability to market farm commodities-this situation is particularly applicable in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan and in certain areas has persisted over several years-many efficient farmers have been unable to meet their obligations as they fall due. There is a significant increase in foreclo-
Inquiries of the Ministry sure actions, seizures of equipment and similar debt actions. The purpose of this bill is to extend the act to cover debts incurred up until 1969 and thus provide relief and retain good and effective farmers on the land.
The bill further provides that the act will be brought into effect only in such areas as the Governor in Council may designate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the report tabled today and the uncertainty created by its main recommendation, which I might say was the poorest kept secret in town, to place the CYC in trusteeship, will the Prime Minister advise the House if the government intends to introduce relevant legislation before the Christmas recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what action we will take on this report since it was just handed to me a few moments ago, as it was to other hon. members. I feel that the government will want to study it and the Secretary of State will advise the government as to what action he deems advisable.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. In view of the solution recommended by the committee with respect to the problems of the YPC-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I beg your pardon. I meant to say "CYC". That was a Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker, which I think will relate to the rest of my supplementary question to the right hon. gentleman. In view of the fact that if a trusteeship is imposed on the CYC it will cause final disruption, will the government move with uncustomary dispatch to ensure that some of the more positive programs of the CYC, such as the Kellerman project in Toronto, will continue?
1632	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



ESTABLISHMENT OF HOYAL COMMISSION ON SUBVERSION

['Order, please.']
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to recommend the establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into subversive activities in Canada, since this matter was not included in the terms of reference of the committee and since the committee report recommends that a decision be taken to that effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer the same thing, since I have just received a copy of the report. I have read it up to page 3, and I do not want to improvise an answer until I have read it all.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister read the last paragraph of the said report which deals with the Royal Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be glad to, with the permission of the hon. member.



Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. No doubt he will recall that on November 25 and again on November 27 I asked him questions arising out of the revelation of atrocities in the war in Viet Nam. He was to discuss the matter with the department. May I place the matter before him again. Has the government instructed our representative on the International Control Commission to look into the matter and, more particularly and importantly, instructed our permanent representative at the United Nations to seek action by the Secretary General of that body to inquire into the atrocities which have so shocked the conscience of the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made the inquiry and I have received a preliminary report regarding that aspect of the question concerning the ICC. I understand there is some difficulty, in view of the terms of reference of the ICC, in
[Mr. Dlnsdale.3
DEBATES	December 5, 1969
proceeding with the investigation the hon. member mentioned. With the permission of the House I prefer to defer this matter to the minister himself. I am advised by the Department of External Affairs that the minister is returning from Brussels this weekend and intends next week to make a statement on this matter.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not repeat my question earlier this week in the hope the minister might be here. While the minister is looking into this matter will he also look into the proposals made by certain Canadian professors of international law regarding steps the Secretary General of the United Nations ought to take to make sure the inquiry by the United States into the alleged atrocities is a proper one and that the result is one that meets the requirements of law, decency and human behaviour, if such is possible in a war of this sort? Also, will our permanent representative at the United Nations be instructed to follow up this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly draw the attention of the minister to this statement concerning professors of law. I think law professors are very important people.


Gerald William Baldwin: If they stick to the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the overwhelming importance of the teaching of law, the right hon. gentleman might reconsider the contribution he is making to Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TAXATION


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to make available to hon. members more copies of the white paper on proposals for tax reform in order to meet the numerous requests they receive for them.
December 5, 1969


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think that I can answer on behalf of the Minister of Finance that it is possible to have copies sent to people who ask hon. members for them.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Finance but he is not here. We understand and sympathize with his frequent absences. I will direct my question to the Acting Minister. In view of the report by the Purchasing Management Association of Canada which reveals that 60 per cent of surveyed businesses expect higher prices in 1970, can the minister say whether anything more will be done to stop such an eventuality other than merely referring the problem to the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will agree that before the best solution can be found an adequate study of the problem should be made. This is precisely what the Prices and Incomes Commission is doing.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the government had a representative at the continuing meeting between the Saskatchewan government and the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways over the proposed increase of 6 per cent of potash freight rates to the west coast?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not, but I have had some advice from those taking part in the negotiations, including representatives of the government of Saskatchewan who indicated to me that they are satisfied with the degree of progress that is taking place and they are hopeful of a solution.



RAILWAY ORDER RESPECTING FROST DAMAGE TO FLOWERS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also
Inquiries of the Ministry directed to the Minister of Transport. It is in connection with a recent declaration on the part of one or both of the railway companies that after a certain date purchasing florists will be responsible for any losses incurred in the transmission or shipment of flowers. In view of the dangerous effect this would have on the florist industry and the representations which were made, is the minister in a position to advise that this order will not be proceeded with?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House a few days ago, arrangements were made to have representatives of the florist industry meet with representatives of the railways. These meetings have taken place. I have not had a formal report but I understand that a good deal of progress was made. In fact, there was a suggestion by the railway representatives that if the florists could arrange a different or better form of packaging and also make some compromise with regard to pick-up and delivery, they could work out a solution which would be satisfactory to both parties. I think they are now polling their membership to see if these suggestions are feasible. It is hoped that there will be a final solution, perhaps by December 11.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister. He always gives full answers to questions that are asked. He is very frank.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister believe that the railway companies are showing a disposition not to enforce what is obviously-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister studying charges that millions of dollars have been wasted on adult retraining and educational programs sponsored by his department, as appears in a report prepared for the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario?


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

December 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INCREASE IN TARIFF ON TEXTILE IMPORTS FROM MEXICO

Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the Prime Minister.
Would he tell the House whether the government has in fact increased by about 50 per cent the duties on textile products imported from Mexico?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is ready with an answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, such an increase in duties was made on cotton imports from Mexico for the simple reason that Mexico refused to limit its exports voluntarily as are doing countries with low production costs that have signed similar agreements with Canada. We therefore had no alternative but to raise the import duties.


Henry P. Latulippe: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister tell the House whether, in that connection, Canada might not have violated the agreement concluded in 1946 with Mexico?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as formulated is unacceptable. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion on the interpretation of an international agreement. For this reason, the question is unacceptable.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. FairweaJher@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. What are the government's plans for ensuring that the United Nations Palestinian relief program does not lapse because of lack of adequate funds from sponsoring governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice but I did not have time to get the answer from the department. I understand, however, that the Secretary of State for Ex-
ternal Affairs will have an answer to this question on his return. He has been in Brussels, as the House knows, for the NATO meetings and he will be here next week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs being absent, my question is for the Prime Minister. I understand that the Canadian and French Ministers for External Affairs met yesterday and that they passed the sponge over the diplomatic difficulties. Would the Prime Minister tell us something about the atmosphere in which that meeting took place and give us some more information about this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am myself waiting for news about that sponge.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister of Canada intend to meet soon with the French President to consolidate our diplomatic ties with that country, if what we learned yesterday is true?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that his supplementary question is hypothetical.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the Minister of Supply and Services in his place, but since he is on the roster for today I assume an acting minister is prepared to answer for him. Has the objective of dealing with all retroactive pay cheques by the end of November been met, as the minister expressed the hope of doing in a reply to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre on October 29?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will take the question as notice on behalf of my colleague. I understand that considerable progress has been made, but I have no specific information. I hope the question can be answered on Monday.
December 5, 1969


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since it seems that despite whatever progress has been made there is still an unholy mess, can one of the ministers tell us when it will be cleaned up?



CANADIAN ACCESS TO U.S. MARKET-GENERAL ENERGY POLICY

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following yesterday's meeting with the United States Secretary of State for the Interior, can the hon. gentleman advise the House whether freer access for Canadian oil into the United States market has now been arranged?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No specific agreement arose from our meeting yesterday, which was an informal one, but I am encouraged to think that as a result of that meeting I was able to note that the Secretary of State for the Interior clearly understands the Canadian position and the entire nature of the matter. I am hopeful the Canadian view that there should be an open market for Canadian oil in the United States will be given very serious consideration by the Schultz Committee and by the United States cabinet.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Having regard to proposals that there should be a common market not only in oil but in energy resources generally, would the minister tell us whether other aspects of energy policy were discussed at this meeting?


John James Greene: The entire ambit of energy policy to the mutual interest of both the United States and Canada was considered. We are very much interested in the initiative taken by the Secretary of State for the Interior in this regard and we shall be prepared to consider any specific proposals brought forward by the United States cabinet or by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to mutual energy policies. We shall, of course, consider Canadian interests and Canadian reserves for the future.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the minister a simple question based on his answer that the United States government and the Secretary of the Interior now clearly understand the Canadian position. Are we to infer that in the hon. gen-
Inquiries of the Ministry tleman's opinion they did not understand our position clearly before these discussions took place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister kindly make a report on motions as early as possible?


John James Greene: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion, but these negotiations are continuing and the Schultz Committee is still sitting. I am inclined to think the Canadian interest and that of Canadian producers will best be served by continuing the discussions as we have been doing.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I had a question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence perhaps the acting minister could take it under consideration. Bearing in mind reports that the United States and Great Britain have had access to Canada's gas chambers and germ tunnels, may I ask the minister if this policy is still in effect?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Perhaps I can reply on behalf of the minister by saying I shall have to take that question as notice. I have no knowledge of the situation at the moment.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and arises from concern over continued dumping of oil and other waste from freighters into the Great Lakes in direct contravention of the provisions of the Fisheries Act. What steps has the department taken to increase its surveillance capacity in order that a greater proportion of offenders may be prosecuted promptly?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that a question as wide as this, though important, would normally be answered by means of a statement on motions. The hon. member might wish to rephrase his question in those terms.
163G
December 5, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


William Marvin Howe: Perhaps I might simply ask the minister what effort he is making to prevent this dumping of waste and oil which is causing such a pollution problem in the Great Lakes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In view of the fact that I am always pleased to report to the House in detail when we are moving forward, I shall be glad to make a statement on motions on the subject in the near future.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is really a supplementary to a previous question, and I direct it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having regard to the fact that the United States government recommended two days ago to the Canada-United States International Joint Commission that a moratorium with respect to oil drilling in Lake Erie be imposed because of the dangerous pollution possibilities, would the minister indicate whether the Canadian government intends to make a similar representation to the International Joint Commission?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this information
could be included in the statement the minister will eventually make to the House on motions.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker; it is one to which we have not yet received an answer. In view of the significant decline in immigration over the past year, as reported in the press, allegedly because of lack of encouragement from the government, what action is the department taking to correct this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest this is a question which is very broad in nature and that it should be replied to by way of a statement on motions.


George Robson Muir: Would the minister do the House the courtesy of making a statement on mo,ions in this regard?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I always try to be

courteous to the House, and I shall do what I can to bring the situation to the attention of the hon. gentleman.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the government has considered the possibility of suppressing all assistance or social security programs in force and replacing them by a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that several ministers have already indicated that the government was studying this question but we have not concluded that it was desirable at the moment.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the taking of a decision which will affect the whole of the Canadian economy but more particularly western Canada. In view of the grave difficulty in keeping Canadian grain exports competitive on world markets, would the minister exert all his influence against the proposed higher tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there is no one-line answer to that question. All I can say is that the whole question of tolls on the seaway is being studied. A mechanism has been established to review the question, I believe at the end of 1970. We are at present determining what our position will be at that time vis-a-vis the United States authorities.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the proposed toll increases will bring the total cost of toll charges up to three cents per bushel of wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
December 5, 1969



STANDING COMMITTEES-RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONVENING ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his capacity of Acting Government House Leader; I assume that that assumption is correct. My question is prompted by Your Honour's ruling last evening on my point of order, and consequently I hope you will allow it. Who is responsible for convening organizational meetings of standing committees of the House under Standing Order 65(2)?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under normal circumstances this kind of question would not be in order, but in view of the fact that the hon. member has had so much difficulty with the Chair in get'ing this matter before the House, perhaps the minister might like to reply to the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to confer privately with my hon. friend.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my ques ion is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the rapid approach of winter in Prince Edward Island and the serious effect it has on travel on the part of the residents of Lennox Island Indian reservation, would the minister indicate, first, whether there are any short-term plans to guarantee safe transportation for the Indians on the reservation to the mainland and, second, whether consideration is being given to the construction of a solid land link for that community?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity a few months ago to discuss this matter with the premier of Prince Edward Island and we are trying to find a permanent solution to that problem.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. I wonder whether in regard to the
Inquiries of the Ministry first part of my question the minister could give an indication of any short-term solution to deal with the very dangerous situation faced by the members of that Indian community?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything about that recently, but I will be happy to look into this matter immediately.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the sharp drop in housing starts in November of this year, is it the intention of the minister to apply to Treasury Board for additional funds to enable more housing starts to be made, especially for the low income group, so the government can reach its target of 200,000 housing starts this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My recollection is that this question is a repetition of one asked yesterday, or at least that it is substantially the same.


John Gilbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question was answered yesterday. The matter is very urgent and I am sure the minister is anxious to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not evident that the minister is anxious, but whether he is or not, he might be given an opportunity to answer.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question asked yesterday my hon. friend has made an incorrect premise, which he occasionally does. The government will reach its target of 200,000 housing starts this year. Furthermore, we have already stated our commitment to achieve one million housing starts in the five year period, 1969-74, with special emphasis being placed on the provision of homes for people of low income. I hope this reply satisfies the hon. member that the question is a repetition of one asked yesterday.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not state that the government would not reach its target of 200,000. I was pointing out to the minister that there had been a sharp decline-

December 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege but a point for debate.



BUILDING SOCIETIES-REQUEST FOR FAVOURABLE TAX TREATMENT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the fact that deliberations have taken place and representations have been made concerning the establishment of building societies, which of course would assist in achieving the goal of one million housing starts, would the minister advise the House when he will be prepared to make a statement on the government's attitude to these representations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Finance indicated that this matter was being reviewed as a result of a meeting between the Minister of Finance, myself, the Minister of Trade and Development and the Treasurer of the province of Ontario, and this option is being looked at now.



OPERATION OF TERMINAL ELEVATOR NO. 2, VANCOUVER

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. My question relates to one I asked him earlier in the week. Can the minister now advise what decision, if any, has been taken in regard to the use of National Harbours Board terminal No. 2, whether or not it will be prepared for us and will be used to full capacity in the near future?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: At this point, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the replies that were given the other day.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: According to the roster, the Minister of Agriculture was to be in the House yesterday, but he was not. I therefore postponed my question until today in the hope that he would be present. However, as neither the

minister nor his assistant are here today and my question is an urgent one, I will have to direct it to the Prime Minister.
Can he inform the House whether, in view of the general outcry in Canada against the decision to curtail the subsidies granted to the dairy industry by $10 million a year, the government intends to go back on that decision?


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that this question was raised just a few days ago.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, yes;er-day a question was asked about communicable diseases and statistics published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The answer is as follows: In February, 1969, an allegation was made concerning the inadequacy of security arrangements for the handling and processing of statis.ical returns rela.ing to illness including communicable diseases. This was investigated and determined to be unfounded. I am assured that the arrangements with respect to maintaining the confidential! y of information in these records is completely satisfactory.
In so far as communicable diseases are concerned, DBS does not receive statistical returns which disclose the identity of individuals. The information is submitted to the bureau in the form of tables prepared by the provinces.



ROYAL VISIT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I am sure we are all happy to learn that Her Majesty the Queen will be favouring Canada with a visit next year. I wonder whether the House could be advised if she has been invited to visit Ottawa, whether or not she has accepted and, if so, the date of her visit so that this date can be kept open by all hon. members?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the details of the visit will be made public later in the form of a press release. I do not have all the details in mind, but I do know that there is no question of her coming to Ottawa.
December 5. 1969



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and relates to a question I asked him on November 26. Now that it is known that representations have been made in connection with the proposal of Greyhound Lines to take over Canadian Coachways, can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether the Canadian Transport Commission will be calling public hearings to ensure that the interest of the Canadian public is protected?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House when the hon. gentleman first asked the question, the National Transportation Act provides that if any of the parties concerned call a matter such as this to the attention of the Canadian Transport Commission, the commission has authority to look into it. I would assume-and I have no personal knowledge of this-that if there is the interest to which my hon. friend is referring someone will call attention to this matter or file a notice with the CTC and then they will go through their regular procedures. I regret I am not fully aware at the moment what those procedures are.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did the minister receive a letter recently from the Canadian director of the UAW complaining of the fact that discussions with regard to the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement had been going on without the UAW being consulted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps I might rephrase it by adding the remainder. If so, what reply, if any, did the minister make to this letter?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not quite convinced the question is in order even with the supplemen-
Inquiries of the Ministry tary, but the minister seems to be very anxious to reply to this important question and perhaps should be allowed to do so.


Jean-Luc Pepin: As always, Mr. Speaker. The answer is that communications have been going on between my department and the union involved. A meeting is being arranged now and will take place about the same time I meet with the presidents of the automobile companies.



EMPLOYEES' HOLIDAY AND OVERTIME PAY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, because the minister is aware of the interest of all of us, particularly his seatmate, this question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Will he direct the Internal Economy Commission to reconsider a decision made last spring not to pay House of Commons employees their outstanding holiday pay for 1967 and overtime built up during 1968? I ask this question because of the festive season and the smile which is appearing on the usually tough countenance of the President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that countenance, I hope, is not normally tough, but the smile was inspired by the notion that I have the power to direct the commissioners. I will respectfully bring this problem to their attention.
HEALTH AND V/ELFARE



ALLEGED ABUSE IN USE OF PATENT MEDICINE, &quot;NYQUIL&quot;

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence, however, perhaps I may be allowed to direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. In light of the reported abuse in the use of a new patented cough medicine named Nyquil, is the minister initiating an investigation of this matter and will he report to the House concerning what steps his department proposes to take concerning this apparently addictive preparation?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare) :: I can report at the present time that the Ontario Registrar of Pharmacists has advised all Ontario pharmacists to exercise discretion in displaying and selling Nyquil.
1640	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SHIPMENT OF ARMS BY BRITAIN TO NIGERIA

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton- Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that early next week over 100 British Members of Parliament of all parties will be attempting in the British House of Commons to stop that country's shipment of arms to Nigeria, will the Prime Minister make further representations to the British government indicating our protest concerning the shipment of arms to Nigeria by that country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice a question in connection with the case of an Eskimo called Tootulik who was found guilty of a hunting infraction despite the fact that the site of the crime was some three miles beyond the three-mile limit. I asked the minister if he would have his officials investigate to see whether instructions were given to prosecute despite that fact. Is the Acting Minister now able to make a reply to that question today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question which the minister might also take as notice. Does the Crown intend to apply to have the conviction quashed in view of the fact that the infraction took place six or seven miles beyond the shoreline or does the government intend to accept the Arctic sovereignty position of Mr. Justice Morrow which obviously is in conflict with that of the government?



COPPER AND NICKEL-CLARIFICATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON MOTIONS

["Mr. Speaker, I am glad I got found in the shuffle. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's willingness to make nickel available to Canadian manufacturers, is he also considering the establishment of a two-price system so that Canadian manufacturers can buy nickel at the cost of production?"]
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to give some clarification of his statement on motions, particularly the sentence which states that
[Mr. Haidasz.l
DEBATES	December 5, 1969
Canadian copper and nickel producers will be required to supply all the legitimate needs of the Canadian consuming industry by January 1, 1970. Does this mean the minister anticipates that all the backlogs can be dealt with by January 1, 1970, which is only three weeks away, or is there some mistake in the translation inasmuch as the minister made the first part of his statement in French and the statement sent to me by his office is in English?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The announcement made this morning will become fully operative by January 1, but it is understood that in the meantime if some emergency develops on the side of the consumers producers will see to it that it is corrected.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he can assure the House that this move to ensure that Canadian producers will be able to get adequate supplies will be policed more adequately than has been the case in respect of copper inasmuch as Phillips Cables Limited of Brockville had to lay off staff because they could not get copper during the last year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It would be dangerous if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Waterloo.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think it would be wrong to leave the impression that the Phillips Company was badly treated in normal times. Of course a very special situation existed during the strike. We are now in the post-strike period. There were special reasons for the Phillips Company as a regular buyer from INCO, to be placed in a difficult position during the strike and I have explained those in the House on a previous occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member and the minister that they appear to be debating the issue rather than asking questions and giving answers. Perhaps the hon. member for Waterloo might have an opportunity to ask his question.
December 5, 1969


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister proceeded to argue in respect of a question I had asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member asked an argumentative question and I ruled him out of order, indicating that the minister could not reply. Then the minister rose on a point of order. If ministers reply every time the Speaker rules a question out of order and hon. members ask further sup-plementaries by raising points of order the result would be disorder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it seems to me perfectly proper to point out that the Phillips Company was unable to get copper from Noranda at the same time Noranda was exporting copper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member can indicate to me on what Standing Order he bases the point of order he has just made I will agree with him that he had a point of order. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Max Saltsman: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It will have to be a new point of order because I have ruled there was no point of order on the matter raised by the minister or by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. There are about 90 seconds left.


Max Saltsman: This is a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe you had recognized me on a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was lost in the shuffle. The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, it is rather easy for anyone to get lost behind me. I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which he might like to take as notice. Has the government received a telegram from students at the University of Manitoba remind-21545- 334
Inquiries of the Ministry ing the government that two Israeli citizens are still being held in Damascus following the TWA hijacking in August this year? If so, is the government applying diplomatic pressure on Syria to procure their release?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret to say I do not know whether such a telegram has been received.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Waterloo.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I got found in the shuffle. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's willingness to make nickel available to Canadian manufacturers, is he also considering the establishment of a two-price system so that Canadian manufacturers can buy nickel at the cost of production?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Will he undertake to have the RCMP investigate what is allegedly an illegal or criminal activity on the part of someone in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who obtained a galley proof of a book which was published yesterday by Harold Cardinal?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: will be glad to look into the matter. I am not familiar with the allegation of irregularity in that department.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-8, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assist-
December 5, 1969
1642	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop ance) Act, as reported, (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, by leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MEASURE TO AUTHORIZE PROVINCIAL PAYMENTS

Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-157, to authorize provisional payments for the 1969-70 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provisions be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) earlier. I think it will be possible for that suggestion to be carried out, and it will give hon. members a chance to make their views known, either during the second reading debate or at the committee stage. However, I wish to suggest that in the event we are unable to complete the bill by four o'clock, the House might be prepared to consider taking the hour from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. for the purpose of ensuring that all hon. members who want to make representations will have an opportunity to speak.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the proposal that has been made by hon. members opposite is agreeable to us. Presumably, the motion should be changed to provide for the consideration in Committee of the Whole rather than in the Standing Committee. We are also agreeable to the suggestion that, if necessary, in order to complete all the stages of the bill, the private members' hour may be devoted to that purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are happy that there has been agreement to the suggestion about going into Committee of the Whole, as I proposed earlier. We also agree to continuing debate of this bill until 5 p.m., if necessary, in the hope that it can be completed today.
[Mr. Dub4.1


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestions made by the minister. Is it agreed that the motion be changed to provide for consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2
carry?
On clause 2-Definitions.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by expressing to all members of the House my appreciation for their co-operation in expediting the discussion of this bill today with a view to facilitating its passage through all stages as speedily as possible.
As hon. members will be aware, the cash advance program is a very important one in the prairie region of Canada. Under it, large amounts of money are available to individual farmers prior to sales opportunities, thus placing the cash for their grain products in their hands. The cash advance plan is being used to an increasing extent in the current situation. The farmers therefore have come to rely more and more upon this technique for obtaining cash, particularly in the earlier part of the year. It is, of course, well known and should be remembered by all members of the House that these are advance payments made to the farmer while the grain is still in his bin, still in store on his farm, and payments which he repays during the course of future deliveries of that crop in storage.
It is, of course, true that the general revenue is involved to the extent of bearing the cost of the interest on the money which is advanced in this way. The extent to which farmers have come to rely on these advances is indicated by the total figures on advances now outstanding. As of November 28, 1969, the last date on which I have a report, the total of cash advances in the hands of farmers stood at $231,446,136. The very fact of the extended reliance by farmers upon the cash advance system has led to a number of changes to meet the needs.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? Is this the amount that has been advanced this year or does it include the amounts which have been advanced throughout the years?
December 5, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1643


Otto Emil Lang: The figure which I gave was the amount totally outstanding on the date in question, that is to say on November 28, 1969. Of that amount some $28 million is outstanding from the previous crop year, and the difference, about $202 million is the balance still outstanding on this year's advances which total around $213 million, $11 million of which has already been repaid.
The importance of this scheme led last year to the doubling of the amounts of money available on a per bushel basis and the total amount available to farmers under the plan. This has accounted for the increased use of the cash advance plan. The importance of the plan to farmers has, of course, meant that those who cannot take advantage of it are accordingly in serious difficulty. In particular, the general cash advance plan requires that the grain upon which the cash is advanced, the grain which is used as security for the advance, be grain that is harvested and in store on the farm.
In certain areas of the Wheat Board region this year a significant number of acres of crop have not yet been harvested, and of course in some of those areas conditions make it quite unlikely that the crop will be harvested until spring. Weather, of course, is a fickle creature, and some harvesting has in fact been going on even these last few days. But none the less, in a broad enough area, a large acreage of land could not be harvested.
For the individual farmer this has meant a very significant problem in cash flow, added to a cash situation which in any case is serious. Accordingly Bill C-157 is brought forward with a view to providing provisional cash advances on the basis of grain which has not been harvested. This is therefore, an extension for this year of the cash advance principle to the security of unharvested grain.
The record of the farmers who have taken advantage of cash advances is one which leads one to have little concern at all about the fact that this unharvested grain gives theoretically some less security. The record, in general, of repayment of the cash advances is a superb one. We did have an example ten years ago of a provisional payment cash advance plan with unharvested grain as security, and under that plan only about $271 of the amount of money which was advanced was not repaid as the grain was harvested and the farmer was in a position to repay it.
At that time, under that previous plan, something just in excess of $1 million was
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop advanced. It is difficult of course to calculate with accuracy the extent to which individual farmers will take advantage of this provisional advance, but it does not in a real sense add to the expected expenditures by the government. Had these farmers been in a position to harvest their crops they would in general have been in a position to take cash advances under the regular plan. This bill will allow them to take those advances on unharvested crops.
The government will bear the interest on these advances while they are outstanding, and there is some small increase in expenditure involved here due to the fact that these farmers may not have crops to deliver to meet quotas during the course of the next five or six months, until in fact their grain is harvested and is available for delivery.
The cash advance envisaged by the provisional act follows very carefully the pattern set out in the main cash advance plan itself. The amounts per bushel, etc., are meant to follow the basic cash advance plan. Some special repayment provisions are provided to ensure that it is clear that a farmer need not deliver to meet his commitment with regard to the provisional advance until he has had an opportunity in the spring to harvest his crop.
The provisional advance maximum proposed in the bill is $3,000 with a total maximum between provisional advance and regular cash advance at $6,000, which is the regular figure for the cash advance plan itself. It is, I think, particularly appropriate to extend this provisional advance to farmers, as it was appropriate some weeks ago to indicate that Prairie Farm Assistance would be calculated on the basis of conditions known, with the grain unharvested, instead of waiting for the harvest.
In the case of these cash advances it was, I think, particularly important to let the farmers know that this provisional advance would be available, and to bring it forward into legislation. It was important to let them know it would be available because it would be undesirable to have their need for a cash advance lead them into the wrong farming techniques. It is better that they have the ability to take a cash advance on unharvested grain and make their own best farming judgment about whether or not the grain should be brought into the bin in the conditions which may exist at any given time as the
1644	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop autumn proceeds into winter. This provisional cash advance plan will do this, and it will provide to the farmers who are in this difficult situation some cash to tide them over until harvesting may hopefully begin again in the spring.
The records from the prairie region indicate that of the crops still in the fields, a large quantity is in wheat, oats and barley. The farmers have in fact concentrated on the oil seed crops for a number of reasons, including the marketing conditions which they expect for these crops in the near future.
I am therefore very pleased, indeed, Mr. Chairman, to put forward this bill for the consideration of the House, and again to express to hon. members my appreciation for their co-operation in expediting its enactment into law.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, in introducing Bill C-157, an act to authorize provisional payments for the 1969-70 crop in respect of unthreshed grain, the government is taking a hesitant step in the hope of staving off complete disaster this winter in those areas where the farmers unfortunately were unable to harvest their crops this fall.
We are pleased that action is finally being taken to provide some help to those farmers who, through the vagaries of the weather, have been placed in an intolerable financial situation. With winter upon us, it is to be hoped that the government will work with all possible speed to get the crops inspected and the cash advances made at the earliest possible date. It is for this reason the members of the opposition are co-operating in the hope that the bill will go through today.
As commendable as this action is, action for which members on the opposition side have been pressing since it became evident that large areas of crop would remain unthreshed, it does not even begin to deal with a problem of much greater magnitude. I refer specifically to the serious cash shortage all across the prairies because of the farmers' inability to market the grain they have harvested. Reliance on cash advances, as indicated in the minister's remarks, only emphasizes the serious cash position with which our farmers are now having to deal.
In spite of the fact that a real crisis has developed in western agriculture over the past two years, and is progressively becoming worse, there has been little indication that the

DEBATES	December 5, 1969
government is prepared to assume its responsibilities and come to grips with the problem. Neither is it offering any constructive leadership for an organized search for the solution.
One need only look over the recent Speech from the Throne to see that all the government has to offer is pious hopes to improve international co-operation and to re-establish orderly marketing. The only thing in it of any substance for agriculture is a vague reference to amendments to the Canada Grains Act which, and I quote:
-are intended to make our products more competitive in the world markets.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
That, Mr. Chairman, is the reference, in toto, to agriculture in the throne speech, one of the most important segments of the nation's economy. There is no mention of the economic toll inflation is having on an industry that has had little or nothing to do with causing it, and even less means to combat it. There is no mention of research into production and marketing for an industry plagued by surpluses, which the government tends to treat as the problems of a poor relative. Certainly, there is no reference at all to higher production costs, lower income, lack of cash and accumulating debts at the highest rates of interest in history. Surely, agriculture deserves better consideration from this government than just a passing reference to a document setting out its current legislative plans. Only now when the crisis in agriculture has developed into disaster proportions in some areas has the government finally decided to act-and even in those areas the amount of money advanced as a loan as a result of passage of this bill will be inadequate to assure the continuation of those farmers in business.
The Minister of Agriculture announced on November 7 that this legislation would be introduced. It was placed on the Order Paper on November 24, and is now being brought forward by the government almost a month after the minister's announcement. This is only another indication of the callous disregard of this government for the problems of the west and as far as assistance for agriculture goes, it is not only too little, it is almost too late.
Perhaps the reason for the government's lack of over-all agricultural policy stems from the fact that the cabinet, knowing little of agricultural problems, is afraid to take advice, no matter how well-meaning, that might lead it into making a difficult decision.
December 5, 1969

When the opposition members suggested a transport controller be appointed to straighten out the shipping mess during the crisis in Vancouver last winter, no one on the government benches listened. When it was suggested that the government assist the cash-short farmers to reduce wheat acreage in the spring, it fell on deaf ears. When we suggest that no business, farming or otherwise, can survive when it cannot sell enough to pay expenses, the government says it has set up a Grains Council. One wonders if the whole western economy has to hit the skids before this government acts.
Agriculture is looking for leadership, for action on the part of this government to help maintain it as a viable industry, and an important part of the Canadian economy. The value of the industry to the nation can best be illustrated by figures in a 1966 census. That year, the total capital value of Canadian farms was close to $20 billion. The value of all Canadian agricultural products approached $3.5 billion, and agriculture earned a dollar out of every $8 earned by Canadian trade. The Bank of Commerce, in a recent newsletter on Canadian agriculture, points out that Canadian farmers spent $2.7 billion on goods and services in 1968, and in the same year contributed $1.4 billion to our export trade.
These are facts that are surely of interest to all Canadians and points out the necessity of maintaining a strong agricultural economy, not only in the interests of the farmers, but in the interest of the nation as a whole. The report points out that this contribution to the economy was made by an industry that has had its labour force halved in the last 20 years to 7 per cent of the total employed in Canada, while at the same time has increased its production over 50 per cent. This advance in farm labour productivity is illustrated by the increase in the number of persons who can be supported by the production of one farm worker.
According to the Department of Agriculture figures, provided by the economics branch of that department, in pre-war years one farm worker could support the equivalent of 11 persons with food and fibre; today, the number is 42 persons. I offer these figures to show that farm efficiency alone cannot extricate agriculture from the economic strait jacket in which it is now. I offer them, too, to show that it is in the nation's self-interest for the government to quickly find solutions to our marketing problems in order that this efficiency can be maintained.
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
Until recently the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt have more or less been responsible for our grain business. Opposition suggestions that one minister, preferably the Minister of Agriculture, be given control always encountered complete government indifference. When I say more or less, I mean just that because I sincerely believe it was this arrangement that actually impeded any solution to our marketing problems. There is no doubt that this arrangement also worked against taking action at a crucial time in formulating a comprehensive grain policy.
I am supported in this belief by an article appearing in the Globe and Mail for November 14, 1969, which suggests the government is expected to announce a special grains secretariat to devise a grains policy. The article reads, in part:
Western farmers are facing another bleak year and a probable continuation of fairly critical cash shortage, along with jammed wheat storage and considerable uncertainty as to the outlook for the next crop year.
After a year of dealing with one wheat crisis, on a day-to-day basis, the government still has no basic policy to deal with the difficult position of western farmers or to phase some of them into other types of agricultural production or out of agriculture altogether.
Government insiders contend that intense wrangling between different government departments, each with some area of responsibility for grains policy, has prevented the formulation of any kind of longer term policy during the past year.
The article goes on to say that the departments even quarrel as to which minister's name should be on what announcement.
The farmers have been continually advised to switch production from wheat to other grains, and they have done a commendable job in wheat acreage reduction this past crop season. However, unless the government is basing its advice on a comprehensive market survey, one wonders whether we will eventually wind up with the same surplus situation in feed grains as we now have in wheat. Even now many farmers are still holding two-year-old oats and barley, or selling those products below Wheat Board prices to the feed mills.
Nor has Canada's export of feed grains shown too much promise in the past. According to Mr. J. E. McWilliam, President of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, Canada's exports of feed grains remained virtually static around one million metric tons per year from 1960 to 1966 inclusive. In the same period, United States exports had risen from 11.2
December 5, 1969
1646	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop million tons to 21.7 million tons; Argentina's feed grain exports increased from 2.5 million tons to 6.5 million tons, and France increased its feed grain exports from 1.9 million to 3.7 million tons.
The Wheat Board, in its supplementary report for the crop year 1967-68, that is the last available report gives the following information with regard to the production and marketing of feed grains for that period. This information could indicate, particularly in the light of higher plantings to coarse grains in the past season, that stocks of these grains are already building up substantially. They show that the 1968 Canadian oats production of 362.5 million bushels was 58.3 million bushels above the previous year's crop. World oats production increased from 3.3 billion bushels in 1967 to 3.5 billion bushels in 1968. Canadian oats exports from August 1, 1968 to January 31, 1969 amounted to 1.3 million bushels as compared with 1.9 million bushels during the same period in the previous year.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
These figures indicate that while we increased our production of oats, we actually reduced our exports of that grain. The same applies to barley. According to the same report, Canadian barley production in 1968 amounted to a record 325.4 million bushels, of which 301 million bushels was grown in western Canada. This was 76.7 million bushels above the barley crop harvested in the previous year. The substantial carryover of 130.6 million bushels resulted in a record total barley supply of 456 million bushels, or 19.9 per cent greater than the total supply a year earlier. World production in 1968, estimated at 5.1 billion bushels, was 7.5 per cent greater than the 1967 crop. Canadian barley exports during the period between August 1, 1968 and January 31, 1969 totalled 10 million bushels, as compared with 18.6 million bushels in the comparable period one year earlier. Clearly, these figures indicate that although we increased our barley production, our barley exports were reduced. Anyone, therefore, who advises farmers to change to the production of certain grains should do so only after a great deal of work has been done to determine whether the advice is valid.
I have been given assurances recently by the Wheat Board that our exports in barley at least are improving and, hopefully, will continue to improve. The examples I have given point up the absolute necessity for the government continuing with market research,


improving our selling techniques, ironing out our transportation problems and modernizing our port facilities. If our grading system needs changing to conform to export demands, let us change it. If that means tailoring our grades to meet the protein content demanded by our customers, then by all means let us meet their qualifications and go after their business. All those things must be done if we are to retain our traditional markets and acquire new ones. The western farmer is efficient, versatile, and willing and able to produce; but he is stultified by marketing problems which are beyond his control. He is looking for aggressive action by those in authority who hold the key to the solution of his problems. Is it too much for him to expect that this government will quit vacillating and give some aggressive leadership in providing the solutions to the problems I have outlined.
I have quoted figures related to marketing in order to show how difficult it is for the farmer to resolve his problem of growing indebtedness and cash shortage with a delivery quota of only five or six bushels at the most. Even his repayment of cash advances will be difficult. Despite all this, the minister rose in the House on November 18 and announced a curtailment in federal farm production programs, the phasing out of three experimental farms and a general cutback within his department of assistance programs. This only means that the government, in trying to sell its phony austerity program to the people, has picked agriculture as the most vulnerable scapegoat in order to reduce its research programs, withdraw its services to the farming communities and reduce even its meagre cash outlay to the 4H clubs where thousands of young Canadians are being taught good citizenship through a largely volunteer teaching program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are glad that the minister has been able to persuade the government to recognize, even to the extent of the provision of this bill, that western Canada faces problems the solutions of which depend to a large extent on the actions of this governement. I know that the minister, as a westerner, has been aware of these problems ever since he assumed responsibility for his portfolio. Is it too much to expect that the government, having taken this first hesitant step, will begin to show some leadership in this regard and develop programs that will allow the rural areas of this nation to participate in the so-called just society.
December 5, 1969


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, may I first express my deep appreciation to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley who permitted me to speak in his place. He was to have spoken at this time but because I have to attend the funeral of Mr. Andy Fairnie who for fifty years was a valued servant of the Crown and to members of this House. The hon. member very kindly agreed that I might have the opportunity to attend that funeral, and I appreciate very much his courtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This legislation naturally receives our support. I think that the hon. member for Lisgar covered the situation exceptionally well in his speech. Having a wide knowledge of farming and having held a high position within his province in the agricultural field, the hon. member has spoken with that ability which experience has enabled him to do.
We support this legislation. The administration which I had the honour of leading as Prime Minister supported the idea of legislation involving cash advances. For many years while in opposition we tried to have it brought in, but the government said it could not be done. What was regarded as heresy when first introduced by the administration in 1957 has now become orthodoxy and a means whereby assistance is to be made available to the western farmer. Repentance is always appreciated, however long delayed. The situation on the prairies is very serious. In the province of Saskatchewan the crop on almost 1 million acres is unthreshed. Those farmers find themselves in a disastrous position.
On December 2, as reported at page 1479 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt. By reason of the widespread criticism at the Liberal convention which the hon. member attended in Saskatchewan concerning sales of wheat and also box car manipulation as it was described, rather than distribution, is the minister now in a position, having had the benefit of the general viewpoint of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan at that convention, to agree-
Mr. Speaker said, "Order, please," and I said that there should be an investigation. Mr. Speaker said that he objected to the form of the question, and I said that I did not know how to bring the matter to the minister's attention except by telling him what took place. The minister's reply, in part, was as follows:
DEBATES	1647
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
-I am glad the right hon. member described the convention in some detail because I certainly would not have recognized it from the start of his question.
Apparently the minister does not read the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix because, in dealing with the convention, it had this to say on November 29. The top line of the heading over the article is, "Wheat Board under fire". The article reads in part:
The Canadian Wheat Board-and indirectly Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Otto Lang, minister in charge-took it on the chin again Friday from Saskatchewan farmers.
This time the punches came from delegates at the Saskatchewan Liberal Association's panel discussion on wheat. They covered the field from the wheat board and box car shortage to sagging international sales, in an attempt to pin down the reasons for the current wheat sales crisis in Saskatchewan.
Delegates condemned the wheat board for everything from failing to campaign for exports actively enough, to its structure, stopping just short of advocating its abolition-
Apparently the hon. members who were present told the minister and the Minister of Agriculture exactly what we have been endeavouring to say for some time. The minister, I know, is most desirous of doing his best, having been of the opinion over the years that eastern Canada does not understand the agricultural problems of western Canada. He felt the Easterners had to be educated. I have never found that, but that was his view. He said that eastern Canada did not understand or realize the situation of the western farmer. That was his view in 1968. Now that he has occupied the treasury benches for some time, I am sure there is nothing that has happened to change his opinion. This government has simply forgotten the western farmer.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I want to be fair to the minister. I have before me a letter that he wrote to his constituents during the course of the campaign. I am not going to read it all, but I am sure the minister will want to have recalled to him the expression of his views during that campaign.


Otto Emil Lang: Read it all.


John George Diefenbaker: It reads:
First of all let me emphasize that I am above all my own man.
I am beginning to think he is the only one in the government who has views on behalf of western Canada, so I interpret that accordingly and correctly. I continue:
1648

December 5, 1969
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
I will fight for causes which are right whatever the price; I will not bow down before power or influence. I may come back battered and tom but the fight is important and with your encouragement and support it can be won.
I can imagine the minister in the cabinet, battered and torn, trying to do something on behalf of western Canada and finding himself up against an impossible wall. I read on:
Reason is my business and I will listen to all of your arguments and your ideas. I will be your advocate for good causes.
I like those words. I suggest the minister should get behind us and the stand we are trying to take. He should bring into effect acreage payments which is something for which the farmers of western Canada are asking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


John George Diefenbaker: See if you can convert the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Impossible!


John George Diefenbaker: About all western Canada ever gets from him is a bow. See what you can do. Let me read on:
I will be your advocate for good causes. The special arguments for a fair deal for agriculture have never been understood in eastern Canada. As your member I would campaign in the streets of Ontario and Quebec as well as with parliament and cabinet to show these people what justice for agriculture means.
I know the minister is bona fide in his determination. I suggest he should get behind some of the ideas that are being put forward for the benefit of western Canada, and in particular agriculture.
They have never understood.
That statement refers to the people of Ontario and Quebec.
They think we want subsidies or welfare. They must learn that simple justice demands a better deal for the farmer and fixed income groups. These people have no control over their incomes but buy goods in a world where most prices are fixed to assure the supplier a good income. We have given these suppliers control over their prices but we have done nothing to protect the farmer and pensioner. Correcting this wrong will be my first priority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was applause from some of the minister's colleagues. I only hope the minister can convert them because up to the present time they have shown no sign of doing anything. Nothing effective has been done since the month of June, 1968 to help

the serious situation in western Canada. I am glad to have that declaration of independence on the part of the minister. I am glad to learn of the resounding words in which he is going to speak out. I would like to see him start. I read his speeches. They are well put together; his diction is perfection itself, but what action is there in the end? What does the heading say? "Action Lang".
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should go to work now and start parading the streets of Ontario and Quebec. But before he does that, he should start on the cabinet to see if he can get some action concerning this serious situation which has never been equalled, not only in western Canada but Canada as a whole. One and a half billion bushels of grain are piled up. What has occurred in consequence of that pile-up is that the pipelines are entirely or virtually closed. We have to get the wheat out of the line elevators. We have to clear the pipelines. That means some tremendous action must be taken, otherwise the farmers cannot sell their wheat. There is no opportunity of moving it, no matter what the transportation facilities might be.
I suggest the government must take effective means without delay to bring about in western Canada a storage system similar to that in the United States and construct what are called Butler bins. They are made of metal and hold up to 50,000 bushels each. The government will have to make available in western Canada, for the assistance of western farmers, facilities of that kind in order to clear the pipeline so there will be available space.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Lisgar dealt with certain phases of statistics. The minister, in one of his recent releases dated December 1, warned that farmers may have to reduce wheat acreage. He stressed that, through the efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board, Canada has maintained its share of the world market in the face of stiff international competition. That is the story that is being told all over western Canada. It is not true. That is simple and unadulterated fiction for political purposes.
I intend to place on the record the situation with respect to Canada's share of world trade, specifically restricting it to wheat, unless the House wishes to know the record so far as
December 5, 1969	COMMONS
oats and barley are concerned, since 1957-58. In the first year that we were in office, Canada increased her percentage from the preceding year, and equalled the year 195556, with 30 per cent of the world market. In 1962-63, the last year that we were in office, the amount had gone down. For 1963-64, following the last year we were in office, the percentage was 29 per cent. In 1964-65, it was 22 per cent; 1965-66, 27 per cent and the same in 1966-67. When the minister says nothing has happened, that we have maintained Canada's share of the world market, that statement has no basis in fact. For 1968-69, Canada's share had fallen to 19 per cent; 1967-68 and 1968-69 were the same.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
In other words, we are losing our share of the world market. This can only be the result of the failure of the government to get behind the Wheat Board. In order to keep the record clear-I have given all the statistics-I will take oats. In our first year, we had 23 per cent of the world's trade. In 1967-68, it was 5 per cent; in 1968-69, it was 4 per cent; practically gone. No amount of fictional discussion on the part of the minister can answer those statistics. They are from the FAO world grain statistics and also from the publication, "Canadian Exports, Wheat, Oats and Barley". We would not be in the position we are today if the minister had carried out the intention he expressed during the course of the election when he said there was a disinterest in the situation in western Canada which he intended to rectify.
What about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? He has an affable way of saying nothing. He never did a more effective job than on December 4 when I asked him a very simple question having to do with the European Common Market. If Canada's exports are not protected by the United Kingdom we shall suffer seriously. In 1960-61 we received an assurance from the MacMillan government that Britain would not enter the Common Market if the result would be detrimental to agriculture in the Commonwealth. After all, the Commonwealth must be upheld. This was the attitude of the government of that day.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the question and I will read the answer. What part of it would the minister like me to read?
DEBATES	1649
Proposed Payments jor 1969-70 Grain Crop


Jean-Luc Pepin: The question asked whether Canada's wheat exports and so on would be "as far as possible protected and assured before entry into the European Common Market would be acceptable to the United Kingdom".


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I can read. I asked:
With the admission of Great Britain to the European Common Market, will Canada, Australia and New Zealand he reasonably protected by assurance of the British government against a serious diminution in the amount of their exports of agricultural and other products to the United Kingdom.
About nine lines later in the record, the minister said:
The British government has assured us of its readiness to keep us informed as developments occur in the present round of negotiations.
The question did not ask whether Canada was being kept informed. It was: Have you secured an undertaking? Have you tried? The answer is that hon. gentlemen opposite have not tried, or, at least, they had not tried up to the day before yesterday. If they have done so in the last two days, that is their first effort. The minister went on to say:
We expect that the U.K. and ECM, both important trading partners with Canada, will take Canada's interests into account. As a matter of fact, we hope the entry of the U.K. will mark a further liberalization of EEC policies especially with respect to agricultural products and non-tariff barriers.
There is no basis whatever for that statement. It is simply an expression of a pious hope which cannot be achieved. I again come back to the question I raised earlier.
Will the minister now answer the question whether or not the United Kingdom has given any assurance similar to the assurance given by the MacMillan government in 1960 and 1961 that if Great Britain entered the European Common Market Canada's wheat exports, as well as agricultural exports from other parts of the Commonwealth would be, as far as possible, protected and assured before entry into the European Common Market would be acceptable to the United Kingdom?
What was the minister's answer?
That could be, in my view, a denial of the postulate accepted by the right hon. gentleman, which is the right of England to go its own way. However, I would think that in its own interests the United Kingdom would be mindful of our interests.
Mr. Chairman, there never was in six lines more nonsense encompassed.


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.
1650	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you very much. I shall conclude immediately.
First, we are not protecting our agricultural situation by any protest in advance of any agreement with the Wilson government. Second, this government showed its complete disinterest in the wheat situation in connection with its pell-mell rush to recognize communist China. When I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs, during the progress of the perambulating discussions which were taking place in Stockholm and elsewhere-we were running after the communists and saying "Please, we want to join"- what was the quid pro quo, whether we would get anything out of it, whether we were asking for markets for our wheat, the answer was: We are not discussing wheat at all.
This illustrates exactly what I have in mind, first in connection with the European Common Market and, second, in regard to this determination to recognize communist China. There is no endeavour on the part of this government, and there has been none, to protect our wheat markets. The time has come for the minister, with the determination which is present in every line of his immortal declaration in June of 1968, to speak to this cabinet with the same authority. Let him not start walking on the streets of Ontario and Quebec. He should tell the cabinet he wants some action out in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Thomson:: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to state that this party supports the principle behind this cash advance legislation. We feel there is an obvious need for some additional cash to be put in the hands of the farmers. Since the farmers must operate in an uncontrolled environment, particularly in some sections of the prairies, and since they cannot control prices and the cost of
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	December 5, 1969
operating their farms-at the present time they are not able to make up their loss by increasing their volume of sales-it is essential just to keep them in business that they receive some cash immediately to carry them over on a short term basis until something further can be done to improve their situation.
With regard to the situation on the prairies as I see it, I should like to emphasize that while a cash advance is a beneficial measure for the government to enact, we are really only postponing the inevitable. The day of reckoning will come. What is really required are larger grain sales or some other way of injecting cash into the prairie economy. In this regard, I am aware that the government is hoping that something will emerge to get them off the hook, so to speak.
However, may I suggest to the Minister without Portfolio that he take a serious look at what might happen if sales do not increase or the situation is not taken in hand. I am sure the minister is aware that the economy is in trouble, even without these cash advances, and if sales are not obtained we will be in worse trouble. I am not hoping that the government or the minister will be embarrassed as a result, but as a farmer from the prairies I am hoping that markets for grain will be found so as to solve the problems of the farmers in that area. If anything can be done, either to increase grain sales or to enable farmers to switch to some other type of farming operation then I would be in favour of it.
I should like to discuss for a moment the change that has gradually come about in the attitude of several governments in Canada. At one time there was no such thing as a cash advance to farmers. There was then introduced legislation enabling them to obtain loans from the bank at a certain rate of interest. Then the government passed legislation to provide a $3,000 advance interest free, and this amount has now been increased to $6,000. We now have this legislation to advance cash on unthreshed grain. I do not think these several measures conformed to any consistent, over-all plan; like Topsy, they "just growed".
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
While I agree that each of these steps is essential I feel a little uneasy about amendment being piled on amendment without any over-all approach to a solution or program. This government is involved in a number of advances or loans in various forms to the
December 5, 1969
agricultural industry or farmers. These are in the form of guaranteed loans, payments through the Farm Credit Corporation or cash advances. I wonder whether some farmers realize the awkward situation this brings about in respect of proper loan management or adequate sales. I would think this government should take some over-all responsibility by taking a new look at the agricultural policy in an effort to determine where the responsibility of the government lies, where the responsibility of the grain industry lies or where the responsibility of the individual farmer lies. In other words, the government should determine where these three areas of responsibility start and stop.
We feel that the involvement of the government and the farmers of Canada in the GATT agreement is not to the advantage of the Canadian grain industry. I respectfully suggest to the minister that the interests of the primary grains producers in Canada were sacrificed for the interests of those who produce manufactured products. I suggest it is proper that a member from western Canada should have some concern about this. The grain industry has suffered rather than benefited as a result of all the hoopla suggested by the government with regard to the proposed GATT agreement.
Some little time ago, I suggested to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance that we could do with some organization in so far as the handling of grain is concerned. I mentioned, for example, that there were demands at the Lakehead for flax and there was no flax there. Last winter grain sales were available at the west coast and there was no grain there.
I suggest that some better organization within the government departments or on the part of the people who actually handle and manage this grain would be beneficial not only to the grain handlers themselves but to the farmers and the economy of Canada as a whole. I believe the government could be saved considerable political embarrassment if these problems were solved beforehand instead of afterward. I think, too, the farmers would like to know where they stand within the agricultural economy and what is expected of an individual farmer or small businessman within the Canadian economy. Obviously, he cannot go out and sell in the world markets in competition with the governments of other countries. When our Prime Minister stands up in Winnipeg and says, "Why should I sell grain", I suggest this shows that the
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop Prime Minister does not understand the problem in respect of world markets today. It is time someone told him about the actual problem of disposing of grain and grain sales in the world markets. As a farmer, I feel indignant about this. I also feel indignant about it as a representative of the area. I think the same situation is true in respect of any other small business which tries to sell on an international market.
The minister has suggested he intends to look into the question of the improper movement of grains eastward in Canada. In the Star Phoenix for Wednesday, December 3, he is quoted as saying that he will look into reports of improper movement of western feed grains to eastern Canada. I suggest that he look into the matter of the improper movement of feed grains within western Canada as well, because I suggest the government has winked its eye at the transfer of grains across the borders of the three prairie provinces. If it is not a good thing that this grain should move back and forth, then let us police it in order to see that this is not done. If it is a good thing, then let us change the law rather than have the government wink its eye at the infractions.
The Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt indicated he would like to be able to say to the farmers in the spring what crops they should grow. He is studying this matter. I should like to make some suggestions to the minister. I would suggest, for example, that the government say to the farmers that it will accept several million bushels of rapeseed over and above the normal public demand, and that it will be prepared to withhold this from the commercial market if there should be a surplus. I suggest the government also say this in connection with several million bushels of flax seed and Durum wheat. A number of times in my farming experience there have been occasions when, because of a market or production collapse in some other countries, we have been able to dispose of several million extra bushels beyond our expectations. For this reason let us have more alternatives. Let us have a supply of the various different grains on hand, but let us not ruin the normal commercial market.
It is better to carry a little extra supply of rapeseed, flax or Durum wheat than to have all our surplus in the form of one type of grain. 1 have one further suggestion for the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt. I believe there should be a little more promotion in

1652	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop respect of the sale of grain. Since next year is Expo year in Japan, I suggest that Canada should have an exhibit something similar to the one the Doukhobors had at Saskatoon. This exhibit showed flour actually being made into bread, then the bread is sold for, say, ten cents a slice, perhaps with honey or jam on it. This has been done in Saskatoon where the people are accustomed to the homemade style of bread. In an area of the world where we are trying to promote new sales, I would think an exhibit of this type might be beneficial in encouraging the growth of our wheat market. It might encourage people to eat bread instead of rice or some other product. I should like the minister to seriously consider something of this nature for our Canadian exhibit in Japan in 1970.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley yielded to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, we are perfectly willing that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville carry on the debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take perhaps 10 or 15 minutes to say a few words in this debate. First of all, I wish to say that I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley who has been involved with farming organizations much longer than I. I find that in my constituency there really is not too much unthreshed grain at the present time, although there are certain small pockets where the farmers do have unthreshed grain. In general, I suppose, only about 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the grain in my constituency would not be threshed at the present moment. This is partly because of what the minister said at the outset of the debate this morning. We have had some fairly good weather in the last month or so and many people, even in the last couple of weeks, have been able to store their grain. But, as was stated already in the House this morning, almost one million acres of grain across the prairies or in Saskatchewan has not yet been threshed. Most of it, of course, is in the most northerly part of the province.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
So I am very happy, at the outset of my speech, to lend my support to this bill. I hope that it will be passed expeditiously, so that the farmers who are in this unfortunate position can obtain some cash as soon as possible to meet some very pressing financial needs.

DEBATES	December 5. 1969
The purpose of the bill is to authorize provisional payments for the 1969-70 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces. I think that the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley has already briefly traced the history of this type of legislation by which the minister is helping a number of people in the prairies, and I must commend him for that. We can remember the time when there were no advance payments at all for western farmers. Then, there was an advance payment up to a maximum of $3,000, which was later increased to $6,000 and today we have a bill before us which authorizes advance payments to farmers with unthreshed grain. Under the bill I believe that a farmer can claim up to half of his acreage, regardless of the quality of the grain, and there is a maximum of $3,000 per farmer. The bill says that a farmer can collect up to $1 a bushel on wheat, up to 40 cents a bushel on oats, and I believe that the limit on barley is 70 cents.
While I am on my feet, I cannot help but underline some of the things that have been mentioned by one or two speakers this morning and this afternoon. If we think that cash advances alone will really solve the problem, we are putting off the inevitable and we are disregarding some of the things that will happen. I spent a couple of days last month touring my constituency during which time I was able to get out to many small towns and talk to many of the farmers there. All the stories they told me were pretty well the same. Most of them are faced with severe financial problems which affect not only the farmers but many of the small businessmen, and indeed practically everyone in the prairie region.
I think the minister himself is aware of this situation. The right hon. member for Prince Albert reminded the minister once again this morning of the response he received at the Saskatchewan Liberal convention from many of his fellow Liberals in the province of Saskatchewan. It is not very often that I find myself agreeing with the premier of Saskatchewan, but I think even he is realizing that there are many problems with which the federal government has not been able to cope during their term of office so far. The right hon. member for Prince Albert also spoke about a letter that the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt had sent out to his constituents just before the election in 1968. In that letter he stated a few things which I think were very interesting. He said
December 5, 19G9	COMMONS
that many people in eastern Canada do not really understand the problems which confront the people in the west, particularly with reference to agriculture. He said that he is going to change this and that he, as an individual, will do his utmost to do something about it. He said he was prepared to walk down the streets of Quebec and Ontario in an attempt to change the attitude of people in the east. If I knew this would help I, myself, would walk down the streets with the minister. I am sure many more on this side of the House would join him also.
There is a point that should be taken seriously, and that is that there is a real misunderstanding among many people in eastern Canada, particularly in the cities, of what is happening in western Canada today. Many people think that farmers there are actually fairly wealthy, perhaps because they do have a lot of money tied up in a farming operation of one kind or another. To illustrate this perhaps I can refer to a letter which I received from an elderly gentleman in Windsor last year. This person was writing me a letter after one or two farm debates in the House. He was quite sincere when he said that he had been told that about 85 per cent of Saskatchewan farmers are so well off they go to California or Florida every winter. He wrote that he did not believe this, but he does know that at least 50 per cent of them are sufficiently well off to go to California or Florida in the winter.
As anyone knows, this is just not the case. Of course all of us who are from the west can easily vouch for that fact. But this statement does indicate some of the misunderstandings that many people have of the type of problem with which the farmer finds himself confronted today. As I said, cash advances help to alleviate the immediate problem of many of these people, but they are not the only solution or the only answer. Many people seem to believe that when the government gives out cash advances they are giving the farmers money. This is not the case. Those are just advances on the money that the farmers will obtain once they sell their grain, following which these loans will be repaid.
Perhaps I can spend one or two minutes going into some of the things that are happening out west so that some hon. members may understand more readily why the situation is serious, and why it will become more and more serious in the near future. I think there is no doubt that conditions are going
DEBATES	1653
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop from bad to worse and that farmers have their backs to the wall. For example, in 196869 Saskatchewan farmers were able to market on the average less than five bushels of wheat per acre. At this rate, even the most efficient of farmers cannot hope to begin to meet his production costs. Many farmers say that the average production cost per acre in Saskatchewan, when you take everything into consideration, is about $21 per acre. Meanwhile, the average income per acre in the last year was $8.09. So the cost was $21, and the income was $8. As you can see, not even the most efficient farmer can hope to meet expenses when conditions are this difficult for them.
This situation does not only affect farmers. As I said at the outset, it affects almost everyone in Saskatchewan. All you have to do is to go to any small town in Saskatchewan and talk to people on the main streets, people who own businesses. First, you will notice that farm machinery dealers are going bankrupt or are pulling out in many of the small towns across the prairies. I believe that last year farm machinery sales were down by over 20 per cent in the province of Saskatchewan. I know that housing starts were down by 20 per cent in the province. So, the situation affects everyone because, regardless of what you do when you live in a province such as Saskatchewan and particularly in an area such as mine, you are indirectly affected by everything that affects farmers. Your own welfare is directly correlated to that of the farmers.
We may ask ourselves whether the government is aware of what is happening in the west today. I maintain they are. There are three ministers from western Canada in the cabinet: the minister who is presenting the bill before us, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Supply and Services. In addition, all three provincial governments in the prairies have made representations to the federal government, and once again this was done at the recent Liberal convention in Saskatchewan a week or two ago. Then, too, opposition parties in this House have been asking the government questions every second day and have been offering them ideas as well as bringing the situation to their attention. This has not only been done by the opposition parties. I know that many government members, such as the hon. member for Assiniboia, have been drawing the government's attention to problems facing people in western Canada.
December 5, 1969

Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop [DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Perhaps even more important is the fact that, many farm organizations have presented briefs and have met members of the cabinet and members of the government party. I am referring here to the National Farmers' Union and its provincial members. I am talking about the Wheat Pool. I am talking about the Federation of Agriculture and other agricultural organizations across the country. All of us remember that the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which was composed of members of all political parties, made a tour of the west last session. The Committee members talked to the people and toured the farms. They heard briefs. Then, the Committee made a number of recommendations, many of which I believe hon. members have said have been ignored by the government.
Now, we can say that the government is certainly aware of what is happening in western Canada. Last July the Prime Minister went to Regina and Saskatoon to, in his own words, find out what was going on and to hear from the farmers themselves what their problems were. I think he found out. What happened in Saskatchewan last July may only be the beginning if something is not done, and done immediately, to alleviate the crisis facing western agriculture. I suggest that the government has done very little. I support the bill before us today to provide cash advances, but this serves only a very limited purpose. We must get some money into the western economy as soon as possible. We must sell grain. We must move the grain we do have as fast as possible, and store as much as possible in terminals and elevators so that the farmers can have some cash in their pockets as soon as possible.
I know that during the last two or three days the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has been trying to get some answers from the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt on the storage of grain. He has been asking questions about the National Harbours Board terminal, No. 2, in Vancouver. He has been asking why it has been empty for about a year. From the information in our possession, we know that if the terminal were repaired it could be used for the storage of grain, for the loading and unloading of grain. It could be used for the storage of rapeseed, flax, and certain grades of wheat. I believe it could be repaired quite cheaply. I believe this must be done, because it would be very irresponsible not to do all that is pos-

sible to get as much grain as possible off the farms. When the minister is replying I hope he can offer us a few comments on this National Harbours Board terminal in Vancouver, and tell us what the situation is right now as well as what the government intends to do about it. I believe the capacity of this terminal is 1,200,000 bushels. It is sitting there empty. If we can fix it up and store grain in it, this would be much appreciated by the farmers in western Canada.
Another point I would like to discuss with the minister at this time, and I do so once again because I think it would lessen the need for cash advances or maybe help farmers repay some of the advances they are going to get, is the proposal put forward in a resolution passed just last week-end in Saskatoon by the Farmers Union of the province of Saskatchewan. They suggested a moratorium on the repayment of many types of farm debts, debts owing to the Farm Credit Corporation, and Farm Improvement Loans. Such a moratorium would provide legal authorization to defer repayments. I am not sure how long repayments should be deferred. This is something we cannot decide at the present time, but we should do it for perhaps a year or two, at least until the farmers in western Canada do have some grain that can be sold. I suggest to the minister that the government should seriously consider imposing a moratorium on both interest rates and loans for a certain period of time. If this is not done, and grain is not sold so that cash will be put into the western economy, many farmers will go bankrupt. I do not think I am exaggerating the case. I hear this story all the time as I travel through my constituency.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, summing up as quickly as I can, I think the government must realize it has to make a number of radical changes in its attitude toward agriculture generally. The farmer must have some guarantee of the price he is going to get for his commodity. He must have a better idea of what he can produce and sell. The farmer's income is constantly fluctuating. He never knows what he is going to get for a product, or how much it will cost him to produce a product. He never knows what to produce and, in part, the fault for this situation lies with the federal government. I think we can safely say that the farmer has been led astray many times on the question of whether he should grow wheat or other grains. The Prime Minister, when he was campaigning in Winnipeg in June, 1968, told the farmers that
December 5, 1969	COMMONS
they should grow as much wheat as they possibly could because the government would sell it. But a few months later, also in Winnipeg, he asked them, "Why should I sell your grain? I cannot do it. After all, I am only the Prime Minister of this country." I, for one, cannot tolerate this type of irresponsibility on the part of somebody who holds the position of Prime Minister of this country. Apart from all this, we must do a number of new things to try to keep farm costs down, costs that have been going up by leaps and bounds during the last four or five years.
In summation, Mr. Chairman, the situation is very serious and I hope that in some way over the next few months I can re-emphasize this as strongly as possible. I think the type of thing we saw in Saskatchewan last July is only the beginning of something that is going to become much worse unless the government does something. Cash advances are helping right now, but they are just a housekeeping measure and will not solve the problem. When the minister replies I hope he will comment on one or two of the suggestions I have put forward this afternoon. With that, Mr. Chairman, I resume my seat, and ask members of the House to pass this bill as quickly as possible so that we can get a little cash into the hands of some farmers who were not able to harvest their grain this fall.


Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly on this bill. I believe it is a good bill, the provisions of which will be of great benefit to those unfortunate farmers who have been able to harvest little or no grain this fall. Some time ago I suggested to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that it would not be necessary to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and that it would be preferable, in the interests of speedy action, to have it dealt with as rapidly as possible in the House of Commons itself. I am glad that this is the procedure that has been adopted.
I was hoping this measure could have taken the form of permanent legislation which would be available any year in the future when a similar need might develop. However, we farmers are eternal optimists, and we can always hope that we will not soon have a repetition of the adverse harvest weather experienced in many parts of the prairies this fall. As the minister pointed out, there has been some harvesting done in western
DEBATES	1655
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop Canada in the past few days because of unusually good weather, which saw new records set for high temperatures at various localities in recent days.
I was also hoping that there would have been an amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act to take care of an anomaly that has developed as a result of the deferred delivery plan. Those unfortunate farmers who were not given an opportunity to deliver the promised five-bushel quota during the crop year which ended last July 31 have been authorized to carry forward that quota and sell it this year. Many of those farmers had no outstanding cash advances on July 31, but because they desperately needed money they took cash advances after August 1. Now, when they deliver grain on their deferred authorizations, half of the proceeds are deducted to be applied in the new cash advances.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
If they had been treated equitably last summer they would have received the full amount for their grain. Now, they are being given further unfair treatment. Not only have these farmers had their income delayed several months, but they have had to accept an initial payment 20 cents less than they would have received last July. They have also been faced with a proportionately greater storage problem this fall than their more fortunate fellow farmers who were able to deliver their five bushels in 1968-69. Now they are encountering this further discrimination, and many of them are justifiably incensed. In the long run it will not make a great deal of difference, since all farmers hope to fully repay these advances, but with the present cash shortage it is a very significant item to those farmers affected. It is probably too late now to correct this inequity, but I hope the minister will take it into consideration.
My mail continues to be liberally sprinkled with letters complaining about unfair distribution of box cars for grain. Many of them are coming from farmers who are in the "block system" of box car control. These complaints bear out my previously stated contention that the "block system" was not designed to provide even distribution of box cars as between points and as between producers. Its main aim is to make more efficient use of our grain gathering, transporting, and handling systems, to the end that the right grain will be at the right place at the right time. This
1656	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop will better service our customers, and maximize our sales, wherein lies the main hope to revive our ailing grain industry.
I believe the "block system", which is designed to call forward only those grains in current demand, will leave thousands of farmers with little or no opportunity to deliver unwanted grain which they have as a result of weather and other conditions beyond their control. Therefore, I suggest that what is required soon is a massive extension of the cash advances system whereby farmers will be paid a large percentage of the value of an authorized quota of grain, whether or not they can deliver it, and whereby those farmers who are forced to retain the grain on the farm will be compensated for storing it. They should be paid for the full authorized quota with no arbitrary ceiling, except perhaps a hold-back of about 10 per cent of the value to insure delivery when the grain is required.
Speaking of quotas, I must say that there is much dissatisfaction with the operation of the quota system. This has been evident for many years, and I could produce correspondence I had with the Wheat Board in this regard several years ago. When the Wheat Board members appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture last spring, I suggested that the quota system needed revising. The Chief Commissioner agreed that it did, but showed no disposition at that time to go into the matter and apparently nothing was done. After the federal government appointed Mr. Charles Gibbings to the Wheat Board on July 1, 1969-a very commendable appointment in my opinion and in the opinion of every farmer I have talked with since-I sent my suggestions about quota revision to him. A few weeks later I was very pleased to have a reply from him indicating that the Wheat Board had set up an internal committee to review quota policy and recommend appropriate modifications. I look forward to the results of this study with great anticipation.
It is interesting to note how different people use statistics in different ways. The right hon. member for Prince Albert produced some statistics to show that the percentage of world wheat trade Canada has enjoyed, has varied from time to time. I believe that the total number of bushels sold is of more significance to farmers than percentages. According to figures published in the papers prepared for the Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference, which was held here in Ottawa last week, Canada's exports of wheat in the five-year

DEBATES	December 5, 1969
period 1958-1962, the Diefenbaker-Hamilton years, averaged 315.7 million bushels per year. In the next five years, 1963-1967 wheat exports averaged 483.2 million bushels per year, up over 50 per cent. During the past two crop years, which ended on July 31, 1968 and July 31, 1969, Canada's wheat exports averaged 320.6 million bushels, a little higher than the period from 1958 to 1962. I will agree those figures are far from satisfactory but, as all hon. members know, there is some prospect of improvement, certainly over the longer term. The efforts of the Canada Grains Council, and the new grains group under the direction of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, which he announced in a press conference this morning, will soon pay off in greater wheat sales, and better management of our grain economy generally, I am sure.
Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment but briefly on two more items. First, some opposition spokesmen have been critical of the government because the legislation was not presented earlier. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in a similar situation ten years ago, but under the government headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, legislation to authorize cash advances on unthreshed grain was not passed by Parliament until January of the following year.
Second, I want to correct the false impression the right hon. member for Prince Albert tried to leave about what happened at the Saskatchewan Liberal convention last week in Saskatoon. It is true that a small number of delegates complained about some operations and decisions of the Wheat Board. This is not unusual, because farmers have complained about various aspects of the Wheat Board operation for years. This is very understandable because of the all-pervading influence of the Wheat Board on almost every farmer. Regulations developed for general application do not always meet the desires of all farmers everywhere. It would be strange indeed if every one was completely satisfied with the operation of that Board. The important thing is that when a lengthy resolution, critical of the Wheat Board, was presented to the full convention, it was enthusiastically and almost unanimously turned down by the delegates, after a spirited defence of the Wheat Board by the federal Minister of Agriculture.
As I said in a previous speech during this session, the Liberal party is fully committed to the Wheat Board system of orderly mar-
December 5, 1969	COMMONS
keting, and we are developing plans to improve it and make it even more satisfactory to the farmers concerned. I could talk about a wide variety of other subjects, as some of the other speakers have done, but I have tried to confine my remarks to arguments raised by previous speakers, and to questions related to Bill C-157, the Prairie Grain Provisional Payments Act. I hope it is passed this afternoon, and that it will be quickly brought into operation.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the odd balls.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, it is not only my privilege but my duty to rise at this time to present my views on Bill C-157, an act to authorize provisional payments for the 196970 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces. I was happy to join with other members and parties in the House to send this bill directly to the committee of the whole house, rather than the Standing Committee on Agriculture, in order to speed up its passage and provide some emergency help for hard-pressed prairie farmers.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I must hasten to say that I am pleased the government has finally decided, after many strong recommendations by the opposition, to move at least in some small way towards bringing some assistance to our hard-pressed western farmers. I suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, that the benefit from Bill C-157 is still only crumbs from the master's table.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Lisgar for so effectively and forcefully placing the position of the western farmer before this government. Of course, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, in his own logical and inimitable way, pinpointed the economic problem of western farmers. This, of course, is the lack of grain sales over the past two years. He quoted statistics to prove his point and his advice to the hon. minister from Sas-katoon-Humboldt was very interesting. I must compliment the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt for the very worthwhile and practical proposal which he espoused so effectively to his constituents in the election of 1968. I only hope he takes the advice of the right hon. member for Prince Albert and, instead of worrying too much about the people of Quebec and Ontario, impresses on his cabinet colleagues the seriousness of the situation in western Canada.
DEBATES	1657
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I felt sorry for the minister representing Saskatoon-Humboldt, because his reception at the Liberal party convention in Saskatchewan was not one that a Liberal minister might expect. Party members took strong objection to some of his remarks respecting proposed legislation and, more particularly, to statements about the white paper on taxation. It has been strongly stressed in this House that if legislation is based on the white paper in its present form, we shall see little to enhance the economic well being of those in western Canada. Although the minister is academically well qualified, he is a relative newcomer to the political field and ought to heed the advice of the hon. member for Prince Albert.
May I say that I support the position taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia who has just resumed his seat. I commend the stand he has taken in the House on several occasions when speaking on behalf of western farmers. While I hope he informs the minister representing Saskatoon-Humboldt of the needs of our prairie farmers, I nevertheless take exception to what he said about the right hon. member for Prince Albert with regard to passage of legislation similar to this. On a number of occasions in 1958 and 1959, when my party was in government, legislation which was to benefit not only western farmers but all the people of Canada as well was being discussed. On those occasions former members of the House like Senator Paul Martin, Mr. Chevrier and the hon. member, now a Senator, who represented the constituency of Assiniboia for the NDP put up the strongest possible opposition to the legislation and made every effort to prevent its passage. Nevertheless, we have agreed to co-operate with the government and to speed this bill through the House in order that this somewhat belated, but nevertheless reasonable, legislation may be instrumental in helping our hard-pressed farmers.
The government ought to adopt a suggestion that has been made many times in the House, particularly by members of the opposition, and provide an emergency acreage payment of at least $2 an acre, up to 400 acres. In the past, when this type of legislation has been enacted, the results have been beneficial in that the economic well-being of western farmers has been stimulated. That, in turn, has been reflected throughout the entire country.
1658	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in 1958 a situation similar to the one prevailing now obtained in western Canada. There was a major pile-up of grain on western farms. Not only farmers' bins and all elevators, but skating rinks as well were stocked to capacity with grain. Accordingly, a payment of $2 per acre was provided in 1958. In 1959 we had a major snow storm early in the fall, with the result that western farmers could not harvest their crops. A further acreage payment was provided at that time. Then, in 1961 we witnessed another of nature's vicissitudes when we experienced one of the worst droughts in Canada's history. A further acreage payment was provided, the total of the three acreage payments being altogether $325 million.
At present in western Canada there is want, so to speak, in a land of plenty. Our very successful farmers are sitting on huge grain surpluses for which there is no market. Those farmers have bills to pay which are almost double what they were 12 years ago. As a result of inflation in Canada, largely brought on by policies of the present government as well as by wage settlements that followed the Pearson formula, prices have risen to the extent that it costs a farmer double what it cost him 10 or 12 years ago to produce a bushel of grain. That is why I have suggested a payment of $2 an acre up to a maximum of 400 acres. The task force on agriculture recommended last spring that, in view of the pile-up of grain in the west, it would be better if we cut back on wheat growing or grain growing over the next ten years until the situation becomes stabilized. That may be good advice.
Nevertheless, it will be difficult for farmers to abandon crops yielding ready cash. To what will they turn? The raising of beef stock has been suggested. Also, it has been suggested that western farmers could raise pork as a temporary, emergency measure, in order to tide them overt these difficult times. Knowing something about the life cycle of pigs, I content that within a short period we should see over-production of pork. The long term answer to stabilizing our agricultural industry is for our farmers to diversify, and raise products like beef. Some say that if we do that, we should very soon see an overabundance of beef.
May I quote something that appeared in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Farm News of December 3. The document refers to a state-

DEBATES	December 5, 1969
ment by Mr. Boyd Anderson, President of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association. I quote:
Livestock producers in Saskatchewan have nothing to fear from over-production, according to the president of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, Boyd Anderson.
Mr. Anderson told delegates at the Saskatchewan Liberal Convention that the province could well afford a four or five per cent increase in livestock production. He said Saskatchewan's share of the market is small enough that no danger would be created.
Northern Alberta farmers will receive financial aid from the provincial government to help those in need ...
Apparently the Premier of Saskatchewan is so concerned about the serious conditions in Saskatchewan that he is prepared to provide, I think, about $3.5 million to assist farmers in developing livestock herds. It is all very well to ask farmers to switch over to cattle raising but, with prices being what they are, it still takes a minimum outlay of $10,000 to establish a farmer in this sort of operation. A farmer may have 10,000 or 15,000 bushels of grain on his farm, but it is difficult to convert the grain into cash. If the government wishes to help the agricultural industry to overcome its problems, it could do so by providing long term, low interest loans in addition to the types of loans being discussed today.
Many say that farmers ought to raise forage crops and that way raise the capital which will enable them to rear cows from calves. In any event, I suggest that the government should give very serious consideration to this problem. The provincial government of Saskatchewan has already demonstrated its interest, and its responsibility in this field is no lower than that of the federal government.
e (3:00 p.m.)
As everyone well knows, we must do everything we can for agriculture, the second major industry in this country, despite the fact that only 10 per cent of our population are directly, gainfully employed in it. There is no question that the economic well-being of this country is related to the welfare of the farmers. As I mentioned earlier, the pulp and paper industry is the major industry of this country, but agriculture is second in importance. Here is a great opportunity for the government to assist farmers to get back on their feet economically.
Another approach could be taken. We could insist that farmers reduce their acreage. As we know, farmers do everything they can to
December 5, 1969

help themselves; they are very resourceful and use their imagination and ingenuity at every turn. They took the advice of the task force and cut their acreage this spring by 10 or 12 per cent. They have had a good harvest but no sales, so they are in the same boat as they were in a year ago, as far as being economically viable is concerned.
It might be logical to suggest that we should have a premeditated, well organized plan of acreage reduction over the next ten years and that we should provide farmers with cash in this connection. It could be similar to the action taken a number of years ago in the United States when they found themselves in a surplus position and developed the land-bank principle. I think we could take the same approach, not so much by taking the acreage out of production but by having farmers into the livestock industry, which is viable.
I wish to stress once again an important fact that has been emphasized so often, that is, that we still have to put the main emphasis on the selling of grain. After all, there will still be large acreages of grains in the Regina plains and the major wheat growing areas of western Canada which will depend on the production of wheat, oats, barley and rape-seed. We will have to use imagination and resourcefulness to stimulate wheat sales. This matter has been discussed many times.
The International Grains Arrangement was the Magna Carta not only of Canadian farmers but of the farmers of the other wheat exporting nations of the world. We have been following with great interest the temporary lapse of the wheat agreement at Geneva in 1967 to see whether it can be put back on the rails. I hope that before too long the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will make an optimistic statement in the House stating that this international agreement is now stabilized and there will be no more price-cutting.
Our problem over the last two years has been that every time Canada has had an opportunity to make a sale, a bid has been made through the Canadian Wheat Board; the bid has apparently been placed in the hands of our competitors, who have been undercutting us. As a result, every country but Canada has made sales. I have always emphasized that we should adopt long-term, low interest credit sales for wheat. I think the minister has now agreed that this is a good policy. We should make an extensive effort to look for new markets.
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
This brings me to a suggestion I intended to make to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, but I have not yet had the opportunity to do so. Recently I was in Port of Spain, Trinidad, as a Canadian delegate to the 15th Annual Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. While there I met an industrialist with whom I had quite a lengthy visit. We discussed the economic situation in the West Indies and related it to Canada. We discussed the subject of wheat. The United States had got its foot in the door ahead of Canada and had established a milling company. It had provided the money and technological know-how for a flour mill, and followed through by selling wheat to the government of Trinidad in order to keep the flour mill operating. I found that the people in the West Indies have become so accustomed to using wheat in their bread industry that this mill provides only half the quantity of flour that is required. The result was that the people who own and operate the mill applied to double the capacity of the mill. They also wanted to increase the price of flour, but the government of Trinidad turned down the request.
I think if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was on the bit, he or his senior officials would go to Trinidad and arrange the financing of another mill in Trinidad or somewhere else in the West Indies. The information I have is that we could approximately double wheat sales to that area if this suggestion were adopted. It might only amount to four million or five million bushels the first year or two, but this is the type of action the government should be taking, not the approach it is now taking. The government should not follow the policy of the late C. D. Howe, that we grow the best wheat in the world and if they want it, let them come and get it. We are long past that stage. We are in a competitive world. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the area in which we must take an active approach in selling grain.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert was right on cue when he asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what action the government was taking with respect to England's entry into the European Common Market. Here again we have a very serious situation for Canada. As is well known, over the years England has been one of our best customers for wheat. If they are absorbed into the European Common Market without some safeguards for Commonwealth countries, our trade with other Commonwealth countries
1660	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop will suffer. I support the right hon. member for Prince Albert and emphasize the importance of the suggestion which he made this morning to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I could go on at great length, but I know the committee is interested in the passage of this bill and other hon. members want to contribute to the debate. With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I once again urge the government to take the advice offered by the opposition on this and other occasions and translate that advice into action.


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Sainl-Jean):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to contribute very briefly to the debate on Bill C-157, which will authorize the Canadian Wheat Board to make provisional payments to farmers who suffered from bad weather last fall.
If the information which I could collect in the press is accurate, it would seem that following snowstorms which swept down over the northern areas of the Prairies, close to 8 million acres where crops were ready to be harvested have been buried under snow, so that those crops will be recuperated next spring only.
The farmers who must suffer that loss are surely entitled to receive from their fellow Canadians and the House of Commons as well necessary assistance to cope with their financial difficulties.
Bill C-157 now before the House will certainly be passed rapidly, because it seems to meet with unanimous acceptance of members.
I think it would have been unfortunate if no spokesman for the East had supported the bill.
We heard some members say that representatives from eastern Canada were not too much interested in nor knew of the problems of western farmers. To a certain extent, it may be true that we are not aware of all the details, but I think the problems of western farmers resemble those that exist in the East, and I thought it advisable to take part in the debate, because I wanted to make our friends in the west understand that we are sincerely prepared to seek solutions, even temporary ones, to their difficulties, because we rely on their support and their understanding in the consideration and application of solutions to the problems of farmers in eastern Canada who are also numerous.
The Minister of Agriculture has recently announced that he will have to reduce the

DEBATES	December 5. 1969
dairy price support. It will not be easy to make the eastern dairy producers recognize the merits of that bill. But we must understand that we are now in a period of adjustment where production must adjust to consumption.
We have had for several years in Canada some surplus of wheat and feed grain. We have a surplus of dairy products, potatoes and many other products and the problem must be solved.
It is believed that soon the government will introduce a bill to create a new marketing body, a commission whose responsibility will be to control the production of eggs, for instance. Attempts are thus being made to straighten out agriculture in Canada.
Certain aspects of this bill leave me somewhat confused. It seems that no accurate figure has been given on the cost of establishing this commission.
When the minister speaks at the end of the debate, I would like him to say exactly how much money will be paid to farmers who will take advantage of this act, and to determine the term and the cost of these loans, since the government will have to pay interest to the Canadian Wheat Board because the bill only guarantees the loans which the Board will have to secure in order to make cash loans to farmers.
Studying the bill more closely, I would be inclined to think that the term of the loans will be about six months or a year.
In view of the number of acres under cultivation which seem to have been affected, and the production that this represents, it can be anticipated that $100 million will be advanced this way to farmers.
I can easily make a mistake, because on paper the forecasts as written down are not very accurate. If such is the case, this would mean that the government would have to pay between $8 to $10 million in interest, for the application of this legislation.
In short, if those figures are true, I would like the minister, when he rises at the end of this debate, to tell us in the most accurate way, even if this might prove to be difficult, how many farmers will avail themselves of the advantages of this legislation, and to what extent their production will have been affected. Under the act, a provisional payment made to a producer should not exceed $3,000. How many farmers will apply and how many of them for the maximum amount of $3,000? These are so many questions we cannot
December 5, 1969	COMMONS
answer at the moment. However, I would like the minister to give us some indications.
As for us, the eastern members, we stand by the government and the western farmers and we support this legislation which is only a temporary remedy, as we know, because it is not a permanent solution. We have much sympathy for the western farmers who have been facing major difficulties for several years.
If we are prepared to study their problems with sympathy, we want them to understand that the eastern farmers are also in a serious situation and that the government will also have to allocate some amounts of money to the eastern farmers as is done for the western farmers, and this is, in my opinion, quite justified.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all pleased to see provision made for cash advances in respect of unthreshed grain. Most of us realize that in our society today the so-called iron horses we use today are unlike the horses of yesteryear, to the extent that they must be fed with fuel which has to be paid for in cash. Cash must be provided if the oil dealer and the machinery supplier are to be paid. The Minister without Portfolio must be well aware that in the west today many fuel suppliers and machinery dealers are living in a state of near-bankruptcy, if they have not already gone bankrupt. Only through federal channels can provision be made for their remaining a viable part of our economy.
I was interested to learn that a week or so ago the hon. member for Assiniboia was addressing a Liberal convention in Saskatoon. I suppose that is a good place to address a Liberal convention. He referred to the opposition on that occasion as being "oddballs and screwballs". I can assure him that the only oddballs and screwballs are those who form the government of this country, which has screwed things up completely for the agricultural economy. The hon. member should realize that all the oddballs and screwballs happen to be on his side of the House. Let him read Hansard and pay attention to the recommendations which have been put forward by members of all the opposition parties in an attempt to spur the government into action to keep agriculture alive in this day and age.
DEBATES	1661
Proposed Payments -for 1969-70 Grain Crop
Somewhere along the line we must recognize that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada and we must act accordingly. The hon. member who has just spoken said he was pleased to support this bill, but he seemed in doubt as to whether or not it constituted a handout. I assure the hon. member that there is no handout and agriculture is a most important part of our industry and if Canada is to develop as it should, this fact must be recognized.
Not long ago one of the members on the government side, a former mayor of Toronto, appeared to be perturbed that so much of our time in the House of Commons was taken up in discussing wheat. He referred to the fact that 80 per cent of our people live in large urban centres. Well, if it was not for the 20 per cent located in rural areas, the 80 per cent in the urban centres would not exist.
Facts we have had before us show that 40 per cent of all Canadians are connected either directly or indirectly with agriculture. If this is not realized, and if proper steps are not taken to keep the industry in a viable state, the 80 per cent of our population who live in the cities will find themselves in a serious situation. We all know that the majority of our trucks and tractors are manufactured in eastern Canada. It will not be long before the economic setbacks experienced by farmers in the west have their effect on production in eastern Canada. It is only through legislation of this House can anything comprehensive be achieved as far as the protection of our basic industry is concerned.
We in Saskatchewan have heard some very irresponsible statements from the Saskatchewan Liberal government. Members of that government have made direct charges against the Canadian Wheat Board. I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt does not agree with those charges or with the premier of that province.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I should like to associate myself with the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt in his charge against the premier of Saskatchewan, who has tried to blame the Canadian Wheat Board for some of the problems we are now facing. I suggest that if the federal government were to take issue with the Canadian Wheat Board, nobody connected with agriculture from western Canada, or anywhere else for that matter, would be elected to the House of Commons. The Canadian Wheat Board is the only body in this country in which we can put our faith. I
1662	COMMONS DEBATES	December 5. 1969
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop have no hesitation in saying that it is doing a good job, and will continue to do so if only we give the Board the tools to do the job and have confidence in it. We should give the Board the personnel it requires to go out into the world and sell our grain.
I should like to say something about the cost of grain handling, a problem directly associated with the legislation before us. I suggest that some of the money we are providing under this bill could have been in the farmers' pockets if an over-all look had been taken at the system of grain handling at the ports. I understand it costs 17 cents a bushel to handle grain at terminal elevators. I also understand the charge is 3J cents a bushel at on-the-line delivery points, plus some additional handling costs.
In the reply that I hope the Minister without Portfolio will give today I would like him to tell the committee whether he will initiate an investigation into grain handling costs, because grain handling does cost agricultural producers a tremendous amount of money. If a complete investigation of our grain handling system is made, the farmer may be able to obtain a few more cents on the bushel. In my opinion, the middlemen are receiving far too much of the producers' income. I suggest that the initiation of such an investigation would help correct this serious situation.
Another point that was made in the House by my colleague the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and others relates to the use of terminal elevators at Vancouver. I should like to refer to one elevator, which I think could be called a private elevator, owned by the Cargill Grain Company of Baie Comeau, which we visited during the recent trip by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We found the elevator about half filled, and I am wondering whether the grain handling facilities now being used at Vancouver to handle rapeseed, flax, or whatever it is, are being fully utilized. This is another reason we should study our grain handling methods. Until this is done we cannot expect agricultural producers to have confidence in this government.
Cash advances are not really the answer, because they are really putting many of our agricultural producers in their graves. What we need is an effective program to sell grain, as I am sure the minister appreciates. We must ensure that the farmer receives a fair return on his cost of production. Many times we have suggested that consideration should be given to farmers who store grain on the
(Mr. Skoberg.j
farm. Surely it is not asking too much for the government to bring in a bill similar to this one to provide compensation to farmers for grain stored on the farm. The government relies on the producers to provide the grain for the export markets. Whether this grain is stored in terminal elevators or at delivery points is not really the issue. Grain is stored in bins on farms, but the farmers of western Canada are finding it increasingly difficult to raise the money to construct storage bins in which to keep the grain under cover.
The government must recognize that production of grain is a basic industry in this country. The government has responsibility for selling this grain on overseas markets. If the government is not prepared to recognize this fact, the farmers cannot be expected to have confidence in the legislation the government brings forward.
Another matter that was raised not too long ago, and about which a letter was written to the minister, relates to clause 5 of this bill, which deals with payments made to joint producers. In a letter dated October 10, addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, which was answered on November 25 by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, I referred to the man who owned two sections of land and had rented a quarter section of other land; if the landlord refused to sign the permit book, the owner of the two sections of land could not receive one nickel by way of a cash advance payment.
In my letter to the minister I stated that I thought it might be possible to implement a regulation that would give protection and at the same time provide the owner of the land with cash which would allow him to rent extra land parcels and make his unit economic and viable. Although the producer could not afford to buy extra land at today's prices, he might be able to rent it. But by so doing he would disbar himself from receiving a cash advance. The answer I received from the Minister without Portfolio, regarding the difficulty experienced in obtaining cash advances, reads as follows:
The difficulties you referred to arise, of course, from the necessity for applications from joint producers to bear the signatures of all interested parties. This is a problem which has cropped up over the years since the inception of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act in 1957. Unfortunately the problem cannot be resolved merely by a change in regulations of the Act. In each of the prairie provinces there is legislation governing the sale of grain in which more than one individual has an interest. Because of this legislation it is
December 5. 1969	COMMONS
essential that applications for cash advances bear the signatures of both the landlord and the tenant or any other interested parties.
He concluded with these words:
Until such time as the provincial legislation may be altered, this requirement will therefore continue to be necessary.
I bring this matter once again to the attention of the committee to underline the fact that the government of the province of Saskatchewan would like to lay all the blame for this situation at the feet of the federal government and the opposition members of this House, and not accept any of the responsibility as their own.
If the facts stated in this letter are correct-and I presume they are, otherwise the minister would not have written it-and provincial legislation does prevent producers taking advantage of cash advance payments of the type now being proposed, I suggest the federal and provincial governments get together and implement legislation or regulations to obviate this situation. It is not a case of just a few people being affected. I know of hundreds of cases where signatures cannot be obtained on permit books because people are out of the country. People seem to be frightened of this type of government legislation and will not sign the permit books. As a result, people who really need cash cannot obtain one nickel. I urge the Minister without Portfolio to communicate with the appropriate minister in Saskatchewan with a view to doing something to alleviate the situation confronting these farmers at the present time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They don't speak to each other.


John Leroy Skoberg: My hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre says that they are not speaking to each other, and I think he is correct. Many theories have been developed on the subject of diversification of farming operations- about what farmers in the west can do to get themselves out of a situation for which they are not really responsible. People who have no knowledge of agriculture are asking the farmers why they do not diversify their operations. When you ask the government how the farmers should diversify, you are met with absolute silence. The government does not know how they should diversify.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
When these people go to the government and ask whether they should grow another type of crop, in many cases the answer is that
DEBATES	1663
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop the land is not suitable for anything but grain. At least this is an answer, but it is not good enough. The government should take the initiative and tell the country which way it should move in so far as agricultural production is concerned. I am sure the people of the west are the most capable producers in this country. Agricultural people in general are quite prepared to accept advice if it is given to them in true and acceptable terms.
Not too long ago, Mr. Chairman-and you may not have heard this story-a federal minister went to Saskatchewan when there was a wheat surplus and suggested that the farmers grow trees. I do not know how he thought they would exist while these fir trees were being grown. This, however, was the suggestion made by a minister a few years ago to the agricultural people of western Canada.
There is another matter which should be looked into. Many departments of government are attempting to deal with this subject. An article appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 14, 1969, under the heading "Secretariat to form grains policy expected". The article refers to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are at variance concerning what the situation should be in respect of grain production. It refers to the rivalry between the grains divisions of the two departments. One paragraph in this article reads as follows:
Rivalry between the grains division of these two departments has retarded development of an over-all grains policy, and the creation of the secretariat is seen as an attempt to circumvent this.
I hope they will now realize there is still a need to have one department in charge of one facet of our economy, namely, agriculture. I hope the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture will work together, rather than apart, and that they will not try to pass the responsibility back and forth. I believe they should tell the people of this country where the government stands in respect of an agricultural program.
I have a large book upstairs. I am sure I will never have sufficient time to read all of it. I am not sure whether the agricultural producers in the rural areas of Canada, either east or west, will have time to read it or will even receive a copy of it. They may not even receive a news release in respect of it. Even the newspapers do not have all the inside information necessary to put them in the
December 5, 1969
1664	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop position of knowing positively the program of this government.
In a matter concerning a most important facet of our economy, such as agriculture, I would suggest to the government that it make available to the newspapers all the research, reports and consultant material at its disposal, so that farmers will know what the government is doing. It is impossible to expect any true type of program to evolve from the mishmash we now have. If the government is sincere in trying to co-ordinate its activities, I believe it still should consider the appointment of a transport controller. It is impossible to solve the problem when three ministers, the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport to all be involved in the movement of grain. If, as the Minister without Portfolio suggests, the Canadian Wheat Board is to perform the function of transport controller, we are giving them an added responsibility in trying to move grain rather than sell it. The movement and sale of grain represent two different avenues of approach in agriculture.
I ask the minister to realize it is very important that there be appointed a transport controller who would be directly responsible for the block system of movement of grain. Such a person would be able to see that it is moved and we would not have a situation similar to that of last year, when the elevators were full of grain which was required at Vancouver and the ships were leaving that port without grain to the detriment of the prairie farmers. I believe that only through a co-ordinated action can we hope to evolve a satisfactory situation.
I would like to see this bill pass today, and I realize that other members wish to speak. In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio to tell this House whether he is prepared to initiate an investigation into the complete cost of handling grain. I believe money is being taken from the pockets of the farmers and that only by such an investigation can the farmers have confidence in any agricultural legislation which may come before this House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, just as I was coming into the House at two o'clock I found myself in possession of a document entitled "Announcement re the establishment of a grains group under the honourable Otto E. Lang".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad hon. gentlemen opposite have at last found something they can applaud. This is a shocking example of the contempt which this government has for Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a day when he knew he would be introducing in this House a bill dealing with the question of cash advances on unthreshed grain, the minister called a press conference at 9.30 in the morning to which he invited those members of the press whom he thought might wish to attend. There he made this announcement. The minister knew he would be criticized and that the criticism would be justified, not because of this bill but because it does not accomplish what the farming community is entitled to expect from the government. In the knowledge that what the farmers want will not be forthcoming, and to divert the thunder and lightning of righteous indignation, the minister called a press conference and released a statement. He did not come into the House of Commons to make a statement on motions. This is just another shocking example of the way in which this government views the House of Commons and its operations.
I might well have risen on a point of privilege but we have not been doing too well on that score; therefore I thought it proper to bring this matter to the attention of the House so that even members on the government side will give the minister the reprimand he might expect. This is a very fascinating document. Five times during the course of this three-page document there is reference to "the group". It is like a musical group, Mr. Chairman. It is like a commercial in which one makes sure he gets the utmost usage of the words. We find that the group will provide a focus of effort. We find that it is now in operation. Then we see that it is to provide a focus for the development of policies and programs for the grain industry. Then we see the words, "I will act as chairman of the grains group". Again we find: "I have emphasized my role and the role of the grains group". The word "focus" appears four times.
I had a little time in which to look up the meaning of the word "focus". A good dictionary definition is "the point at which rays of light meet after reflection." I can visualize the minister meeting all his little rays of light after years of reflection and just before an
December 5, 1969	COMMONS
election saying, "We have met and considered". Then the hon. gentleman would probably publish another action letter such as the one to which my right hon. friend from Prince Albert referred in his speech earlier today. The fascinating thing is that there is more than one group. There is a grains council now meeting. It was intended that this body would make recommendations to the government.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
An agricultural task force is meeting and considering these problems, and it will be making recommendations. Apparently the group under the hon. gentleman will hear representations, will ponder and reflect on them, and probably years from now the group will come to some decision. The minister does not need a group. He has been hearing from the group on this side of the House precisely what are the things which need to be done, how they can be done and when they should be done. I suggest that this new group represents just another procrastination. This government is planning task force upon task force, group upon group, procrastination and delay. This is the kind of thing which in western Canada has become the byword of this government, and I am sure the minister found that out on a recent occasion in Saskatchewan at a meeting of those few Liberals in the province who are still bold enough to admit they carry that title.


James Aloysius McGrath: It takes real courage.


Gerald William Baldwin: It has been said that this is not bad legislation. We have been asking for it, among other things. The minister himself said today in his speech that the farmers' record of repayment is excellent. I confirm that. The minister said that the bill does not add to the expenditures of the government except in a minimal way. I think the hon. member for Gaspe had some doubts about this legislation. He should have listened to the minister who said that this measure will cost the government only a small amount of money.
Although there are one or two questions which we will want to ask when we come to the appropriate clause, let me state in general that this bill does not meet the needs and demands of areas such as my constituency and many areas of northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan. The Minister of Agriculture ventured into the Peace River country some two weeks ago on a 1J- or two-day trip. He stopped at a number of
DEBATES	1665
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop points for a few minutes and listened to representations by farmers, businessmen and farm organizations.
There is no excuse for this government saying it is not aware of the problems in northern Alberta. In 1965, because of difficult conditions such as too much rain at the wrong time and frost which came too early, the crop was almost a complete disaster. At that time I made representations to the then minister of agriculture, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who was good enough to indicate that he was interested in the problem. I asked him what he could do about it. The provincial government intimated it would be prepared to make some expenditures and it offered some money to the farmers. I asked the minister, "Are you prepared to make arrangements for compensation to be made available to these people?"
The minister went to the then minister of finance, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said "No", just as he said "No" earlier this year to the people of Biafra. In 1967 we had the worst drought in the history of the northern part of the country. In 1968 the quality of the crop was very bad because of early frost, and in 1969 we also have problems. I say to the committee that a great many farmers in that area will not be able to survive this winter. A few weeks ago there was no hope of harvesting a million acres in the Peace River country alone. Since then I have heard stories concerning damage done by fieldmice which are depreciating the quality of the grain which is left there.
If it is the intention of the government, as I suspect it is, to try to shove farmers off the land, do nothing to help them and push them into the cities to add to the problems of urban dwellers, increasing the pressure on housing and adding to the problems of the already crowded cities, they are going about it in the right way. This is precisely the feeling we have in the north country regarding the intentions of this government. In fact it is saying, "Get off the land; go into the cities and be looked after there." This is not the time and place to argue about the stupidity of such a policy, but I think we can all agree that it is stupid.
What can be done? We have heard suggestions from different parts of the House. I support some of them, and I have other suggestions. Today I introduced a private member's public bill on amendments to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. The amount of money which will be available under this
December 5, 1969
1666	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop legislation will not be enough in many instances to do more than pay interest charges on land and machinery, to pay for fuel, harvesting and seeding in the spring, or to pay taxes; far less will it maintain in a very limited way the farmer and his family during the summer, the ensuing winter and until next harvest.
In order for most of these people to be retained on the land as good and effective producers, cash payments must be given to them and some arrangement made to protect them against debt. I challenged the Minister of Agriculture on this earlier and he said the federal government had no jurisdiction in the matter. That is not a correct statement of fact. Jurisdiction in this regard does lie with the federal government. In 1934, under the Conservative government, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed. It provided for the reduction of debts to a point where it was possible for farmers to meet them when payment fell due. It provided for the reduction of interest rates and for orderly payment over a period of time-
The private members' public bill which I introduced today provides for that program and it provides that the government may introduce it in areas in which it is required.
I know there are many instances today where foreclosure action is being commenced, although it is not as widespread as may be the case later because I think there are creditors who have a conscience and take a reasonable approach to the problem. But I know that a number of seizures of machinery and equipment are being made by finance companies, and there are a number of related actions.
The effect is that the court costs and the interest involved which the farmer will have to cover will minimize the payments envisaged under the act so that they will not do the farmer any good. He will be faced with an increased amount of debt and will be unable to meet his obligations when they fall due. So the government must be prepared, if necessary in collaboration with provincial governments, to say to the creditors who are making exorbitant and unconscionable demands in attempting to extract from farmers payments which they cannot make, "If you insist on this action, we have the right, through the exercise of such legislative proposals as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, to stop it." I think the government will not be accepting its responsibility if it is not prepared to do that.


Second, acreage payments must be made to farmers. What is being given by this bill is not a gift; it is simply an advance on what farmers will receive in any event. The minister said it will not cost the government anything. I suggest that some arrangement in this regard must be made in collaboration with the provincial governments. I understand that the provincial government in Alberta indicated its willingness to negotiate in this respect and I would like the minister to find out whether that is correct. Acreage payments must be made. They are by reason of previous experience. The Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert did this on two or three occasions, and it was very effective and useful.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Third, some arrangement must be made for the payment of storage on farm-stored grain. In certain instances, with the elevators filled, I say that the licence to operate elevators is simply, as Lord Thomson said about television, a licence to print and make money. There is a good case to be made for doing this under careful scrutiny, because we must bear in mind some of the difficult experiences in the United States with payments to some farmers there for farm-stored grain.
This morning I asked a question of the Minister of Finance, who has been busy going around the country defending the undefendable white paper. I referred to a statement made by the Purchasing Management Association of Canada, that 60 per cent of the businesses surveyed expected higher prices and production levels in 1970. What chance has a farmer living in the northern part of Alberta or Saskatchewan, under the circumstances I have described, to make a living and survive?
There must be protection. There must be an opportunity for these people to be kept on the land, to become effective, useful, good producers. That would be better than to have them yanked off their land and pushed into cities, in many cases to be the object of welfare payments and assistance at a cost infinitely greater than would be the cost of keeping them on the land as potential producers.
I suggest to the government that it has not looked at the situation in western Canada. It has no conscience. It does not understand, and does not want to understand, the problems there. The government must understand it has a responsibility to deal with them. This may be one of the measures by which history
December 5. 1969	COMMONS
will judge the government, that is, the extent to which it meets the crisis which exists.


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Chairman, my purpose in speaking on this bill is not to criticize it but only to point out that it is not a cure-all for the present situation. Certainly the bill is necessary to provide some temporary relief for a critical situation, a situation so critical that I make no apology if I use some of the arguments that have already been used by my colleagues; some of them bear repeating.
What is this critical situation, Mr. Chairman, especially in the northern part of the prairie provinces? I have seen this situation myself, so I think I know whereof I speak. Some crops are ten inches under snow, following rains which made the fields too wet to use heavy harvesting machinery. I have seen places where the grain itself was comparatively dry but a combine was stuck before it got nicely started.
I am sure many hon. members saw the picture on the front page of the Montreal Gazette the other day showing nine combines, in a field north of Calgary, harvesting wheat in December. At first glance that is a wonderful thing that combining is being done, but I point out that north of Calgary is not northern or central Alberta or northern Saskatchewan. This was an isolated case, and the government should not have too much hope that the problem will disappear. The combining to which I refer was probably carried out on high, sandy land and only points out what conditions have been like up to this time, because such a field north of Calgary should have been harvested months ago.
I saw combines taken into a field last fall when the ground was drying, but the moisture content of the grain was over 20 per cent and the people concerned were afraid it would not keep. Many farmers, knowing that wheat sales were lost last year, and especially barley sales, would like to know what hope there is for selling their wheat in future. What hope have the farmers of repaying these cash advances? Who knows what further deterioration will take place in the grain during the winter? Losses will occur from mice, sprouting, discoloration, threshing out, and lowering of grades, to mention just a few causes. What if we have a wet spring, or a late spring? What if we have both? What will be the bushel per acre quota? How much grain can the market absorb? Markets are the long-range solution, but what is wrong with acreage payments? Would not this be an equitable
DEBATES	1667
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop method of getting capital to a basic industry that is now fighting for survival?
There has been talk of diversification but there has been no direction from the government as to the type of diversification in which farmers should engage. Are farmers to switch to dairying? Certainly we have a surplus of dairy production in eastern Canada. We do not have a surplus in western Canada, yet farmers out there know that the subsidy quotas given to eastern dairymen were originally western quotas. As recently as November 18 last the Minister of Agriculture announced cut-backs in dairy supports. Are farmers going to switch to hog production? It does not take very long to start a hog operation, but what may be the result? The bottom can fall out of the market in a hurry. Remember, there is also going to be a reduction in hog premiums.
What about cattle? As has already been said this afternoon, no switch can be made to beef cattle. It takes years to increase cattle herds to any great extent. What about eggs? We need not spend long on that subject because egg marketing for profit has in most cases always been hopeless in western Canada.
Again speaking of acreage payments, Mr. Chairman, the government seems worried about the cost involved. I believe the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned this factor. But this is a little difficult to explain to farmers, especially those in areas where crops cannot be harvested. It is difficult to explain to them how the government can find hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on writing off the Expo debt-I might say, at a time when grants to small agricultural fairs are to be curtailed-on hydrofoils, on the Bonaventure, on the CBC, and $40 million for an arts centre serving one city, but no money is available to save a basic industry in time of emergency. All the farmers can look forward to is greater tax burdens, one piled on top of the other.
The proposed centralization of the grain collecting system, about which my colleague the hon. member for Peace River spoke so well, may solve some problems; but it will not solve the problems of the growers. It may even cost them more for hauling. The hon. member for Assiniboia, whom I hope is a good friend of mine, read some figures into the record on grain sales during the eras of different governments. This was supposed to pertain to the problem under discussion today. I think he should point out to the
December 5, 1969
1668	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop government that it should be worrying about next year's figures, and as a footnote, Mr. Chairman, it should be concerned about the businessman whose very survival in business depends on the farm economy in this part of the country.


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


Harry Andrew Moore: Certainly.


Edmund Boyd Osler: With regard to the long string of expenditures which the hon. member listed, would he also list how many of them are current expenditures and how many are past expenditures which this government had nothing to do with?


Harry Andrew Moore: I think they were a very good indication of the outlook of the government. If they have spent this much money in the past,, I am quite sure they will spend as much in the future, although I do not think the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Regional Economic Development-


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have my answer, thank you.


Harry Andrew Moore: I will enlarge on it. I do not think they are cutting back on their office staffs at the present time and saving money.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?


Harry Andrew Moore: Yes.


John Howard Lundrigan: I wonder whether the hon. member could tell me how many assistants and executive types are working in the Prime Minister's office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, it is not my duty nor my intention to unduly delay the passage of this bill, but when we look over the Throne Speech we find very little opportunity to voice our opinions on the crisis in agriculture and particularly the economic plight of the west. When we look at the list of proposed legislation we see very little to come before the House of Commons to deal with the serious situation which exists with respect to agriculture in western Canada.
Let me say at the outset that I am in favour of the proposal before us but I am not particularly happy with it. I am not happy with it because it is merely a stopgap meas-


ure designed to take the heat off the government rather than to assist western agriculture. I am not happy with it because it does not get to the root of the problems besetting the whole economy of the west, and in particular the economy of the great agricultural industry. The measure does nothing to solve the desperate shortage of feed, straw, roughage and hay in the northern part of the province of Alberta. Many farmers have already been forced to dispose of herds because of lack of feed and lack of money with which to purchase feed for the winter. There is nothing in the measure to provide for the actual losses that will occur due to the grain lying out in the field during the winter; there is nothing in it to allow for deterioration in the grade.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act is rather outdated, outmoded and has become a practically useless tool which is simply adding to the cost of production. The present crop insurance program is not proving to be very effective. As a matter of fact, I think if one took a survey of the average farmer in western Canada, one would find that there is a great deal of indifference toward the administration of that program and, above all, some people feel it adds greatly to the cost of production of a commodity which is declining in value under this administration.
Added to the adversities of weather, marketing, etc., is the daily struggle to get by, and now a cut-back in dairy subsidies and a reallocation of quotas has been announced, causing another slap in the face to the economy of western farmers. These are the people who actually put the bread and butter on the table.
It is true that a more generous scale of advances for farm-stored grain, whether in the bin or still in the field, are necessary and will help to banish the grim shadow of debt and bankruptcy presently lying across so many prairie grain producers. At the same time, it will tend to lock the western grain producer into a system that all the experts and members of this government keep telling him is wrong and is the basis of all his economic woe. What does a more generous scale of economic advances really mean? It means that the farmer will be able to pay off some of his debt to the fertilizer company, the farm machinery dealer, the oil and gas dealer and all those concerned with the agricultural business and maintenance of his farm. It will probably place him in a position in which he can keep going for another year even though
December 5, 1969

he will still be operating in debt without much prospect of significantly improving his economic status.
Unlike the CNR, the farmer does not have the opportunity of coming to Parliament and asking for millions of dollars to maintain his operation. The government will do nothing to relieve him of the economic cycle that is slowly but surely driving him off the land, out of a once flourishing agricultural community and into the city where he will add to the numerous unskilled labourers already there. This morning we received the latest news summary from the Department of Agriculture, which reports a grim situation. The summary is dated December 5, and states:
Agricultural economists say that total cash receipts will be down about $100 million this year, but expenses will be up 3.5 per cent.
That means that realized net farm income, will be down about 10 per cent from last year to $1,425 million with the tightest pinch being felt in Saskatchewan where the dependence on grain crops is greatest.
Despite the optimism of the hon. member for Assiniboia about the future of the wheat marketing picture, the Department of Agriculture suggests that the outlook continues to be grim, because it states:
The surplus will continue to grow, pushed upward by this year's 685 million bushel crop. At the end of the crop year on July 31, 1970, we'll have more than a billion bushels of wheat on hand, setting a record.
I have spoken before in this House about what I believe to be the considered policy of this government-the writing off of all Canadians who seek to remain small economic units and preserve the family farm. I have also mentioned before that I believe it is the policy of this government to deliberately let Canadian agriculture go to pot as an industry and to destroy our rural way of life.
The Canadian agricultural community has been declared surplus and expendable by this government. This is made amply clear by its lack of a national agricultural policy, the legislation passed last session in relation to estate taxation and now, even more clearly, in the policies on taxation proposed in the white paper of the Minister of Finance.
I suppose this explains why we have had no comprehensive, long-range, practical plan from the government to convert Canadian agriculture into a strong, competitive industry in step with world conditions now prevailing. This is why we in western Canada are being forced to experience the slow and painful
DEBATES	1669
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop death of agriculture and the end of a way of life. Every measure so far advanced by this government in relation to agriculture, including the one we are now considering, has been an emergency measure to quieten the western cries of protest. There has been a stubborn refusal to act by all the ministers concerned, including the Prime Minister.
I suggest that we must first resolve to preserve the agricultural industry as a vital and necessary part of Canadian society and as an essential sector of the Canadian economy. Once this has been resolved, the next step should be to relate Canadian agricultural production to the domestic and export markets as they exist today, not as they existed years ago when most of our basic agricultural legislation was designed. I think, for instance, that we should completely and radically re-think and re-do our machinery for distributing and marketing. I had the opportunity to attend the United Nations a week ago and whilst there discussed the situation with many of the ambassadors from other parts of the world who are also gravely concerned about wheat marketing. It was suggested that we must revamp our system of grading, and I am very pleased to learn of the proposed amendments to the grain act so that we can be flexible in this regard. Our becoming flexible means that we shall become more competitive, but that will not improve the situation of our farmers financially.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I also think we should take a long-term, comprehensive look at the idea of storing our grain in the countries to whom we sell. It seems that some countries have lost confidence in Canada's ability to distribute the grain that has been sold. We have ample evidence of the loss of confidence which resulted from the bottleneck crisis we experienced last year in Vancouver. Any changes that are instituted should be approached on a truly national basis by considering the public good to be achieved by tying together modern forms of transportation and merchandising and marketing to the sophisticated and ultramodern techniques which have become commonplace on today's farms.
I, too, would like to see the minister launch an investigation into the costs of handling and distributing grain. A number of hon. members touched on this subject, which is worthy of consideration. Certainly, scientific farming in Canada is a reality. We are in the forefront of developments and our techniques have been advancing rapidly over the years.
1670	COMMONS DEBATES	December 5. 1969
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop It is only when the produce leaves the farm that we step back almost a century and employ archaic and outmoded methods and equipment.
Looking back, I find it rather strange that 25 years ago we used to haul grain from the farm on which I was born by means of a 60-bushel grain-box drawn by two horses. All the machinery we used was horse-drawn. Today, although we have modern machinery and modern methods of transporting our grain, we still deliver the grain to the elevator to which we delivered 25 years ago. The distributing and handling techniques have not changed one iota over the years. If we wish to streamline and upgrade the efficiency of our grain handling techniques, I suggest that we begin by examining distribution and handling techniques at elevators. Costs could be cut there. When one analyses our present system of handling and distributing one will see that it is absurd

almost as absurd as attempting to instal a computor in a Model T Ford chassis.
There are conflicting views about measures such as acreage payments, and hardly a day goes by without someone giving his views or advice on this subject. One thing can be said about acreage payments in relation to cash advances on farm-stored grain: acreage payments would not lock a farmer into a pattern where all the cash he receives trickles away immediately to pay for inputs, which can only result in perpetuating and expanding the conditions that first caused the trouble. Acreage payments can be made very flexible from season to season or year to year. They could also provide the necessary freedom for a farmer to switch from one crop to another, to reduce his output of a product in slow demand in favour of another in short supply or to enable him to get out of farm production altogether.
As some hon. members have pointed out, we have assisted other great industries of this country-the automobile industry, the oil industry and the mining industry. Therefore, for the life of me I cannot see why we should not bail out an industry that is so vital not only to western Canada but to Canada as a whole. Because of the slowdown in the farm sector, combine manufacturers in Canada have laid off employees. The result has been that the economy of western Canada has lagged. I am suggesting that this government should try to cure the problem and not merely prolong its life.

For one reason or another the western grain producer has been encouraged over the years to concentrate on the production of grain. He has been told to expand his grain acreage so that we can feed the hungry peoples of the world. Now conditions in the world have changed and world markets have demonstrated inadequacies of our system of distribution and marketing. At present we have huge amounts of unsold grain. Although the hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that one should not look only at percentages when considering world markets, I submit he should have listened to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who said we are not penetrating existing markets and obtaining our fair percentage of existing international markets.
The western farmer, in short, has been told that he has acted incorrectly. He is blamed for his present troubles and is told by the government and various experts that he should stop farming grain and produce something else. Everyone knows how much it costs a manufacturer to re-tool when he wishes to produce a new model, let alone diversify and manufacture a new product. How is the western farm to re-tool, so to speak, and produce beef instead of grain, or go into dairy farming, when he has neither the expertise nor the capital to do so? Why is the farmer not receiving the advice and assistance of the Department of Agriculture in this regard? Has the department suffered because of the government's austerity program? Perhaps the entire department will be written off in the austerity drive and the staffs of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State will be built up.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: After I have finished, ii the hon. member does not mind. If the government is serious about stimulating agricultural production, let us see some evidence of plans to provide long-term assistance and guidance, because to allow things to drift along from one inadequate emergency measure to another is simply to doom Canadian agriculture to gradual extinction. If this is the government's intention, let it be honest enough to admit it; It could then perhaps justify to the Canadian public this fundamental economic upheaval. Let us pass this measure by all means, Mr. Chairman, but let us at the same time resolve to build a practical and meaningful agricultural policy for Canada.
December 5, 1969	COMMONS


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has he any idea how many people are employed on the Prime Minister's staff? If so, will he tell us?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: About 71 or 72-twice as many as was the case.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the hon. member obtained his information, because it does not agree with the information I have.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the House is fully aware that western agriculture, in particular, faces a major crisis. We have taken the most unusual step in this debate today of proceeding on all stages of the bill with a minimum of discussion. We have done this because, all hon. members realize that although the present bill is just another palliative to deal with this major crisis, it will nevertheless provide some temporary relief, particularly to those areas of western Canada which have not been able to harvest their grain.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This afternoon I want to get from the Minister without Portfolio responsible to the government for these matters a response to a proposal that has come from the farmers themselves. It has been pressed for over six months, and unfortunately up to this moment there has been no positive reply from the government or from the minister concerned. I think in the history of Canada's grain producers they have demonstrated their capacity to adjust to the extreme conditions and fluctuations of the grain industry.
Only a few years ago the government was urging the farmers to grow more and more grain. They were told that if they grew the grain, it could be sold. The prairie farmers responded in a magnificent way. We know this only too well because of the amazing production figures of the past four or five years. Productivity, stream-lined, improved techniques, technological changes and all the other measures adopted brought an almost immediate response to the request of the government for greater grain sales. There is obviously still some of this thinking in government circles. I have in my hand a Canadian Press release from Stratford, Ontario, which states as follows:
Arthur Laing, federal Minister of Public Works, said here Wednesday that Canada's wheat surpluses will be eaten up if the world population explosion continues.
DEBATES	1671
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
I hope the Minister without Portfolio includes the Minister of Public Works in his group because there seems to be a lack of consensus within the cabinet as to the nature of the problem. This news release, incidentally, was publicized quite generally across Canada. It only adds to the confusion which already exists in the minds of farmers because of the lack of specific information and lack of consensus as to the true nature of the problem.
I would once again like to draw to the minister's attention the proposal of the prairie grain farmers with respect to the basic problem, the sale of grain. They can produce the best quality grain in the world. It is up to the Canadian government, through the Wheat Board, to ensure that the markets are maintained. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's statement in this regard a little over a year ago in Winnipeg, it is still the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board to sell the grain.
According to the Minister of Public Works, the population explosion ensures that the market is still there. I am sure the minister is aware of this proposal; a paper on the subject is before him. It is a positive one. It does not involve any additional expenditure on the part of the government; it merely suggests that a Canadian export marketing organization for Canadian grain be established. It would involve organizing a Canadian-owned company charged with the responsibility of selling Canadian-produced grains. The agency would not be financed from public funds; it would be financed through deducting up to one per cent per bushel on all grain delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board at the various elevator points. It is envisaged that this agency would be licensed by the Canadian Wheat Board as a marketing agency for Canadian grains.
The purpose of the corporation would be to sell grains produced in Canada and to develop new markets for products which can be produced by western Canadian farmers in obvious abundance. When such an agency had been established, it is conceivable that it could make arrangements with other agricultural commodity groups to develop export markets for their products as well. Marketing is the greatest problem of Canadian agriculture at the moment. If we could market the agricultural products, the current difficulties which are being handled by the nostrums and palliatives such as the one before us would be completely unnecessary.
1672	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
It should be noted that this proposed agency would in no way compete with the function of the Canadian Wheat Board or the present Canadian grain trade, but would supplement their efforts by having salesmen strategically located throughout the world to continually assess the trading activities and market requirements, and to promote the sale of Canadian products on these markets. This is an excellent example of the sort of selfhelp philosophy that has made it possible for the prairie grain farmer to survive with the almost impossible changes and challenges of the grain industry.
Some preliminary government assistance would be necessary. This would be of a very minimal nature. It is envisaged that in order to get this agency organized and operating successfully it would be necessary to have the assistance of the federal government in the following ways. At first, there would have to be initial financing for the first year of operations, that is, before the collections could be made from the farmers. No doubt any outlay on the part of the treasury would be repaid on the basis of the farmers' contribution.
Second, the federal government would participate or take the initiative in establishing a research and development arm to continually assess market developments and encourage a production program to fill those markets. This could be the function of the Canada Grains Council; it could be assigned this responsibility. Third, export credit assistance on reasonable terms to countries requiring this type of credit could be made available by the federal government.
In passing I would like to note that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the successful sales to China in the early 1960s was based precisely on this point. The federal government of the day made reasonable credit terms available to the Chinese government. It did this on the basis of face-to-face negotiations between politicians at the ministerial level.
The fourth point is this. Assistance by the various trade commissioners stationed throughout the world, in contacting buyers and helping with communications and import regulations, could be made available to the qualified salesmen who would be the essential aspect of the export corporation. Fifth, the support of the Canadian Wheat Board and the federal government would be necessary to allow for flexible pricing and trading

DEBATES	December 5, 1969
arrangements in order to successfully conclude the sales. This proposal has been put forward by the farmers as a result of a series of meetings organized at what we call the grass roots level and has been in the hands of the federal government for almost six months. By the expeditious manner in which it has dealt with this matter today, Parliament has demonstrated that it is willing to act if the government will seize its responsibility and put forward the necessary legislation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We sometimes talk about unfair competition from other grain exporting countries, particularly France and the United States. I would point out that the United States has already taken action to stimulate exports through increased sales. They have organized an export marketing service which comes directly under the United States Department of Agriculture. One task of this new service is to maximize the export of agricultural products. I understand that this United States agency will be backed by farm programs calculated to maintain prices at realistic levels which will allow commodities to move into world markets. We can be certain that the United States will be embarking upon aggressive efforts to market grain and other products around the world, and that Canada's experience in recent years with respect to United States' competition will be even worse unless we gird our loins and accept the good, practical recommendations which have come from the farmers themselves.
I do not think it is necessary to discuss this particular recommendation any further, but I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on this excellent proposal before the debate closes. What is even more important, I trust he will announce that action is to be taken on this matter before Christmas. Certainly, Parliament has demonstrated its willingness to act with the greatest possible speed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre reflected somewhat on my honesty by questioning the information I presented to the House this afternoon. If he would like to know where I got this information, I would refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 21, under the heading "Postdated". This stated and I quote, with your permission-
December 5, 1969


James Hugh Faulkner: II the hon. member is attempting to give the source of his information, I think he has a perfect right to do so. But having given the source, I think he should not go further.


Edmund Boyd Osler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I in no way impugned the hon. member's honour. I simply asked him for specific information in place of general information which appeared to me to have been presented in an erroneous manner, though evidently it is not the hon. member who is responsible for that, but the source.


George Robson Muir: I suggest that the hon. member for Vegreville be given the opportunity of citing not only the source but also the content of his information in order to apprise the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre of his honesty.


James Hugh Faulkner: I think at this point we ought to recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks. I hope the minister will respond to some of the points which have been made and to some of the wise suggestions put forward by members on this side of the House. One subject which I do not believe has been mentioned yet concerns the whole question of crop insurance. While there are crop insurance programs of one kind or another in most provinces supported jointly by provincial and federal governments, I think it is incumbent upon the Minister of Agriculture to work out quickly with the provinces an all-risk crop insurance program which would take the place of not only emergency legislation such as this but of other forms of payments consequent upon natural disaster, such as those made under PFAA. In far too many areas the premiums payable in connection with present crop insurance schemes are so high that few farmers can protect themselves against the kind of risk to their crops which we have been considering. As a result, the government has to provide assistance periodically by means of bailing-out legislation.
It seems to me that cash advances or provisional payments, as they are called in this legislation, will be repaid fairly easily provided the farmers can get their crops threshed next spring. Should they not be able to do so, they will obviously have to attempt to repay the advance out of the proceeds of another 21545-351
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop crop, in which event they will be in a hole much deeper than the one in which they now find themselves; their worries will be compounded to that degree.
I hope the minister can let us know what the government's thinking is in connection with a further expansion of crop insurance programs in co-operation with the provinces. I have in mind a meaningful, low premium scheme which would cover farmers no matter where they are located, so that when disasters occur coverage would be available and the cost spread out to a much greater extent than at present. In moving toward this objective I hope the minister will not set up another group. As one of the previous speakers pointed out, we now have a grains group, a transportation group, a Wheat Board group and a Grain Commissioner's group. These people are doing everything, except that they cannot sing. We have not formed a rock group yet. I hope the minister will not resort to setting up another task force if, as I recommend, he attempts to do something about crop insurance. I trust he will deal with some of these points when he speaks on third reading. I will raise some questions when we consider the other clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Payments authorized
George Robson Muir: I see that subclause 5
states:
No person who has received an advance payment under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act in respect ot which he is in default under that Act is entitled to receive a provisional payment under this Act.
Does this mean that a farmer who has not been able to deliver grain because of the quota situation would be considered to be in default in connection with a previous advance?


Otto Emil Lang: I can give the hon. member an assurance that a person who has not been able to deliver because of quota problems is not considered to be in default under the terms of the act, and there would therefore be no difficulty in that connection.


George Robson Muir: In that case a farmer who has delivered four bushels of his six-bushel quota would be entitled to the full advance under the act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
1674	COMMONS
Proposed Payments for 1969-70 Grain Crop
On clause 5-Payment to joint producers
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is this the clause which concerns an owner and a renter both eligible to deliver on one permit-book, or the situation in which there is joint ownership of a farm? Must both sign the application before they are eligible?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the case. As the hon. member or one of his colleagues said when discussing clause 2, these signatures are required largely because of the legal ownership of the grain itself. There are difficulties encountered in sorting out legal ownership. We have been looking at alternative ways to try to solve this problem and are continuing to do so, but so far have not found a solution to the problem.


John Leroy Skoberg: Have any consultations been carried on with the provincial authorities to see whether this type of legislation can be improved and all producers enabled to receive cash advances?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there have been some discussions. The provincial law relating to ownership of grain really makes very good sense for many reasons that are unrelated to the cash advance legislation. Hence there would be some reluctance on the part of the provincial authorities to change that law. In other words, the ball is in our court, and it is for us to And another way around the problem.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the minister whether there is not another way around the problem. Take the situation where two producers deliver their grain on the one permit-book, and only one of the producers is available to sign, or let us say the other refuses to sign. Would it not be possible to provide in the legislation that in such event one of the producers could apply for up to one half of the maximum provisional payment available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, that is one of the suggestions that have been put forward on many previous occasions. The difficulty is that the joint ownership of the grain extends effectively to every kernel of grain. This is the problem.
There are possibilities of solution along some other lines, such a simplified form of permission to allow one interested party to separate his interest from that of the other who wishes to apply for an advance. I think 
DEBATES	December 5, 1969
there is more possibility of a solution along that line.


John Leroy Skoberg: If an owner did refuse to sign, would the application for permission form be filed along with the application?


Otto Emil Lang: It is slightly more complicated than that, but perhaps I can discuss the matter with the hon. member privately.


John Leroy Skoberg: But does the minister not feel there is some point in moving an amendment along the lines I have suggested? For example, where one of the two producers refuses to sign the application or is unavailable, why cannot the other interested party make application to receive up to one half of the maximum provisional payment? Why can we not try an amendment of this sort?


Otto Emil Lang: If it is possible to use the technique that I have suggested, there will be no problem about changing the act. The kind of change which the hon. member suggests would run counter to provincial law, and therefore would be impracticable. The real point is this. We should try to accomplish what we have in mind by agreement. We should give producers the information they require to enable them to make arrangements between themselves, thus obviating any change in the existing law.


John Leroy Skoberg: Could this be done through regulation rather than legislation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I have just indicated that even regulation is not required; it is a question of working out legal arrangements between the interested producers. We should endeavour to see whether we can give the producers advice along these lines.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Amount of payment
George Robson Muir: I think there is an anomaly in subsection (2) (b) of this clause, which refers to any threshed grain in storage otherwise than in an elevator. If grain is held in storage against a previous cash advance, it would not be considered as grain held, thus reducing the amount of the provisional payment a producer would receive. Can I have the minister's assurance that that is correct?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that that point is covered in the drafting.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
December 5, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	1675
Judges Act
On clause 11-Default defined	[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, in light of experience with previous legislation dealing with cash advances, and in view of the inherent risk that crops will not be threshed the following spring, if this were the case a producer receiving a provisional payment would have to commence repaying the money from his quota deliveries or from the money received by a subsequent crop that he was able to thresh. Does the minister not think that in the event of low quotas for the rest of this crop year and the succeeding one, the date of March 31, 1971, would be much more realistic and would increase the chance of making repayment without default?


Otto Emil Lang: Again, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the change requested is required. The operation of the repayment provisions is such that it is only if the quotas are open and grain can be delivered, and a notice is served on the producer to deliver the grain, that he runs into difficulty if he fails to deliver. Therefore, the ongoing use of the quota to make repayments without arriving at the point where full repayment has been made within the period will not create any difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Commencement
John Leroy Skoberg: May I ask on what date this act will be proclaimed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, it is our intention to proclaim it as soon as possible following its enactment into law. I think there would be little difficulty in bringing the act into effect almost immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day when it was clear that we were making pretty good progress I believe it was agreed we might also deal with the report stage and third reading of item No. 4, Bill C-2, to amend the Judges Act. I see that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has come back from California to put this bill through.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-2, to amend the Judges Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available we are wondering whether there is any further legislation the government might wish to introduce at this time.


An hon. Member:: Bill C-7.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to take up the CNR bill if we had assurance it would pass without division. In the absence of that assurance, and in view of the good progress the House has made today I think we might call it five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we call it five o'clock we could take up Bill C-7, but we feel the government does not have sufficient members here to win the vote and therefore perhaps it should be put off.
At 4.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, December 8, 1969 The House met at 2 p.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on the NATO meeting from which the Minister of National Defence and I have just returned. I am tabling herewith the communique and the attaching declaration which were issued at the close of the meeting. Part of the communique deals with NATO's military affairs, and the Minister of National Defence will be reporting to the House on these matters later this afternoon.
I suggest to Your Honour that it might suit the convenience of the House if both the Minister of National Defence and I were to make our statements before you invite the opposition to reply, since the matters are very closely connected.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that only one statement be made by each opposition party after the statements have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. This would require the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Stanfield:: I did not understand the minister to suggest that. I understood him to suggest that both he and the Minister of National Defence would speak before the opposition replied. I did not understand that he would try to confine the opposition, although admittedly one man on this side may be as good as both of them.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that was the suggestion made by the minister. If there is no agreement, we will have two rounds of speeches and we will hear first from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I have no objection to having two separate rounds. I thought my suggestion might suit the convenience of the opposition. That was the only reason I put it forward.
There is a coming together of events in Europe today that opens the way to profound change. Basic differences between East and West will not be resolved overnight but there is reason to believe that a new era of genuine negotiation has begun.
Three new developments herald this era of change. The most important, which may well turn out to be a turning point in post-war history, is the opening in Helsinki last month of preliminary discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic nuclear weapons, the so-called SALT talks. The ground for these talks was prepared in NATO, and at last week's meeting Secretary of State Rogers gave us a confidential report on progress to date. The very fact that these talks have begun in a businesslike way has changed the East-West climate and brought a sense of cautious hope into East-West relations.
The second development of major importance is the manifest intention of West Germany to work out new relationships with East Germany, Poland, the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe. This new West German policy has added new momentum to the search for negotiated settlements in Europe.
The third development of potentially historic significance was last week's summit meeting of the six Common Market countries at the Hague. The extent of agreement achieved at this meeting has created a new mood of optimism and co-operation in Western Europe, a development which will encourage new approaches to the problems of Europe as a whole.
It was in this atmosphere of movement and progress that the NATO ministers discussed and defined their common position. They did so in the knowledge that the outcome of their meeting as made known to both East and West by the communique and declaration, and by less formal but still important press
December 8, 1969

Report on Brussels Meeting reports, would become part of the evolving discourse among the nations roncerned with the future Europe and its people.
The NATO Council functions not only as an important point of exchange and consultation for the ideas and intentions of its members, but also as a transmitting station for signals to the other side. The issues before the recent meeting were, simply stated, what ideas and intentions should be conveyed to the countries of Eastern Europe, and in what ways they should be carried forward. All those present at the meeting had very much in mind that the ideas conveyed and the manner of their communication should be such as to make clear our desire to improve relations and negotiate outstanding issues. For our own part, in our contribution to the Brussels meeting we sought to advocate attitudes and measures which would be both realistic and conciliatory, to steer between the rigid no and the unthinking yes.
At the meeting I put forward the view that NATO should seize the initiative by showing a clear willingness to start discussion of specific issues. The inclusion in the declaration of a proposal for early discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe is one example of this, in the sensitive but vital field of arms control. This proposal is an advance on the previous NATO' position and one that we actively promoted. We would have preferred a more precise formula, making clear, for instance, the regional limits and other detailed conditions which in the view of NATO members would govern any such force reductions. Others felt that such specifics should await some response from the nations of Eastern Europe, which up to now has not been forthcoming.
The declaration contains a section on Germany and Berlin which, among other things, gives support to the proposals of the West German government for a modus vivendi between the two parts of Germany and for a related bilateral exchange of declarations on the non-use of force. I have no doubt of the firm resolve of Chancellor Willy Brandt's government to break new ground in searching for solutions to the complex problems which have divided Europe for a generation. The response of the East to these overtures will be an important test of their intentions. The news this morning that negotiations have begun between the Soviet Union and the Federal German Republic on an exchange of declarations renouncing the use of force is a hopeful sign.

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I also suggested that it would be useful to broaden the East-West dialogue to include discussion of non-political subjects such as the pollution of the environment, about which both sides are increasingly concerned, and the declaration also invites co-operation on this topic.
There has been much public discussion of the idea of a European security conference. I hope that such a conference will be held, at the right time and in the right circumstances. Such a conference is only one way of making progress toward the settlement of European problems, and for the time being it may not be the most effective.
Bilateral governmental contacts between countries of Eastern and Western Europe are a commonplace today, and there are many multilateral opportunities that underline the point that there is no shortage of meeting places or meetings. Canada attaches great importance to this process and plays an active part as illustrated by the recent visit to Ottawa of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko.
Second, I do not doubt that if and when it appears that a full security conference would be productive of tangible results, it could be readily organized. I am equally certain that Canada would be among the participating nations. What does, however, concern many western governments is that if such a conference were held prematurely it might prejudice the important progressive trends now so promising in Europe. Negotiations can make progress only when the other side displays a readiness to talk about something more than a mere freezing of the status quo in Europe. It would not make sense for the western countries to be beguiled into a conference where the cards are stacked in advance against an outcome reasonably acceptable to both sides. The consensus emerging from the meeting reflects these factors, while keeping open the door to a conference.
The problem of procedures for organizing negotiations with the other side is a complex one. Bilateral contacts may be more suitable at present for some issues, limited multilateral discussions for others, and a general conference including the neutral nations of Europe will probably become appropriate in due course. We proposed some weeks ago that there should now be a detailed Alliance study of this question of procedures for negotiation, and I am very pleased to report that, follow-
December 8, 1969

ing the Canadian suggestion, the declaration includes a specific request to have the NATO Council study this issue and report on it to our next ministerial meeting in May.
Discussions at NATO meetings are necessarily detailed and sometimes technical. It is not easy to get agreement when 15 governments, each with its own essential national interests and its own way of looking at things, are involved. I can tell the House, however, that some real progress was made last week. It was encouraging to me, and to all who were with me, to find a new and more hopeful atmosphere and a new resolve that the arid confrontation that has for too long characterized East-West relations should be brought to an end. Not by any sudden dramatic initiative, but by steady and careful negotiation of specific issues, starting with those that show the best chances for success.
We found a new climate in Europe, a new dynamic in the Common Market that points the way to enlargement of the Community and strengthening of ties between its members, a new German government already working toward modus vivendi with East Germany. Above all, we found a new atmosphere of hope brought about by the promise of progress in the SALT talks. I was encouraged, as I know all members of this House will be, to find NATO sensitive to the new trends, contributing to the great events that are taking place, and looking beyond its essential defence functions to the opportunities for a more positive role in securing the peace in Europe.
I took advantage of the NATO meetings to have individual talks with some of my NATO colleagues. I met with the foreign ministers of Italy and Turkey and had brief sessions with the German foreign minister and the United States Secretary of State. I also had a useful discussion with the French foreign minister of our bilateral relations and I am glad to say that there was mutual agreement that we should work out arrangements to avoid future incidents of the kind that have marred our relations in the recent past. I am hopeful that in this way we may be able to put our relations on a better footing.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, some time in the future a committee of this House will have to work out a more sensible method for giving opposition parties an opportunity to comment on what should be important statements resulting from ministerial visits; otherwise we shall
Report on Brussels Meeting have only exchanges of pap which are not helpful to our understanding of some of the major issues of the day.
Who cannot but agree with the minister that the SALT talks in Helsinki are of transcending importance and that the changes brought about by the recent elections in the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as the new attitude by the new chancellor towards East-West relations, will affect us all. Canada, of course, is watching with a great deal of interest developments in the European economic community.
I hope that when the minister saw his NATO colleagues he had something to say to the foreign minister of Greece about the serious problems in that country brought about by an oppressive military regime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fairwealher:: I hope, too, that resulting from the minister's talks with the French foreign minister there was a frank recognition that there has been a serious over-reaction on Canada's part to incidents that really do not threaten the foundation of this country.
Having said all this, I hope that the next time we are to have ministerial statements the opposition parties will be given a prior opportunity to assess those statements so that we can then make, hopefully, useful comments about the entire field of international relations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his courtesy in making available a copy of the statement he made on motions today. With many of his bland statements regarding the situation in Europe and some of the hopeful signs appearing there I heartily concur. But one aspect of his report which causes me great disappointment and, I think, will cause many other people in this country very serious disappointment is his statement regarding the proposed European security conference. Some time ago the government of Finland proposed a European security conference to be held in Helsinki in the hope that the NATO powers and the Warsaw Pact powers would meet and hold discussions designed to reduce the tensions in Europe and to see if some rapprochement could be developed to improve the situation
1680	COMMONS
Report on Brussels Meeting in Europe. I must say that the attitude of the ministers of the NATO countries who met in Brussels last week was far from inspiring and far from giving the kind of leadership in promoting peace which we all have the right to expect.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In his statement the minister pointed out that the NATO council functions not only as a place to exchange ideas but also as a transmitting station for signals to the other side. Surely the time has come, Mr. Speaker, to stop dealing at arm's length. The idea that we can communicate with the other side by issuing carefully worded communiques is certainly not the kind of leadership that we have the right to expect. In view of recent statements by the Warsaw Pact countries of their desire to sit down and discuss the whole problem in Europe, surely this was the time to have accepted their invitation and to have indicated our willingness to discuss all aspects of this problem. It may be that the statements made by the Warsaw Pact countries were purely for propaganda purposes, or it may be they were genuinely anxious to find a solution.
The Soviet Union has problems today. It has the problem of emerging China at its back door. It has the growing weight of the cost of armaments and it may be they are genuinely interested in establishing a detente. Surely the best way to find out whether they are bluffing or whether their concern is genuine would be to have openly accepted the invitation to a European security conference and to have instructed the Director General of NATO to confer with them and start working on an agenda.
In his statement today the Minister pointed out there are some difficulties in this regard. He said, "If such a conference were held prematurely it might prejudice the important progressive trends now so promising in Europe." In another place he said, "It would not make sense for the western countries to be beguiled into a conference where the cards are stacked in advance against an outcome reasonably acceptable to both sides." That, Mr. Speaker, looks to me like a brush-off. If I had extended the invitation and got that kind of reply, that is how I would look upon this statement. What is the use of talking about being beguiled and about the conference being premature? The problems facing Europe today have now gone on for nearly 25

DEBATES	December 8, 1969
years. They are not new problems. Surely the NATO countries have some idea of what kind of proposals they are prepared to put forward at a European security conference.
The minister also said, "Bilateral contacts may be more suitable at present for some issues." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that bilateral discussions and a European security conference are not mutually exclusive. They can go on simultaneously. Chancellor Willy Brandt has shown that already by his discussions with Poland and now his discussions with the Soviet Union. The holding of a European security conference would not preclude bilateral discussions before, during or after the conference. I submit that for the ministerial representatives of the members of NATO to deal with an open invitation to sit down to discuss the problems of Europe in the manner which is to be found in the declaration is not good enough. It might be just as well if I were to read the declaration.


An hon. Member:: We shall take it as read.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I imagine that represents the
amount of interest the hon. member has in whether there shall be peace or war. That attitude is probably the reason for the mess we are in.
Clause 14 of the declaration issued by the ministers in Brussels last week reads as follows:
The members of the alliance remain receptive to signs of willingness on the part of the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries to discuss measures to reduce tension and promote co-operation in Europe and to take constructive actions to this end.
They "remain receptive". I submit this was a golden opportunity not merely to have remained receptive but to have indicated willingness and eagerness to sit down and see whether, together, we might work out a solution to the problems which have bedevilled Europe for nearly a quarter of a century.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One thing lacking in the statement is any reference to the attitude the Canadian government took with respect to the right of Greece to remain a member of NATO. Members of our party have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions. There can be no doubt that under the constitution of NATO, which is made up of democratic coun-
December 8, 1969	COMMONS
tries banded together for the defence of freedom and democracy, the conduct of the present government of Greece automatically excludes it from that body. I notice that the government of the United Kingdom has just indicated its opinion that the government of Greece ought not to be allowed to sit in the Council of Europe. I hope that during the question period or at some other time the minister will indicate whether Canada has raised this question or, if not, whether it intends to do so in the near future. I believe the great majority of the Canadian people will support it in suggesting that the dictatorial military regime of that country does not entitle Greece to be represented on the NATO council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the NATO countries blamed quite severely the Canadian government for its decisions regarding its participation to the Alliance.
We of the Ralliement creditiste have for many years been in favour of a reduction in our participation to NATO. If our country is successful in bringing about agreement between the East and the West, we shall rejoice.
Canada, as a member of NATO, is ready to do everything in its power, taking into account its population. For that reason, we support the government's policy with regard to the withdrawal of Canadian forces from Europe. We are ready to contribute as much as possible to the end of the cold war between East and West, provided that consideration is given to the means at our disposal. We must reduce the cost of maintaining Canadian troops in Europe.
We noticed that some European countries were even beginning to take things easy, relying on our participation to NATO, and concerning themselves with other problems. So it was necessary to end this game sooner or later.
In my view the government should continue to firmly back up the policy of withdrawing troops from Europe and of promoting, as well as it can, the understanding between eastern and western countries, as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
DEBATES	1681
Report on Brussels Meeting [DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to report to hon. members on the meeting in Brussels last Wednesday of the NATO Defence Planning Committee and the NATO Nuclear Affairs Committee.
Members will recall that it is at the regular December ministerial meeting of the Defence Planning Committee that final undertakings are made on each nation's force contribution. Canada's contribution for 1970 is the reconstructed force for NATO Europe and the Supreme Allied Command Atlantic, announced in my statement of September 19 last.
In my remarks to the Defence Planning Committee I referred to the committee's meeting last May at which I announced Canada's intention to reduce the size of our military contribution to NATO. I then told the committee that this change was occasioned, in part, by a requirement for budgetary restraints on all Canadian government activities.
I reminded the meeting that, after full consultation, we had reached agreement on the final extent and timings of our proposed adjustment in Europe, and said that as a result of consultation we had modified considerably our original plan. These modifications were embodied in the force structure I announced on September 19.
The communique refers to the meaningful negotiations we carried out in paragraph 10, which reads in part:
Ministers took note of the positive outcome of consultations with the Canadian authorities concerning their forces for NATO, which were initiated following the Defence Planning meeting of 28th May, 1969.
I am happy to report that the European nations have initiated steps to adjust their forces to maintain the NATO force levels in Europe and, while their plans have not been finally completed, it appears that they will be shortly.

During the ministerial meeting, the 12 ministers comprising the Nuclear Defence Affairs Committee reviewed the work of the smaller seven-member Nuclear Planning
21545-36}
December 8. 1969

Report on Brussels Meeting Group and considered two papers which were originated by the Planning Group and which were adopted by the Defence Planning Committee.
These papers dealt with procedures for political consultation on the possible use of nuclear weapons and guidance for Commanders on drawing up their plans for the possible defensive tactical use of nuclear weapons in defence of the Treaty area.
Speaking for Canada, I supported the adoption of these papers which further define and restrict the circumstances under which nuclear weapons might be used, emphasizing the requirement for political consultation and control.
As honourable members may recall, the Nuclear Planning Group changes its membership on a rotation basis so that the nonnuclear members have an opportunity, together with the nuclear powers, to participate in the planning for nuclear defence measures, including control and consultation procedures. Canada was a member from January 1967 to July 1968 and will become a member again starting 1st January, 1970, for a period of 18 months.
In my further remarks, Mr. Speaker, I felt it appropriate to deal with Canada's contribution, past and present, to the NATO Alliance.
I reminded the Committee that twenty years ago Canada willingly helped to establish the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Like the other members, we pledged ourselves to consider an armed attack against one or more of us in Europe or in North America, as an attack against us all. We still hold that pledge.

I said that the long period of the NATO alliance had enabled European members to complete their post-war recovery and embark on a period of economic growth with peace and stability. Behind the NATO shield, western Europe has grown strong and prosperous. To be sure, the military threat has not diminished in Europe or in North America. I said that to help meet this threat, and to help build the NATO shield behind which western Europe could continue her post-war recovery, Canada alone gave over $1 billion in mutual aid in the first ten years of NATO. Every European NATO country has benefited from our mutual aid program.


Referring to other Canadian contributions, I said that during the first ten critical years of NATO Canada contributed over $413 million toward NATO aircrew training, and this has now risen to over $446 million. Our NATO military budget contributions total over $46 million, and our infrastructure contributions have amounted to over $181 million. All in all, our total Canadian defence contributions to the European NATO countries amount to well over $2 billion, and this figure does not include the cost of maintaining our forces in Europe.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that we are proud of our contributions and do not begrudge them; but I reminded the committee that, in addition to our contribution to NATO Europe, Canada also contributes heavily to the defence of North America, and particularly to the defence of the United States deterrent which protects us all.
I reminded the meeting that we have not decreased our defence budget but, like many NATO partners, we have had to absorb inflationary costs which have meant a reduction in manpower and an adjustment in our force levels.
I said that in our defence review we had to look at all of these facts which form a very complex equation. On the one hand, we have made substantial defence contributions of well over $2 billion to NATO Europe over and above the cost of stationing our forces there, while at the same time contributing to the defence of NATO North America. On the other hand, there is a growing belief in Canada that Europe is in a much better position now to absorb more of the costs than she was 10 or 15 years ago. At the same time we know that there is a continuing threat to NATO North America.
I said that one solution, as we see it, is to show our European partners that we do recognize the continuing threat to NATO Europe. It is for this reason that we will continue to maintain forces in Europe. But, I said, our European partners must recognize all of the factors I listed and accept the fact that there are two sides to the equation.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying this:
NATO is not Europe. NATO is not North America. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-a group of nations banded together which are pledged to consider an attack against one or more of us in Europe or North America as an attack against all of us. We reaffirm that pledge.
December 8, 1969	COMMONS


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the outline that the minister has given of the contributions Canada has made to NATO over the past 20 years was quite evidently intended as an excuse and an apology for the decision of the government materially to decrease Canada's contribution to NATO in the future. Rather than serving that purpose, to my mind it serves to emphasize the fact that the present government is declining to shoulder Canada's due share of the burden of western defence.
The reductions the minister announced last September in the forces that Canada is to maintain in Europe mean, of course, that we are not contributing in proportion to our population and our gross national product in the same way that other members, except for Luxembourg and Iceland, are contributing. In other words, we are shifting the burden to somebody else.
In connection with the talks that took place in Brussels, when the minister says that the other NATO European nations have initiated steps to adjust their forces so as to maintain NATO force levels in Europe, what he is saying indirectly is that these other countries of Europe have made arrangements to assume the burdens that Canada has laid down. This is not something about which we as Canadians can be proud.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
With regard to what the minister had to say about the nuclear talks which took place may I say that political consultation on the possible use of nuclear weapons has always been one of the most difficult subjects facing NATO. It has been discussed at every NATO conference I have attended and I presume at every other one that has been held. It has never been possible to arrive at what one might call a workable or practical means of exercising political control over how and when nuclear weapons are to be used if the balloon suddenly goes up and time is not available. I trust that progress is being made in solving this extremely difficult problem, although nothing the minister said in his statement indicates that actual progress has been made in that regard. The minister talked more particularly about drawing up plans for the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons and things of that sort. This is one of the important questions which NATO has not solved but which I hope it will solve. I refer to effective political control in respect of any sudden necessity for the use of nuclear weapons.
DEBATES	1683
Report on Brussels Meeting
Reports in European newspapers in connection not only with this meeting but with the general situation in NATO from a military point of view unfortunately leave the impression that Canada's withdrawal of some NATO forces from Europe and the failure of other NATO countries to supply sufficient conventional forces have meant a shift again in the general strategic thinking of NATO regarding an earlier use of tactical nuclear weapons than had been envisaged during the past two or three years. This is certainly an important matter. The minister shakes his head, but this is the opinion which has been put forward in the last few months. I think the general belief of most people who have studied the question is that the earlier use of nuclear weapons will be necessary because of Canada's withdrawal and the failure of other countries to supply sufficient conventional weapons. This is a very sad situation. We are now apparently at the point where nuclear weapons will be used much earlier than was envisaged one, two, three or four years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank the Minister of National Defence for giving us a copy of his statement. Let me congratulate him on the fact that he drew to the attention of the ministers' conference in Brussels the contributions which Canada has made over the past 20 years toward the defence of Europe and the stabilization of the situation there.
We in this party may not agree with the government in its slow phasing-out of our military commitments in Europe. We feel that the situation there is such that Canada could withdraw its military forces and, indeed, we question whether or not there is any real purpose to be served by Canada remaining in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We think the minister rendered a real service to Canada by pointing out that in the period when NATO had a vital role to play in the peace of the world Canada made a contribution out of all proportion to its size and its responsibility.
However, there is one part of the minister's statement in respect of which I hope he will give us more information. I refer to what he said about the papers that were prepared for the nuclear planning group. He used these words:
These papers dealt with procedures for political consultation on the possible use of nuclear weapons and guidance for commanders on drawing up their plans for the possible defensive tactical use of nuclear weapons in defence of the treaty area.
1684	COMMONS
Report on Brussels Meeting
Paragraph 13 of the official communique issued by the ministers in Brussels last week reads as follows:
Acting on the recommendation of the Nuclear Defence Affairs Committee, the Defence Planning Committee adopted two policy documents originated by the Nuclear Planning Group at their meeting in the United States last November, concerning general guidelines for nuclear consultation procedure and for the possible tactical use of nuclear weapons in defence of the treaty area.
I do not think the House has been given any specific information either as to what the consultative procedures are or as to what changes, if any, there have been in the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. Newspaper reports have been emanating from Brussels. How accurate they are we in this House are not in a position to say, but one of the reports said that part of the procedure would be that the ultimate decision would lie with the President of the United States. Another newspaper article said that in respect of the use of tactical nuclear weapons the ministers' conference had decided that tactical nuclear weapons could now be used in the event that conventional weapons were not adequate to meet the military situation; in other words, NATO would be authorized to use nuclear weapons first if it found that the military situation warranted it.
I think the minister owes the House a statement fairly soon with reference to the consultative procedures which have been established and in respect of what changes, if any, have been made. I think the minister ought to tell the House today or in the near future what changes there have been in respect of the use of tactical nuclear weapons and whether or not it is true that the ministers of the NATO countries have agreed that nuclear weapons can be used irrespective of whether the opposing forces have resorted to the use of that kind of weapon.
I hope the minister will take an early opportunity to enlighten the House on these two points because they are very vital to Canada. It is true that Canada is phasing itself out of a nuclear role, but my recollection is that we are committed to a nuclear role until 1971. If we are committed to such a role we should certainly know under what circumstances we will be called upon to play that nuclear role in Europe.


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to draw the members' attention to a few points mentioned by the Minister

DEBATES	December 8, 1969
of National Defence who states that we are reducing our forces in Europe because of necessary budgetary restrictions. Mr. Speaker, it is not perhaps logical to say that we neglect national defence because of a limited budget. When we have to defend ourselves, we do so and if we were attacked we would have to think in terms of defence.
However, this does not mean that we favor having troops stationed in Europe. On the contrary, we feel we should call them all back. Why? The minister answers the question himself when he says, and I quote:
On the other hand, there is a growing belief in Canada that Europe is in a much better position now to absorb more of the costs than she was 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, we fully agree on that point. We do not have one cent to spend in Europe at this time. Will the money borrowed in Europe by certain provinces be used to defend that continent? Europeans are more numerous than we are, therefore they are in a better position to defend themselves. I fail to understand why the statement goes on to say, and I quote:
It is for this reason that we will continue to maintain forces in Europe.
We are members of NATO and we must contribute to it. However, Canada is NATO's largest member country and we should deem it enough for us to defend Canada, taking into account our small population, and not aim at defending Europe.
I wish such a prerequisite were done away with, that we could be satisfied simply to defend Canada and stop sending troops to Europe and spend huge amounts for their upkeep. We could then say, as a prime minister did not so long ago: "Enough of this nonsense!"
e (2:50 p.m.)



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, on behalf of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie):
That the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the Hou<5" on Wednesday, December 3, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 8, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the motion be put at this time? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


William Marvin Howe: for leave to introduce Bill C-168, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Marvin Howe: In view of the fact that the riding of Wellington-Grey comprises parts of four counties the purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to fully recognize this state of affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Salisman: 1.	What firms have applied for loans under the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance Program (PIDA) administered by the Department of Industry. Trade and Commerce, up to September 30, 1969?
2.	What firms have received loans under PIDA, and what is the amount of these loans?
3.	What firms have been refused loans under PIDA, and what reasons were given for these refusals?

December 8, 1969
Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1, 2 and 3. The names of the specific firms and the amount of assistance applied for under this program cannot be released to preserve the "commercial confidentiality" assured each applicant. However, of a total of 15 applications received as of September 30, 1969, one has been approved, four are being investigated, four are ineligible and six are considered dormant. Three of the dormant applications could be reactivated by year end. If the four applications under investigation result in loans, an approximate total of $950,000 will have been committed.
Of the four ineligible applications, one did not qualify because the company did not manufacture or plan to manufacture prescription drugs in dosage form, a second could obtain needed financing through another government agency while the third and fourth proposed plans which were beyond their financial capabilities.


USE OF LANGEVIN BUILDING BY HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the Government of Canada giving favourable consideration to the renovation of the Lange-vin Building on Wellington Street to be used by the House of Commons?
2.	If not, what plans does the Government of Canada presently have to make available more space to meet the urgent accommodation requirements of the House of Commons?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Consideration is also being given to relocating certain services out of the West Block into rented accommodation to make space available for Parliamentary Committee functions in the West Block.


INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Saltsman: Does the Government of Canada intend to implement the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that steps be taken to establish an independent institute of economic research which would have the responsibility of examining all current economic conditions?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that steps be taken to establish an independent institute of economic research which would have the responsibility of examining all current economic conditions is under consideration but no decision has been taken with respect to it.


EMBASSIES OPENED OR CLOSED
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Does the government intend to close any embassies and, if so, which ones?
2.	Does the government intend to open any new embassies and, if so, in what countries?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes, as announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House and reported in Hansard November 3, 1969, page 391.
2.	Yes. Ivory Coast and the Vatican. [English']


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?
2.	What rate of interest does the Government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Fund during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968 (f) March 31, 1969?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. (a) March 31, 1964, $1,856,407,623; (b) March 31, 1965, $2,161,828,358; (c) March 31, 1966, $2,390,383,091; (d) March 31, 1967, $2,689,467,819; (e) March 31, 1968, $2,875,823,276; (f) March 31, 1969, $3,265,341,150.
2.	The rate is 1.2416 per cent per quarter for the quarter ending September 30, 1969. Previously the rate had been 1 per cent per quarter. The new rate is subject to change for every quarter in a fiscal year.
3 and 4.
During	Total Amount	Totalthe fiscal	of Interest	Amountyear ending	Credited	Paid Out(a)	March	31,	1964	$ 71,756,270	$56,807,908(b)	March	31,	1965	78,715,785	64,160,629(c)	March	31,	1966	89,499,085	69,906,914(d)	March	31,	1967	98,499,363	74,902,119(e)	March	31,	1968	110,897,897	84,113,503(f)	March	31,	1969	117,950,358	86,964,343

December 8. 1969


PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ADJUSTMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?
4.	In each of the last five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.
1959-60	Public Service 14,311
1960-61	13,885
1961-62	12,553
1962-63	11,709
1963-64	10,852
1964-65	10,077
1965-66	9,078
1966-67	8,162
1967-68	7,483
1968-69	6,860
2.	1959-60 (including payments made $3,-' 112,231 under Vote 667, Finance Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958) 1960-61, $2,956,515; 196162, $2,817,263; 1962-63, $2,657,706; 1963-64, $2,504,503; 1964-65, $2,344,711; 1965-66, $2,236,212; 1966-67, $2,083,329; 1967-68, $1,905,478; 1968-69, $1,777,869.
3.	(a)	1959-60,	$208.72;	1960-61,	$202.43;1961-62,	$212.01;	1962-63,	$212.66;	1963-64,$210.94;	1965-66,	$223.03;1967-68,	$222.27;	1968-69,
$212.01;
1964-65,
$220.52;
$210.26;
1966-67,

(b)	1959-60, $108.88; 1960-61, $105.42; 196162, $111.92; 1962-63, $113.59; 1963-64, $115.75; 1964-65, $118.08; 1965-66, $126.69; 1966-67, $125.64; 1967-68, $128.27; 1968-69, $126.21.
(c)	1959-60, $9.32; 1960-61, $8.79; 1961-62, $8.35; 1962-63, $9.06; 1963-64, $8.00; 1964-65, $8.19; 1965-66, $9.13; 1966-67, $8.93; 1967-68, $10.11; 1968-69, $8.56.
4. (a) 1964-65, 1,420; 1965-66, 1,489; 1966-67, 1,523; 1967-68, 1,572; 1968-69, 1,751.
(b) 1964-65, 375; 1965-66, 382; 1966-67, 508; 1967-68, 503; 1968-69, 514.


Mr. Mather: Is the Department of Transport studying or assisting in studies of short and long term relief from aircraft noise in specific areas and, if so, when may a report on such studies be expected?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Department of Transport has been involved in studies of the noise problem since 1960 when jet aircraft were first introduced on regular scheduled service.
At that time equipment was obtained to measure the sound level of aircraft as they operated over noise susceptible residential areas near airports. This regular monitoring of noise levels has resulted in the accumulation of a large amount of data which were used in the development of special procedures for providing some relief from jet aircraft noise; however this information is not available in report form.
In addition, National Research Council has, at the request of the Department, conducted specialized studies on noise at Ottawa and Montreal International Airports in 1959, 1960 and 1965 and is currently engaged in a study at Toronto. Reports are available for the studies carried out at Ottawa and Montreal.
At all times the Department maintains a direct liaison with other countries concerning developments in the noise abatement field and also participates in international meetings on the subject conducted by the International Civil Aviation Organization.


HIGHWAY SAFETY-MANDATORY WEARING OF SEAT BELTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to encourage mandatory wearing of seat belts by all drivers of trucks, truck tractors and buses in inter-provincial use?


Gérard Loiselle: The Department of Transport is most interested in the potential safety of mandatory wearing of seat belts by all drivers of motor vehicles. It is planned to raise this subject at the next meeting with the Council of Provincial Ministers responsible for motor vehicle administration.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKING
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has research been conducted at the federal or inter-provincial level into the accident hazards posed by heavy trucks?

December 8, 1969
Questions
2.	If so, what is the percentage of Canadian vehicle registration accounted for by heavy trucks in 1968?
3.	What is the total percentage of Canadian mileage of such trucks in 1968?
4.	What is the percentage of fatal accidents in which such trucks were involved?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of Transport and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:
1.	No. However, some provinces have investigated the accident hazard posed by specific types of vehicles.
2.	Statistics are not available on the registrations of heavy trucks in Canada. However, of the total registrations of motor vehicles in Canada in 1968-7,877,547, the registrations of trucks and tractors were 1,340,980 or 17.0 percent.
3.	Not available.
4.	Statistics are not available on the percentage of fatal accidents in which heavy trucks were involved. However, in Canada in 1968 the total number of trucks involved in all types of reported motor vehicle accidents was 94,413 or 10.8 percent of the total number of vehicles (870,591) involved in all types of reported accidents. Excluding Quebec, where statistics are not available on the number of trucks involved in fatal traffic accidents, in 1968 of all types of vehicles (4,457) involved in fatal traffic accidents, 762 or 17.1 percent were trucks.


FINANCE-DEFERMENT OF CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES ON NEW COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
Mr. Winch: 1.	Is the Department of Finance undertaking any analysis regarding the measures introduced in the June 1969 budget on deferring capital cost allowances on new commercial projects?
2.	If so, who are the individuals involved in this analysis?
3.	When is it anticipated that the analysis will be completed?
4.	Are there any preliminary trends regarding this analysis?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The necessary data are not yet available to permit the undertaking of any analysis regarding the budget measure on deferral of capital cost allowances on new commercial construction.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.


MINE ACCESS ROADS, NEW QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the federal government received a request from the Government of the Province of Quebec, for a contribution toward the cost of building access roads to the mines in the New Quebec area?
2.	Does the Government of Canada intend to build one or more seaports on Ungava Bay or Hudson Strait?


Yves Forest: 1. No.
2. The Department of Public Works has at present no plans for construction of seaports in either of these localities.


WHARF FACILITIES, YARMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Comeau: Is the government providing funds for the installation of wharf facilties at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, for the proposed new ferry and, if so, when are these funds to be provided and in what amount?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The Government is providing a loan to the Province of Nova Scotia for the modification of existing terminal facilities at Yarmouth to accommodate the proposed new ferry.
2.	As required by the Province.
3.	$430,000'.


ALL-WEATHER HIGHWAY BETWEEN FORT NELSON AND FORT SIMPSON
Mr. Borrie: 1.	Has the Government of the Province of British Columbia communicated with the Government of Canada requesting participation in the construction of an all-weather highway between Fort Nelson, B.C. and Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories?
2.	Would the Government of Canada give favourable consideration to the construction of an allweather highway between Fort Nelson, B.C., and Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No.
2. The Federal Government is giving favourable consideration to the construction of that portion of the Highway which lies between Fort Simpson and Fort Liard in the Northwest Territories. The first portion of this highway (which forms part of the Mackenzie Highway

mile 296 to mile 258) is now under construction. Subject to negotiations with the Province of British Columbia the Government would consider building the road between Fort Liard and the British Columbia boundary.
December 8, 1969


SYMPOSIUM ON INDIAN SCHOOL INTEGRATION
Mr. Borrie: 1.	What was the cost to the government for conducting a symposium on Indian school integration at Kamloops, B.C., in May, 1969?
2.	Were professional fees paid for organizing the event and, if so, how much and to whom?
3.	Were travel and incidental expenses paid to participants?
4.	Were all participants required to pay the $35.00 registration fee?
5.	How many persons attended the symposium?
6.	What was the total amount received from the registration fee?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Approximately $4,000.
2.	No.
3.	The Department paid the expenses of some Indian delegates and those of the departmental representatives.
4.	All registered delegates paid the $35 registration fee.
5.	About 100 persons.
6.	Approximately $3,500.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	In what matters does the government have responsibility over the Prices and Incomes Commission?
2.	In what matters does the Prices and Incomes Commission exercise its own discretion?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The government has set out the terms of reference under which the Commission operates. These terms of reference are contained in P.C. 1969-1249 of June 19, 1969. In addition to containing the terms of reference for the activities of the Commission, the Order-in-Council states that the rates of remuneration for persons employed or retained by the Prices and Incomes Commission shall be approved by the Treasury Board. By Order-in-Council 1969-1294 of June 25, 1969, the Prices and Incomes Commission was designated as a Department for purposes of the Financial Administration Act and in this regard, the Hon. Stanley Ronald Basford was named as the appropriate Minister with respect to the Prices and Incomes Commission for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act. Therefore, in matters relating to financial management including estimates, contracts, etc., the Prices and Incomes Commission operates within the framework of the Financial Administration Act and is re-
Questions
sponsible to the government and Parliament.
2. Under P.C. 1969-1249, the Prices and Incomes Commission is authorized to undertake studies and prepare and publish reports under its own authority. While the Commissioners may receive requests for the conduct of studies on problems, issues and situations made to them by the federal and provincial governments, they "may reject or defer any such request if they consider that the study is not relevant to their main functions or that, having regard to the resources available to them, the study is of lower priority than other studies they consider they should conduct." In addition, the Commissioners are authorized to exercise all powers conferred on them by Section 11 of the Inquiries Act and are authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff, clerks and technical advisers as they may require.


ROAD AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY RESEARCH
Mr. Robinson: Has the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office of the Department of Transport carried out any research programs and, if so, what are they and, if not, what ones are contemplated?


Gérard Loiselle: The Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office is presently conducting a research study to measure the effectiveness of a public education program, designed to inform Canadians on their new obligations with respect to drinking and driving resulting from the amendments to the Criminal Code passed during the last session of Parliament.
A further program of research is now being planned in co-operation with the provincial departments concerned. This program may include projects related to evaluations of the driving task, potential new motor vehicle safety standards, intersection accidents and new traffic control devices. A study to develop more meaningful traffic accident statistics may also be initiated.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY SAFETY INSPECTION SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: Is it the intention of the federal government to require the automotive industry to provide a safety inspection service according to government standards and, if so, how will this service operate in the case of importation of vehicles and parts into Canada?

December 8, 1969
Questions


Gérard Loiselle: The intention is to require the automotive industry to provide specific design, testing and inspection records to demonstrate that the vehicles they produce comply with the applicable government standards to be established under the proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Industry tests will also be observed by inspectors to verify the documentation supplied. Comparable information will be required from foreign manufacturers prior to the importation of vehicles into Canada. The safety of motor vehicle parts imported into Canada will, for the present, be controlled at the point of sale under provincial legislation.


MARITIME PROVINCES' UNION
Mr. Coates: Has the federal government communicated in any manner with the governments of the three Maritime Provinces regarding the possibility of a union of those three provinces and, if so, what was the nature of the communications?


James Edgar Walker: There has been no
communication. However, through the Atlantic Development Board the Federal Government has contributed $125,000 towards the total cost of $250,000 of the Maritime Union Study.


SURVEILLANCE DRONE AIRCRAFT
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has the Canadian Government negotiated a contract for the procurement of surveillance drone aircraft for the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Has any other country negotiated a contract for the production of such aircraft in Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes.
2. Yes. Contracts have been negotiated for the procurement of the Surveillance Drone System for the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.


NEW GERMANY, N.S.-DEMOLITION OF DAM
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Did the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry authorize the demolition of a water retention dam at New Germany, Lunenburg County, N.S. and, if so, what was the reason behind this action and what amount of funds was expended on this project?
2.	Has the Minister authorized the reconstruction of this dam and, if so, what was the amount of funds authorized to cover repairs to this structure?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Yes. The privately owned dam is being

phased out of operation and the owner would not agree to continued maintenance of the structure to assure efficient operation of the fishway which was to have been built. It is being removed with the owner's consent and provision is being made for an adequate fire protection water supply for the village. About $500 have been expended to date.
2. No.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Southam: Is Saskatchewan's second National Park, which was announced by the government on April 22, 1965, slated for development in 1970 and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No agreement has been concluded with the Government of Saskatchewan with regard to the establishment of a second National Park. For this reason no development can be slated for 1970.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Is a second National Park scheduled for development in Prince Edward Island?
2.	Has a decision as yet been arrived at as to where this Park wil be located and, if not, how soon may such a decision be expected?
3.	If it has been decided not to establish a second National Park in this Province, what is the reason for such a decision?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Scheduling of
development will be carried out when it is known when lands will be available for park purposes.
2.	Yes, both the Department and the Province are generally agreed as to park location.
3.	Not applicable.


POLICING OF LONG POINT BAY DUCK HUNTING
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many members of the RCMP are required to police the Long Point Bay area on Lake Erie during the annual duck-hunting season this year?
2.	Are any temporary or special constables employed for these duties and, if so, how many?
3.	Do the RCMP make use of paid "informers" in order to provide evidence for prosecutions under the Migratory Birds and related Acts and, if so, under what terms and conditions?
4.	What is the total estimated cost of the operations outlined in parts 1, 2 and 3 above?
5.	How many ducks have been confiscated this year to date by the RCMP as a result of illegal acts by hunters?
December 8, 1969

6.	What disposition in detail has been made of these ducks?
7.	How many persons have been prosecuted this year to date in this area with respect to infractions of the Migratory Birds and related Acts?
8.	How many convictions have been registered to date?
9.	What penalties resulted from these convictions?


George James McIlraith: 1. Three: seven on opening day of season.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	$2,135.10.
5.	68 ducks; 8 coots.
6.	Ordered forfeited by Courts and held in cold storage to be handed over to Ontario Department of Lands and Forest for research purposes.
7.	Migratory Birds Convention Act, 10, by RCMP; Provincial Game Act, 11, by Ontario Dept, of Lands and Forests; Migratory Birds Regulations, 3, by Ontario Dept, of Lands and Forests.
8.	By RCMP, 10; by Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, unknown.
9.	(a) $35 fine plus costs; (b) $35 fine; (c) $35 fine; (d) $100 fine; (e) $100 fine; (f) $75 fine; (g) $75 fine; (h) $75 fine; (i) 75 fine; (j) (i) $35 fine; (ii) $35 fine.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Harding: 1.	Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced that incentives for the construction of municipal sewage plants exist under the National Housing Act, and if so, is it hoped that towns and cities will continue to take advantage of them?
2.	For the period January 1, 1969, to September 30, 1969, what applications were received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for financial assistance for the construction of municipal sewage plants under the National Housing Act?
3 What applications were approved and what was the expenditure for each approved application?
4.	What applications were rejected and what was the planned expenditure for each rejected application?
5.	What reasons were given by CMHC officials for each application rejected?
6.	Have CMHC officials informed certain cities and municipalities in Canada that no applications should be sent in this year for federal assistance on the construction of municipal sewage plants?
7.	If so, which cities and municipalities have been informed of this decision?
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in his absence I shall direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. It arises from the announced closure of Fairey Aviation Company as a result of the decline in defence operations. Is it the intention of the department to take any remedial action, particularly in view of the assurance given by the Minister of National Defence in the House some time ago that it was anticipated the responsibilities and operations of the navy on the east coast would be extended?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to draw this question to the attention of the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Parliamentary Secretary. Have the catastrophic proportions of the unemployment that will be created been brought to the attention of the department and has the department given active attention to the creation of alternative employment in the area?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, the department is giving active consideration to alternative employment in the area. The industrial incentives program is actively in force in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: And no jobs are being created.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Would the Parliamentary Secretary seek further information from his minister as to what progress is being made between his departmental officials and officials of Fairey of Canada and Grumman Aircraft Corporation with regard to the takeover of that firm? I wonder if I could direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister? Will the government give assurances to the people directly involved in this very serious matter, who comprise between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of the population of Dartmouth, that, in view of the commitment given to the
Return tabled.
1692	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry people of the Maritimes some months ago by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, and before direct action of this type involving the expenditure of defence dollars is undertaken, interim or alternative forms of employment will be provided?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I will seek an answer to the question raised by the hon. member.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the minister to make a statement on motions at the earliest possible opportunity, failing which I should like to discuss the matter at ten o'clock.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence regarding the meeting of the NATO ministers last week in Brussels. Does the adoption of the recommendations of the nuclear defence committee involve a change in the concept underlying the use of tactical nuclear weapons by NATO forces? Also, does that change allow such weapons to be used much earlier in a military confrontation than would hitherto have been the case?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have to begin by reminding ourselves that there was a change in strategy. Massive retaliation was the strategic concept employed before, and that was changed two years ago to the concept of flexible response. The political control that was exercised under the concept of massive retaliation is still applied under the concept of flexible response. The flexible response concept further contemplates the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a defensive fashion only, and the committee is now studying procedures with this end in mind. We are also trying to make sure that political control will be maintained throughout. Obviously these are continuing studies, and although we may say that we have adopted the committee's report we have actually endorsed a way of thinking. We hope that a continuation of the studies will lead eventually to a safe system of control and political decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. 
DEBATES	December 8, 1969
Speaker. Does "flexible response" and the interpretation of it resulting from the acceptance of the committee's recommendation now mean that tactical nuclear weapons can be used even if NATO forces are confronted only with conventional weapons in a conventional conflict?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I suppose that is possible theoretically, except that there is still the problem of consultation and political decision. In that area, so far as the decision of involved governments is concerned there is no change with regard to nuclear weapons being used although the other side does not use them, for the time being that is, I think, a theoretical possibility.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we all want the Minister of National Defence to clarify something he said. Does he mean to suggest that it is necessary to have political approval before the use of tactical atomic defence weapons can be resorted to?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, I do, sir.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the minister in his statement referred to the new provisions as being more restrictive, may I ask whether "restrictive" relates to the use of nuclear weapons or to the consultative procedures?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think it has to be applied to both. The reports and studies we looked at are, so to speak, concurrent. They are going along side by side. Since different bodies or committees are studying these problems, the restrictions apply in both cases.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, political control over the use of nuclear weapons involves very difficult questions. Inasmuch as the minister indicated that some decision has been made in this regard, am I to understand the term "political control" to mean that without the agreement of all the various governments or their representatives nuclear weapons would not be used in the event that defensive measures became necessary in the opinion of the commander?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, obviously I did not explain myself properly if I led the right hon. gentleman to believe that some decisions had been taken. I think I
December 8, 1969
should underline that these were continuing studies so far as political control is concerned. I believe it was my duty to ensure that the Canadian government would be consulted in the event that Canadian troops have to use nuclear weapons. This is what I meant. We would be consulted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does that also mean that in these discussions which apparently have been in a state of flux for several years the Canadian government said no, there could be no use of nuclear weapons?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: What I meant, Mr. Speaker, is that although Canadians have nuclear weapons in their hands they would not use them.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I gave the department notice of my question and was assured that an acting minister would be present to answer. Did Dr. Kazimierz Lasky, a Polish refugee and former member of the Communist party, request permission to come to Canada in response to an invitation from York University for him to teach there? If so, what has been the government's answer to this request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to decide if this question is urgent. If there is urgency, perhaps it will be more apparent to the minister and he could reply to the question.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, it will be apparent at ten o'clock, with great respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the general in'.erest in this matter, as evidenced by my intention to ask a similar question, I wonder if the minister might be permitted to answer the question of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal?


Mr. Speaker:: If there is urgency, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply if he wishes to do so.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour was to represent the Minister of Manpower and Immigration today. A search has now been instituted, and I think the minister might be in a position to respond before we reach the end of the question period.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour has returned to the House may I ask whether the Department of Manpower and Immigration has approved the entry of Dr. Kazimierz Lasky? If he is not now ready to answer the question I would be delighted to be here at ten o'clock and ask it again.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I have been present in the House at ten o'clock. I will accept the hon. gentleman's offer.


POST OFFICE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications. Has he received a telegram from Mr. Jim McCall, Vancouver president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, requesting that the government substantially increase the present inadequate wage of $1.25 per hour for temporary help during the Christmas season? If he has, can the minister tell the House whether this reasonable request will be acted on by the government?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimasler General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen such a telegram. The matter has been under discussion for the last week with Treasury Board during my absence, but I intend to provide an answer.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but since he is absent may I direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion investigating reports that as a result of a federal grant of $868,845 to Duplate of Canada a new plant was established this year in Hawkesbury, which has led directly to the loss of hundreds of jobs with the same company in Oshawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question could well be put on the order paper. If the hon. member considers that it should be considered at an earlier date I shall

1694	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry be pleased to see that he is given an opportunity to debate it at the time of adjournment.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is a question of urgency. Some 300 have recently been laid off in Oshawa and the answer therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is precisely because it is urgent that it could be considered at the time of the adjournment proceedings.




Gerald William Baldwin: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both in that capacity and as Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact a sale of wheat valued at $100 million to Communist China has just been announced by Australia, does the minister not think it is time to change the instructions to the delegation dealing with the People's Republic of China so that something else may come about other than the game of hide and seek which now appears to be taking place?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman may have a related question. A supplementary question cannot be asked. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver East.


REMOVAL FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP OF MEMBER SITTING AS INDEPENDENT
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I realize my question is somewhat difficult because it affects so many members of the House. I ask Your Honour's permission to address the question to the Government House Leader, the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has cancelled all meetings of the subcommittee on maritime policy until such time as a decision is reached by the government, I should like to ask the government House leader whether the hon. member for Spadina will be allowed to

DEBATES	December 8, 1969
remain as a member of the committee and when a government decision will be reached, since our subcommittee has a lot of work to do, some of which was pre-arranged?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was absent when the hon. member asked the question last week. Unfortunately, the hon. member in question is not present. As soon as I have an opportunity to consult with him, I hope we can arrive at a satisfactory solution.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps at this time I could reply further to the hon. member for Vancouver East. I have been advised by the clerk of the committee that the hon. member for Spadina has resigned his position on that committee.


Harold Edward Winch: At whose direction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was apparently at his own insistence.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: wish to direct a question to the Government House Leader. It is prompted by the general interest today in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. As very serious situations are facing the country today, such as the closing of the Fairey plant in Halifax and the matter alluded to by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has to ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am trying to build a premise to my question. It is very important. I ask the House Leader if, in the light of the serious situations arising in the last few days, he will now give consideration through the usual channels, whatever they may be, to convening a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss with the appropriate persons the possibility of holding an organizational meeting. However, I do not see at the moment any reason to depart from the conclusion that, because of the heavy pressure on other committees, that committee could not meet before Christmas.
December 8, 1969


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It relates to the city of Cornwall and the unemployment there resulting in part from the shutdown of the rayon yarn division of Courtaulds (Canada) Limited.
I understand this has resulted in a rate of unemployment substantially above the national average. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what use the minister is making of the powers given to him by the House in the legislation passed last session to be of assistance in creating additional employment in Cornwall and vicinity?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, while I am not sure of this part of my answer, I do not think Cornwall fits into the designated regions in Ontario.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am wondering what help will be given the people of Argentia who will be affected by the lay-off that occurred there in the last two or three weeks?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it from the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary that the government accepts no responsibility for any activity in connection with the high rate of unemployment in the city of Cornwall?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, the program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established by Parliament for designa+ed regions. The general economic policies of the government apply to Cornwall as they do to all other areas. I am referring to general programs of the department which apply indirectly, not specifically.




John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell the House the present

Inquiries of the Ministry position of the negotiations for the recognition of Communist China and whether in those negotiations there is to be a quid pro quo, namely that China will be required to purchase a certain amount of wheat from Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows that in the exchange of diplomats between countries such considerations are irrelevant. When any negotiations of this kind were undertaken when he was the Prime Minister of this country, he also followed that rule.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the
negativity of his uncertainty the minister should not start giving advice to others. I ask if he is doing something to bring about a sale of Canadian wheat while endeavouring to bring about the recognition of Communist China? That is all I ask.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The present Canadian government, and the government under the leadership of the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, have no apology to make about the large quantities of wheat they sold to the Chinese government.


John George Diefenbaker: Because we got the
orders.


Gerald William Baldwin: Tell that to the farmers out west.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BIAFRA-REQUEST BY CANAIRELIEF FOR ASSISTANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is now quite some time since Canaire-lief made representations to the government asking for assistance for flights into Biafra with relief supplies, is the government yet in a position to make an announcement on whether it will grant assistance to Canaire-lief?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister had some conversations with representatives of Canairelief. He promised an answer within a short time, but not yet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the continuing starvation in Biafra, can the government assure the House it will make a decision before the Christmas adjournment?
December 8, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Sharp: I do not know whether I could give a definite undertaking, but certainly there is no desire to delay it until after that time. When I was in Geneva I followed up this question and found agreement on all sides that the best solution would be daylight flights.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: When the government is considering its responsibility to Canairelief, will it be helped by the precedent established by the United Kingdom government which is providing 100,000 pounds sterling to Oxfam and to Joint Church Aid, of Which Canairelief is an agent?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think that precedent would help very much, Mr. Speaker, because it was specifically said by the British government that this assistance was not to be used to pay for night flights.


CULTURAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND FRANCE
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
He said earlier that he had had interesting talks with the French foreign minister. I would like to know whether, on this occasion, he talked about the cultural agreement signed between Canada and France in 1965 and whether the minister has been assured that France, under the said agreement, will maintain her cultural and educational relations with Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is very anxious that there should be good relations not only between Canada as a whole and France, but also specifically between Quebec and France.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question, because I believe the minister did not understand my question. Has it been decided that when a member of the French government comes to Quebec, he must go to Ottawa first?


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is more in the form of a related question. During his meetings with his counterpart in the government of France, did the 
minister discuss Canada's territorial waters off the south coast of Newfoundland in light of French sovereignty over the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. These discussions are proceeding otherwise.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Following the discussions with the French foreign minister, have there been indications that the Prime Minister of Canada will soon meet with the president of the French republic?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We did not specifically discuss that subject. I did discuss with Mr. Schumann an exchange of visits between Canadian and French ministers. He was very agreeable and hoped this would happen.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Speakman Barnett: wish to ask the President of the Privy Council, in his capacity as Leader of the House, whether it was through an oversight on his part that earlier today on motions he did not move to refer the documents concerning Indian mortality rates to the appropriate committee. If so, would he ask leave of the House to revert to motions for this purpose? It was my understanding that it was generally agreed on Friday, in the hon. gentleman's absence, that such action might be taken today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have to apologize to the hon. member and the House; I was not aware of that agreement. Since the federal-provincial conference is in progress it was not possible for me to confer this morning with my alter ego of last Friday.



ITEMS FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, AND THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11

['I will refer this question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ascertain whether he can find out at just what prices these sales were made.']
Gerald William Baldwin: Could the Leader of the House give us some indication of the business for Wednesday and Thursday, having a regard to the fact that today and tomorrow are allotted days?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On
December 8. 1969

Wednesday we will call as the first item that perennial favourite, the CNR financing bill, to be followed virtually instantly by the excise tax bill and the Income Tax Act amendment.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister whether it is a fact that major pieces of legislation will not be cleared for debate until fact sheets prepared by civil servants are ready for exclusive distribution to the Liberal caucus?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No fact sheets are being prepared by public servants, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much whether the question asked by the hon. member was in order and I trust that any further question he may wish to ask is not a supplementary or a related question.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister has given me an answer to my question and I accept his word. Will he also assure me that public servants are not preparing these fact sheets for distribution to the Liberal Federation of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I say, I do not know of any such activity. If the hon. member has any evidence I will be glad to talk to him about it.



Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
According to certain reports, Quebec ministers travelling abroad are closely watched by a security service of the federal External Affairs Department. Could the minister give us the reasons which have led his department to exercise such a surveillance over Quebec ministers travelling outside of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question should appear on the order paper.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Australia's success in selling 82 million bushels of wheat

Inquiries of the Ministry to China and the apparent failure of Canadian negotiators to make a sale of similar proportions to that country, can the hon. gentleman report on the negotiations which our country is conducting with Russia with regard to sales of wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: The advice I have received is that the negotiations are progressing favourably. That is the only information I have at the moment.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Since the Minister of Agriculture is not in the House I would direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of reports that Australia has negotiated the sale to China of some 82 million bushels of wheat at a price of about $100 million, would the government be prepared to investigate the situation and inform the House whether this deal was made at prices substantially below those currently prevailing under the International Grains Arrangement?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will refer this question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ascertain whether he can find out at just what prices these sales were made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether, when he has finished writing the second chapter of his work on base consolidation-a very unpopular book and one which is by no means a best-seller -he will append an assurance that there will be no further difficulties created by base consolidation for the economy of the Mari-times, especially in light of today's shocking announcement by Fairey of Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If I seem to be hesitant about answering that question, the fact is we have not finalized that report. So far the intention is that there shall not be any further change of the situation in the maritime provinces.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for that assurance, because it is an important one. I would have directed this question to him earlier had he not been temporarily out of the
1698	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry House. Can he assure hon. members and the people of the Maritimes that the promise given to civic leaders, provincial leaders and others will be maintained with respect to the withdrawal of defence services generally?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The last word used by the hon. member was "generally". I would say that generally I am disposed to keep as much as possible in the Maritimes.


Walter C. Carter: Can
the minister tell us whether Vice-Admiral O'Brien, commanding officer of the Canadian Forces Base at Halifax, was expressing government policy when he said in a speech at St. John's on December 4 that the Canadian Armed Forces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order. The hon. member cannot ask a member of the cabinet to express an opinion on whether a statement made outside the House by a person other than a cabinet minister represents government policy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Max Saltsman: I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bearing in mind the difficulties experienced this year in the passport office, is his department making plans to prevent a problem of this kind arising in the future and, if so, is he prepared to make a statement to that effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: I received a report this morning on the plans that have been made to open regional offices, which I hope will be of some help in easing the situation. As soon as these plans are completed, either I shall make a statement or a statement will be issued for public information regarding the date on which these offices will be open for business. I hope these steps will help in meeting the problem next year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, on behalf of the Canadian government he is taking any position with regard to the alleged torture and repression in Greece or whether the government of Canada is simply sitting

DEBATES	December 8, 1969
back and waiting for the Council of Europe to show some initiative?


Mitchell William Sharp: It did seem to the Canadian government that since this matter was the subject of a very special inquiry in connection with which a confidential report was being made to members of the Council of Europe, it would be wise for us to wait until this part of the inquiry had been completed. However, if we obtained information which would justify it we might take action ourselves. We certainly would not want to prejudge the situation, nor can we see any reason for taking action ahead of the Council of Europe.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did the Secretary of State seek any assurance from the minister representing Greece at the NATO conference with regard to this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: The foreign minister of Greece was not present at the NATO meetings in Brussels and the matter was not raised; it was not on the agenda.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understood the minister to say, in the course of his statement that he had conferred with the minister from Greece. If I misunderstood him, I extend my apologies.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman may have heard me refer to Turkey; it was not Greece.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If no action is taken by the NATO governments will the Canadian government consider raising this question at the ministerial meeting which is scheduled, I believe, for May?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the matter would be before the NATO meeting, particularly, of course, if a decision had been taken to expel Greece from the Council of Europe. I think hon. members will recognize, however, that NATO is a defensive alliance. It is concerned with the security of the whole of western Europe, including Greece and Turkey. One would have to question the desirability of taking action to expel a member from a defence alliance which would result in weakening the alliance, thus making it more vulnerable to attack.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which
December 8, 1969
I ask for purposes of clarification. Did I understand the minister to suggest that the existence of a dictatorial regime within NATO was compatible with the constitution of NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration or perhaps I should direct it to the Minister of Labour. In light of the announcement this morning that CIL in Hamilton has sold certain property to Dominion Foundries and Steel, would the minister advise whether the announcement has been brought to his attention and whether everything is being done that can be done to relocate some 335 people, to make special retirement arrangements, etc.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, CIL did have the courtesy to notify me last week that it intended to sell some of its property and to close out some of its operations in Hamilton. I believe company officials also met with officials of the Department of Manpower in order to work out, in conjunction with the department, ways and means to reduce the effect of lay-offs. In their press release this morning, of which I have a copy in front of me, the company mentions it will provide financial assistance and in some cases make special retirement arrangements for those whose employment is terminated, as well as setting up retraining plans in co-operation with the federal Department of Manpower.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence may I direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. It arises from charges made by the principal of Sir Winston Churchill collegiate in Fort William that Indian students cannot get needed treatment because local dentists are fed up with the interminable delays and red tape in Ottawa.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be asked directly rather than prefaced by a statement made outside the House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister investigate these charges and let the House know his findings?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, these charges have been investigated by the acting director of medical services, who has informed me that Ontario dentists have been authorized to perform, on their own judgment, $40 worth of services in the case of an individual Indian student. To ensure that Indian students receive adequate dental care, for elective or special dental work, such as the provision of dentures, a dentist is paid for a report outlining the extent and cost of special dental work.
According to the information supplied to me, it takes approximately 10 to 14 days for the final processing of such a report. We have been assured that any delay in this matter is out of the control of our department.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he could let the House know when this figure of $40 was established?


Stanley Haidasz: Yes, Mr. Speaker; on March 18, 1969.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister indicate when the House can expect the introduction of new legislation in the area of unemployment insurance benefits, as promised in the Speech from the Throne in October?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the reference in the Throne Speech was to a proposed white paper, or to some outline for the consideration of all members, regarding changes in the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act. I hope the matter will be dealt with in the fairly near future, possibly early spring.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the House is expecting a white paper, could the minister indicate whether we can expect the new legislation to



December 8. 1969
Urban Problems
be introduced during this session? The minister has indicated there will be a white paper forthcoming.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this depends to a great degree on the co-operation that the hon. member and others interested give me when the paper comes forward.



PENITENTIARIES


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of Canada. In view of the offer by the government of a 2 per cent pay increase for prison guards in 34 federal institutions, would the minister advise the House whether he considers this offer of 2 per cent to be a reasonable basis for contract negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the question as asked is not in order.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. In view of the fact that eight ministers out of a roster total of 30 are in the chamber today, can the minister advise whether this is to be the percentage of attendance in the House for the remainder of the federal-provincial conference?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, the low attendance of ministers and the absence of the Prime Minister are due to the conference. I would have to check into this. The number of ministers who will be available to attend in the House very much depends on the progress made on the various items on the agenda of the conference.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the opinion of this House, the government by failing to establish a parliamentary committee to 
concern itself with the problems of urban people of Canada has neglected an important means of coming to grips with those problems and this House urges that such a committee be established forthwith.
He said: Mr. Speaker, not very far from this chamber in which we are meeting another meeting between the leaders of the governments of the ten provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and his associates is taking place. There, they are discussing the constitutional framework within which Canada will exist in the future. They are discussing the division of powers between the two levels of government. They are discussing the use of the spending power by the government of Canada. They are discussing the taxing powers; that is to say, the allocation of revenue sources between the federal and provincial governments. They are also discussing the question of regional disparities.
There is, as we all know, a third level of government in this country, a third level of government that governs the same Canadian citizens and admittedly the same Canadian taxpayers, but which governs them in a different way and under a different jurisdiction. In many respects, it is a level of government that is closer to the people.
We recognize generally, I think, that burdens on municipal governments today are extremely heavy. These governments bear onerous responsibilities to their people, responsibilities that are growing in weight, becoming even more complex and bearing very strong personal, human and social implications. They are also responsibilities that are growing in cost. One might say that they are growing in cost at an enormous rate, though the same can be said at all levels of government.
Municipalities are, of course, more limited than any other level of government so far as access to sources of revenue is concerned. Property tax and grants from the provincial treasuries pretty well make up the list of sources of revenue available to municipalities. They have difficulty in financing services and therefore, in some cases at least, there is a decline in the quality of municipal services. Certainly, there is a great deal of inequality and disparity from municipal government to municipal government in various parts of the country. Indeed, I think there is an acknowledged inadequacy of municipal services relative to the need in almost all cases. I have very serious concern as to whether our provincial governments have the financial resources to cope with this severe situation in
December 8. 1969

Urban Problems
association with the municipalities and within their jurisdiction. All these problems are germane to the present motion before the House. They are perhaps more relevant to a discussion which will probably take place later this week on the problems and prospects of Canadian cities. I understand two days are being set aside later in the week for the purpose of such a discussion.
Suffice it to say for now that municipalities are bystanders at the constitutional conference. They do not have a seat or a direct voice in respect of constitutional review. I am not assuming in presenting this motion that they ought to have such a seat or voice directly. Certainly, I am not saying in presenting this motion that we ought to attempt to re-divide constitutional powers or responsibilities among three levels of government rather than two. The chances are that things would be even more chaotic then than they are now. The problems and responsibilities of municipal governments will have to be brought more adequately into discussions of constitutional review. We will be dealing with this in more detail later on in the week, assuming that the Government provides the opportunity to do so by setting aside the two days that have been discussed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just point out to the hon. member that as indicated, after discussions with his house leader, because we are not getting through previous business we will not be able to hold to that timetable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will have an opportunity before too long, as I understand the intention of the Government, to take part in such a debate. In any event, I want to emphasize today that municipal governments are not only left out of effective participation in the process of long term constitutional review- that is the process of determining the future shape of our country-but as well, with pressing problems facing the people who live in our cities, the municipalities are not receiving the attention of Parliament or the attention of the Government of Canada. That is the reason for this motion.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) tried some days ago to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to move for the establishment of a committee to provide the type of forum suggested today. He was denied consent by some of the urban members on the Liberal benches. I am glad to see quite a number of Government members
from our cities here today, Toronto for example. I thought we might have to send our whip out to get them. At Harrison Hot Springs there took place what some people thought was a confrontation between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and some of the urban members of his own party. Actually, Sir, it was just sort of a love spat.
May I say it is implicit in the proposal that is put before the House today that a parliamentary committee should be established. Implicit in this, is our belief that Parliament as an institution, and members of parliament as individuals, have a positive contribution to make in the development of an effective urban policy for Canada. A refusal by the Government must be regarded as one more attempt by the Prime Minister and his cabinet to limit the role of Parliament and the role of parliamentarians. A refusal to accept this motion would cast more light on this Government's attitude toward participatory democracy and on its reasons for urging what it calls parliamentary reform.
I have expressed my view and my fears before that reforms imposed by closure on Parliament last summer indicated a desire to make Parliament more subservient to the Government. If I correctly read the transcript of the television interview, yesterday, I think, by the independent member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) that fear was also shared by some members of the Government caucus at that time. The hon. member for Spadina indicated that, at the same time the Government was tightening controls on Parliament it was also tightening controls' on its own caucus.
The official word was that the committee system of Parliament would be reformed to allow private members a more active role. Anyone familiar with the workings of this House, however, knows that although members might be busier in committee now they are certainly not more influential. The government retains the power even to change the reports of committees. It clearly retains the power to impose a party line upon Government members of a parliamentary committee.
It is early yet to call that reform a sham, but it is time to say that the Government attitude toward the committees of Parliament has not revealed a willingness to give any real freedom or really important function to private members of Parliament. If the Government refuses now to establish even a committee concerned with urban affairs, it will confirm I suggest its contempt for the private members

December 8, 19G9
Urban Problems
of its own party and of Parliament. It will indicate that in the view of the Government it is not only the members of the Opposition who are nobodies.
In that connection, and because it is important to the principle of giving private members and Parliament a useful role in meeting the urban challenge in Canada, I want to quote very briefly from an article by Mr. Gordon Pape in the November 26 issue of the Montreal Gazette. He had quoted earlier in the article statements by Mr. Marc Lalonde, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister. Mr. Lalonde was talking about the conference at Harrison Hot Springs and the suspicion with which the Government would regard any recommendations which differed from its own policy. Mr. Pape wrote:
What he appeared to be telling the other members of his discussion group was that only the Government is in a position to formulate valid policy because only it has access to all the relevant information required to do so. If the party decides on some other course, it is not because the Government is wrong, but only because the policy it has chosen has not been explained fully enough.
The inescapable conclusion, if this is really what he meant, is that the only realistic role of party members is to follow the course chosen by their leaders since the chiefs are the only ones in possession of enough facts to make meaningful decisions.
Earlier Mr. Lalonde had said that if a Liberal policy conference disagreed with the Government and, therefore, by his logic indicated that the policy conference was wrong, then the cabinet ministers would have to get out and do a selling job. It is thus established that the East Block views members of cabinet as salesmen. It is interesting to speculate what views the East Block may hold toward mere members of Parliament.
Perhaps they would let them do a little selling as well. Perhaps in the view of the East Block the role of urban members of Parliament is to tell the people what the Government is doing for them. Therefore the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) can go back and tell the people of Winnipeg that Ottawa is making them, in the words of Mayor Juba, the largest Indian reservation in Canada, without the benefit of adequate federal help to meet the cost of welfare and unemployment. The hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Loiselle) can then go back to Montreal and say, "Look at all the lovely unemployment". The members from downtown Toronto can go home and tell their constituents how effectively the Government is applying immigration laws to keep their

families out. That is the role of the urban member in the just society.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is significant that two of the members on the government side who represent relatively low income constituencies in downtown Toronto have resigned positions they held, one in the Liberal cabinet and the other in the Liberal caucus. Those are both rather extreme steps to take. They reveal a very profound dissatisfaction with government policy in areas where Canadian urban problems are most acute.


Mr. Crouse:: This is just the tip of the iceberg.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We assume that they are not the only urban members on the government side who are concerned about the failure of Parliament to help solve the problems of the cities and of the people who live in cities. Indeed, that sounds suspiciously like the plea that brought many of the government members into Parliament in the first place. We hope we will hear from them this afternoon and this evening. We also hope that they will match their words with action by supporting the proposal for a parliamentary committee. I want to assure them that we do not hold so harsh a view of them as do some of their "betters" in cabinet.
I am sure hon. members opposite were interested to read the column of that well known political commentator, Douglas Fisher, in the Telegram of December 5. Mr. Fisher was discussing the resignation from the government caucus of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan). He wrote:
One minister told me: "It's always the quiet ones who make the clean moves. We've been listening to Givens and Otto complain and grandstand for several years. They want the reputation of being independent. But it was the guy who never hectored or played his wrongs to the media who bolted. A lot of us feel badly over that; however, it won't make us an easier mark for the belly-achers."
If there are any bellyachers over there, I leave it to them to decide which diplomat in the cabinet offered that judgment. Perhaps they might take the opportunity today to indicate to their constituents just where they stand on questions of a role for Parliament in urban affairs. I give you my personal assurance that this is one vote your constituents will hear about.
December 8. 1969

We can say this for the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens). Of the two inanimate objects which he helped to bring to Nathan Phillips Square, the Archer has been more useful to Toronto than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to date, and in the end it will probably prove even more popular.
Many parts of Canada have been disappointed by this government. But the dejection and defection in the cities is particularly critical, precisely because it affects so many young Canadians and so many of the active and talented people whose energies and dedication the nation needs.
It is to the credit of the Prime Minister's election campaign that he inspired among this critical minority an excitement about Canada. If his campaign turned them on, however, his performance is turning them off, and turning them away. It is making cynics of the people upon whose dynamic optimism the country depends.
The Prime Minister makes much of a claim that he promised next to nothing during that election campaign. That is presumably his excuse for doing next to nothing in office. But the fact is clear that, whatever was said, the Liberal party consciously campaigned on the promise that it would form a modern government, oriented to the young, to the future and to the cities. When the Prime Minister said "come, follow me", Canadians assumed he meant to go somewhere, he meant to take them forward, not that he was going to ask them to go backwards with him. This government has demonstrated no more interest in the cities than it has in the poor. It treats them as problems to shift to other jurisdictions, rather than problems to solve or challenges to meet.
This motion should have the support of all members of the House. Certainly, it is inconceivable that any member from a large city riding could possibly vote against it. In a moderate and constructive way, this motion represents one step to halt the growing alienation of city dwellers. There is a crisis of confidence in the cities. People are quickly losing confidence not just in the present government, although that is certainly true, but in the capacity of governmental institutions generally to cope effectively with their problems. There is disillusionment and frustration in the cities. It is very serious, and must be taken seriously by Parliament.
It is my strong conviction that the government is not using the potential of the present constitution for a federal role in the cities in
Urban Problems
connection with urban problems, admittedly as a partner, but as a working partner. The municipal structures of government are unquestionably the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. So are generally all things of a merely local or private nature in the province. But to argue, as the Prime Minister seems to, that the federal government is constitutionally crippled when it comes to cities and their people, is illogical in my view.
The federal government, under our constitution, has a great many powers related to urban matters. Its role in housing and urban renewal is not seriously challenged. It is also responsible, for example, for major decisions concerning airports and their services, and all forms of rail transportation, which surely provides a legitimate basis for an active role in urban transit problems in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities involved. The federal government is responsible for its own great variety of federal buildings, facilities and installations, and for all those of the Crown agencies which can put it in the middle of major urban planning. Federal jurisdiction over communications in the widest sense, from that of land wire and microwave systems to the postal authority, offers opportunity for a more active, instead of a passive, federal presence in the cities.
My disposition is to use the latitude of the present constitution and find ways for the federal government to be useful to the people who live in our cities. In my view, a parliamentary committee on urban problems could be concerned with the federal role in helping to solve problems, always in co-operation with the other two levels of government.
Three main responsibilities occur to me for such a committee as I am proposing: first, to provide a national forum and a national focus for the discussion of urban problems and their consideration. Second, the committee could hear directly from municipal governments and provincial authorities in a public way on how the federal involvement in our cities can be made more effective on a continuing basis. Third, the committee could discuss and make periodic recommendations to Parliament and to the government on specific problems and opportunities for federal action or assistance.
I could have added a fourth role for this committee, to the effect that the committee could also provide an opportunity for some of the members of Parliament on the government side of the House to make the kind of representations about urban problems that
1704

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
they are unable to make now except perhaps privately.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is fitting that this debate should occur on the very day that another round of constitutional discussions begins. The fact that the problem of the constitution and the problem of the federal role in the cities are being discussed in different places on the same day indicates that, to a large degree, they are separate questions-not entirely, but to a large degree. Of course, there are constitutional implications. There are constitutional implications to virtually everything in a federal state, if you insist on getting hung-up on them. In the case of a federal role in the cities, many of the constitutional implications are substantial. But the fact remains that the government and the Parliament of Canada can do much more to help out in the cities, to help with urban problems, without changing a comma in the existing constitution of Canada.
It is recognized that the Prime Minister has a mental block about the constitution, and has imposed his view on the government. But what is at issue here is not so much a concept of federalism as a concept of active government compared to passive government. The federal government has the power. It is already active in the cities, causing problems if not solving them. Our desire today is simply to acknowledge that role and that obligation, to establish some machinery which will symbolize the concern of Parliament with urban Canada and urban problems, and allow this body to work systematically on the proper exercise of the existing federal power in connection with urban affairs.
I challenge hon. members from urban areas to vote for this motion, to state clearly and unequivocally that as a first step we want this committee to be set up and to get to work- yes, get to work, Sir-to bridge the gap between the urban citizens of Canada and their national institutions. So, Sir, I move the motion that you have put to the House.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party would like to commend the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for bringing this motion to the attention of the House at this time, urging the necessity of setting up a parliamentary committee to concern itself with the problems of urban people. Not only do we support this motion, but we would move one step further by recommending the 
establishment of a separate ministry of housing and urban affairs, with a full-time minister, so that once a committee does reach conclusions or recommendations on these problems we would have a full-time minister to implement them.
The Leader of the Opposition has given two reasons why he brought this motion to the House at this time. I would suggest a third reason. The recent United States presidential commission report on crime and violence has sparked and prodded many members to take a good look at what is happening here in Canada. That commission made two important findings. The first is that violent crime in the United States is primarily a phenomenon of the cities. This is a fact of central importance. The New York Times recently published excerpts from the commission's report, and from it I quote:
Large cities have the highest reported violent crime levels per unit of population. Smaller cities, suburbs and rural areas have lower levels. The average rate of major violent offences in cities of over 250,000 inhabitants is 11 times greater than in rural areas, eight times greater than in suburban areas, and five and one-half times greater than in cities with 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants.
The second important finding of the commission was that violent crime in the city is concentrated especially among youths between the ages of 15 and 20 years. Again I quote:
Urban arrest rates for homicide are much higher among the 18-24 age group than among any other; for rape, robbery and aggravated assault, arrests in the 15-24 age group far outstrip those of any other group. Moreover, it is in these age groups that the greatest increases in all arrest rates have occurred. Surprisingly, however, there have also been dramatic and disturbing increases in arrest rates of the 10-14 age group for two categories-a 300 per cent increase in assault between 1958 and 1967, and 200 per cent in robbery in the same period.
This indicates the extreme urgency and importance of this matter at this time.
Not only did the U.S. commission present recommendations and findings but it also projected what might happen if immediate remedial action is not taken. For instance, it states that central business districts in the hearts of cities will be frequented by business people and shoppers during the day time, and thus will be afforded protection by these people, but in the evening they will be deserted except for police patrols. This report also indicates that high rise apartment buildings will become fortified cells protected by private guards and security devices; that suburban areas will be protected only by their
December 8, 1969

distance from densely populated areas, and that the ownership of guns will become almost universal. Central residential neighbourhoods and streets will be unsafe in differing degrees with ghetto slum neighbourhoods becoming places of terror, entirely out of police control in the evenings. Armed guards will be protecting schools, libraries and playgrounds, and there will be an intensification of group hatred, more violence, and the defensive response will become more elaborate.
These were the findings of the U.S. commission on crime and violence, and this bad dream could become a reality in Canada. This fact has worried many Canadians, especially in light of the recent riots in Montreal. Everytime I hear the words "commission" or "task force" I am reminded of the quip of a U.S. congressman who said that a short time ago when Americans were confronted with a problem they usually threw money at it and hoped it would go away. But later they developed a more sophisticated response and set up commissions and task forces to meet problems. We have the same experience in Canada. I can think of the task force on housing, the commission on drugs, the Senate commission on poverty, the veterans affairs study, the recent studies on corrections and juvenile delinquency and the recent and important study on labour. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have set up many commissions and task forces, but have taken very little action with regard to the problems.
One of the main reasons for the lack of action is the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), something referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems that the Prime Minister is claustrophobically ensconced in a constitutional straitjacket and is not willing to move on some of these major problems. If we were to implement some of the recommendations that have been made by commissions and task forces in Canada we would be taking a big step towards alleviating the problems of the urban dwellers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the problems of urban people in Canada? Briefly stated they are poverty, unemployment, a housing crisis, drugs, alienation of youth, and the changing role of the family. It has become a cliche to say that we live in a rapidly changing society, yet this has never been more true than it is today. In 1980, 80 per cent of all Canadians will live in urban centres, compared with 70 per cent in 1961, and Canada will be made up of urban families with an urban style of life.
21545-37J
Urban Problems
The average family, Mr. Speaker, will decrease in size from three or four to one or two, reversing the tendency of the last 40 years. Both married and single women will participate more actively in the labour force. Women will be better educated and many married women will work throughout their married lives, withdrawing only for brief periods of motherhood activities. The mother's income has become, and will continue to be, essential to provide the goods and services available.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Canadians are being forced out of their single family detached dwellings into high-rise apartments, thereby becoming cliff dwellers. Young people are maturing earlier, both physically and in social sophistication. Many are remaining longer in universities and technical schools in order to equip themselves for the technological labour force. Fathers are losing the traditional role of breadwinner and "pater familias" and the mother's income has become an integral part of the family income. This is changing the family picture and very little can be done about it; however, there are other areas in which much can be done.
The first problem is that of poverty. Canadians are perplexed by the continuing spectre of the poverty level income on which 30 per cent of the population lives.
In a recent study by Mrs. J. R. Podoluk entitled "Incomes of Canadians", she stated:
The 1961 census shows that some 916,000 nonfarm families and 416,000 individuals-a total of about 4,200,000 people, including 1,700,000 children under 16 years of age-are in the low-income group. In addition, the number of farm families in the low-income group is estimated to be 150,000 consisting of possibly 550,000 persons, or more than half of the estimated 275,000 families primarily dependent on farming for a livelihood. The total estimated low-income group is thus just under 29 per cent of the population. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics identifies low income as less than $1,500 for one, $2,500 for two, $3,000 for three, $3,500 for four and $4,000 for five or more in 1961 dollars.
These amounts are based chiefly on the criterion that any individual is in the low-income group if he has to spend 70 per cent or more of his income on the necessities of life, i.e. food, clothing, shelter.
A quick accounting would indicate that 4.8 million people in Canada live below the poverty line. In other words, poverty is a harsh reality in our country today and it is no longer measured in statistical terms. If poverty is measured in the classical sense of people literally starving to death, unable to sustain life, then poverty is eliminated in Canada

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
because it would only involve 1 or 2 per cent of the population. If it is measured as a condition in which families or individuals are entirely dependent upon welfare for food, clothing and shelter, then it has been reduced to minimum proportions. But if we measure poverty as a denial to some individuals and families of a reasonable share of what science, technology and the general economy has made available, that is education, good health, privacy and leisure activities-the style portrayed in television and the glamour magazines-then 80 per cent of Canadians are impoverished.
We have to look at poverty in a new sense and with a new definition, Mr. Speaker. As has been stated, a person is poverty stricken when he has a deep sense of inequality and feels an economic exclusion and alienation from the wider society in which he lives. Surely, that must apply to many groups in Canadian life today, more especially our youth-the single parent families, the blind and disabled, the retarded, the senior citizen, the unemployed and the homeless people.
What can we do about them, Mr. Speaker? I should not say what can we do, but what must we do? First of all, we must maintain and create a high rate of economic growth with a high rate of employment. I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) is listening to this, because it is very important. Employment is the key to the poverty problem. When a person has a sense of achievement, a sense of dignity, a sense of pride and respect, these go a long way toward establishing a full and secure life. People had some of these values in wartime when there was full employment. Since the war, unemployment has increased and it is necessary that we strike at it and strike hard.
When I think of how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and other cabinet ministers are attacking the problem of inflation, by increasing unemployment, I am not given much encouragement nor, I am sure, is the Minister of Labour. No person should be in a disadvantageous position simply because of his place of birth, province of residence or change of location. I am sure the Minister of Labour will agree with this.
The second approach to the problem of urban people, Mr. Speaker, should be a well-defined policy of housing and urban planning. In the recent report of the task force on housing, the following statement appears:
Here, too, Is poverty in its rawest and ugliest form. No pretty garden or painted cottages here to camouflage economic depression. Poverty in the
[Mr. Gilbert.)
worst areas of the city core is abundantly visible in the decrepit structures which form its housing, the cracked pavement of the streets which are its recreational area, and the rodents which are its wild life. This poverty you can see and hear and taste and smell. Its residents are not simply families struggling to catch up to the average national income; too often they are people fighting to retain a vestige of human dignity and selfrespect. No task force impression is more vivid of mind or depressing of spirit than those formed amid the blight and slum of Canada's larger cities.
Reading that, and remembering the fanfare when the task force presented its report as well as the whambang cross-country campaign, one wonders what happened to the recommendations of that task force. In fact, more than half the recommendations were on mortgage financing which would draw monies on housing to the upper-middle and upper classes, increasing the limit on mortgages to $35,000. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the report is a rejection of the pleas for additional funds for low-income housing, for public housing and urban renewal. Public housing became the whipping boy of the minister of the day. Now, we are most anxiously waiting for guidelines with regard to public housing and urban renewal.
It appears as though we are having trouble reaching the target of 200,000 homes in 1969. We in the New Democratic Party say there should be 250,000 to catch the shortfall of previous years; there should be land banks and direct loans to municipalities with low interest rates. The other day when I heard the Minister of Finance say that interest rates are "too damn high", the thought occurred to me that of course he is the man to correct them. But the minister just sits lazily by thinking that the market mechanism will reduce the interest rate.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


John Gilbert: Yes, when I have finished my remarks. It is going to take strong action, not only by the Minister of Finance but also by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing to bring back interest rates to a reasonable level. This, Mr. Speaker, is the second area in which the government could take action.
Then, as a third point, there should be a co-ordinated social welfare approach to welfare problems. We have reached the stage where a guaranteed annual income is very necessary to purchase the necessities of life and to enjoy some of the niceties of life as well. Those people who cannot work, the blind, disabled, and the senior citizens should
December 8. 1969



be added to the scheme. I cannot help but think of the statement of Gunnar Myerdal, the Swedish economist who said that in his country senior citizens are given a pension which amounts to one-third of their total income during the best ten years of their working lives. This is supplemented by other government measures, so that they do not feel rejected or lonely in the later years of life. Surely, the giant corporations could be made aware of our economic and social needs and not merely pursue their own ends, the attainment of which is helped by advertising and sales pitches.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Our government should also make sure that the various distinct groups of our population can participate democratically in the running of their own affairs. Our young people at universities, schools, and elsewhere in the community are becoming increasingly alienated from society. Surely, our young people could become more actively involved in the process of decision making, as that pertains to education. They should have something to say about the use of drugs, which loom so large among our young people today. Voting by itself, is not enough. Our citizens must be involved in what is happening around them. Advisory committees made up of citizens could look into matters pertaining to urban renewal as well as to other social problems.
May I at this time move an amendment to the motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
'and this House also urges that the Government give consideration to the establishing of a Department of Housing and Urban Affairs and the appointment of a full-time Minister thereof.'.
By adopting this amendment we shall be able to implement some of the recommendations of the many task forces and commissions which have been established to inquire into our problems. If we improve the quality of life for all our peoples, the problem of over-crowding, the tensions existing between various nationalities and races and different age groups in our cities will subside and city life will become characterized by security, creativity, development, and peace. I am sure that not only members of the NDP but all hon. members of this House want to see such a state of affairs brought about. We ask the government to act now and to implement
Urban Problems
some of the recommendations which have already been made by task forces and commissions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on this question, particularly because of the way the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has formulated what he calls his and his party's challenge to the House. I think, for reasons I will go on to cite, it will readily be apparent that he will not find the support he wants, simply because he is not believable. He is not believable, Mr. Speaker, simply because hon. members as well as members of the public will ask themselves why a man who supported a decision last year to abolish the committee on housing, urban development and public affairs would be motivated this year to establish one. What reason has he given in the interval to support his change of heart in this regard. He says that the failure to establish this type of committee is an attempt on the part of the government to limit the role of parliamentarians on an important public question. Well, if that is so, then he must have been an abettor in that effort last year.
The hon. member says that the government's rejection of his proposal will really confirm its contempt for private members. If that is so, apparently he shared that contempt last year. He says that the constituents of all hon. members will certainly learn of any hon. member's support or non-support of the proposal. I think those constituents will also learn of the position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition in this House on this question. Therefore, in responding to this matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like to focus attention first on the very narrow basis upon which the Leader of the Opposition has put it, namely, the procedural objection that a parliamentary committee has not been established to deal with the question of urban problems.
The most obvious reply to that comment and criticism is that we established a structure for setting up standing committees last year by unanimous consent of the House, and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor his followers appear to have thought it important on those two separate occasions in the previous session to insist on the setting up of a committee to deal with these problems. They must have come to a conscious decision on this question-


An hon. Member:: What about those rules?

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -because they had to abolish the committee that had existed under our rules. Under the previous rules, that is those in force between 1964 and 1968, standing order 65 made provision for a standing committee on housing, urban development and public works.


Mr. Aiken:: Who changed the rules?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I remind
my hon. friend that he and his colleagues unanimously agreed to that change. As the House knows, the subject matters of the standing committees were specifically considered by the House as a whole on two separate occasions, as well as by the special committee on procedure.
On September 20, 1968, the House approved unanimously, with the participation of the hon. gentleman opposite, a new distribution of responsibilities for standing committees which eliminated the previous committee on housing, urban development and public works.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That was an interim decision only to bring into force the provisional standing orders for the fall of 1968, and it was a unanimous decision supported by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the mover and seconder of this resolution. But that was not the final disposition of the matter.
The names and subject matters of the standing committees were discussed in the special committee on procedure which sat last fall, and I can recall no insistence or even discussion on the part of hon. members opposite on the creation of a committee to deal with housing or urban affairs. I submit that the record of that committee will bear me out.
It will be recalled that the House again had an opportunity of considering, and at some length as hon. members may recall, in December of last year the question of the establishment of a committee on urban affairs. On December 20 of last year it decided, again unanimously and in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, that no such committee should be established as a standing committee of the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Has the minister never heard of special committees?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member asks about special committees. If this is a matter of such great concern, why should the hon. member only seek to establish such a committee on an ad hoc basis? Surely, he would want a standing committee to deal with the question. The fact is that the question of urban affairs has not been considered actively by members of the official opposition in that committee of the House which has the responsibility for this subject, namely, the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs, and that is confirmed by an examination of the proceedings of that committee. Hon. members did not show the interest they seem to have displayed since, when they had opportunities to examine this question; that, as I say, is confirmed by an examination of the proceedings of that committee. While the committee had the revised main estimates for 1968-69 of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before it, it does not appear from the committee's proceedings that the question of housing and urban affairs was discussed at all in that committee. I am speaking of the committee on social policy. The matter was not discussed in the fall of last year.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There were lots of things to discuss.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am interested to hear the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) suggest that he and his colleagues did not have the opportunity to discuss this matter. Presumably he is referring to his friend, the housing critic from Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you for recognizing me.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That hon.
member is an active student of the question of housing, a man whom one would expect to take an active part in any consideration on the question of housing at any time it comes before this House or one of its committees. Let us take a look at the record in this regard because the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs had a further opportunity to discuss these questions when the estimates for Central Mortgage and Housing for the present year were again before the committee, that is between the months of March and May of this current year. The committee showed more attention this time, but it was still prepared to let the question pass with
December 8, 1969

comment on only two sitting days. I must say to be fair to my neighbour, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) was very active in that committee at that time.
I think it is also fair to point out that apparently his own party did not think as highly of the qualities of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) because he was not even a member of that committee, although as an hon. member of the House he could have attended and participated in that housing discussion. The record discloses that on March 18 and March 20 he was not present to talk about housing and urban affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are talking about
people. We are not interested in all that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't dig a deeper hole for yourself.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say I can understand the mental block of the Leader of the Opposition because he is so deep in a hole in his present situation it will take a slingshot to feed him.


John Gilbert: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to at the end of my speech. It may indeed be desirable, in any change of Standing Order 65, to perhaps change the name of the committee. For example, it could be called the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare, Social and Urban Affairs, but after all what's in a name? It is not the name that counts. It is the participation and concern shown by hon. members opposite. On the basis of the performance of hon. members' of the Official Opposition to date, they would get zero.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition was happy to base this question on a narrow procedural motion. However, I will discuss it on a broader ground. It seems to me there is a most important broader question to be raised because the Hon. Leader of the Opposition made reference to it. In reference to the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) the Leader of the Opposition said he seemed to have a mental block because he was guided by the constitution. I cannot think of a more sincere compliment that could be paid to any member of this House, any member of the bar or any Canadian who has respect for his country than that it be said about him he had a
Urban Problems
mental block because he felt, on the whole, the law should be obeyed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The first reason it would not be desirable at this time to get involved, as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition appeared to be encouraging, in delving into the activities and work of the municipalities is that the primary responsibility for the municipalities, and in particular the urban municipalities as the hon. leader knows, rests with the provincial governments. What he is really proposing is that we should have a committee of inquiry into the activities of the provincial level of government. However, I will deal with that question later.
The second reason for not confining ourselves in one committee, however, concerns the best way to deal with what the motion calls "the problems of urban people", and that is that basically so many of the aspects of government policy and federal jurisdiction dealing with the problems of urban people come under other departments and other program initiatives which are already being actively prosecuted and dealt with in this House.
For example, the question of air transportation, and the particular importance of air transportation and its relationship to the development of our regions and cities, is quite sensibly the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I suppose hon. members will agree that generally it is logical to have transportation problems dealt with by the eminent members of the transportation committee, who are prepared to carry on this responsibility. For this reason, only a week or so ago the House agree to transfer such important urban problems as access to major airports to the Standing Committee on Transportation.
The future of the cities in Canada, particularly in regions which have not enjoyed the same growth as central Canada, has by this Parliament been made the subject of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. One cannot talk about the fundamental problems of the city without formulating an overall concept as to the regional structure of Canada as a whole. We in this House have chosen, and I take it the opposition still agrees with this, that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Standing Committee on Regional Development are

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
the best means of dealing with these questions and with the legislation that should be produced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We never said that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In sum then, the notion that all of the questions relating to the problems of urban people should be dealt With under a single committee, in my opinion, could not sensibly be accepted. For example, those aspects which relate to social affairs should continue to be dealt with by the committee which deals with social policy. As I said, those aspects which deal with transportation affairs should surely be dealt with in that committee. To the extent that the future of the cities is related to the regions of the country as a whole, it seems to me more sound to assume the committee responsible for the regional development policy should deal with it.
May I refer to what obviously struck the Leader of the Opposition as being the major basis of complaint against the government, that is the substance of this question of whether or not the committee should be established. The distribution of powers between federal and provincial governments was1 an appropriate reason for not going ahead. I gather the Leader of the Opposition was in Toronto last week. He may have been at that gathering for members of his party, a meeting at which the Premier of Ontario spoke on Saturday night according to a report in this morning's Globe and Mail.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Saturday noon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Saturday noon, was it? I am glad the Leader of the Opposition was there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wasn't there.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He was not
there. We find in here he is generally out to lunch. The question really is whether the Leader of the Opposition has been kind enough to take the opportunity of the visit of Premier Robarts to this city to move a want of confidence motion, not in this government, but basically a want of confidence in Mr. Robarts. Do we perhaps have here another of the conflicts with which the Leader of the Opposition must come to terms? What did Mr. Robarts say? In the December 8 issue of the Globe and Mail Geoffrey Stevens writes:
He also accused Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau of trying to replace federalism with centralism, at the expense of provincial powers and interests.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the question of the constitutional responsibilities has never been better stated than in the following terms:
The temptation to jump constitutional boundaries in reaching for temporary solutions to long-term problems is understandable. Its attendant hazards, however, are costly duplications of machinery, personnel, research and other program components, in addition to the creation of further confusion and frustration over the delineation of governmental responsibilities.
That seems to be a particularly effective formulation of the problem in this regard and a reason for not accepting this motion. Whose formulation is it? It is the formulation of Mr. Charles MacNaughton, the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario, when speaking on July 15, 1968. Not only may I introduce the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. Robarts and his denial of this particular motion, but may I also introduce him to Mr. MacNaughton?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Peters:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not very nice for us to be introduced to a number of people and have to listen to a discussion on the establishment of a transport committee when we have a motion before us. I suggest Your Honour call attention to the motion before us which concerns urban renewal and also the amendment, the establishment of an urban affairs ministry.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I regard the intervention of the hon. gentleman as a compliment, and this applies to the shouting from the benches of his hon. friends. I have always found that when we are getting close to the bone the hon. member gets up and begins to complain. If the hon. member for Temiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) cannot win by reason-and I suppose that has never happened in the House-he tries to shout us down.
I have referred to the attitude of the provincial government of Ontario, for which, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition has such contempt. I refer, now, to another statement on the position, this time from the Premier of Quebec in the National Assembly on June 5. I quote a translation of it:
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that neither under the present constitution nor under the new constitution which is being negotiated at this time should there be any suggestion of handing over to the federal government any responsibility whatever in respect of municipalities. It is not because of the considerable importance which now attaches to urban problems that we should look to the federal government for their solutions.
December 8, 1969

Urban Problems
The most serious consequences of any federal intervention in this field would be, I feel, the introduction of an element of confusion where no such confusion now exists. Division of responsibilities between the two levels of government- the federal government on the one hand and provincial governments on the other-is difficult enough to determine as it is. Such being the case,
I fail to see why any attempt should be made to confuse the issue further by allowing the federal government to trespass in an area which is none of its concern.
Well, that is the attitude of the Premier of Quebec. I have already referred to the attitude of the Premier of Ontario who, nominally at least, is a supporter of the Leader of the Opposition. These views are an additional reason for using great caution before following the course proposed by the Leader of the Opposition; they are an argument for declining to make any substantial change in the arrangements which already exist for committees of the House. The opportunities are there, now, if the Official Opposition wishes to use them. Why should we play around with names, which, in effect, is what the motion proposes, at the risk of involving ourselves in a further constitutional crisis?
Let me say at once I entirely support the suggestion that we ought to show great concern for the problems now being faced by our cities. I am concerned by the fact that in Ontario we do not have any logical and well-planned provincial program for housing and the development of the province in the next 25 years. We, in Ontario, are deeply concerned about this but we are directing our representations to Queen's Park about it.
Unfortunately, hon. members opposite cannot afford to look to Queen's Park to remedy these defaults. Attitudes there, on the provincial level, have proved it to be impossible for municipal levels of government to obtain revenues from taxation sufficient to deal adequately with urban problems. For example, the Provincial Assessment Act, the very stuff and substance, the basis upon which the municipalities must carry on, is the responsibility of the province. What is being done by the province to share the burden more equitably? The Provincial Planning Act which, again, is the responsibility of the province, has been lying in disuse, or else it has not been modified so the authorities may plan effectively land use in the province.
If this motion can be regarded as being anything, it is an indirect expression by the Leader of the Opposition of no confidence in the manner in which the provinces-and he 21545-38
was once a leader of one of them-have carried on their business. In particular, because he spoke particularly in the context of Toronto and Ontario, he was criticizing specifically the leader of that province.
One suggestion he made, and one can readily believe it was founded on his ignorance of the situation, was that this government and this Parliament have done nothing about urban affairs. Let me remind him that this House passed last session a bill which hon. gentlemen opposite were pleased to support making changes in the National Housing Act having to do with urban renewal and public housing. Let me remind hon. members that more than 90 per cent of the capital cost of housing and urban renewal projects in Ontario, particularly in my own constituency of Toronto, has derived from this Act. Let me remind the House of the grants made by the federal government, such as the grant to the community improvement association in connection with Regent Park to deal with the social problems arising from public housing. Let me also remind the House of the extensive grants in connection with urban renewal, particularly in our cities, to enable plans to be prepared for future growth. I think it was generally acknowledged at the meeting my colleague the Minister without Portfolio and I attended, that it was at the lower levels of government that the failure had occurred.


An hon. Member:: That's no comfort.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was in Tre-fann Court that the city failed to come to terms with its own residents. It was in Don Vale that the city came to terms only after it found out that the only way it could get its part of the plan paid for was by reluctant consent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister without Portfolio said the money was not available.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My colleague can speak for himself. The funds are available, and it is for the city to decide for what they should be used and when.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You had better talk to him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the environmental problems of concern to the city, we have, unfortunately, not yet been able to get our bill on pollution and other matters through the House and into committee. Two other pieces of legislation before the House are the bills dealing with loan companies and trust companies, both intended to

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
assist in making loans available for housing purposes. When I suggested that these bills should be dealt with on a priority basis, that great statesman, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) said that amounted to blackmail. I do not mind being called a blackmailer if my action will assist in getting through this House measures for improving Canadian housing. I hope we can get some co-operation from the supporters of the Leader of the Opposition in getting these measures through.
I will conclude my remarks-


John Gilbert: You haven't said anything yet.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh yes, I will deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Broadview. It really deserves little serious consideration. He talks about a full time minister. My colleague, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) has, in fact, been a full time minister and a very active one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Ask in Trefann Court or Regent Park or Don Vale. Ask them whether he was prepared to spend his time talking about the problems there, and talking with the people most closely concerned. Indeed, he was; he has been very active.
The hon. member also has this fascination with words rather than substance. He asks us to change the name of a department as though to change the name would provide a solution, though what is really needed is a change in fundamental policy at the provincial level. He should be asking; what is the right approach to urban renewal problems; what is the right policy to be followed? But we did not hear anything from the hon. member on this aspect, and I am prepared to predict that we shall not because he does not know the answers. It is easier to propose a change in name than to think out a policy.
The proposal of the Leader of the Opposition comes from a man who is simply not credible on this issue. He helped to kill the committee in 1968. He wants to resurrect it in 1969. As for the hon. member for Broadview, perhaps one can say one sympathizes with his concern in this regard. However, the government has a full time minister of housing as well as a full time housing agency, and both are doing an excellent job.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Therefore I invite the support of this House in rejecting the amendment and the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest the House give the minister additional time so he can speak to the motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if additional time is to be given we might give 10 or 12 years to the hon. member for Broadview so that he can come up with a policy, if he can think of one.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see the minister standing with his axe, though unfortunately he forgot to sharpen it. The minister came to this chamber with the audacity and the nerve to try to pin the problems of the present government on the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). It does not matter how the minister cuts or slices the cake-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member has misconstrued me. The hon. member for Hamilton West was not present at the committee discussions to which I referred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, time is passing so I will carry on. It does not matter how the minister slices the cake, it is still his problem. I suggest the reasoning behind his arguments this afternoon will not weigh very heavily on the minds of the Canadian people, though they will realize that his attitude was one of arrogance, that his arguments were childish and lacked a sense of maturity.
If I were wrong in trying not to spread myself too thinly within the committee structure, then I say the government, too,, is wrong and equally as vulnerable as I at the next election. This government has continually shown its reluctance to admit it has a role to play in finding solutions to the mounting problems of urban growth. As a result, one can say it is suffering from a new political disease, that of urban impotence, a disease that has not afflicted the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The diagnosis was almost complete when the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) made the headlines during the Hot Springs "love-in" with his classic confrontation with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding urban affairs.


An hon. Member:: Where is he today?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is a good point. I should like to know where all the urban members are so they can chastise us. I hope
December 8, 1969

Urban Problems
those who raise their hands will take part in this debate, rather than go to the press to record their thoughts. The hon. member for York West did his party a great service when he stood up to be counted. The hon. member was also projecting public opinion in his remarks. He placed emphasis on the jurisdictional problems among cities, the provinces and Ottawa. Without question, the diagnosis is now a conclusive one, as revealed through the resignation of the hon. member for Spadi-na (Mr. Ryan), who now joins the ranks of the farmer, the fisherman, the urban dweller, the Indian and a former cabinet minister, all of whom have expressed their disillusionment with the just society party.
The interesting question that can now be posed is: How many more members on the other side of the House, like the courageous member from Spadina, will stand up and be counted? I am sure the patience of many more is being tried. I feel that that is a statement that can be made. Indeed, I suggest that the Toronto area is loaded with such members and, as I said before, I hope they take part in this debate to register their criticism of the inertia of this government when it comes to solving the problems of the urban areas.
My leader has indicated that the hon. member for Spadina and others are welcome in our party if they can meet the necessary qualifications. I suggest one qualification is that they take a simple oath, and that this oath be as follows: "I, so and so, member for so and so, do hereby accept and believe in the proposition that Trudeaumania is kaput". That is all they have to do to be happily welcomed.
The government's exchange of diplomats with the Vatican is one thing, and going across the world trying to woo Red China is another thing. Taking a controversial stand on NATO is certainly alarming, to say the least. But to ignore, to the extent it has, the massive problems of urban growth is not only an unacceptable policy but a ludicrous one, no matter what the minister may say while trying to blame this party and its leader for the government's own shortcomings.
Let me tell the House why this policy is ludicrous. The terms of reference of the task force on housing and urban development, which has since issued a report that requires urgent attention, were to examine housing and urban development in Canada and to 21545-38J
report on ways in which the federal government, in company with other levels of government and the private sector, could help meet the housing needs of all Canadians and contribute to the development of modern, vital cities. Thousands of dollars have been spent to give direction to the government, and recommendations have now been made. But the moment one mentions the problems of our cities to this government, it dons its cloak of inertia, which is also known as the constitutional straitjacket, and the Prime Minister expounds on the relationships of political theory to the constitution.
This convenient attitude of inertia is unwarranted and is neither understood nor accepted by millions of Canadians living in our cities who follow the Prime Minister and regard him as a modern Messiah or contemporary Pied Piper in the hope of being relieved of their frustrations caused by urban living. According to the task force report, our cities must come to grips with their major problems now. With pressures so great and problems so complex, tomorrow will not do. There is no point in the minister blaming the hon. member for Hamilton West for that.
I should like to refer to an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator for August 8, 1968, which stated that although local councils have been aware of their shortcomings for years, the cities do not have the resources or constitutional powers to solve them. The provinces and Ottawa have the authority to readjust priorities and initiate research and programs of aid, as well as to apply tax revenues where most needed. But only joint federal-provincial action can spare Canadian cities the horrors that afflict U.S. cities.
The editorial states the government must admit that the problems of urban development have become so acute that they have now become national problems and must be treated as such. One cannot deny that housing, urban transportation and pollution are national problems; but can we afford to sit back and be complacent in the light of the environmental malaise in our cities, such as economic poverty, social disorganization, mental and health breakdowns, anti-social acts, mental illness, alcoholism and drug usage? Are we to sit back and wait for the explosion which will give impetus to this Government to set up a commission to investigate the causes and prevention of violence? Are we to wait for this violent explosion before this Government moves? The quality

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
of life in the cities ranks as a national problem; as the cities go so goes the nation. To reject this proposition can only mean we are inviting disaster and chaos as a way of life in the cities.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
^Representatives of cities and towns, the provinces and Ottawa should be meeting to set the shape of city life for the future. The city representatives must be given an audience. They have the problems and perhaps they have the answers. They desire involvement. Let me read from the 32nd annual report of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. I refer to a statement made by Mayor Allan O'Brien, the newly elected president:
In my opinion, our first, priority is to get a firm commitment from the provinces as well as from the Federal Government to our right to be consulted on all the territory with which we are concerned that happens to be also of concern to the Federal Government. I think we should make sure we get that commitment to consultation before we take too firm stands for changes in the constitution, other than reference to the right of consultation.
That is all we are talking about here. We need a pipeline from the major cities to this Parliament in order that their representatives can reach the members who can then perhaps give some direction to this Government as a result of their deliberations.
The theme of urgency, as stated in the report of the task force, was adopted by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras), a man I have learned to respect even though he will not give Hamilton any money. I hope in the very near future he will say to the hon. member for Hamilton West he now has the opportunity to reply to those requests. I hope he will say he has re-assessed his thinking on urban renewal and will honor those commitments which should have been honoured earlier by his predecessor. I hope he will tell me that we are going to get more money than we ever thought we might get. I am waiting for that statement. Let me just read what he said when he introduced Bill C-192 to amend the National Housing Act. These words were important then and they are equally important today. They appear at page 9174 of Hansard for May 28, 1969.
Another significant dimension is that Canada today is primarily an urban society. Almost three quarters of Canadians live in the larger towns, Cities and metropolitan areas. By 1980, it is estimated that more than 80 per cent of the population will be owning, renting, or hunting for shelter in

our urban centres. Current trends indicate that almost one third of these people will live in our three largest urban centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
The quality of life in these rapidly growing communities is a matter of serious concern. We have heard much and can expect to hear more about pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion, inadequate recreational facilities, alienation, deprivation and the inertia of some of our institutions. These issues cannot be neglected indefinitely nor can they be resolved by the methods of the past.
Nor can they be solved quickly or easily, Mr. Speaker. No single level of Government, no one person, holds the key to their solution, or the formula for building better communities. The answers must be sought in joint planning and co-operative endeavours. We must seek ways for all levels of Government, together with interested citizens, to achieve an urban environment which offers the physical, social and cultural dimensions of healthy and creative living.
That is all we are trying to do, help the minister along with his theory. To me, this shows a desire for three level consultation. I think this idea has great merit. I want to know whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in answer to my question, will indicate that he is aware that the province of Ontario has invited advisers to this conference. I should like to hear a statement from the government that we can all depend upon the continued attendance of municipal representatives as a means of collecting views at this coming federal-provincial conference.
Let me quote from an editorial that appeared in the Hamilton Spectator on December 4, 1969 as follows:
It has become clear to just about everyone except influential members of the federal government that if Ottawa doesn't help the cities beat their traffic, slum, crime, poverty and other problems, the cities' plight will worsen.
So far, Prime Minister Trudeau's government has taken shelter behind a constitutional screen, pointing out that municipalities belong to the provinces, not to Ottawa.
As urban conditions unhappily demonstrate, neither the provinces nor the cities themselves have been able to correct the growing urban troubles. At best, the provinces and municipalities are maintaining services, not repairing the social and economic breakdowns, not coping successfully with the deficiency.
Steadfast in its myopia, Ottawa bluntly refuses to recognize urban deterioration as a national problem and rejects the proposal to establish municipal-federal dialogue.
There are others throughout this nation who feel as members on the backbenches feel. I do not have to mention names because they are printed everyday in the local newspapers. Let us not forget that in spite of the constitution there is ample evidence to suggest that
December 8, 1969

Ottawa has consistently had a strong and significant monopolistic role in urban affairs. Let us look at the record in respect of the physical presence of the federal government. One need only refer to airports and their services; housing through C.M.H.C.; all forms of rail, transportation and communication and the great many federal public building facilities, installations and Crown agencies. What has the federal government done in this regard? What about tariffs, freight rates, the taxation system, military bases, immigration, unemployment policies and labour mobility? What about the quality of life? If more evidence is required regarding federal leadership let us consider the complexities of urban growth, pollution, regulation of social behaviour, regulation of public and private health, social assistance, language and citizenship? It is, therefore, ridiculous and irresponsible to indicate that the federal government has no business in the cities and towns of this country. It is essential that this Government, after consultation with the provinces and municipalities, state what the policy is or what it is going to be with regard to urban affairs. I know there are a lot of members on the other side who want to hear such a statement, too. Something tells me they are in trouble when they go back home. I hope they will tell us what kind of trouble they are in.
Confusion among levels of government must be eliminated if the problems of our cities are to be solved. If confusion and conflict continue over what role who should play, if any, in solving the problems of urban growth the problems will get more acute and critical and the solutions will then be out of reach.
The task force report recognized the role the federal government should play, yet the recommendations have been ignored. My friend mentioned a few of them, and I shall just read a couple. At page 72, the report reads:
The federal government should establish a Department of Housing and Urban Affairs.
Then, at page 74, I read:
The federal government, through a new Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, encourage, support and co-ordinate an expanded urban research program with greater priority on the initiation of practical research programs, including pilot projects.
Page 75, of the report reads:
A new Department of Housing and Urban Affairs should give early priority to the creation of a central information bank to collect, organize and
Urban Problems
disseminate available data on these subjects to other governments, agencies, and Canadians generally.
An article in the Telegram of November 25, 1969 under the heading "Ottawa needs the
cities" reads in part:
Prime Minister Trudeau and his government must not hide behind a legalistic barrier in dealing with the growing problems and needs of Canadian cities.
Constitutional restrictions aside, most Canadians now live in the urban reaches of this country. Most of the advanced technology coming our way, the funds to pay for it, the human resources to manage it, will all come from the cities. We have not yet reached the incredible U.S. situation where 70 per cent of Americans live in one per cent of their land space. But we are heading very fast in that direction.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Further on it reads:
And most people in Canada now are in the cities.
They will demand higher priority for city needs. Participatory democracy may yet outweigh constitutional restrictions as the Prime Minister now emphasizes them.
In conclusion-and I say this in all sincerity because I know all hon. members are equally concerned about the problems which we face-let me say that the challenge of urban growth is one of tremendous significance. We must stop wasting time nit-picking like the minister; we must stop wasting money; we must stop alienating the urban dweller. We must begin to work in harmony and co-operation with all levels of government so that the enormous task with which we are confronted can be attacked systematically and expeditiously with a view to reaching practical solutions from which all will ultimately benefit.


Mr. Barney Danson (York-North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank in particular
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for bringing this motion before the House today. It is a subject that needs to be aired and discussed. I regret that it is worded as to be a motion of confidence because many of us are sympathetic to its intent. My colleague, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) indicated this, as has my colleague, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens). They both made similar suggestions before the Opposition even knew that cities existed. The suggestion that urban members are being stifled is refuted by the fact that we are able to debate these issues with our leader openly and publicly, and that we do so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They do not even know who their leader is.

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems


Barnett Jerome Danson: I was fascinated by the
suggestion made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that it was easy for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to reduce interest rates any time he wished to do so. I shall ask the chairman of the committee to reopen hearings on interest rates, because members of the hon. member's party had nothing new or original to suggest during the past several months when we were endeavouring to find ways and means to reduce interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The hon. member for Hamilton West is quite correct in saying that Trudeaumania is kaput. It has been replaced by a strong realization among all sections of Canada that it is not Trudeaumania but the best government we have yet seen in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Barnett Jerome Danson: As a representative of a constituency which includes a portion of metropolitan Toronto, but most of which borders on the northern limits of that area, I have a very special interest in the future development of our cities. These cities are growing at an unprecedented rate and this rate is accelerating. It is projected that the population growth in the Toronto region will in the next 20 years be greater than that of the past 150 years, from something in excess of 2J million people to at least 5 million, and up to 7 million people. One projection is that one out of every three Canadians will be living in the Montreal and Toronto regions before the end of the century. The other cities across our land will experience similar growth. Many towns will become cities, and villages will become towns.
With these certainties ahead of us, governments-and I use the plural advisedly-and politicians who fail to give serious attention to these matters are guilty of inexcusable irresponsibility. Equally irresponsible are those who continue to give lip service to the problem for which they are legitimately responsible, while trying to pass off the responsibility for its solutions to other levels of government.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of attending meetings, seminars and think-ins and hearing the experts in the field enumerate the problems without providing any rational solutions. When they are told about the jurisdictional problems, they slough

them off with the comment that they are sick and tired of politicians who are fiddling over constitutional problems while the people burn. Actually, everyone is right to be sick and tired while we fail to come to grips with one of our major concerns. But being sick and tired is not good enough. It is not good enough because we happen to be a federal state, we happen to have a constitution, and we happen to have provinces which have rights and responsibilities under that constitution.
We also happen to have cities which are creatures of the provinces. Our people are taxpayers and voters who pay their taxes to all three levels of government, and many, but regrettably not most, who vote at all three levels. These people are also getting sick and tired. If they are not now, they will be when the price of our neglect manifests itself in greater pollution, greater congestion, even less adequate but more expensive housing, larger areas of blight and poverty, broken homes, increased delinquency, and the terrors which can beset big cities which have grown and the only planning has been by the short-range marketplace.
These people, the voters, have a right to criticize us as federal representatives, because about 70 per cent of them voted for or against us. They do not really have the right to criticize us for their own failure to turn out in similar numbers at provincial and municipal elections in order to ensure that they get the type of representative who will fulfil his responsibilities. I realize that this is not entirely fair becanse we do not always fulfil our responsibilities to the extent that we should or would wish, and displays of selfrighteousness will not be particularly constructive in reaching solutions. As a matter of fact, to really come to grips with the problems will require a degree of political statesmanship and maturity which we have rarely evidenced in the past.
Therefore, I would like to make some specific proposals. The first is a repetition of one that I have made on previous occasions in the House, most recently in the Throne Speech debate on October 27. This proposal is for a national institute of urban and transportation studies. I combine urban and transportation studies because the two are so intimately interlocked. We are fortunate in this country to have specialists in urban planning who rank with the best in the world, and their work could be far better co-ordinated by such an institute. Other countries are
December 8, 1969

somewhat ahead of us in the field of transportation, although the Canadian Transport Commission is attracting staff of particularly high calibre from other countries, and we welcome them. France is well ahead in the field of air-cushion vehicles, and Japan is well advanced in high-speed trains of the conventional and jet-propelled types.
It seems redundant for each province to duplicate research in these fields, and a cooperative effort could benefit all parts of Canada. Such an institute could well be associated with one of the major universities in the country, or perhaps it could be coordinated by a national secretariat with the research and studies in specific fields being allocated to each of several universities across the country. I favour the approach through the universities rather than as part of the government bureaucracy because there would be greater flexibility and fluidity than government tends to generate, as we have experienced. This approach would also have the advantage of turning out graduates who would become specialists to man the civil service which will run our urban centres or city states in the future. Such an institute could be of international stature and attract experts of world renown to its faculty or as visiting lecturers. I think this will more likely be accomplished by having a centralized institute at the graduate level.
My second proposal is one which calls for the political statesmanship and maturity which I mentioned previously. It is for a meeting of the private, elected representatives of all parties at all three levels of government to discuss the problems of our major urban areas and try to find ways to resolve them. If a reasonable measure of agreement is achieved we would then return to our respective legislatures, be they federal, provincial or municipal, and fight for the adoption of such agreed-upon procedures.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If I may be excused for seeming parochial, I wish to use the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area as an example, because it is the one with which I am most familiar. Attendance would be by all elected representatives, at all three levels, covering each of the municipalities in metro itself, plus those adjoining municipalities such as the townships of Markham, Vaughan, Mississauga and Pickering, and possibly Peel, York and Ontario counties. As this will involve possibly 150 to 200 or more men and women, each level would have to appoint spokesmen to act
Urban Problems
on their behalf at the sessions. This would require meetings beforehand to agree upon general positions and prepare position papers. Amendments beyond reasonable limits would have to be ratified by the caucus of each group. Hopefully, there would also be observers from other major urban centres across the country and interested independent groups such as the Board of Trade and the Bureau of Municipal Research.
The first area with which such a conference could deal is one in which there is an existing and legitimate federal presence such as airports, harbours, railways, post offices, Crown corporations, urban renewal projects and a myriad of other federal agencies. In METPAC, which is the Toronto federal Liberal caucus, we have divided ourselves up into areas of specialty. For example, the hon. member for York West specializes in waterfront development, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) the Post Office, the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) airports, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) railways and overpasses. Others have other specialties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) ?


Barnett Jerome Danson: He is the chairman. With like specialization at the provincial and municipal levels, co-ordinated political dialogue and cooperation would be on a continuing basis. These specialists do not act completely on their own but take direction from and report back to their caucuses. With such a procedure we would have a tri-level pipeline into which we would all be plugged. At present we work in our own three little vacuums all too often, and wonder why people are surprised or upset. Frequently two of the vacuums get together and leave the third, usually the municipality, out in left field. That may not be scientifically correct, Mr. Speaker, but that seems to be the way it operates. Such a procedure is still not very easy to accomplish; there is no guarantee of success, but even a small step toward progress by politicians would be a giant step forward for the taxpayers.
The next stage of such a tri-level seminar would deal with our frustrating but very real constitutional considerations. As I understand our federal government's position, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to moving further into urban areas if this is agreed to be desirable and if we are invited to do so by those

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
who have this right and responsibility. While I cannot speak for the government, it is my belief that we will not simply act as tax collectors and as passive benevolent bankers or sugar-daddies.
If agreement can be reached we would accept our responsibility for action, for policies and for financing, including the unpopular job of raising the necessary taxes. We would not, I suggest, nor should we, simply turn over money which is spent without our control. A recent sad experience in this regard relating to medicare should be ample evidence of how this system can backfire. It is incredible how much more careful one is with his own money than with that which is someone else's. It is like expense account living.
If the other jurisdictions do not want to give up their rights and responsibilities- those two words must always be used together-then they must have the courage to take the ultimate political responsibility of taxing to do the job, or the other side of that which is to take responsibility for not doing the job. In either case the electorate will judge, but that is one of the ways parties and politicians are re-elected or defeated, and that is what democracy is all about. You have to take the basic decision and be responsible to the taxpayers, or else do not act and be responsible for not acting.
I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the second phase of the tri-level conference be devoted to finding areas wherein we can reach some measure of agreement on shifts of responsibility which require constitutional change. Again, we can return to our respective legislatures and put our agreed-upon position to our government, thus exerting legitimate pressures which represent the feelings of the elected representatives. Should this prove successful-and there is no guarantee that it will, of course-we could schedule subsequent conferences on a bi-monthly or quarterly basis to deal with specific projects that we decide upon. The first of these could well be the excellent proposal for a regional airport authority, suggested by my colleague from Etobicoke. This is a perfect example of the type of program that could be achieved by thoughful consultation and co-operation at all levels.
I am not suggesting this as an ideal answer, or as the only answer, but it is a suggestion and an experiment worth trying unless someone has something better to offer. I have discussed these general proposals with senior 
elected officials at all three levels of government and have received gratifying encouragement. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this type of mechanism might well provide the vehicle, together with the centre for urban and transportation studies, for coming to grips with the realities of the seventies. The British North American Act was drafted for the realities of another age.
It is up to those of us representing the burgeoning urban areas at all levels of government to stop talking out of three sides of our collective mouths and straining our credibility in the eyes of the taxpayer. We may live to see the bills come in for our failure to get together; but if we do not, our children will, and their judgment on our performance will probably not be flattering. That is, Mr. Speaker, if our children live, for a report of the United Nations, with the authority of the Secretary General, tells us that if we do not reverse the tide of environmental pollution within ten years the process will become irreversible and the earth will die; the land will not support crops, nor will the air and sea support life. Our days will be numbered.
The great irony is that we are spending all of our efforts in many directions. We are worrying about the city of the future when, in fact, there may not be any future to worry about. I suppose you do not believe this, Mr. Speaker. Neither do I. It is so immense and so horrible that our minds automatically reject it. I suppose it does not matter very much if it is the truth; or does it?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we came here this afternoon to discuss a very simple motion asking the government to consider the advisability of this House setting up a committee to look into the problems of urban development. We in this party have gone even further; we have suggested that there be established a department of housing and urban development, with a full-time minister in charge of it.
The debate this afternoon, if it has done nothing else, has shown very clearly that so far as the government is concerned it is not yet prepared to grapple in any realistic way with the problems of urban development. That is something which has been evident for a good many years. Talk how he will, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) knows that for many years housing has been considered completely unworthy of having a portfolio to itself. Mr. Speaker, I am
December 8, 1969

Urban Problems
sorry to see the President of the Privy Council leaving the chamber, because if he does so I shall have to do my best to deal with him in his absence. Responsibility for housing has over the past few years been moved from pillar to post through half a dozen departments. Now we Anally have a Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing, but housing is not yet considered deserving of a full-time minister. All of this proves the government's unwillingness to deal with the problems of the cities.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This afternoon the President of the Privy Council rose and in effect told the House that he cares little about the matter under discussion, namely, how to deal with urban problems in Canada, because he did not even go near the subject during his 20-minute speech. He used the whole time as a diversionary tactic to talk about practically anything else. He stood there as a name-dropper introducing us to many interesting characters all around Canada, including some of the provincial premiers and other people, all of this to draw attention away from the government's complete bankruptcy of ideas and lack of interest when it comes to doing anything about urban affairs. It was this bankruptcy of ideas which not so long ago led to the resignation of the then minister who was supposed to be-again it was a part-time portfolio-in charge of housing matters.
The people of this country deserve something better, Mr. Speaker. Why in the world does this government get the reports of the Economic Council if they do not read them? The 1967 report of the Economic Council of Canada states that one of the most urgent priorities for the entire country at all levels of government is the growing problems of the urban districts, the great conurbations now being built which, by 1980, mean that at least one-third of the people in Canada will be crowded into three urban centres, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
All the problems of pollution, overcrowding, violence, lack of privacy, fresh air, space, tensions and disorder that we have heard about this afternoon will be aggravated by then, but the spokesmen of this government stand up and say cheerfully, "Other people have not wanted to do anything about this in the past, nor shall we. Let us leave it to some other level of government." What kind of statesmanship is that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I was wondering who proposed the motion we are discussing at the moment. I do not see any of them in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to rule that the hon. member is out of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I do not wonder that the hon. member feels upset. After all, the government backbenchers are being sandpapered raw by the people in the municipalities to explain why the government does nothing at all about one of the biggest problems of our time, the problem of the urban centres. I do not wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is upset.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I was here and I left to put my cigar outside. One of the reasons members on this side And it so uncomfortable and time-wasting to sit here is that there is in the House no cabinet member with responsibility for urban affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you or your successor this afternoon will add to my time to make up for these constant interruptions. When the President of the Privy CouncA said that he supported the need for dealing with urban affairs, it strikes me that he does so with a sympathy akin to the way the rope supports the condemned man. And when the member for York North (Mr. Danson), with the best intentions, goes into all kinds of subtle ways in which we could sneak up on this problem, putting salt on its tail, never letting anybody know we are going into this distasteful business, let me tell him that he is not going to put salt on the tail of the urban municipalities without their knowing it.
At the recent conference at Harrison Hot Springs, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took the cold plunge into the need for genetic engineering in the 1970's, I imagine he did so with a feeling of despair when he saw the kind of troops he had behind him. I imagine he thought this might be highly necessary.

December 8. 1969
Urban Problems


An hon. Member:: A point of privilege-


Winona Grace MacInnis: I do not want any more points of privilege during my speech unless I am given double time for each one. The problem of the cities being built today is that they are a mess. They do not correspond with the needs of the people who live in them. They have not been kept up-to-date and we find ourselves with horse-and-buggy cities in the jet age. When we speak about the need for slum clearance here, low rental housing there and areas for recreation yonder, we are trying our best to patch up the mess but we are not dealing with the problems of the cities as they should be dealt with. They are getting more out of date all the time and have against them the great indictment that they are defeating, disillusioning, devitalizing and dehumanizing the people who live in them.
It is many years since that great Scotsman, Patrick Geddes, pointed out that if we are not careful all our cities will become like New York on a larger scale, with people moved into those canyons of stone away from green things, growing things, light and sunshine, where they will lose their human character when deprived of those natural elements that make us human beings. We are allowing that process to go on and on and on.
Today we come into this House and say, "Now let's make a simple attempt to have the representatives of the people deal with recommendations the Economic Council has been making for years, saying that urban development is one of the major problems of our time." But we are given the brush-off by the President of the Privy Council doing a lot of knit-picking exercises instead of coming to grips with this problem. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resinned at 8 p.m.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the great United States sociologist Lewis Mumford said a few years ago what I think our objectives should be as we examine today's problems in our cities. He said:
The final test of an economic system is not the tons of iron, the tanks of oil, or the miles of textiles that it produces; the final test lies in its ultimate products ... the sort of men and women it nurtures, and the order and beauty and sanity of their communities.

That was written a few years ago. In his book "1976: Agenda for Tomorrow," in 1968 Stewart Udall, United States Secretary of the Interior had this to say:
We plan and act on a vast scale when it comes to space and defence. But by some obscure alchemy our will is feeble when attention turns to the blighted urban areas where most of us live. It is tragic that at this very moment we are using only a small fraction of our technological prowess on problem-solving in the cities. But the future is promising because we have the resources to achieve an American renaissance. Through continuous sound management of the economy, our annual gross national product should rise above the two trillion level within two decades. Unless false objectives cause us to use our extra wealth on illusory arms races or dubious military actions, or on idle displays of conspicuous consumption, we can achieve goals heretofore beyond the horizons of our hopes. These we have. The question is, rather, one of a national will and the formation of a common commitment to great civilizing goals.
Stewart Udall has a true conception of the tremendous task facing us on this continent in rebuilding our big urban areas. He says that nothing short of a new commitment will suffice, because only then will we undertake the job of rebuilding our cities and recreating in our people at the same time the spirit of hope and enterprise. In one election campaign the Premier of British Columbia coined the slogan, "Men to match our mountains." If we free our mountains of smog and other forms of pollution we shall be able to build in Vancouver men and women to match the mountains.
If the committee we advocate is set up with the new department, we also advocate, it will mean that we shall be able to study the problems of the cities and make proposals for action, not in the dim and distant future but in our lifetime. Some of the problem areas that will have to be discussed, and there are many, involve urban and suburban sprawl, traffic and transportation, housing and recreation, pollution, alienation and poverty; and questions of fresh air, sunshine and green growing things which are fast disappearing from our cities. Our cities are slowly becoming not fit for human beings. That is especially true when green growing things disappear and the cities become canyons of stone.
Some of the other problems involve questions of finance and jurisdiction for cities, and last but by no means least, the necessity of participation by citizens in those matters involving them. These are the things such a committee will have to study. It should be, in
December 8, 1969

the first place, a committee that will undertake steady action and not be forever studying, researching, white papering and task forcing, if I may use those expressions, and so on. Instead, it should make recommendations as it goes along; they should be short-range recommendations made in the light of long range objectives. In the second place, it ought to study the question of the role the federal government should play in solving the problems of the cities. That role, I believe, is a double one involving the setting up of some kinds of federal standards or guidelines. Also, I believe that our cities are entitled to obtain a percentage of federal funds necessary for urban development and growth, because that is essential if they are to solve their problems.
Times are changing and the rigidities of the present constitution bother many people. I do not think that some of us are even beginning to visualize what constitutional changes may be necessary in the 1970s. In that connection may I read to the House submissions made by two active Vancouver aldermen. They say:
A practical solution to the problems of the cities in the 70s would be to allocate a share of the income tax directly to the cities. It would probably be desirable to make the allocation directly to the larger cities and indirectly, through the provinces, to the smaller cities. In this way, the cities could get on with the job of making cities more livable and keping property taxes at a reasonable level.
That solution does not sound too difficult to these men. Those in municipal administration know what must be done if we are to undertake the big job of rebuilding our cities that is so necessary. The furnishing of funds to municipalities will be one of the biggest problems involving urban development. May I add one thing, Mr. Speaker. We have done this sort of thing in Canada and we could do it again if we put our minds to it. At Expo we saw the greatest commitment that I have seen during my lifetime on the part of our people to join wholeheartedly in a Canada-wide venture. They did so because they knew that it involved them all, that it was their Expo and their concern. When we undertook to build Expo, all the federal government's resources and ingenuity were employed in the hope of making the venture a success. We saw nationwide planning. Each locality in turn was asked to plan its share of the activities and its share of involvement. Citizens were encouraged to give of their best, whether they were in ordinary jobs or were hon. members of this House. Firm deadlines had to be met and people of all races, cultures and origins
Urban Problems
co-operated to make possible this great venture.
Because of Expo we developed in this country a heightened sense of purpose and identity as Canadians. I remember a French speaking taxi driver telling me in Montreal not too long ago how proud he was of having played a part in Expo. He had not worried then about who his neighbour was, so long as he was working on the same project. He said to me, "I wish once again that we could feel as we felt when Expo was being developed." The millions of Canadians from coast to coast who went to Expo to see and enjoy the colourful sights and sounds wished, after the doors were closed, that it could all be revived. In my view we can revive something like that, but on a much larger scale. We can apply the same principles we applied to Expo if we can obtain the same commitment from our governments, beginning with the federal government, for the big job of rebuilding our cities.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what must be our goal for the 1970s. Our major goal must be the rebuilding of Canada's cities from coast to coast. If Ottawa takes the lead and assumes its proper responsibilities toward the other levels of government in making certain that there is a fair allocation of resources, I think we can do an outstanding job of rebuilding Canada's cities and increasing at the same time our stature as Canadians.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Etobicoke):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) I wondered how much real concern there was in the Conservative Party for urban problems. At one point during the debate this afternoon there was not one member of the Conservative party in this chamber.


Thomas Miller Bell: When was that?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That is not correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not true, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: The great shadow-boxer and the affable entertainer, the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Hamilton West in that order delivered their one, two punch and then withdrew for repairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems


Alastair William Gillespie: The other question I wondered about this afternoon is just what prompted the Conservative Party to discover the cities. For over a year we have heard only about wheat and fish from them. We have heard about the real problems of the wheat farmers and the fishermen, but the opposition has said very little about the problems of the cities. On a number of occasions my friend, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) has drawn this fact to the attention of the House. We should not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, because the Conservative Party is not an urban party; it does not represent the cities; it had nothing to say before the election a little over a year ago with regard to the cities.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's not true.


Alastair William Gillespie: It has said very little about them since.


J. Michael Forrestall: Stop twisting things.


Alastair William Gillespie: For their information, I remind hon. members opposite of the fact, going from west to east, that from greater Vancouver there is not one sitting member of the Conservative Party, there is not one sitting member from Winnipeg, there is not one sitting member from the metropolitan Toronto region.


Mr. Nesbitt:: That is three cities.


Alastair William Gillespie: There is not one sitting member from the greater Ottawa region.


J. Michael Forrestall: What about Montreal?


Alastair William Gillespie: And there is one member from the greater Montreal region.


An hon. Member:: And he's not that much.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: I repeat, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell).


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member interjected when reference was made to the Conservative member in Montreal and said, "He's not that much". I ask him to withdraw that statement about the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: I didn't say it, he did.


Thomas Miller Bell: I insist, Mr. Speaker. We must abide by the rules. He said that hon. member is not that much. That is not parliamentary language.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest it is not an unparliamentary phrase. It may be accurate, but it is not unparliamentary.


An hon. Member:: You can withdraw that statement, too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) has the floor. I must say I did not hear the interjection. It is probably the best thing if the Hansard reporter did not hear it.


Alastair William Gillespie: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party has in the past had very little to say about the cities. It seems it has suddenly discovered the cities. To gain political advantage, the Official Opposition is in a desperate way now putting a motion before us which I hope to show in a very few minutes is transparent. It is transparent because it is shadow-boxing and fancy footwork. I do not think that shadow-boxing and fancy footwork will persuade the government or the Canadian people that they understand the situation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Ask Mr. Parks about that.


Alastair William Gillespie: Last week in Toronto, at the Conservative annual meeting, leading Conservatives agonized in public about the Leader of the Opposition and some of his own followers for not being sensitive to the problems of the cities. I wish to auote some remarks reported in the local press on this occasion.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Are those remarks by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan)?


Alastair William Gillespie: He is a well known man, a man who has made the housing area his particular concern, a man who fought a good campaign in the recent general election on the question of housing.


An hon. Member:: Is that Paul Hellyer?


Alastair William Gillespie: We were fortunate that he did not win. Mr. Bradley is quoted as saying:
-that the Conservative Party had better get oft its "complacent butt".
He had other things to say. I quote from Saturday's Globe and Mail. He was a member of a panel discussing the Conservative Party as it faces the future. He said, in his warning,
December 8, 1969

and it became louder and clearer as he called on the party to listen to the people:
-he was distressed about his party's prospects because all seven incumbent members of Toronto City Council who were defeated on Monday were Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Whatever happened to Steven Clarkson?


Alastair William Gillespie: He was not the only voice crying in the wilderness; one would hope not, because we all share the concern of the members from the cities. The provincial mines minister had similar concerns to express. His warning was similar; he said that the party has to listen to the people; that the Conservative Party is too comfortable, middle-class and upper-class in its outlook. There were others who on this occasion referred to the prospects of the Conservative Party. Some were perhaps imprudent enough to suggest that unless the Conservative Party reformed itself in the cities, it would be defeated in the election. I am referring to the provincial party. Characteristically, having discovered the problems of the cities, or what it thinks they are, the Conservative Party is going about it in the wrong way. It has misjudgd the issue in this House and has tried to obtain some political advantage.
What did the Leader of the Opposition say in his speech? When you get right down to it, he said we need another committee, a standing committee or a special committee of the House of Commons. Did he define the needs of the cities? Did he tell us what the problem was? Did he say anything about the special requirements of the cities? How many of his party are really interested in the problems of the cities? We have listened to debates in this House for over a year. As my colleague the hon. member for York West has pointed out on countless occasions, this House has had to listen to the problems of rural Canada, not urban Canada. Who initiated these discussions? It has been hon. members opposite. They have not initiated any debate about the problems of the cities in the year and a half that we have been here.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We have not had any
legislation.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member in his speech stated that we needed a new committee which would have three functions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Four.
Urban Problems


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That shows you weren't here.


Alastair William Gillespie: There were three functions that came through to me. He said we must provide a committee; we must provide a national forum for the discussion of urban problems and to focus on urban problems. I say to Your Honour that we have such a forum in this House. Why has it taken the Conservatives over a year to discover that the House of Commons is concerned about the problems of the cities?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We listened to this a little while ago.


Alastair William Gillespie: His second point was that such a special or standing committee would be able to hear directly from municipal governments. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as we do that if representatives of municipal governments so wish, they can now appear before our standing committees. I will go into that in a moment. We do not need another committee to provide a forum for those involved in municipal government; we have it now.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
He suggested that a third function of such a committee would be to hear specific suggestions from others. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the House of Commons? Why should we refer what the hon. gentleman described as the desperate situation in which the cities find themselves to yet another committee? Why has he not brought this issue before the House earlier? Why is his party not prepared to discuss the problems of the cities in this chamber, where they should be discussed?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why is there no legislation?


Alastair William Gillespie: With respect, I think this motion is no more than shadow-boxing no more than political opportunism. We already have standing committees on health and welfare and social affairs, on manpower and immigration, on regional development, on transport and communications, on finance, trade and economic affairs, on justice and legal affairs; all these committees have discussed urban problems in the last year or so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't convince me; convince the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens).


Alastair William Gillespie: If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to draw our attention to urban

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
problems, he could have done so in other ways.


An hon. Member:: Like your hon. friend from York West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alastair William Gillespie: The thought that occurs to me is this: if you have no ideas, what is the best ploy to use? It is to suggest the formation of another committee in the hope that someone else may come up with an idea. Poverty, housing, transportation, health and welfare, immigration, citizenship and manpower retraining are all matters which affect the lives of people living in the urban centres. All these things can now be discussed by our standing committees; all of them have been discussed and can be discussed again by them. What we do not need is yet another committee.
I think that new mechanisms are desirable to bring federal, provincial and municipal authorities into some sort of direct relationship. The problems of the cities are local and specific; we cannot pronounce upon them at the national level. The task of implementing solutions for them will not be accomplished by yet another committee; it will be accomplished at the local level by those within the urban community who are most involved. This is the lesson we have learned in the course of more than a hundred years. How much say will the cities have in determining the kind of cities they will become?
We need to ask ourselves such questions as these: How large are the cities to become? What kind of cities will they be? What kind of urban environment should be preferred? What recreational areas, transportation facilities, housing and services should they enjoy? These are not questions which will be decided by any committee of this House for each of the separate communities of Canada. These decisions will be made by the communities themselves.
The representatives of the cities will have to make themselves heard. They must speak out. Too often their voices have been muted by provincial governments which have conned them into feeling they are obliged to accept only what those provincial governments make available to them. Many municipal representatives have been inhibited, when it comes to speaking out, because they could see no hope. Part of the usefulness of this debate might lie in saying to these representatives of the cities that we are concerned about their difficulties and are prepared to

support their efforts. But they will have to make more noise and present their case forcefully to provincial governments. Though it is all very well to talk about new mechanisms, we must come down in the end to specific cases. In this connection there is one such situation which would lend itself readily to a new mechanism. I refer to the planning of a metropolitan Toronto airport system to serve the metropolitan region not necessarily, for example, a region confined by the borders of the existing metropolitan community but one which would include five airports which are already functioning.
I spoke on this subject during an earlier debate and I shall not go into it in great detail now. A new approach to airport planning is needed. We need a planning board composed of officials, one in which all four levels of government are engaged-the federal government through the Department of Transport, the provincial government through as many as four different provincial departments, regional government and, lastly, the boroughs concerned. It should also include those most directly involved, the senior elected representatives of the boroughs who are accountable to the people. In a very special way they understand the aspirations of the people who have elected them. Such a board as I am suggesting would advise the Department of Transport and the departments of the provincial governments affected. Its function should be planning. It is necessary to put the municipalities back into the planning process at the very beginning. The hon. member for North York (Mr. Danson) referred to this in his speech. The old "ladder system", by which the federal government discusses projects or responsibilities with the provincial government which, in turn, discusses them with the municipalities, is no longer working. Too often the apparatus at the provincial level acts as a filter, passing along only what it wants to pass along. Indeed, I suspect the filter process works both ways. In place of the ladder I believe we should substitute the round table; the representatives of the municipalities should sit around this table with the other authorities concerned, at the very beginning of the planning process.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this Parliament we have heard much talk of urban
December 8, 1969



renewal, the provision of public housing, lower interest rates and so-called guidelines, all of which we hope will have a beneficial effect on the serious problems of housing and urban renewal which are facing Canada.
We are all familiar with the Task Force on Housing which was headed by the former Minister of Transport who was responsible for housing, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I am sure we are all aware of the report which he presented to this House, I believe in January or February of this year. We are familiar, too, with the recommendations of the report and the stand that was taken by the former minister. It was the complete indifference shown by his colleagues in cabinet to the problems of housing and urban renewal that forced the minister to resign. The minister was completely repudiated by his colleagues, and this being the case I am sure we give him full credit for resigning.
I am sure all members agree that discussion and study do not of themselves build new homes or initiate badly needed urban renewal schemes. It is obvious that Canadians have heard enough words and are now ready for the ring of hammers building homes, for the carrying through of urban renewal schemes which all of us know are badly needed in Canada. I think it is obvious, too, to most Canadians that even before the task force left Ottawa the members of the task force knew, as we did, pretty well 100 per cent the problems facing Canada and 90 per cent of the solutions to those problems.
The recommendation dealing with the removal of the sales tax on building materials used in residential construction, which I might add met with the unanimous approval and support of all Canadians, was ignored by this government. The argument used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)-I presume he was speaking for his colleagues in cabinet-was that the $300 million collected each year by this tax would have to be made up elsewhere. I am sure all reasonable members of the House would agree that this amount would have to be made up. We fully agree that if the 11 per cent sales tax were abolished, the $300 million collected would in all probability have to be raised from some other source. I think I can also say that we were unanimous in our contention that if this were the case and the money had to be collected from elsewhere, we should find a source less crucial to the national well-being of the Canadian public than the field of housing.
Urban Problems
I think it is obvious to all Canadians and to the members of this House that this government has been playing around with the serious problems of housing and urban renewal that are facing the average wage earner of Canada at the present time. Through CMHC the government has been turning funds on and off like water coming out of a tap, much to the dismay of those Canadian citizens on the bottom half of the income ladder, especially those who are forced to live and raise their families in the slums and ghettoes of our cities and for whom the promise of a just society has little meaning. I think it has become obvious to the average Canadian, certainly to those of us on this side of the House, that the present government has become bankrupt of ideas in matters relating to the solution of housing and urban renewal problems, which we feel is the No. 1 domestic problem in Canada at the present time.
Apart from the serious housing problem facing Canada, we have other requirements, such as the implementation of a transportation system that will overcome choked streets, clogged highways and overcrowded airports. Our air and our water must be cleaned up. Housing and its related problems are a total challenge. In the matter of urban renewal I have a very special interest, because for almost a decade now, certainly for more than five years, a large number of families in that section of my riding known as the Mundy Pond development area have become political pawns of this government. They have been fed a continuous diet of promises, of grandiose plans and schemes which to this date are as far from realization as when they were conceived almost 10 years ago.
In this same development area-I am sure this is true in many other parts of Canada- properties have been frozen; permits to effect necessary repairs have been refused; people have not been allowed to build necessary extensions to their properties to accommodate their larger families; repairs and improvements, other than those which are necessary to keep the homes wind and watertight in accordance with city by-laws and government regulations, are forbidden because the government has promised to implement so-called urban renewal schemes.
In a great many cases in my riding, people are forced to live under conditions that are almost indescribable, conditions under which no human being should be forced to live. While these people are suffering, the government sticks its head in the sand, adopting the

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
old ostrich psychology of pretending that all is well; that if it keeps its head in the sand long enough, the problems will disappear; that through the wave of a magic wand the problems facing these people in the have-not areas of Canada and in our cities will vanish.
While I have a great deal of sympathy for people in the underprivileged countries of the world, I sometimes feel that in Canada perhaps we need additional aid to improve conditions in our ghettoes and slums. I sometimes think that although we have a great deal of sympathy for people of other countries who are suffering untold agony as a result of their economic conditions, there are areas in my riding where assistance is badly needed in order to give people the chance to live like decent, respectable Canadians, a status to which I think they are entitled.
I am not one to ignore what has been done. In my own riding, and indeed in many major cities in Canada, a lot has been done to provide reasonably good public housing for our underprivileged and average income citizens. I feel that much more must be done in order to give the people at the bottom half of our income ladder a chance to live in dignity and raise their families under conditions to which they are entitled in this twentieth century. I could cite a number of cases in my own riding where people are living under conditions that are completely and utterly indescribable.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In this 20th century we have put men on the moon and satellites in space, yet the people to whom I refer do not enjoy the benefits of indoor toilet facilities. It is a terrible indie ment of this government that people in this day and age should be forced to live under those conditions. I do not think we can take pride in the fact that we have skyscrapers in certain parts of the country and an affluent society, while in other parts of the country people are forced to live under conditions not in keeping with the 20th century.
The former Minister of Transport responsible for housing travelled the length and breadth of Canada at considerable expense to the Canadian taxpayer. He received briefs from various people and associations. He came back and presented a report which all of us thought was reasonable. This man, the hon. member for Trinity, made a report in which he recommended certain things. The bulk of those recommendations was not accepted. He recommended the abolition of

the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This was not accepted. These recommendations were for the most part rejected by the former minister's cabinet colleagues, and we know what happened. The minister, being an honourable man with pride, could not stand the thought of being repudiated by his colleagues. Consequently he resigned and is now sitting as a private member of this House.
We must assume that the former minister made recommendations in his task force report based on information gathered from all parts of Canada and from all segments of our population. He listened to groups and individuals. We felt that by and large his recommendations were sound and reflected the feeling of the average Canadian taxpayer. If this government was seriously interested in solving these problems, it would have taken the necessary action to implement most of the recommendations, especially the one dealing with the 11 per cent sales tax. Instead of accepting the recommendations of the task force appointed by it, the government elected to ignore them. In doing so it ignored the sentiments and feelings of the average wage earner across Canada.
The former minister resigned and the present minister was appointed to fill the gap. In accepting the responsibilities formerly held by the hon. member for Trinity in his role of being responsible for housing, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) was being dishonest. I feel he was being dishonest because he accepted a role which he knew was completely unpopular and not in keeping with the feelings and wishes of the Canadian public. The former minister made recommendations that were not acceptable, yet the present minister was prepared to step in and act as the minister responsible for housing. In doing so I contend he is being dishonest to himself and to the Canadian taxpayer.


Robert Knight Andras: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has alluded to my honesty, which I regret, and I think it is uncalled for. Will the hon. member name three or four of the recommendations of the task force, headed by the hon. member for Trinity, that were clearly within the federal domain yet not accepted and put through as amendments to the National Housing Act?


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Walter C. Carter: I should like the minister to indicate to me those recommendations by the
December 8, 1969

Urban Problems
former minister responsible for housing that were accepted by this government. The one that has been accepted by Canadians as probably the most important is the recommendation dealing with the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I think the minister believes in that recommendation. That is one reason I feel he is being dishonest in accepting the portfolio he now holds. He must know, as all Canadians and members of this House know, that if the 11 per cent sales tax were abolished it would accelerate house building in Canada and make it easier for the average Canadian to obtain a decent place in which to live and raise a family. I make no apology for my comments.
The task force made certain recommendations which were based on the advice of people across Canada and on the recommendations of various groups and associations. Any minister who would accept responsibility for housing without accepting those recommendations, especially the one regarding the 11 per cent tax, is being less than honest with himself, with this House and with the Canadian people.
The matter of housing is very serious and important to Canadians. Urban renewal is very important. In my riding the people have been promised an urban renewal scheme for almost ten years. This has left the people living in hope, while being prohibited from making necessary repairs and building extensions to their property. They have been waiting for this grandiose urban renewal scheme. This is grossly unfair, and the minister and the government should be ashamed of themselves for allowing these people to believe that Utopia is just around the corner.
The government should give serious thought to implementing the urban renewal schemes it has promised. The government and the minister know that the Mundy Pond urban renewal scheme has been promised for five, six or seven years. The people in that area do not deserve the treatment they have been accorded by this government by continuously promising a grandiose scheme which has never materialized. I have grave doubts that it will materialize in the next five years.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I think that in many respects the government did tell lies, because I can remember that two or three years ago people were led to believe that this scheme would take place within so many months. The people concerned were elated about the prospect of
being given water and sewer systems, half decent housing, streets and sidewalks; but after almost a decade they are still left up in the air. I feel that the time has come when this government must stop pussyfooting. It must begin to show a little compassion for the Canadian people and make good some of the promises it made to the Canadian people and specifically to the people in my riding. Those promises after almost ten years continue to be symbolic of all those made by the present government-that	is, broken promises.
Tonight I call on the minister responsible for housing to give great thought to this serious problem because he is dealing with human lives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I am informed that the time allotted to him has expired.


Robert Knight Andras: I welcome this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for starting it. I am impressed on most counts by the deep concern about cities expressed by hon. members, and I believe it accurately reflects many general concerns that have been expressed by people living in most of our urban areas.
In my relatively brief tenure as minister responsible for housing I have become very much aware of Canada's serious urban problem. Within the time available to me I have walked some of the streets and talked with people in many urban renewal areas and public housing projects. I will repeat what I said generally in my statement on second reading, that poverty, pollution, frustration, alienation and social unrest do have unique urban dimensions and may reach serious levels in our major metropolitan areas if we neglect the problems.
I must say, however, in all honesty that some of the debate has been superficial. There is an incredible gap between observing a concern, registering a generalization of concern, and in identifying precisely our problem and then beginning to deal with it in terms of effective policy-making. The gap is immense. It is immense because the first, essential requirement for bridging that gap is to understand, and what we do not yet have in the House at this level of government-or, I suggest, at any other level of government-is a precise and meaningful understanding of our urban environment and its problems.
I have become increasingly conscious, as I have talked with people, both housing experts

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
and people directly affected, that the urban system is an incredibly complicated one. Any view we take of it these days is rather like a snapshot that is out of date the minute it is taken, because it is a snapshot of the working out of the urbanization process that has become the central feature of this country's socio-economic development. Because it is the central feature, all the complex forces of development have come to focus on our cities; the effect of migration and rural adjustment, industrialization, technological progress, and many more forces that are at work in this country. To complicate matters, particularly in determining corrective policies, one must recognize that if these broad forces have played a major role in shaping our urbanization process, each city has been responding and adapting to them in a unique way peculiar to itself, so that each city is developing its own peculiar characteristics and problems and will require its own specific responses.
Out of all these processes have emerged urban units in this country-this has taken place everywhere else in this world-that are highly complex, socio-economic systems. I think the thing that has impressed itself on me more than anything else is that each part of the social system that is a city and an urban area is highly interdependent in ways that defy simple analysis. I am stressing these points because I sincerely believe that many of us are failing to appreciate how little we understand about this system. The reaction to this problem is to urge us as a federal government to act now without understanding but with serious consequences for the cities and for those most in need of our help.
Let me merely outline, in answer to some of the comments made earlier this evening and this afternoon, some of the most recent of such policies of our government and of other governments, by way of illustration. Let me outline some of the immediate, ad hoc and fragmented responses. Urban renewal was launched with the best intentions to help relieve the serious housing difficulties of the urban poor of this country. But in the process we understood far too little of the complex working of the housing markets, social groups and urban economy. As a result, in the name of urban renewal we occasionally helped destroy viable communities and inflicted hardship on precisely those we were seeking to assist. Public housing, stemming also from similar good intentions, has on occasions led to the locking of the poor into even more rigid social ghettoes.

Those are two examples of where the federal government has been guilty, in which we have participated and in which we have to effect corrections. But there are others-and I am not pointing the finger at any level of government. One has to look at what is going on in many of our major urban areas, in terms of expressways. The downtown cores of the cities are congested. There is a demand for building expressways to join the suburbs to the downtown city core. This will mean more cars, which will in turn need wider expressways, which will in turn require more parking lots. As a result, the land in the core of the cities increases in cost and the urban poor who so often live in these areas are denied access to decent housing because of the high cost of land. Assessments go up in the downtown area, and so do the taxes. Businesses in the downtown area see this trend and head off to the suburbs where they can get cheaper land and production, and so the whole cycle reverses itself all over again. These are some of the ad hoc responses of which governments in nearly all highly populated and industrialized nations have been guilty.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
To go back to urban renewal, Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of the fact that in August of this year, following discussions with the responsible ministers from all the provinces, I affirmed my predecessor's decision regarding the urban renewal program, and since that time I have carefully reviewed the whole nature of that program. We have had extensive exchanges with the provinces on this subject on the basis of our analysis and findings, and upon completion of the discussions this week with provincial ministers who are in Ottawa I shall make a detailed statement in the House explaining our actions.
As hon. members also know, a similar review of public housing is currently under way. I hope we will be able to announce shortly our policy with respect to this matter, with reference particularly to the 1970 program, but I give fair warning now that it is essential that we receive all the provincial recommendations, have an opportunity to digest them, and then go back to the provincial ministers to get some kind of consensus before the recommendations are locked in.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: involved in tripartite housing agreements, is the minister simply consulting the provinces or is he also consulting municipal governments?


Robert Knight Andras: I appreciate the question, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I have been consulting representatives of the municipalities too, I think with the consent and support of the provincial ministers, by my meetings with the representatives of the Executive Committee of the Association of Mayors and Municipalities, who recently sent me their views on both urban renewal and public housing guidelines, for which I thank them, and which are now being digested.
While I am on the subject of this question, Mr. Speaker, may I respond to a comment made earlier in this debate by an hon. member opposite who implied that the invitation of the Premier of Ontario to municipal representatives to attend this week's federal-provincial conference was in the face of resistance by the federal government. This is not a fair statement of the case. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 22 and again on June 3 clearly indicated that municipal representatives at federal-provincial conferences would be welcome, but made the straightforward and legitimate proviso that since the municipalities report constitutionally to the provincial governments, if the municipal representatives came in it would have to be at the initiative of the provincial governments. I uphold and applaud the presence in Ottawa today of municipal representatives from Ontario but, Mr. Speaker, let us call a spade a spade and allow this contradiction to the comment previously made. I repeat that there was no opposition from the federal government to their presence at this conference.
I have referred to the need for a careful review of existing programs of urban renewal and of all the housing programs under the National Housing Act. That analysis of the existing programs marks the first phase of our attempt to understand this complicated urban process. I say also that the second phase necessarily involves an incredibly deep and careful analysis of that process in all its complexity. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I have launched an intensive inquiry into the workings of the whole urban area, the whole urban process in our country. I expect and hope to be able to place recommendations before my colleagues in the late spring.
Urban Problems
I make no apologies for suggesting that this matter requires further study. I have talked with many people in this country and to many people from other countries, so-called urban experts, certainly people who were concerned about urban problems in their own country, and I find somewhat to my horror that I know of no country, not even among the most advanced industrial western nations, that truly has an urban policy. It is a complex, complicated process. It will require deep analysis, and no superficiality is going to give us answers that are significant. In fact, any failure to dig deeply into this process could do more harm than good.
We are primarily trying to learn how best to deal with the critical urban problems. For example, we want to know who are the urban poor. Are they in the main unemployable, or are they temporarily unemployed? No evidence collected to date permits us to answer even this simple question. We want to know why there is such a squeeze on the revenues of urban governments, and what can be done about it. We want to know what alternatives there are to the current treadmill of more cars, more highways, and then more cars. We want to know what alternatives there are to monotonous suburbs and decaying inner cities.
But part of the problem, and I plead with hon. members to understand this, or join me in the attempt to understand it, in trying to answer these specific questions is that they cannot be answered or dealt with in isolation. Where you put a public housing project of any significant size, where you put an airport or an expressway, has a shaping effect on urban society. These matters are interrelated, and they cannot be dealt with as has been the case in the past, as if the city was a multiring circus and what was going on in one ring had no relationship to what was going on in the other rings.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is why you have to be in there.


Robert Knight Andras: We will be in there, Mr. Speaker; that I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope he will join me in the process because this is beyond partisan debate so far as I am concerned. Superficial response and political opportunism will not help us to deal with this problem. We have to understand fully how the problems arise. We have to start treating them not in terms of their symptoms but in terms of their causes. We

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
also need better data on how they are connected to social, demographic and economic Change.
To do so we are now trying to analyse the process of urbanization in Canada, and now being well into it I realize the colossal undertaking it is. Once we are able to isolate the key determinants, we will be able to isolate and evaluate the possible alternative strategies for governmental intervention to manage that system effectively. Its objective is to direct the urban system so as to alleviate the critical urban problems and to pursue actively our primary social goals in a country which is becoming essentially urban. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not so presumptuous, and I would challenge anybody to be so presumptuous, as to believe that we will be able to solve all our Urban problems as a result. However, I can assure hon. members we will be moving toward greater knowledge about them, not on a superficial, fragmented, ad hoc basis, and we will better understand the role we as a federal government might play therein.
Central to this approach is a keen awareness of the responsibilities of the provinces and their municipalities in the whole area of the urban process. To ensure that their interests and their legitimate roles are kept continually to the forefront I shall launch discussions with the responsible ministers of the provinces. It is my hope we will work very closely together to arrive at a joint consensus of goals and strategies. I was heartened to learn that the Leader of the Opposition has called for a conference on urban policy within his own party. I trust this means that he agrees with us that understanding is the prerequisite of effective action. Forming committees, decrying inaction and proposing ineffective policies, these are the tactics of those who seek to trivialize and make political capital from our urban problems, not solve them.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I regret to be critical, but this afternoon in the House and in recent discussions I have heard some of this superficial approach to the problems of our city. Surely it is easy to talk of increasing the need to co-ordinate existing federal activities in the cities, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition and as I have been guilty of doing. But we must co-ordinate these activities-and I have added this reservation-in terms of the objectives and the conception of the urban process.
Surely, to do an effective job we must address ourselves to advancing and getting 
answers to these questions. Would hon. members suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I expand the federal urban renewal program, as the hon. member from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and one of his colleagues suggests, and then seek-and only God knows how-to co-ordinate such a confused action with other federal activities in the cities? This, Mr. Speaker, is what several hon. members from across the floor have suggested. My answer is no, we should not do this.
We are all fully aware of the seriousness of the problems. The fact that the vast majority of members of this House, and most particularly of this government, represent urban ridings has ensured that recognition on our part. What we seek are solutions, not sops; effectiveness, not emotion; and relevance, not rhetoric. We are playing our part. We have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I understand his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister the unanimous agreement of the House to continue. I must remind hon. members that very few minutes are left in this debate, and I know that many hon. members are anxious to take part.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the text of my remarks on the debate on this very vital question of transportation, I wonder if I might direct a word or two to our distinguished President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and some of his colleagues on the treasury benches. I should like to remind them that once in a while it is good to listen to what one's neighbours are saying. Just before dinner the President of the Privy Council chastized those of us on this side of the House for not supporting a proposition which invites federal participation and, indeed, active federal leadership in solving urgent problems. He stated that the federal government must not involve itself in matters essentially within the purview and the responsibility of municipalities. But in a reply to a question by my leader, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) stated that he was indeed involved in discussions with municipalities.
December 8, 1969

In the last few years, Mr. Speaker, it has sometimes appeared to Canadians from all walks of life that the right hand of government has not the vaguest idea what the left hand is doing. In the course of his remarks the President of the Privy Council led us in this chamber to believe that levels of government other than federal were responsible for holding up programs in such places as Don Vale and Trefann Court. I should like to remind the President of the Privy Council of the remarks made by the Minister without Portfolio to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) very recently. At page 1589 of Hansard of December 4, when the hon. member for Hamilton West asked whether the apparent deadline of December 31, 1969, affecting such programs as Don Vale would come and go without any communication from the federal government on action to be taken before the end of the year, the minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, when I met with residents representing the Don Vale urban renewal committee I made it quite clear that it was most unlikely we would be able to.have legislation available because it would require the setting up of rehabilitation grants and loans inherent in their proposal. I made it quite clear to them, regretfully, that that was the situation and that this was unlikely to take place before December 31, 1969.
May I just tell the minister that his remarks in the debate this afternoon, apart from being grossly inaccurate in many respects were far removed from his plea about the urgency of removing the whole question of urban problems from the sordid arena of partisan politics. If the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) is interested in the capacity of the municipalities to deal with their own problems, I should like to cite one or two facts to him.
I should like to read from the report of the Technical Advisory Committee on Urban Transportation of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Table XII entitled "Average Yearly Capital Expenditures on Roads" is based on study recommendations and scales of expenditure required to meet programs deemed necessary by these municipalities. Then, immediately after, comes the amount of money each urban centre involved is required to pour into the program. For Vancouver the figure is $12 million, based on a $60 million, five-year program. But over those five years all they have to spend is $3 million, or approximately 25 per cent. Ottawa-Hull, $24,871,000; projected scale of budget expenditures, $9,933,000; Hamilton, $12 million; projected scale of
Urban Problems
budget expenditures, $9,200,000; London, Ontario, $3 million; projected, $690,000; Victoria, $3 million; projected, $649,000. Perhaps those figures will give the hon. member for Etobicoke some idea of the magnitude of the problems we are talking about.
Mr. Speaker, in all discussions in this House about the great urban problems in Canada today, not one member has spoken in any meaningful way about the most costly aspect of urban renewal, that is urban transportation, mass transit problems, the problems of intra-urban communication and the difficulty of removing alienation brought about by the inability to communicate with one another in terms of transportation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In September, 1964, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities started what will go down in history as the first major study of urban transportation in Canada. The ensuing studies and work conducted by what most hon. members know to be a very active committee culminated about a year ago in the first urban transportation conference ever held in Canadian history. What took place at the conference is a matter of record although, I am afraid, it is fast passing into history.
My participation in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is to highlight our existing concerns in problems of urban transportation both in this country and in the United States. I believe the minister was incorrect when he said that no western country has an urban philosophy and is doing nothing about the subject except trying to understand it. Perhaps in that process of understanding they have not evolved an "a, b, c" governing urban philosophy and underlying principles; but by God, they have not stood still and done nothing about the problem. They are doing something about it. I think it is fair to say that no federal government of this country has become involved in any significant manner in the field of urban transportation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is true.


J. Michael Forrestall: The government's entry into the trans-Canada highway program might be held by some to be an exception to this point. I contend that those who conceived the trans-Canada highway program did not intentionally try to resolve the urban transportation problems of any particular area. In some areas like Montreal the highway does play a part in solving problems; it links the

December 8, 1969
Urban Problems
three main cities in the central core with the south shore of the St. Lawrence, but this is only incidental. The highway was not intended to solve any major problems in areas of urban transportation. There are other minor exceptions to the rule which I will cite in a moment, because enumerating the exceptions I think will strengthen the main point of my argument.
Through the National Capital Commission the federal government has poured millions of dollars into a system of parkways in Ottawa. There is also the recently announced parkway to be built out to the Ottawa Airport. If the government had not announced the construction of this road I would have been tempted in my remarks this evening to direct a question to the minister responsible for railways, canals and telegraphs and ask him to remove the fallen branches and trees from the cow path leading to this city's international airport.
In addition to the two examples I have cited, there are minor ones such as the involvement of the National Harbours Board in the construction of bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal and, I think, across the harbour at Vancouver. One or two other small projects could be mentioned. But my being able to identify those areas of federal government involvement in matters of urban transportation shows that that involvement is so limited, so much a "one shot" affair as not to count at all.
In its urban renewal program the government accepts no responsibility whatever for matters pertaining to urban transport and the impact those federal renewal programs, as well as other programs, will have on the ability of the cities to solve their transportation problems. Yet is it not strange that in writing about the human problems of the city our greatest modern writers refer continually to the theme of alienation? Inevitably, when one talks to our young people, one finds that they are alienated from society in no small measure because they cannot communicate with their friends through the use of transportation facilities.
May I touch on one other area of the federal government's involvement in transportation matters. I refer to the development of above-grade crossings over railway lines crossing our principal highways. I mention this matter now because I hope that increased costs involving the construction of these raised crossings designed to eliminate present day level-crossings will not reach the
[Mr. Forrestall.l
point where the federal government will feel it incumbent to curtail them and suggest to responsible departments that the program of building such above-grade crossings be cut back. We must have above-grade crossings if our highways are to remain safe and if highspeed users of our highways, such as they are, are to continue to find it safe to drive over them.
I emphasize again that the federal government's involvement in four or five separate areas does not mean that it has become involved in matters of transportation. It is easy to argue that way. Rather, such scant involvement makes it abundantly plain that the government has no plan to become involved; that talk on the matter has not even begun; that action has not begun and that, as is painfully obvious, the government has no intention of helping with the development of urban transportation. It does not wish to become involved in parallel developments involving broad urban transportation philosophy, notwithstanding, I submit, what the minister hopes will be done next spring.
May I contrast our record with that of the United States. To do so may I read from the report of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. I quote from page 23 of the report as follows:
By contrast the federal government in the United States is playing a steadily increasing role, both with respect to urban highways and urban mass transit.
Unlike this country's programs, federal aid in the United States began with aid to rural highway programs. From 1944 on, however, we have been able to discern that the United States government's direct involvement in the construction of major arterial systems has been growing. This tendency which was started about 26 years ago has now expanded to the point where in 1965 $3,675 million had been poured into that general field. The United States federal assistance to the mass transit sector of its economy is of more recent origin, but its history can be traced back to 1960 when with the support of the presidential nominee John F. Kennedy, the Democratic Party placed urban affairs as a national issue in their party platform and pledged:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Federal aid for comprehensive metropolitan transportation programs, including bus and rail transit. Commuter railroads as well as urban highway programs and construction of civil airports.
December 8, 1969

At that time Kennedy declared:
That the Democratic Party in the United States knows of no wiser investment that this nation could make than federal aid to urban transportation.
Those were wise words ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, and I think they are fitting today. I commend them to the minister in the formulation of any policy he is preparing for presentation to his colleagues. The direct result of that position by President Kennedy was the passage in that country of the housing act of 1961 which, while modest in its start, at least provided $50 million in federal loans for acquisition and improvement for mass transportation facilities in urban areas of the United States. An additional $25 million or $30 million was also allocated at that time, and I commend this to the minister. It was committed for urban transportation projects, mass transit projects. The minister has no terms of reference to do that. I hope in his thinking this winter he comes up with some terms of reference and will include it.


Robert Knight Andras: Will the hon. member permit a question?


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


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) calls for the establishment of a committee of the House to deal with urban problems. The amendment moved on behalf of our party by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) called for the establishment of a department of housing and urban affairs. We must realize that 75 per cent of the people of Canada now live in our cities. They are faced with tremendous problems such as urban transportation, housing, pollution and education. These problems must be solved. It is surprising that the government does not agree that the establishment of a committee and a department are worth-while objectives which it ought to support. I suggest the reason for that is very simple. The government is caught in the constitutional trap of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The cities are the creatures of the provinces and therefore the federal government cannot deal with urban problems.
It is for that reason we heard the foolish speech of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), which I will refer to later, and the speech of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras). I
Urban Problems
have a great deal of respect for the Minister without Portfolio. He is going to study the problem. If he is as successful in delineating the problems of housing as he was in delineating the problems of the Indians, he will be fired from this job in the same way he was fired from his last job. The minister told the House, "Let us not do anything now, because what the opposition are proposing are ad hoc, fragmentary policies." I cannot think of a better way to get rid of ad hoc, fragmentary policies than to have a House committee and a department of urban affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: I listened with amazement to the foolish speech made this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council blaming the Leader of the Opposition for this motion. Why? Because the Leader of the Opposition last year agreed to a motion setting up the standing committees of the House. As we all know, the motion on which we voted was the one the government would agree to, and nothing else.
The minister is not foolish, but why did he make such a foolish speech? It is because he wanted to draw the attention of the House and the public away from the legitimate criticisms being made, not just on this side of the House but by his own members. We remember that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) resigned from the Liberal Party because of the inaction of the government with regard to urban affairs. We know about the very excellent speeches that are made outside this house by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens). The Globe and Mail for November 25 reported his activities at the recent policy conference of the Liberal Party at Harrison Hot Springs in the following terms:
Member of Parliament Philip Givens crystallized the opposition when he got the mike and demanded to know if this conference was going to urge a federal initiative to help the cities. He got cheers. In the corridor later he also got the raspberry from the Prime Minister, who contended that the constitution gave the cities to the provinces, which could raise their own taxes if they wanted to aid the cities.
I think the hon. member for York West is right. I wonder why he has not made that speech here. This is where Members of Parliament are supposed to make their main speeches. Why did he go outside this chamber to make this speech, if he really means what he says. I could not pass up an opportunity to speak in this debate without referring to the

December 8. 1969
Urban Problems
former minister of transport, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who resigned his portfolio because of his disagreement with the government and the Prime Minister. It is not important that hon. members do not agree with every proposal of the Task Force on Housing headed by the former minister of transport. Some of the recommendations were good and with some I disagree. For example, I disagree with the former minister and the present minister that it has been made government policy not to go ahead with urban renewal plans because there are some things wrong with public housing as it now exists. Of course there is a great deal wrong with public housing projects, but I submit to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing that with all their faults they are still far superior to the kind of housing which the people who now live in these projects had prior to moving into them; they are far superior to the slums from whence these people came. It is a disgrace for the minister to stop plans for more public housing. He should not permit it.
I want to put on record one or two comments made by the hon. member for Trinity when he resigned as minister of transport and minister in charge of housing. I quote from an article in the April 25 edition of the Toronto Telegram:
It is really part of a larger issue-the constitutional concept of federalism-and perhaps the Prime Minister's concept that housing and urban affairs are not really a federal responsibility-
"We are talking about a theory of federalism which is not what many people think it is. It is a theory of 10 almost autonomous provinces held together by a fairly weak federal government."
The Prime Minister answers every call, whether it be from this or the other side, from members like the hon. member for York West who has been conspicuous by his silence on this subject in the House. The former minister of transport answered every demand for action in solving the problems of urban living by hiding behind the constitution. We do not believe that is an excuse, Mr. Speaker. We believe the constitution were made for people, not people for the constitution.
We believe there are amendments through which the constitution could be used for the federal government to take the initiative in meeting with the cities to go into details of the difficulties and how they can be dealt with.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Etobicoke suggested that the municipalities were not aware of the

nature of these difficulties. I wonder where he has been for the past 20 years. Does he not know that the municipalities, through their organization of mayors and municipalities, has for years been making representations to the federal government asking for help in slum clearance, urban renewal, public housing, urban transportation, pollution control, provision of sewers and water systems. Help in all these fields has been requested for the last 20 years by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. But every year the answer has come from the government, and particularly from the present Prime Minister that the government cannot do these things because they are provincial responsibilities; the cities have to direct their requests to the provincial governments.
We think it is time for a new deal, one in which the 75 per cent of the people who live in our cities would be consulted through their governments. We think the way to consult them is by establishing a department of urban and housing affairs. We feel the government can and should do this. We hope the Prime Minister will learn a lesson from the demands which are being made, and will begin to act.


John Gilbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of our party as well as those who support the Official Opposition would agree to extending the time available in order that we might hear from the flamboyant member from York West (Mr. Givens).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., I must, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House now	stands adjourned until two
o'clock tomorrow afternoon.	
At 10.15 p.m.	the House adjourned, without question put,	pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, December 9, 1969