1969-07-21

MAN ON THE MOON

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this chamber properly restrict statements to matters or events which the government deems it necessary to make known to the house. The events which occurred during the past 24 hours are known by all hon. members and will gain little from repetition now. They are, nonetheless, of such an incredible nature, and illustrate so vividly the accomplishments of man in the fields of science and technology, that it is fitting for us to pause with all humanity to reflect on the magnificent accomplishment of this "giant leap".

Since the dawn of history men have turned their eyes heavenward to gaze at the mysterious moon. Through the courage of three men and the talents of many thousands of others, that heavenly body has suddenly given up its mysteries and has come within the grasp of earth. The adventure which we observed last night is surely one of the greatest achievements of all time.

On behalf of the government and the people of Canada, may I in this place congratulate the three astronauts and the people of the United States for this deed. We all wish the astronauts Godspeed and a safe return to earth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like personally and on behalf of my colleagues to associate ourselves with the congratulations extended by the Prime Minister to the astronauts, their families, and the United States of America. We join him in wishing the astronauts a safe return. It was a tremendous achievement. The science, engineering and technology behind the achievement are almost beyond the comprehension of a person
such as myself, as is the degree of precision achieved and, of course, the courage of the men involved.
It was a great day for mankind, but it did provoke some sober thoughts in those of us who watched the achievement. It reminded us that the same man who is capable of reaching the moon in this way daily involves himself in practising inhumanity on other men. I hope, as I am sure everybody does, that the sublime achievement of the men responsible for the landing on the moon will remind us that while we are frequently as men rather petty, thoughtless and selfish and sometimes rather vicious, mankind is capable of this kind of achievement. We hope this example will serve not only to mark a great step forward scientifically but to remind mankind generally of what man is really capable of achieving.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would like to associate themselves with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the astronauts who yesterday accomplished a feat which staggers the imagination. This may well open a new chapter in the history of man's long development as he reaches out beyond his own planet to other planets and the stars. Even while we speak the two astronauts who landed on the moon are involved in one of the most dangerous manoeuvres of the exercise. I am sure all of us are hopeful that they will be successful and will shortly be returning to earth to receive the plaudits of an admiring world.
While we are praising the astronauts, I am sure all of us will keep in mind the thousands of men and women whose research and tireless work made this flawless performance possible. It now only remains for those of us who are still chained to earth to do everything we can to see that man's social and moral development keeps pace with his technological advancement.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in congratulating the
11374	COMMONS DEBATES	July 21, 1969
House of Commons Salary Increases
people of the United States for such a great QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER achievement.	

I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister for sending to the moon a message from Canada, both in French and English. We are sure that the voice of French Canadians has been heard the world over.
We also express the hope, as the Prime Minister did, that if we are capable of such a feat in 1969, all men of good will should co-operate in the future to feed mankind.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table of the house an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held Friday, July 18, 1969, concerning revision of the salaries of employees of the House of Commons.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONCURRENCE IN TWENTY-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau) moved: that the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the house on Friday, June 27, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, respecting the marketing of synthetic detergents.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make sure that all detergents marketed in Canada are bio-degradable. At present most are, but some products are imported and marketed here which are not. The bio-degradable constituent assists in preventing pollution after a detergent has been used.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
IMr. Dumont.]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Stanford Research Institute report on the cost benefit evaluation of a Prince Edward Island causeway been reviewed by an independent economic authority and, if so, by whom and with what conclusion?
2.	(a) Have any studies been carried out to indicate what subventions would be required if a corporation were formed to build, finance and operate the crossing (b) on what assumptions were these studies made and what did they indicate (c) what are the economic advantages or disadvantages of an immediate start on a crossing?
3.	Have comparisons been made of the annual costs of a fixed crossing and of a ferry system projected over 50 years and, if so, with what results and conclusions?
4.	What effect on the economic improvement plan recently agreed to between the governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island is anticipated if construction of a fixed crossing is begun (a) at once or (b) if delayed indefinitely?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. Yes, by C. B. Haver of Montreal for Northumberland Consultants Limited. The report however was prepared for internal use and as such the contents are confidential.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, an internal government study showed the discounted cost of a fixed crossing to be substantially more than the discounted cost of a ferry system over this period.
4.	(a) The plan would require major revision; (b) No effect.



CARRAGEEN-EXTRACTION FROM IRISH MOSS

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What consideration is being given to the suggestion of the honourable Member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid, Hansard 1968, p. 3616) that a plant for the extraction of carrageen from Irish moss be built in the Maritimes?
2.	If the matter is under consideration, what departments of government are involved in studying the feasibility of such a suggestion?
3.	What amount of Irish moss was exported to (a) Denmark (b) the United States in the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968?
4.	What was the cash value of part (3) above?
July 21, 1969

5.	What is the value of the carrageen imported into Canada from the countries mentioned in part (3) above?
6 What is the estimated cost of constructing a carrageen extracting plant in the Maritimes?
7. Have representations been received from the Government of Prince Edward Island or any other groups or organizations advocating the establishment of such a plant or plants?


Yves Forest: 1. The
Department of Fisheries and Forestry has been following developments and it is its
Questions
understanding that private interests are studying the feasibility of locating extraction plant facilities in the Maritimes region.
2.	The Department of Fisheries and Forestry is involved in this matter however other departments are involved in other aspects of this industry.
3 and 4. The quantity and value of exports of Irish moss to (a) Denmark (b) the United States in the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 are as follows:
Denmark	United States
Year	Quantity cwt.	Value $'000	Quantity cwt.	Value $'0001965	30,633	289	62,445	6811966	69,032	634	72,515	7931967	45,603	602	90,665	1,2701968	69,074	979	113,838	1,6195.	Imports of carrageen are recorded in DBS commodity class 219-99-"crude vegetable materials inedible n.e.s. (not elsewhere specified)" and no separate statistics are available on this commodity.6.	One million and upwards.7.	Yes.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. Robinson: Does the federal government intend to meet with the provinces to consider the respective governmental responsibility for Indian Affairs in the fields of (a) education (b) employment (c) use of lands as farming, mineral resources and power resources?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes.



BILINGUALISM PROGRAM-INDIANS AND ESKIMOS

Mr. Robinson: Does the federal government intend to embark on a program of bilingualism with the native populations of Indians and Eskimos in Canada and, if so, will both French and/or English be offered?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Indian and Eskimo children across Canada whether enrolled in a provincial or federal school follow the provincial or territorial curriculum of the province or territory in which they attend school. Therefore, programs of bilingualism developed in provincial/territorial departments of education will be made available to Indian and Eskimo children. The federal government does not intend to embark upon a separate or distinct bilingual program for the Indian and Eskimo population of Canada.



SALES TAX ON PHARMACEUTICALS AND DRUGS-EFFECT OF REMOVAL

Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What was the sales tax on pharmaceuticals and drugs before its removal by the federal government?
2.	When was the sales tax on pharmaceuticals and drugs removed?
3.	At the time of removal of the sales tax, what was the prescription index of the consumer price index for Canada and the major cities of Canada according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
4. Three months after the removal of the sales tax, what was the prescription index of the consumer price index for Canada and the major cities of Canada, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
5.	What specific machinery was established to ensure that the removal of the sales tax on pharmaceuticals and drugs was passed on to the consumer as stated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Hansard of June 5, 1969?


Yves Forest: I am

July 21. 1969
Questions
informed by the Department of National 1. 12 per cent on the manufacturer's sale
Revenue, the Department of Industry, Trade price.
and Commerce and the Department of Con-	2. September 1, 1967.
sumer and Corporate Affairs as follows:	3. and 4.
Pharmaceuticals Component of the Consumer Price Indexes for Canada and Cities
Aug.	Sept.	1967 Oct.	Nov.	Percentage Changes Aug. toCANADA	103.1	Index 1957 = 100 99.6 97.8	97.7	Nov. 1967 - 5.24St. John's, Nfld.	108.2	105.2	104.4	104.0	- 3.88Halifax	100.8	96.6	96.4	96.0	- 4.76Saint John	100.7	95.8	95.5	95.1	- 5.56Montreal	100.5	96.1	95.0	94.9	- 5.57Ottawa	101.8	94.9	94.7	94.0	- 7.66Toronto	104.2	102.0	99.1	99.5	- 4.51Winnipeg	102.2	98.4	98.0	98.8	- 3.33Saskatoon	121.7	114.6	115.0	114.9	- 5.59Regina	116.7	113.5	110.8	110.6	- 5.23Calgary	105.6	104.1	101.5	101.3	- 4.07Edmonton	116.8	113.5	112.6	111.8	- 4.28Vancouver	101.5	99.3	96.5	98.3	- 3.15
5. Following the removal of the sales tax on drugs, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs examined the price structure of the drug manufacturers to ascertain their price reaction to the removal of the sales tax. Notwithstanding that this study involved a single industry which uses published price lists and was confined to the manufacturing level only, it took several months to complete.
For this purpose, the department obtained from virtually all the manufacturers supplying a significant quantity of drugs to the Canadian market, copies of their price lists in effect before the removal of the sales tax and of those issued after the removal of the sales tax.
Arrangements were also made for the Department to be supplied with copies of price lists or notifications of price changes subsequently issued.



SOUTH REGINA-ESTABLISHMENT OF SUB-POSTAL STATION

Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Communications to establish a sub-postal station in South Regina?

2.	If so, is it the intention of the Department to construct or to purchase property for a subpostal station in South Regina?
3.	If so, what is the planned location and when will the facility go into operation?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	This is still undecided.
3.	The proposed location is in the vicinity of Parliament Avenue and Gordon Road. It is planned that the postal station will be placed in operation in the fiscal year 19701971.



PUBLIC RELATIONS, CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have a public relations staff and, if so how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1 and 2. See reply to Question No. 2,578.
July 21. 1969



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-INFORMATION SERVICE

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Yes, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a general information service administered by the Information and Public Relations Branch, and a specialized consumer information service administered by the Consumer Service and Information Branch. Cost: 1960 to 1966, N/A, 1967 to 1968, $8,448; 1968 to 1969, $148,409. Staff: The information and Public Relations Branch is composed of seven persons including one Director, one Press Relations Officer, one Editor, one secretary and three clerks. The information Division of the Consumer Service and Information Branch is composed of four persons: an information officer, a program administrator, and two secretaries.
2. 1967-1968: One pamphlet informing the public about the Department, at a cost of $4,300; five information sheets explaining the various functions of the Department, at a cost of $200 each; seven press releases at a cost of $385 each.
1968-1969: Issued by the Consumer Service and Information Branch:	Two Consumer
Communiques ("Box 99-A Consumer Listening Post" and "Carpet with Care") at a cost of $1,095 and $1,500 respectively; two information bulletins (releases on reports of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission) at a cost of $496 and $416 respectively; two press releases at a cost of $20 and $60 respectively.
1968-1969: Issued by the Information and Public Relations Branch of the Department: Six information sheets at a cost of $315 each; 25 press releases at a cost of approximately $465 each. The press releases consist of speeches by the minister and officials of the
Questions
Department and announcements of appointments and conferences, etc.
3.	Numbers of copies of each publication: pamphlets, approximately 50,000; consumer communiques, approximately 21,000; information bulletins, approximately 10,000; information sheets, approximately 1,200; press releases, approximately 2,350.
Copies of publications issued by the Consumer Service and Information Branch of the Department are distributed by mail or hand to Members of Parliament, Senators, the news media and the general public according to branch subscription list.
Copies of publications issued by the Information and Public Relations Branch of the Department are distributed in the same manner to Members of Parliament, Senators, news media, companies, trade unions, universities and the general public, including those who write for information.



MACKENZIE RIVER-CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE AT FORT PROVIDENCE

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the construction of a bridge across the Mackenzie River at Fort Providence to ease the reported problem of transporting freight by ferry and the increased costs entailed in food prices?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.



HOUSING CONSTRUCTION-INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many houses have been built under the new five-year housing program for Indians initiated in 1966 for each year since the inauguration of the program?
2.	What has been the rate of family formations among Indians each year during this same period?
3 What programs are available or contemplated to take care of the urgent backlog need for houses?
4.	How many houses have been built under these other programs each year since 1966 (a) on reserves (b) in cities (c) in rural areas off the reserves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. 196566, 1,302; 1966-67, 1,769; 1967-68, 2,005; 196869, 1,794.
2.	1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69: approximately 1,250 per year.
3.	Indian housing program, on reserves; Indian housing program, off reserves.

July 21, 1969
Questions
4.	(a) 1965-66, 1,302; 1966-67, 1,769; 196768, 2,005; 1968-69, 1,794. Includes houses built on Indian reserves and established Indian communities. *(b) and (c) 1965-66, Nil; 1966-67, Nil; 1967-68, 96**; 1968-69, 129**.
* No separate record kept of houses built or purchased in cities or rural areas off the reserve.
** Figures include construction of new houses and purchase of existing houses.
CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE-DEBT OUTSTANDING Question No. 2,597


Mr. Beaudoin:: 1.	How much of the original debt on the Champlain Bridge is still outstanding?
2.	What is the cost of servicing the debt?
3.	What is the annual amortization?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The original debt on Champlain Bridge as at December 31, 1968, was $52,176,876.
2.	Provision for interest on loans and advances in 1968 was $2,804,640.
3.	Annual amortization, nil.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD HEMOPHILIA RESEARCH

Mr. McCleave: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare make any contributions or grants toward hemophilia research and, if so. in what amount and to whom?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Department of National Health and Welfare does not make contributions or grants toward hemophilia research. However in response to applications in 1968-69, the Medical Research Council made grants totalling $59,700 in relation to research into the cause and cure of hemophilia.



CANADIAN PENITENTIARY SERVICE-REQUEST TO UNDERTAKE REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Mrs. Maclnnis: 1. Has Dr. Bruno Cormier of the Forensic Psychiatry Clinic, McGill University requested the Commissioner of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to permit him to undertake a rehabilitation program in one of the federal prisons across Canada? 
2.	Was his request refused and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	Is his request still under consideration?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicilor General):: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Informal discussions have been held between Dr. Cormier and officials of the Department of the Solicitor General on the subject of Dr. Cormier undertaking a rehabilitation program in one of the federal prisons. These discussions are continuing.



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD UNIVERSITY

Mr. Thompson: 1.	Have steps been taken by the government toward undertaking a feasibility study of the idea of establishing a world university?
2.	Have there been any proposals made to the Canadian Government for the establishment of such a world university in Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. No. It has been, and remains the view that proposals for the establishment of a world university in Canada, or proposals for a feasibility study of such a project, should be at the initiative of the provincial and municipal authorities concerned rather than with the Federal Government.
2.	Yes. These have come from private persons and organizations such as the Canadian World University Committee and the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation.



LEONARD BORG-ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE

Mr. Schumacher: Were any instructions given to the National Parole Board concerning the eligibility for parole of Leonard Borg when his death sentence was commuted?


George James McIlraith: No.



SEAT BELTS IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to promoting federal-provincial action to require the equipping of trucks, truck-tractors and inter-city buses with seat belt assemblies and to make mandatory the use of such equipment?
July 21. 1969

Order for Return


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. In so far as new vehicles made June 16, the first sitting day after news was in Canada or imported into Canada are con- received of Lord Alexander's death, followed cerned, consideration is being given to in- at his request by a minute of silence on the eluding all vehicles mentioned in the pro- part of the House of Commons, (c) The open-posed Legislation regarding motor vehicle ing of a memorial book at Rideau Hall, safe y standards. Vehicles already in use (d) Presentation of a special memorial caril-come under provincial jurisdiction as does Ion recital in the Peace Tower on Wednes-the mandatory use of safety equipment.	day, June 18; (e) Attendance at Lord Alexander's funeral of the Right Honourable



EARL ALEXANDER-FLAG TRIBUTE

Mr. Dinsdale: 1. Did the Secretary of State issue instructions that the usual tribute of flags at half-staff should be paid Earl Alexander as a former Governor General and member of the Privy Council and, if so, on what date were the instructions issued?
3.	Was this order cancelled and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes, on June 16th, in accordance with the "General Rules for Flying and Displaying the Canadian Flag and O',her Flags in Canada," which provide that "the Flag on the Peace Tower of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, is flown at half-mast on the death of the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family related in the first degree to the Sovereign (that is to say, husband or wife, son or daughter, father, mother or brother or sister), the Governor General, a former Governor General, a Lieutenant Governor, a Canadian Privy Councillor, a Senator, or a Member of the House of Commons."
The flag on the Peace Tower was halfmasted following news of the death of Lord Alexander on June 16, 1969, and on June 17, 18, 19 and 20, the remaining working days of that week. Although not provided for in the General Rules, there was mounted in addition a special display of half-masted flags at the National War Memorial in recognition of Lord Alexander's wartime role as a commander of Canadian forces. These flags flew at half-mast from June 17 through June 20.
Flags at Canadian government establishments in England were flown at half-mast from June 16 and including June 24, the day of Lord Alexander's funeral.
Other tributes and marks of respect paid to the late Lord Alexander by the Canadian government on his death included; (a) Telegrams of condolence sent to Lord Alexander's family by His Excellency the Governor General and by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister; (b) A statement of tribute by the
Lester B. Pearson as personal representative of the Prime Minister, the Canadian High Comissioner to the United Kingdom, Mr. Charles Ritchie, and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General J. V. Allard, representing the Canadian government and Canadian veterans who served under Lord Alexander; (f) Participation in the funeral cortege of a special R.C.M.P. guard of honour.
2. The initial instruction that the flag be flown at half-mast "on other federal government buildings, airports and military bases and establishments" throughout Canada on the day of the funeral, as permitted but not required by the aforesaid General Rules in the event of the death of a former Governor General not related in the first degree to the Sovereign and not resident in Canada was cancelled on June 19 when it became known that Lord Alexander's funeral would not be held until June 24, eight days following his death and on the day recognized by Parliament as a holiday in the Parliament of Canada and by statute in the Province of Quebec. It is the practice, as the General Flag Rules state, that, during periods of half-masting, the flag is raised to full mast on statutory holidays. It was considered inappropriate that, in showing this mark of respect for one so highly regarded by all Canadians, divergent practices should be observed in various parts of the country.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,176
Mr. Corbin:: Of the 1,951 employees of the Public Service of Canada who are presently entitled to the special bonus made available to bilingual employees, as mentioned in the answer to Question No. 1,309, how many have, as their first language or mother tongue (a) English (b) French (c) another language?
Return tabled.

July 21. 1969
Wheat Export Prices


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, before we pass on to the next item of business I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would inquire about question 2247, asked on May 8, and 2349, asked on May 23. It should not require much research to obtain the information to answer question 2247. It would also be most helpful if we could have the answer to question 2349 before the house rises for the summer.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I will endeavour to do so, Mr. Speaker.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 TRADE

[Stage Direction]
WHEAT-REDUCTION IN U.S. EXPORT PRICES_

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the new threat to the Canadian wheat economy arising from the announcement by the United States government that it has lowered its export price of wheat by 12 cents a bushel, which will further erode the financial position of the Canadian wheat farmer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the Chair notice of his motion, as required by Standing Order 26. As hon. members know, a number of similar motions have been proposed during the last week or ten days. On each occasion it has meant that the Chair has had to make a difficult decision. I ruled before that there had been a debate which in some ways was related closely to the subject matter of the motions then presented by other hon. members. I have had the same doubts about the motion the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has just proposed. At the same time, the motion refers to a very important new factor and I feel that perhaps it would be the desire of the house that we set aside a few hours of debating time for the purpose of considering the very important matter referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. 
Having taken all factors into consideration, I feel it is my duty to allow the hon. member's motion so that a debate can take place after eight o'clock this evening provided, of course, that the hon. member has leave of the house to propose his motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If 20 hon. members rise, the motion is opposed and will not be put. If 20 or more hon. members rise in opposition to the proposed motion, that is the right of hon. members.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: What
do you boys over there say to that?


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will look at Standing Order 26(8) they will see, I believe, that 20 or more members may rise to indicate that a debate shall not take place. I have to leave it to hon. members to decide whether 20 or more wish to rise in opposition.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, is it not the other way round?


Mr. Speaker:: I was going to read the Standing Order. It is 20 members supporting the motion who have to rise. This would be the condition determining if there is opposition. Are 20 members rising on this point?
And more than 20 members having risen:


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could make a suggestion? It would be quite agreeable on this side, if hon. members would like to start earlier, to start perhaps at four o'clock rather than at eight, o'clock this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement. Hon. members know what the terms of the Standing Order are. Under Standing Order 26(9) leave would be deemed to be granted and the motion would be proposed for consideration at eight o'clock this evening. If there is unanimous agreement the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands could be allowed to proceed immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon.
members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 21. 1969	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So far as this party is concerned, we would be prepared to start at four o'clock, as suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), or as soon as orders of the day are called.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps it
would be most workman-like to start as soon ar orders of the day are called.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that the wish of hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed unanimously that we will proceed with the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands under Standing Order 26 immediately after orders of the day are called? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to welcome the Prime Minister back to the friendly atmosphere of the House of Commons. While I do not wish to trespass upon the subject matter of the debate, I wonder whether it would be in order to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he has had an opportunity to consult with the Wheat Board and whether he can state briefly to the house what effects the price cuts by the United States may have upon the outlook for this country?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the question now being asked by the Leader of the Opposition. We have just agreed there will be a debate in 40 minutes' time. It seems to me that perhaps that would be the time to get answers to questions which normally might be asked during the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought it might help the debate somewhat if the minister were to make a brief statement.



INQUIRY AS TO INCOME PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR CEREAL PRODUCERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In a speech which the right hon. gentleman made in the city of Winnipeg last year on June 2, he said:
*-the government will immediately involve all interested parties in the development of a selfsustaining program of income protection for western cereal producers.
Later in his statement he said this would be done early in 1969. Has the government yet evolved this program for income protection, and is the Prime Minister prepared to announce what it is either now or in the course of the debate which will be held later today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as will be apparent in the debate later,, there are certain forms of income protection which have already been implemented by the government. I think it would be well if we waited until the debate began to go into this question.



UNECONOMIC FARM UNITS-POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has apparently been reported as having stated that some uneconomic farm units might be purchased, will the Prime Minister say whether this would apply to western Canada inasmuch as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has apparently said it would only apply to eastern Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I must suggest to hon. members that perhaps they should not have their cake and eat it too. Hon. members agreed a moment ago that there should be a debate on this subject. Therefore they will have the whole day in which to make suggestions and ask the questions they are seeking to ask now. I think it would be appropriate to wait until we reach the debate later on to ask these questions. It is a basic rule applicable to the question period that questions should not be asked about matters which are to be discussed immediately. Such questions normally have been ruled out of order. I realize that questions must be asked about certain matters and I do not wish to appear to be unduly restrictive. However, not much would be gained by making an exception to the rule and then proceeding to the debate immediately thereafter.
Hon. members know that on occasions when there has been protracted questioning
July 21. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry on a particular subject during the question period I felt there was no need to have an adjournment debate on the same subject later under Standing Order 26. I would think it should be one thing or the other. I believe it would be the part of wisdom not to insist on these questions unduly at this time.


Mr. Hees:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I then ask whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to remain in the house during the debate to answer questions on this matter which is of such great importance to the country?


Mr. Baldwin:: I too rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Accepting the basic principle of your ruling, of course, as I would in any event, I ask whether Your Honour would not agree that there might be a selective application of the rule so that questions might be asked which are genuinely for the purpose of obtaining information that would be useful during the course of the debate? This might in fact save considerable time in the debate and might permit a more useful contribution by members who have very legitimately raised this issue. I ask Your Honour to give consideration to that proposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I have, of course, given this point consideration and I recognize it is in many ways a valid point. It is just that in the past we have followed the practice that when a debate is set down for the evening or the next day we have waited until that order is reached to make suggestions and seek information. It is only the application of this rule that I have taken the liberty of bringing to the attention of hon. members. I would hope we might try to follow this rule.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, following my point of order, through you I would respectfully seek an answer from the Prime Minister concerning whether or not he intends to remain in the house today, take part in the debate and answer these questions at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


George Harris Hees: Does he or does he not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, obviously the Prime Minister did not mean a thing he said in the west last week and does not give a damn about this whole problem.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I go to labour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I really cannot conceive what hon. members are laughing about. Has the Minister of Labour received a telegram from the union negotiators, who have recently been negotiating with the Iron Ore Company of Canada and the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway in an effort to settle the strike which has been in effect for quite a number of weeks and in respect of which negotiations have broken down, requesting the appointment of a mediator to help settle the dispute? If so, what was his reply?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before noon I did receive a telegram signed jointly by representatives of the United Steel Workers and the Machinists asking if we would provide joint mediation with Quebec. Subsequently we have contacted the Department of Labour of the province of Quebec to see whether they would agree to joint mediation. I shall be in a position to report more fully on Wednesday.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, have the union negotiators and the companies been informed of the minister's decision to pursue the course he has just indicated?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, instructions to the labour department have already gone out to inform both parties of this decision, and I presume that by now-or certainly later this afternoon-management and labour will be informed that the province of Quebec and the Dominion of Canada have jointly provided a mediation team in order to bring this very prolonged strike to an end.



INQUIRY AS TO SECRET AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES

['Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to advise the hon. member that a commissioner has been appointed. Judge Bisson of the Quebec Superior Court has been appointed as a commissioner to investigate that incident.']
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on a different subject, and may I say that we were rather sorry he did not visit the city of Calgary. In view of the economic anxieties in western Canada on the part of the agricultural and other industries, can the Prime Minister advise the house whether
July 21, 1969

there is a secret agreement now between Canada and the United States in respect of petroleum, and is the government prepared to make a definite statement in respect of any agreement now in existence between the two governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question has been asked a few times and that the answer has been given by other ministers. There is no secret agreement. The present agreement between the United States and Canada has been in existence for some years. There is no secret agreement which has been added to that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take it the Prime Minister means the agreement that was secret in 1967 is the one that is still in existence. Did he have a discussion with the Premier of Alberta in relation to the petroleum industry and exports, and did he have discussions with any officials of the petroleum industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the Premier of Alberta and his officials. I travelled with those officials and with people associated with the petroleum industry. Of course we discussed various aspects of this industry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the Prime Minister had discussions with the Premier of Alberta on aspects of the petroleum industry, did he have any discussion and were facts divulged which would indicate there will be an increase in exports in view of the development taking place in the north and elsewhere in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions regarding the question of increasing exports. This did not involve the matter of reaching an agreement between the premier and myself. It did involve knowing what agreement we might reach on exports and imports with the United States, and under what conditions this would be advantageous to the oil or petroleum industry. This matter was discussed, but no agreement, secret or otherwise, was reached between the premier and myself.



Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he is concerned in any way about the alleged try-out of nerve gases by the United States on Okinawa or one of the Pacific islands, or does he regard this as purely a matter of concern to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the people of the world are concerned about the use of these biological or chemical forms of warfare. Certainly it is the policy of the Canadian government to do everything possible to eliminate their use.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs engaged in any discussions or does he propose to engage in any discussions with United States authorities about this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been engaged in discussions with the United States and other countries during the disarmament talks in an attempt to reach an agreement to eliminate these forms of warfare. We have not been specifically in touch with the United States about the incident on Okinawa, but we are generally concerned about activities in this field by all countries, including the United States.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether or not the proposal for eliminating this kind of warfare which was placed before the disarmament conference in Geneva, I think by Great Britain, has come up for discussion there and what the position of our representative has been? If it has not yet come up for discussion, what will be the position of our representative, and is the government taking any initiative to push that proposal for early discussion and decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of such importance I should like to be able to give a precise answer. I will take the question as notice.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, in view of continuing, speculative press reports concerning the talks now taking place in Stockholm between representatives of the government of Canada and the government of Mainland China, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs clarify his statement made on July 16, and will he assure the house that as far as Canada is concerned there will be no breakdown of
11384	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry these talks over the question of the so-called two Chinas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question because I am sure it is important that the matter be clarified. I have a brief but precise answer to the question which I should like to give.
We are not promoting either a two-China policy or a one-China, one Taiwan policy. Our policy is to recognize one government of China. We have not asked and do not ask the government of the People's Republic of China to endorse tile position of the government of Canada on our territorial limits as a condition to agreement to establish diplomatic relations. To do so might cast doubts on the extent of our sovereignty. We do not think it would be appropriate, nor would it be in accordance with international usage, that Canada should be asked to endorse the position of the government of the Peoples' Republic of China on the extent of its territorial sovereignty. To challenge that position would, of course, also be inappropriate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether, in the event of achieving diplomatic exchange with the government of Peking, it is the intention of the government of Canada to withdraw diplomatic relations with Taiwan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since the government of the People's Republic of China claims to be the government of China, obviously we cannot recognize two governments. The statement I made is quite precise on that point.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian government does succeed in being allowed to recognize the government of Communist China, is it the government's intention to recognize the government at Taiwan as a separate government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly for that reason I made my statement today. I hope the hon. gentleman will read it.


[Stage Direction]
ST. VINCENT DE PAUI^-STUDY RESPECTING SECURITY MEASURES
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor
(Mr. Anderson.]
DEBATES	July 21, 1989
General whether he is now prepared to answer a question posed several days ago as to action to be taken to make a study and, if necessary, improve security measures at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary following the escape of two murderers and another person?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to advise the hon. member that a commissioner has been appointed. Judge Bisson of the Quebec Superior Court has been appointed as a commissioner to investigate that incident.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that another officer of the law was shot and killed in the line of duty over the weekend in St. Boniface, is the Solicitor General giving consideration to enforcing the death penalty in such cases as stipulated by the law?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, since the courts have not yet passed on the charges that wiU arise out of that tragic occurrence I think any answer I might give today would only have the effect of prejudicing a fair trial of the accused. I believe I should not answer the question further.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I think this is what the hon. member was really asking. Is it now the policy of this government to commute all death penalties?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I answered the same question when it was asked by the hon. member a few weeks ago. There is no question of a policy to be drawn from the decision of the Governor in Council in any single commutation case.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware of the fact that a trial is taking place in Czechoslovakia of a man called Rudolph Holota considered to be a Canadian citizen, and is the Canadian government taking steps to see that a fair trial is accorded this man in respect of whom I understand certain charges have been made?
July 21, 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this case. I have been following it, and we have offered our good offices to him if he is in need of them. As I recall it, he has been charged with some offences committed before he came to Canada.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. During his trip to the western provinces last week did he outline to the people of that region the steps that the government intends to take or is taking to control the rising inflation which is going up at present at the rate of 10 per cent a year? If so, would he take the first opportunity on motions to outline these steps to the house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have several occasions to indicate to them what measures the government was taking to combat inflation, and they sympathised with me when I said that one of our greatest difficulties was rejecting the irresponsible demands of the opposition to spend more money.


George Harris Hees: As the Canadian people and this house are very interested in the precise steps which the government intends to take and which have not yet been outlined to us, would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity on motions, as requested, to outline these steps to the house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely the hon. member cannot be all that interested in combatting inflation if he has not taken note of the several steps that have been taken, including those that were mentioned in the budget speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister not aware that the steps of which he speaks have been outlined to the Minister of Finance as absolutely unworkable and useless, and he did not deny-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
Inquiries of the Ministry Can he say whether a complaint has been received from the post office workers in Vancouver over the reported failure of the central pay office in Ottawa to provide them with payment for their overtime work and if so, what action has been taken?
Kon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General
and Minister of Communications): Mr. Speaker, my friends in the postal unions tipped me off that this question was likely to come from the Conservative party. I did not expect it from a member of the hon. member's party. I may say that I will be glad to take up this matter with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to find out why there is a delay in making available overtime cheques for the month of June.



PRICE STABILITY, INCOMES AND EMPLOYMENT REQUEST TO PROCEED WITH MOTION ESTABLISHING COMMITTEE

Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question related to that of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings to the government house leader. Would he give consideration to bringing forward government order No. 91 on the order paper, the measure to set up a joint committee of the house and the other place on price stability, incomes and employment, in order to meet the very serious rise in the cost of living?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at this particular time, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Now that the industrial incentives bill has been passed by both houses, and in view of its rather unusual nature, how soon will the minister be in a position to announce the provisions that will be in operation, in particular the designation of the various regions where this legislation will apply?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will be within the next few weeks, two or three at the most, I would think.
11386	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that thousands of consumers across Canada are being deceived into buying a product which they think contains fruit when in fact it does not, can the minister indicate to the house whether his department is investigating the representations of Sun-Rype Limited of British Columbia in regard to the packaging and advertising of Nabob Sungold apple-flavour crystals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question can be put on the order paper or more properly debated at the time of adjournment.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a question asked by me ten days ago which Your Honour suggested might be answered by the Secretary of State in a statement on motions, may I ask the minister whether he will make a statement this week on the reasons and authority for reductions in the program department of the Company of Young Canadians, which changes appear to be against the expressed position of the provisional council that there be no major changes in the company before the permanent council is elected later this month?
[ Translation]


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I will be happy to get more information on this situation, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. What does the minister think of the increasingly harried and agonizing tones of the male voices that currently respond at the telephone exchanges in British Columbia, and have he and the officers of his department been able yet to take any useful steps to bring about a termination of the
IMr. Marchand (Langelier).]
DEBATES	July 21, 1969
strike and thus put an end to the misery of these poor, unfortunate men?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, those poor unfortunate men can put an end to their misery any time they want to give up manning the switchboards. As I have said on many occasions before in the house, the Department of Labour will act at a time when we think that action would be opportune, but we do not think the time has arrived yet and it may be another week or two before both parties are in the right frame of mind.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister indicate whether, in light of recent announcements by the Minister of National Defence that a number of military establishments may be either substantially reduced or closed, there has been not only consultation with officials of his department but whether there is machinery now available for consultation with provincial and, in a number of cases, municipal officials before any major decisions are taken?


Jean Marchand: I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of National Defence is in touch with my department and we are now considering the problems relating to the military bases under discussion.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question in relation to the latter part of my question. Is there or will there be machinery available for consultation with provincial and municipal officials?


Jean Marchand: I have reason to believe, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as decisions are made at the federal level, consultations will take place with the provinces.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I ask for clarification. Did the minister suggest that consultations would take place only after decisions have been arrived at by his
July 21, 1969

department or by the Department of National Defence?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I merely assume that on the subject of military bases, one refers only to matters under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the decision is up to the federal government. However, in those cases, we believe there will be consultations, but the central government keeps the authority or the power to make decisions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he consulted his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, with a view to bringing pressure to bear to have a defence establishment set up in the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the request to the minister by the Royal Canadian Legion?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not my duty, professionally, as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to make representations to the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister who was absent last week when the matter came up. Would he not give consideration to prior consultation with the provinces, particularly those provinces where the removal of armed forces bases would cause severe economic hardship?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister covered this subject very well.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether you even know what is going on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Put your earphones on.


J. Michael Forrestall: Go back out west.
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the work of the Special Joint Committee on Tax Reform and in view of the Prime Minister's clear and well stated concern about the question of conflict of interest, would the right hon. gentleman consider seeking an agreement between this house and the other place under which all the members of that special committee might be invited to declare their directorships and other financial interests which could come into conflict with any proposed changes in Canada's tax legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to determine what the other house may wish to do in putting members on this committee. I am sure the suggestion put forward by the hon. member will be conveyed to them in one way or another. After all, they all have interests as taxpayers in what happens in connection with tax reform; it might be difficult to eliminate all people with an interest in taxation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister would look more closely at what I said, either now or when he gets Hansard. I referred to members from both houses on that committee. My suggestion is that there might be some guidelines in accordance with which members of the committee would be encouraged to declare their interests in advance. I recognize the point that the Prime Minister cannot compel members to do this, but I wonder whether a lead could not be given?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the whole question of the Senate and House of Commons Act is to be brought before a committee, and this aspect could then be dealt with generally. I realize, and I have said this earlier, that the whole question of conflict of interest as tackled by the present statute is not adequately dealt with in the light of modern practices, and I agree that the whole subject might be looked into. I hesitate to say it ought to be done specifically for the purpose of this committee; it seems to me we are thinking in terms of a general question relating to many committees.



TAX REFORM


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to



INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
11388	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the Secretary of State a question about the International Development Centre proposed in the Speech from the Throne in relation to aid programs. Can the minister tell us whether such a centre has been established? If it has not, can he tell us whether the conception is that there shall be participation in this centre by other countries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether this matter is so urgent that it may be considered at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might be allowed to finish. I was attempting to say that in my view this is not a matter of very urgent importance and that it could easily be put on the order paper. If hon. members think the decision is wrong, the question can be considered at the time of adjournment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some days ago I asked the minister whether he would make a statement on motions concerning plans with respect to employment for students during the summer months in view of the widespread unemployment in this field. The minister indicated he would do so. Can he tell us when he may be in a position to make such a statement and, if so, can he advise the house whether additional student loans may be available to students this fall in consequence of their present financial difficulties?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to report to the house either by making an oral statement or by tabling a report early this week. As the hon. member knows, the administration of student loans is not the responsibility of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that the minister has no direct responsibility for the administration of student loans but perhaps, with his manpower portfolio in mind, he would consult the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have reservations about questions which suggest that ministers should consult with their cabinet colleagues, or questions which inquire whether a minister has consulted with another

DEBATES	July 21, 1969
minister. I would think that such questions are not in order.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Mr. Alexander Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Can he report to the house on the meetings held during the weekend with representatives of the various parties, so that the third report of the standing committee on procedure and organization might be concurred in this week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we had discussions with representatives of all parties and I hope we will again meet this evening at 7 to carry them on.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. As a bachelor who has not had an experience like this before, have his abrasive meetings in the west last week now convinced him that the honeymoon is over?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. In light of the continuing unease about departmental directives, particular those relating to immigration, and the controversy over the past weekend at border points near Montreal, has the minister considered or raised with his cabinet colleagues the question of either making these directives public, so that there would be public knowledge of the directives issued by the department with regard to immigration, or referring them in the first instance to an in camera meeting of either the Committee on Manpower and Immigration or the Committee on Statutory Instruments, so that full consideration could be given to the immigration policy of this country?
July 21. 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the question as asked is in order. I shall allow it, while reminding hon. members of what I said a few moments ago-that it is not in order, it seems to me, to ask whether a minister has consulted cabinet colleagues. The hon. member can ask directly what decision has been taken, and to this extent the question is in order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask, then, whether the minister has given this matter his consideration and whether the government has come to some conclusion with regard to it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Whatever unease the hon. member refers to was likely related to guidelines which had been in force with respect to the treatment of military deserters. The policy has been changed and the guidelines formerly in existence have been withdrawn.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: During the past weekend there seems to have been uncertainty with regard to an ambivalent situation in connection with immigration procedures at border points near Montreal involving some changes which might have resulted from a departmental directive. Would the minister not agree to these directives being considered by a committee in camera, or consent to their publication?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would hesitate to suggest referring to a committee any matter which is stated so vaguely as the hon. member has stated it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


George James McIlraith: On
Friday last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra asked me whether I was aware that the R.C.M.P. had brought a shackled and manacled prisoner through the concourse at Vancouver Airport and, if so, what I was doing to check this kind of barbarity.
The hon. member for Vancouver East asked a supplementary question:
Will the Solicitor General look into the fact, proven by photographs, that this man was taken through the Vancouver airport in a strait-jacket as well as being manacled?
I replied that I would look into the matter immediately. I have now done this, and I find that the man was being brought from Prince
Inquiries of the Ministry George to Vancouver. He was in custody on a charge arising out of holding a robbery victim as a hostage at gunpoint for two days, and he was being taken to another place where it was expected that a further and considerably more serious charge would be laid.
By reason of the nature of the charges and because of certain conduct since his arrest, I am perfectly satisfied that strong security measures were required in this case. As a result of certain direct action which he himself had taken, affecting his wrists, the man could not be handcuffed. A strait-jacket was used instead of handcuffs. The plane was a C.P.A. jet from which passengers exit only by way of a passage leading to the terminal; the manner of unloading normally used by the police could not be employed in this case. This is why the prisoner was taken through the passageway. Photographers had apparently been alerted, and waited in the passageway to get pictures.



COMBINES


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he has yet received the report of the Economic Council of Canada on combines and competition? If he does not receive it before the adjournment, will he be publicizing it during the recess?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not received it, Mr. Speaker. I think the usual procedure is for the report to be given to the Prime Minister and released by the Economic Council itself. The report is certainly not submitted to me and I am not in charge of making it public.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have in mind the minister's statement of July 3, to be found at page 10789 of Hansard:
All we can do is hope the council reports as quickly as possible. If the house is sitting when I receive the report, then naturally I will be making a statement as soon as I receive it.
If the house is not sitting, will the minister publicize the report when he does receive it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not in charge of publicity for the Economic Council of Canada. My statement that the hon. member quoted was to the effect that when I

July 21. 1969
Wheat Export Prices
receive a copy of the report, which will probably be at the same time the hon. member receives it, I expect to have something to say about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 TRADE WHEAT-REDUCTION IN U.S. EXPORT PRICES- THREAT TO CANADIAN ECONOMY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: that the house do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my reason for moving this motion relates to the announcement, made last Friday by the government of the United States that that country was reducing some of its wheat prices by 12 cents per bushel. This statement has been reflected in the announcement just made in Winnipeg that the Canadian Wheat Board has reduced its prices for hard wheat by two cents to as much as seven cents per bushel, depending on grade, and for durum wheat by 11 i cents per bushel. These reductions, which bring the price well below the minimum price set by the International Grains Arrangement, further aggravate a situation that has been growing increasingly more serious over the past nine or ten months.
It should hardly be necessary to tell the house that western agriculture is in a deplorable state. Last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a visit to the prairies, and I think if anyone is conscious of the fact that the wheat growers of western Canada find themselves in desperate straits it is the Prime Minister.
But it should not have been necessary for the Prime Minister personally to visit the prairie provinces in order to find out that the western farmers are in the financial doldrums. A standing committee of this house, the Agricultural Committee, visited western Canada and submitted a report to the house, a report that I assume the Prime Minister and his colleagues read. That report indicated that the wheat growers of western Canada faced virtual bankruptcy, and urged upon the government the need for an infusion of cash income into the pockets of the prairie farmers.
Apparently the Prime Minister either did not read the report or he did not believe what
[Mr. Basford.J
was said in it, for he undertook to visit the west himself. It is too bad, I think, that we had to have noisy demonstrations to convince the Prime Minister of Canada that the farmers are, to say the least, upset.
The prairie farmer is a very patient person. He has put up with a lot of hardships. He is the one person in our economy who buys in a protected market but has to depend upon the world market to determine the price that he will get for his produce. Over the years the prairie farmer has been caught in a cost-price squeeze, with the price of almost everything that he has to buy going up and the price of most of his produce going down. He now finds himself in a catastrophic situation that borders on disaster.
I am glad that after spending six days on the prairies the right hon. gentleman finally told the farmers: "What you need is dough". If "dough" is money, then he is right. If he means by "dough" flour and wheat, the farmers have plenty of that. The western farmers need money, and the reason they need money is very obvious.
In their brief to the government the Canadian Federation of Agriculture pointed out that in this crop year there has been a reduction in grain receipts of $430 million. There has been a $140 million reduction in deliveries and a drop of $290 million in Wheat Board spring payments, which in this crop year will amount to less than $70 million compared with $360 million in the previous crop year.
If this were a sudden crisis the farmers might weather the storm. But this situation has been continuing for some time. In the last crop year the farmers of western Canada received a final wheat payment of 17.8 cents per bushel less than they received in the previous year. Their final price for barley was down 9.4 cents per bushel, and for oats 1.5 cents per bushel.
Therefore, the western farmer has been facing essentially two problems. First of all he faces a reduced delivery, which means he is unable to sell all of the grain he has on hand. Secondly, he is getting a reduced price even for the grain which he is able to sell. Consequently, he finds himself in an impossible position.
When the Prime Minister was on the prairies he talked about the problem of helping out farmers, because there were rich farmers as well as poor farmers. The Prime Minister referred to the fact that some farmers, according to what he was told, had assets
July 21, 1969

amounting to $100,000. These assets are worth $100,000 only if they can be realized, and if they can produce a financial return. The $100,000 assets that a farmer might have are, first of all, assets of which he cannot dispose. No one would buy a $100,000 farm if he cannot sell the wheat produced by that farm, or if, when he does sell the wheat, it is sold at a price that is below the cost of production.
I want to make it perfectly clear that the prairie farmers are not asking the government for charity. They are not asking for handouts. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about farmers who are on uneconomic farms, those farmers who cannot make a living. This is a separate problem, a problem that has to be dealt with, but we are talking here about those farmers who are efficient, those who have been productive. In fact they have been so productive that at the present time there are close to one billion bushels of grain in Canada, and by the time this year's crop is taken off the farms this amount will probably rise to 1.5 billion bushels.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
These are not people who need charity. These are people who are facing bankruptcy and whose assets are useful only if they can obtain a price for their product that will enable them to meet their costs of production and give them a reasonable return on invested capital. They must sell the produce of their farms.
I think this parliament must be seized of the problems facing prairie farmers. Our aid should not be in handouts but in actions that will salvage the industry. After all, a short time ago hon. gentlemen opposite gave about $80 million to two automobile companies. Ford Motor Company of Canada was given $75 million, and the Chrysler people got $5 million. Neither of these concerns was bankrupt; neither could be described as poor. The government gave this money because it thought it necessary to keep these companies in business.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered in committee to the satisfaction of the committee and it is unfair for the hon. member to repeat his accusations at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The matter may have been answered to the government's satisfaction and to the satisfaction of Liberal committee members, but it was not answered to the satisfaction of 29180-720J
Wheat Export Prices
other committee members, as I know very well.


Mr. Broadbent:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the minister's suggestion that members of the committee were satisfied with the answer. I was a member of the committee and I was not satisfied with the government's answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not wish to introduce an irrelevant issue into this debate. My point is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues did not wait until the automobile companies were bankrupt. They gave going concerns large government handouts. I am saying that while the wheat economy is still solvent, before farmers go bankrupt and before hundreds of them have to abandon their farms, the government must act.
I have had a steady stream of letters from farmers who are having their machinery repossessed. One Manitoba farmer wrote saying that he had $64,000 worth of machinery repossessed and that he had a 70 per cent equity in that machinery. How can he take a crop off if his machinery has been repossessed? I have had letters from representatives of implement companies, car and truck salesmen, and merchants across the prairies. All tell the same story of declining sales volume and declining business activity. This is not a matter of handing out charity to some poor farmers. We are now talking about salvaging the wheat economy as a viable part of the Canadian economy. That is what we are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This great wheat surplus is not the farmers' fault, Mr. Speaker. Surely the farmers are not to be blamed or penalized for being so efficient and productive. In the last 20 years the productivity per farm worker has tripled, and no other industry in Canada can claim that record. By virtue of modem technology, ingenuity, and much hard work our farmers have been able to produce this tremendous quantity of high quality wheat. They were encouraged to do so, being told repeatedly by government spokesmen, "Grow the wheat and we will sell it."
Now it is a different story. Now the government is beginning to say, "We have too much wheat; we do not know what to do with the quantity we have; our farmers are just too



COMMONS DE3ATES

[Stage Direction]
July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
productive." That is not what the farmers heard in the past.
I wish to read briefly from a speech the Prime Minister made in Winnipeg on June 2, 1968, in the midst of an election campaign. It is in the form of a written text and I therefore assume that the Prime Minister seriously meant what he said, and that his words were not sheer campaign rhetoric to secure the votes of western farmers. I am assuming that the Prime Minister was announcing a carefully thought out program of which the farmers should take cognizance and upon which they should act. The part of the speech I shall refer to is headed, "Canada's Export Objective". The Prime Minister said this:
The Canadian government is confident of Canada's capacity to grow and sell the wheat that the world demands. Both the government and the Canadian Wheat Board are determined to maintain and improve Canada's share of the world wheat market. The objective is to secure 25 per cent or better of world wheat trade or, in quantitative terms, 1.3 billion bushels of wheat exports in the next three years.
I pause there, Mr. Speaker. That was a pretty direct promise to the farmers of western Canada. The government was prepared to improve Canada's share of the market and to secure 25 per cent or better of the world's wheat trade. The Prime Minister said the government was prepared to dispose of 1.3 billion bushels in the next three years. That is about 433 million bushels a year.
When our farmers heard the Prime Minister say that, they were encouraged because our share of the world's wheat market had been declining steadily. From 1948 to 1952 Canada managed to retain 21.3 per cent of the total world wheat market. In the last crop year, however-in the 1987-68 crop year-our share of the world's wheat trade dropped to 11.6 per cent, about half the previous figure. When export figures for this year become available I suspect we will find that our share of the market has declined even more.
Jean-Luc Pepin: For what year did the hon. member quote the figure of 11.6 per cent?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was for the 1967-68 crop year. I continue reading from the Prime Minister's speech:
To attain this level of wheat exports, the government is prepared to give all necessary support to the selling operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. In furtherance of these objectives, the government will:
(a)	Continue to subscribe to and fully suport the International Grains Arrangement.

(b)	Review and amend credit facilities available to improve the competitive position of Canadian wheat on world markets.
(c)	Continue a high level of wheat and flour in Canada's Food Aid Program. The government has announced a goal for total aid of one per cent of the gross national product. Wheat and flour will continue to represent an important share of this increasing expenditure.
I draw attention to subparagraph (b), which says that the government will "...review. . .the competitive position of Canadian wheat on world markets". I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will tell us, when he speaks, what the government has done to improve our competitive position.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says he will. I hope he will tell us what the results of government actions have been.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member should know that.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will know if the minister tells us what he has done, and if he will show us the results. I say to the minister that on the basis of the results his tenure of office has been a total failure.
I draw attention to subparagraph (c), which says that the government will "continue a high level of wheat and flour in Canada's food aid program". Our goal for total foreign aid is 1 per cent of our gross national product. My deskmate, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), on Friday, I think it was, put some figures on the record which had just been published by O.E.C.D. and the last year for which figures were available showed Canada's contribution to foreign aid was .49 of one per cent, less than one-half of one per cent of our gross national product.
For years the government have been telling us they were going to reach this goal of one per cent. They are not halfway there yet. I wonder what the minister is doing about including more wheat, cereal grains and flour in the foreign aid program. It certainly does not show up in the figures published by the O.E.C.D'. As a matter of fact in recent years the government have not even been spending the full appropriation voted by parliament for foreign aid. That is how little has been done about trying to get our surplus food and other supplies into our foreign aid program.
July 21, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him and the house that the hon. member's time has expired. He may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that 40 minutes was the maximum for debate under Standing Order 26. Am I wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: I am subject to correction. My understanding is that the rule has been cleared up. Standing Order 26(14) states:
No member shall speak longer than twenty minutes during debate on any such motion.
I gather the hon. member qualifies under 26(14).


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Make your suggestion. You can do it in 30 seconds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants my suggestion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In 30 seconds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
figure in order to sell wheat will be borne by the treasury of Canada.
I suggest the government must do a great deal more to implement the Prime Minister's commitments of June 2 than it has done today. The Prime Minister said he was confident of Canada's capacity to grow and sell wheat. If it is really going to do what the Prime Minister said, then the government must be prepared to embark upon an aggressive sales policy.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been very coy in telling us what has happened to the agreement with the Soviet Union, which expires at the end of this month, and under which roughly 165 million bushels have not yet been accepted by Russia. What have the minister and his department done about getting the Soviet Union to accept the balance of this contract?
I am told by those who visited the trade fair at Budapest that the Canadian government was not even represented. But the province of Ontario was represented. The British government was represented and the United States government was represented. Canada was not represented at all. I am told that Ontario had a pavilion there. That may be news to the minister. Perhaps the minister does not know what goes on in world affairs.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: We cannot take part in
everything.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, but any man who is a minister of trade and commerce of a country which has such an agreement under which 165 million bushels of wheat are still to be sold, should have a representative at fairs held behind the Iron Curtain or in any country which is likely to be interested in securing Canadian wheat. The minister has not told us, for instance, whether there is any possibility of renewing that agreement or extending it so that we would still have some hope of selling these 165 million bushels. The minister has not indicated whether he is carrying on any discussions with wheat importing countries regarding bilateral trade agreements.
I notice, for instance, that Great Britain made very large sales to Roumania of equipment for irrigating land and is receiving wheat and other foodstuffs in exchange. I notice that France has been taking payments in the form of goods from other countries,

and that the United States has been taking partial payment either in soft currency or in goods. To what extent are the full resources of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce being put behind the Wheat Board in order to enable that body to sell wheat in competition with other countries?
If Canada is to sit back and say "Cash on the barrelhead", while everybody else is working out agreements for long term credit, or partial payment in goods and partial payment in soft currency, we will continue to sit here with one billion bushels of unsold wheat. The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the government to see that we sell more wheat and to realize that in order to do so we must use the techniques of our competitors. We cannot continue to use the methods that were adequate when there was a shortage of wheat in the world and we were in the fortunate position of having a surplus.
I hope the minister, when he reports to the house, will tell us just how much wheat and flour have gone into our foreign aid program, and how much it has increased each year. Also I would hope he would tell us what is being done to extend this program for the disposal of western wheat and Canadian flour.
May I conclude by saying I regret that the attitude of the Prime Minister and of the government generally seems to be that we have a surplus of wheat in the world, that this is a tragic situation, that there is nothing we can do about it except make some cash advances which will not solve the problem for the farmer who still has wheat which he cannot sell after he has filled his quota, but which has cost him a great deal of money to produce. Is the government taking the position that we are in a hopeless situation and the only answer lies in allowing the farmers to go broke and be pushed off the farms, or in reducing the number of farmers and consequently reducing the amount of wheat produced? This is not the answer.
If the government want diversification, they should say so. They should bring down a diversification program, as the Federation of Agriculture suggested and provide $160 million this year, which would be reduced each year by $40 million, which would be used to help farmers transfer from grain to beef. If they do that they will have to stabilize the market and give the farmers some assurance that if they produce beef they will be able to sell it, and will not be told that there is no market for beef and that they should go back to producing grain.
July 21, 1969

Surpluses of wheat are not new phenomena. I remember standing in my place in this house in the 1940's and saying, amidst laughter from some members, that the day would come when we would be scraping the bottom of every bin in Canada trying to get enough wheat to meet world demand. That was considered to be very funny but in a few years it turned out to be true. Wheat production and wheat consumption have gone in cycles. Ever since the days of Joseph in Egypt, in biblical times, there have been periods of surplus followed by periods of scarcity, and periods of abundance followed by periods of drought. A day will come when again there will be a demand for Canadian wheat.
The important thing for the government and this House of Commons to do at the present time is to take the necessary steps to keep the efficient farmers in operation against the day when Canadian wheat, which is still the best wheat in the world, will be in demand all around the globe. I therefore hope we will have some statement from the Prime Minister, or from his associates, outlining specifically what they propose to do.
I do not think we should be told once more that a policy is forthcoming and will be announced in due course. Ever since last fall it has been perfectly apparent we were headed for this crisis. Now the crisis is here. In that period the government ought to have evolved a policy, and should now be able to tell us what that policy is. It should be able in the next few days to announce a policy that will give the farmers of western Canada some assurance of two things: first, that there will be a massive infusion of cash income to see them over the present crisis and, second, that there will be some stability of prices in the future to enable them to stay in operation as efficient producers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that at this stage perhaps the minister or the government would state the position of the government, particularly in view of the rapidly developing situation. I am grateful, however, for an opportunity to participate in a debate on this subject. Apparently it took a new body blow delivered to the wheat producers of Canada for this house to be able to debate this subject, one which we have been anxious to debate following the temporary suspension-which I believe are the minister's words-of the minimum price under the I.G.A. This matter obviously involves an emergency of great importance to the grain
Wheat Export Prices
farmers who are directly involved, to the whole of western Canada, and indeed to the whole of Canada. There is no question about the fall in Canada's share of the world market during the past year. Although the minister may mention this, I am not now talking about the longer term events over ten year periods.
There is no question that during the last two or three years Canada has lost a substantial share of the world market and that western farmers are now faced with a record backlog of wheat for which they are seeking sales. I remember hearing the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) on television, during a certain event a year ago last May or June, speaking in Winnipeg and admit that Canada had not done a good job in selling wheat in recent years. I took for granted he was saying to the western farmers that his government would do better, and that he recognized there was a lot of room for improvement in the way things had been handled.
We had a world wheat agreement for a year. Now we have an agreement in respect of which the minister seems to be helpless in either enforcing it or getting anything done about violations of it. I do not want to be unfair to the minister but I think it is correct to say that for the last two or three years Canada has been trailing along behind developments, has been following the market downwards, and has fallen behind others who have made wheat sales. Canada has reduced its price, but so far as we can judge we have derived very little benefit from that process.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is important to understand the true nature and the dimensions of the present crisis, much of which had its origin in 1966. The federal government has had its responsibility since then for developing policies to meet the coming crisis but it certainly has not discharged that responsibility despite the assurances of the Prime Minister a year ago that such would be done.
In 1966, for example, the United States made a number of changes in wheat policy which adversely affected Canadian growers. These were obvious at the time but our government did not act. The United States wheat acreage allotment was increased by about 30 percent, and it adopted a modified two price policy in order to grasp commercial markets.
It is correct that in 1967 and 1968 the United States was a major exporter of wheat while total world exports declined by about

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
15 per cent. As a result of Canada's indecisive response to these new changes our wheat exports declined by almost 40 per cent. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong in any of these assertions which I believe to be correct.
As I say, recently the minister and the government seem to have been following the market downwards. I should have hoped that long ago Canada might have been able to convince the United States that there was to be nothing gained by cutting prices. One does not extend the market to any extent by reducing prices, because the demand for wheat is inelastic. Canada and the United States have basically the same interests in maintaining a solid basic price for wheat, yet Canada seems to have failed completely to convince the government of the United States that it is in the interest of the two governments and the two countries to act in concert.
The price reductions announced toward the end of last week by the United States represent further confirmation of our failure in this regard. I wonder whether part of our difficulty can be related to the fact that the Canadian government may not have a very good odor so far as the government of the United States is concerned. Whatever the reason we seem to have failed.
As a consequence our farmers have what appears to be a record backlog of wheat on hand. However, there is another side to this matter in terms of the proportion of total wheat sales. Wheat in storage is not as large in percentage terms as it was ten years ago. In the past a succession of good growing years was frequently followed by poorer crops in a number of countries which were normally big suppliers. We know that in the past any surplus or storage of wheat was usually used for a good purpose in the end. I do not think we should be too pessimistic. We should not assume that just because we are in these present difficulties the market will continue to deteriorate over the long run, or that the market for wheat will be weak in the long run.
The Prime Minister seems to have accepted the point of view that over future long terms of adjustment there must be less wheat grown in the west. If that is the case I think he certainly owes it to the wheat farmers of the country to tell them what the plan is, and indicate what methods should be used to reduce wheat production. Certainly we have to recognize that all the farmers who are growing wheat cannot turn to producing 
something else. A lot of their farms are not adaptable to other crops, and certainly not adaptable to the production of beef.
It is not good enough for the government of Canada to talk about a decrease in the market and a need for adjustment and change, and just leave it at that. It is not good enough just to tell the wheat farmer that there is a glut of wheat in the world and that he has to turn his hand to something else. If the government of Canada is convinced that the outlook in the long term is bad, then let it produce a program which will provide for some orderly adjustment.
Surely part of any such program must take the form of some assistance in the short term, because there is a back-up on the farms. Farmers are strapped for cash, and this is having a backing up effect in their communities and throughout the whole region. Surely there is an urgent requirement for the immediate infusion of assistance into this great industry.
I heard the Acting Prime Minister last week-the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp)-say on television that it would be contrary to the government's antiinflationary program to provide any cash assistance to the western wheat grower. I think that is rubbing it into the farmer pretty badly. Surely there is nobody in the country who has suffered more from the squeeze created by inflation than the western farmer, or the farmer generally. For the official spokesman of the government to tell the western wheat grower that much needed assistance cannot be granted because it would be contrary to the government's anti-inflationary program is really rubbing it in where it hurts.
Does anybody seriously contend that it would add to the inflationary forces in western Canada for such assistance to be granted? Does anybody seriously contend that the situation in the wheat growing areas contributes to the inflationary pressures in Canada today? What has happened to the selective policy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson)?
I refer to those anti-inflationary measures to be applied where there are inflationary pressures. Has this policy been abandoned or does the Minister of Finance and the government envisage that the budgetary surplus will be of such a size that the government cannot grant some assistance where it is badly needed, not just to shore up the farmers but to prevent a serious breakdown in the economy of this whole region?
July 21. 1969

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister spoke a good deal about the difficulty of working out a policy that does not involve farmers who have lots of assets but are strapped for cash. These farmers are in their present situation because they did what they were urged to do. They improved their method of production, they bought equipment, and perhaps they bought some land. Are we going to sit back in this parliament and see some of the best farmers in the west destroyed while the Prime Minister figures out some way of making certain that farmers who have substantial assets, but are badly strapped for cash, do not get any assistance from the government?
What we are talking about is the saving of an industry from facing grave difficulties. I suggest that what the Prime Minister said is quite irrelevant to the issue, and that these farmers may be in dire need of assistance. If they do not receive it agriculture in this country may receive a very heavy blow.
A variety of programs might have been adopted as an emergency measure. It might have been possible to work out a program with regard to payment for storage on the farm. This would have had the merit of paying for service rendered by the farmers in preserving an asset expected to be of value. I think the time has come when there is very little choice available to the government except to resort to some form of acreage payment, which has the merit of getting cash into the hands of the farmers quickly.
The Prime Minister spoke about a program of income support for farmers. When he was chided a few minutes ago for not having carried this program out, he said, "We did". I think he would have a very difficult time convincing members of this house that his pledge was carried out, and a much more difficult time convincing farmers in the western part of the country that he carried out his commitment, or even that he commenced to carry it out. The best example of this is the fact that the submission to the government, made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as long ago as May 28 has so far received no answer.
I think it is very clear that the government of Canada is taking the attitude that the present difficulties are entirely due to international developments beyond its control. I do not accept that. I think the Prime Minister was right when he said a year ago that Canada has not done an adequate job in selling
Wheat Export Prices
wheat. I think that that statement which was true a year ago is even more true today.
The Prime Minister is back from his lecture tour in the west. He talked tough to the prairie farmers for the benefit of the eastern audiences. The western farmers certainly do not need to be told about the hard realities in the long term or in the short run. But they need to be told about the plans that this government has to be of assistance to them.
At a time of very serious uncertainty regarding agriculture, the government in the last months has simply added to the uncertainty. The Prime Minister spoke about cutbacks in wheat production, but no one has indicated what policy the government has to encourage alternatives to grain production if there is to be a cut-back in it. The Prime Minister proposed, apparently offhandedly, to pay farmers a salary for life under the condition that they surrender their land to the state. The Prime Minister continues to suggest that the farmers do not understand the national problems, but he does so without giving any indication that he understands the farmers' problems.
Parliament wants to know what emergency program the government plans to adopt to meet the short term crisis when the government will begin to implement this program, and when it will tell parliament what it proposes to do. We and the country generally have been asking for this for months, and we received only evasions.
Inflation is no answer. The government's anti-inflationary program is no excuse. The fact that some of these farmers have substantial assets but no cash is no excuse. This is no excuse for allowing the industry to get into deeper and deeper difficulties, and allowing many of our best farmers to go under economically. The fact that the international difficulties have increased in depth is no excuse for sitting back and refusing to deal with an emergency which exists in this country today.
I say to the Prime Minister and the responsible minister in this government: Act, and you will receive the support of members of this house. Act to meet a serious situation. The time is long past when it is sufficient simply for a Prime Minister of this country to ask questions, either in this house or on the farms of this country. What we need is action, and we expect it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the two previous speeches, and in particular to the last words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) about action. They brought to my mind something that was said about his predecessor, namely, that he mistook acting for action. I point out again that I listened with great care. When he spoke about what kind of action is needed, the only thing he could come up with was the solution offered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister, namely, acreage payments. This is a remedy of some kind, but it is my hope that if we were to adopt this solution we will try to do it with somewhat more refinement than the way in which it was done in 1958, 1960 and 1962. Obviously it did not solve the problem at that time. If it had, we would not have to deal with it today.


An hon. Member:: Who is acting now?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Again may I say that I listened with great care to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas). For example, the Leader of the Opposition said that the Canadian government has been "trailing behind developments" regarding wheat, and he said "We derive very little benefit from this process".
We tried desperately hard and are still trying to save the International Grains Arrangement. In the process we may have lost a number of sales, but it was worth the effort. The other day in Washington when the Australians made a great to-do about getting out of the road temporarily in order to accommodate other exporter members of the I.G.A., I had no hesitation in saying we had made our effort previously. It was six months ago that Canada contributed greatly to the maintenance of this agreement. In my view the sacrifices we made at that time were worth while.
The Leader of the Opposition points to the fact that by "trailing behind" we may have done wrong-that may be too strong a word-to the Canadian wheat economy, and he points to the United States as an example of a country that has moved ahead. I do not see it this way. Last year the United States sold 750 million bushels; this year they are down to 525 million bushels. This should help me make the point that I thought I had made 
previously, namely, that this is not exclusively a Canadian problem; it is an international problem. For this reason I believe we have to find the right combination in trying to influence events and also in adapting to those events.
I was in Washington just a week ago. I have spent five days there in the last month. I was in Washington with representatives of the other exporter members of the I.G.A. Canada tried as hard as possible to prevent a collapse of wheat prices in the world. We tried to restore co-operation among exporters under the I.G.A., without this co-operation nothing can be done.
I have been asked in the house on a number of occasions to say what kind of success or failure we had. I said on a number of occasions that I did not know. I think the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic party should give me credit for not having tried to take them down the golden path in any way. I was very sincere in my answers, because I did not know. Nobody else knew-neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the leader of the New Democratic party-exactly what would happen, because wheat marketing depends upon a number of circumstances that are not within the exclusive control of the Caandian government. Two things the Canadian government does not control are the weather and the policies of other countries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? He is dealing with this matter on an international basis, as if it were an international crisis. For six weeks 29 ships were waiting in Vancouver harbour. Was that an international problem or a problem of this government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered the hon. member's question on a number of occasions. Weather had a great deal to do with that situation, but I cannot convince those who do not want to be convinced to accept my views.
We tried very hard at Washington. On Friday afternoon the Americans announced the "corrective measures" they were taking. As is known by now, they were reducing the price of ordinary, hard, red, winter wheat at Gulf and Atlantic ports by 12 cents a bushel.
A number of other specific cuts have been made by the United States for other types of wheat. I have since been asked by the press whether I was surprised by these announcements. I have been asked whether they were

July 21, 1969
in the spirit of the Washington meetings. Frankly, I prefer not to comment on that subject at this time because it would not be wise so to do; it would not be in the best interests of Canadian farmers and of the Wheat Board. We have not yet heard from Australia and the European Economic Community on that subject.
This morning the Canadian Wheat Board announced its own adjustments to cope with the new situation created by the United States move and moves made previously by other exporters. As hon. members know, price reductions announced this morning range from ljth cents a bushel to eight cents a bushel for spring wheat, depending on grade and export position. These are the corrective measures we have had to take.
I have been asked whether this is the final move or only the first round. It is not possible for me to predict this, because I do not know what will be the reaction of other countries to the Canadian announcement. The Canadian government hopes that a new plateau has been reached and exporting countries will rally at that level. It is not possible to know what the future has in store.
The two hon. members who spoke before me seemed to find this an extraordinary situation and said it was catastrophic that in the last year Canada exported only about 310 million bushels. I shall try to put the record straight. I am not trying to make anything out of these figures but simply to put forward the right assessment of the situation. The golden years to which the two hon. members referred, in comparison with this year's picture were extraordinary in Canadian wheat history. In order to assess more precisely what present exports are, I think one should refer to figures for a number of previous years. I quote the following figures for the record: 1958-59, 294.5 million bushels; 1959-60,
277.3	million bushels; 1960-61, 353.2 million bushels; 1961-62, 358 million bushels; 1962-63,
331.3	million bushels:
One has to bear these figures in mind. When one comes to more recent years, the figures rise tremendously: 1963-64, 594.1 million bushels; 1964-65, 399.6 million bushels; 1965-66, 584.9 million bushels; 1966-67, 516.3 million bushels; 1967-68, 335.6 million bushels; and this year about 305 million or 310 million bushels. But 1963-64 and 1965-66 were extraordinary years. However, when one tries to assess the present situation in regard to Canadian exports one has to consider a longer
Wheat Export Prices
period of years, and 310 million bushels is not such a catastrophic export figure.
All kinds of figures have been quoted about the percentage of Canadian exports compared with those of other exporters. The figure 10 per cent was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to know where he got that figure. The figure I have here in respect of Canadian exports for 1968 is 19.20 per cent. For the previous year the figure was 17 per cent, for the previous year 26 per cent, and for 1965 27 per cent. The figure for 1959 was 20 per cent, for 1958 22 per cent, for 1956 21 per cent, and so on. Therefore, there is no tremendous difference which could create the impression that is being created here today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it matters very much, but the minister was not referring to what I said; he was referring to the figures quoted by the leader of the New Democratic party.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the figures I quoted the minister will find in table No. 1, copied from figures released by the F.A.O. and submitted to the minister and his colleagues in a brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on May 28, 1969. These figures are given taken from the F.A.O. and deal with Canada's share of the world's grain trade.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are all kinds of ways of assessing these things. You have commercial, non-commercial, concessional sales and so on. I would have to go into detail in order to make a proper assessment. Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation in wheat production that is, I do not know whether I should say abnormal, but certainly strange.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have never seen it so strange.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Stay with us and you will see other things that are strange. The last three years have seen exceptional harvests. As a matter of fact, all over the world in each of the last three years a record has been broken. As a result it is obvious that the grain trade in the world has gone down substantially.
In the year 1965-66 the world trade totalled 2.3 billion bushels. In the most recent crop year, shipment of wheat was less than 1.7

Wheat Export Prices billion bushels, a reduction of more than 25 per cent. This represents a reduction in world trade of 600 million bushels of wheat.
It would be somewhat unusual if this tremendous decline that has taken place had not been reflected in the Canadian trading picture. I think if one wanted to be fair in one's assessment of the situation-which I am not sure some members of the opposition wish to be-one would have to bear this in mind.
Reference has been made to the fact that the Soviet Union has not taken up its commitments for Canadian wheat. If the Soviet Union had taken the 135 million bushels still due under the last contract, then Canadian sales would have been about 305 million or 310 million bushels, plus the 135 million bushels to the Soviet Union, for a total of 440 million bushels, quite a good trading year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You cannot live on ifs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. But the Leader of the Opposition could not have predicted either that this would happen, and had the Soviet Union fulfilled its commitment the market situation would have been different, and we would not have had today's debate.
The same situation obtains in relation to stocks held throughout the world. The drop in world trade in wheat has been matched by the increment in stocks held by the five major exporting countries. On June 30, 1969 stocks reached a record level of 2.4 billion bushels. At the conclusion of the Kennedy round negotiations in the spring of 1967, stocks amounted to only 1.4 billion bushels.
I am trying to indicate that the conditions when the I.G.A. was signed were quite different from present day circumstances. One of the purposes of the I.G.A. was to provide for necessary adjustments to newly arising circumstances, but unfortunately we did not have the kind of co-operation between I.G.A. exporters and importers needed to meet this objective. It is very difficult for countries to co-operate when there is a surplus of production.
The Leader of the Opposition seemed to accuse the Prime Minister of having promised that this government would sell 1.3 billion bushels of wheat in three years. As I said, we have sold 305 million bushels this year, so I do not think we will meet our objective for this year at least. However, things may improve in the next two. In 1968-69 had we sold 135 million bushels to the Soviet Union, as contemplated we would have totalled 445

July 21, 1969
million bushels, which if multiplied by three would reach our objective quite easily.
May I now move to the next part of my remarks. It has been implied that the government has not been as co-operative as it should have been in regard to the western wheat economy. The leader of the New Democratic party questioned the claim of the government that it gives all the support it can to the Wheat Board. He asked what we had done to support the I.G.A., what kind of credit facilities we had made available and what kind of food aid in terms of wheat the government had given.
Since time is short I should like very quickly to review the situation. I am not trying to say that what the government has done is enough; I am just indicating that it would be well if members of the opposition knew what had been done and is being done by the present government. I also want the Canadian public to know what has been done to protect and to assist the Canadian wheat economy.
First of all, we have made initial payments. As is well known, the Canadian government makes some initial payments every year, currently on the basis of $1.70 per bushel for Manitoba Northern No. 1, other grades being adjusted accordingly.


Stanley James Korchinski: This price is getting a little shaky.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, it is indeed. I think it is well for members of the opposition to realize what a floor price really means. Allowing 15 cents a bushel for storage and operating costs, on the basis of a $1.70 a bushel initial payment, the Canadian Wheat Board must sell No. 1 wheat at an average price of $1.85 per bushel in order not to call for govermnent support. Should there be further declines in prices throughout the world, the Canadian government would find itself committed to very substantial amounts of money. The floor price acts as a guarantee for the western farmer, a very important protection in times like these.
Secondly, there are the provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. I was told by people who accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to western Canada that there are some who are still unsure of the effects of the measures the government has taken. As is well known, or should be well known to hon. members, in November 1968 this act was amended to provide for a doubling of the maximum amount of interest free
July 21, 1969

advance available to producers, namely, an increase from $3,000 to $6,000. We have also taken action to enable producers to obtain interest free emergency cash advances for the purpose of drying wheat amounting to $600 per producer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, to help offset the effects of reduced delivery opportunities, the government has directed that prairie grain farmers will be eligible for full interest free cash advances in the new crop year even though outstanding advances have not been fully repaid as at the end of this crop year. Last year these advances amounted to something like $156 million. As at the end of this year between $60 million and $65 million remains unpaid. Added to this $60 million to $65 million there are next year's cash advance payments, so one can conservatively estimate that about $250 million will be put into circulation in this way on which the government will pay interest. This amount represents quite a substantial contribution by the government of Canada to the economy of western Canada.
The leader of the New Democratic party also asked me about credit facilities. The wheat sale a couple of weeks ago to Peru was based on the new credit facilities the government is now offering, namely $6 million this year and $6 million next year. This arrangement facilitates sales of wheat in a number of developing countries where the Canadian government feels it should assist the marketing efforts of the board. Again, this is an important contribution. Again, this is something for which the Wheat Board is grateful to the government.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Very often questions are heard here: "Is the minister doing everything he can for the Wheat Board?" I do not know what more I could do to help the Wheat Board. If you consult the commissioners I am sure that is the report you will get
I will not go into the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act but, Mr. Speaker, action taken under this legislation this year represents a further contribution of
Wheat Export Prices
some $60 million from the Canadian government to the wheat economy. That is not peanuts. I am merely trying to put the record straight and demonstrate that something is being done. One would not believe it on listening today to the speeches of the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition.
I wish to draw attention to the increased foreign aid that has benefited western farmers. For instance, when the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) allowed acreage payments to western farmers, in 1958, 1960, and 1962, the total of those payments, represented $120 million. In that period, of four years running from 1958, to 1962, the amount of foreign aid given by the Canadian government represented $66 million. If you take the last four years you will see that the present government has provided wheat and flour aid worth $260 million to developing countries of the world. I repeat from 1964 to 1969 Canada has given $260 million in wheat aid. So I suggest that the leader of the N.D.P. was not well informed when he said that tremendous amounts of money could be put into these programs. A tremendous amount of money has gone into them, and that is why I was a bit sarcastic when I said he should know better than make the statements he was making.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister permit a question? Will he specify how much money was paid out in each of the crop years? Could he tell us how much has gone into foreign aid with respect to wheat and flour.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have the figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister the figures for the last three crop years? If so, do they include the figures for the present year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In part. Let us not be too political, Mr. Speaker, let us begin with the period 1963-64. The figure is $4.4 million. For 1964-65 it is $20 million; for 1965-66, $30 million; for 1966-67, $89 million; for 1967-68, $63 million and for 1988-69, $56 million. One of the main reasons our aid has been declining is that there is simply less need for us to give food to the world. It is well known that Pakistan and India are, at the moment, almost self-sufficient in wheat. Because of that our aid to that area has not been so necessary.
I listened to opposition spokesmen saying that this government is not doing well enough

July 21, 1989
Wheat Export Prices
in the publicizing and marketing of our grains. They left the impression that the Wheat Board is in a Fuller brush type of operation. That is not so. Very few individuals in today's world are actually buying wheat, and I am sure that they are properly visited and attended by the Wheat Board. The leader of the N.D.P. left the impression that the Canadian government had not done its homework and that the Wheat Board was not publicizing Canadian wheat properly. That is not so. The Wheat Board has numbers of missions coming in and going out. As a matter of fact I ought to be in my office at this moment receiving a delegation from Tanzania and Uganda.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a number of missions, both ingoing and outgoing, that publicize Canadian goods, and wheat in particular. The department has offices in some 70 odd countries. We have trade commissioners who devote an extensive amount of time looking for sales and trying to help the Canadian Wheat Board. On numerous occasions the Wheat Board has said to me how grateful it is for the help these trade commissioners are providing.
As I look around the world I ask myself, where is there a better system for the marketing of wheat? I do not know of one. Yet the opposition inveighs against our system of wheat marketing. If our sales are not as great as we wish, that is because circumstances are not what they were. A number of countries that were importers in the past have now become self-sufficient; and a number of those that were self-sufficient have now become exporters, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Kenya are examples in question.
The wheat glut was mentioned. The leader of the N.D.P. hoped that the present world situation will not continue to exist for ever. I was about to say, "Amen", but that might not be very Christian. I might only mention that the cycles he referred to are very real and that sooner or later there should be a greater need for Canadian wheat. In those circumstances we will meet the objectives the Prime Minister set for Canadian exports.
That is about all I had to say, Mr. Speaker.
I shall be glad to answer questions. Of course the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will also take part in this debate.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will the minister permit a question, Mr. Speaker? I wonder if the minister would indicate whether at the recent meeting in Washington the members of the European Economic Community, France in
[Mr. Pepin.l
particular, agreed not to go to the Far East because of excessive freight rates and close competition? Did they not at the same time leave themselves this opening: that they could still compete at a lower level? Was that not why the United States dropped its price, and why Canada had to follow suit?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, at the Washington meeting the E.E.C. was represented by an official and not by a politician. Consequently the official made a report to the E.E.C. After receiving that report the E.E.C. made an offer to the United States, the terms of which in part are those to which my hon. friend has referred, but probably not for the reason he gave. What the E.E.C. will do in view of the United States action of Friday afternoon I do not know. We shall find out in the coming hours.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here today with what might be called the "deadly incoming tide of wheat". The problem is acute, as I have had the opportunity of noting on a visit out West with the committee on agriculture.
Indeed, the situation is serious, for the income of the farmer no longer suffices for him to pay for his equipment or enlarge his land, which, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, may be worth $100,000 or $125,000.
Last spring, I met farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta who had to move their equipment outside in order to store the wheat they had produced in huge quantities in the last few years.
Now, if a farmer cannot sell all his wheat, even though his farm may be worth $100,000 or $125,000, he still needs his daily bread. Surely, under those circumstances, he should be guaranteed on honest sustenance.
A bill allowing farmers to get interest free loans would enable them to survive but it would not solve the problem, which is one of finding outlets and, in our present economic system, where can those outlets be found?
Half of mankind suffers from malnutrition. Farmers have to let wheat rot in the fields or in barns, as I said a while ago, leaving the economic system at the mercy of the chartered banks, with the co-operation of a government that will not base money upon production which if monetized, could be distributed to the underfed part of humanity.

July 21. 1969
Last Sunday, I heard a missionary back from Paraguay who said that in that country two million people suffer from malnutrition. Their average income is less than $200 per year and does not even enable them to eat once a day, while we in Canada live in the midst of plenty. I do not blame the government for that, but the system that the government promotes and maintains and on account of which such plenty which is left to rot and is not shared with those who would need it.
I explained that a while ago when congratulations were expresed for the Appollo journey. When, in a world of scientists, we can afford accomplishments of that kind, while living people cannot ship wheat where it should be sent, I say there is something wrong with the economic system and that we should most urgently change such a defective system so as to be able to distribute such abundance, for we insult God every day.
We of the Ralliement creditiste say let those millions represent the value of wheat. Let the Bank of Canada create money as quickly as wheat yields, namely 60 seeds out of one per year, and let that abundance be distributed according to the will of the superior being, who enabled us to see such magnificent things these last days, let wheat, a seed of which can yield 60 more per year, be shipped to everyone so that Canada may be considered tomorrow as the bread basket of the world.
Let us no longer allow the banks to withdraw the money, with the co-operation of the Bank of Canada, instead of letting them control the volume of money by making the farmers and the workers work and by charging them interest at 10 per cent. Rather than concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few people and impoverishing those who really do the work, like the western farmers for instance-and I know several who are very hard workers, who produce today just as they did in wartime, which made it possible for us to fight against these who wanted to impose dictature upon us, and to feed the armed forces-let us find today the necessary funds to ship this wheat to those who need it.
I say it now and I have said it before, that we would not object to some assistance being provided to less privileged countries if we were able once and for all to settle our problems which in fact are rather of an economic nature.
Wheat Export Prices
for themselves and have increased their production as was required of them. In fact we did ask them, during a tour over there: What do you want? More than 1,000 people, who had come as far as 200 miles in order to meet the federal members in the hands of whom they had placed their hopes, asked us to settle those problems once and for all. They said: we want the West to be the granary of the world and we wish to feed all mankind.
Those people are so truly willing that I think that in addition to insulting God who has allowed such abundance, we are insulting those who have produced that wheat, who have toiled and laboured and who expected to be the providers of the human race. Let me remind them however-unless I need not do so-that they have heard that quite often, during the recent tour of the Prime Minister.
In 1962, I had the opportunity of talking of the problems of the Quebec farmers. I am very well acquainted with those problems since I have been myself a farmer, having inherited some land from one of my uncles.
We have also lost our family farm, in Quebec. If the government does not take the necessary steps, in the West, there will no longer be any family farm. The capitalists, who take advantage of the farmers, as they did in Quebec, are going to buy a lot of land and within the next 50 years, the government will say: we must impose socialism or communism; we must redistribute the land.
There appears to be many people of good will since, as we saw a while ago, all those who have asked for and requested this emergency debate will co-operate to solve this problem once for all.
It is perhaps necessary that people study especially a little further the story told us by the Bible of how they managed to preserve for seven years the wheat in the warehouses at the time of Joseph. They were able, with the backwards means at their disposal in those days, to foresee that there would perhaps be famines one day. Now there is famine today in some countries. As for us, we ask, as I said before, that production should exist at the same time as the making of money so as to convey this plenty to those who need it.
I know that the Prime Minister also explained that many farmers in the Mari-times are struggling with economic difficul-
Means of transportation are not lacking, ties, like those in Quebec. We also talked of Farmers have reached the goal they had set it, especially in relation to the dairy industry.

July 21. 1969
Wheat Export Prices
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
But those problems exist, in the Maritimes as well as in the West. People are always complaining. We have there an obvious proof that our economic system does not meet the needs and that it is high time in 1969, for intelligent men to work together and find an economic system which will enable a distribution of that wealth and which should be a blessing to the extent where people will cooperate. Let it not be said, as is too often heard, that it is a curse. Such a statement is made each time the problem is brought to the attention of the house.
As for us, who are taking part in the drafting of legislation, we must act so that those people will have from now on three meals daily. Legislators should be able to find an economic system which would allow a distribution of this wealth, because at the moment, we do not know where we are going.
As I said, if the right hon. Prime Minister asserts that farmers in the Maritime provinces and in Quebec are poorer, it means that there are problems to be solved. In fact, it means that Canada is going bankrupt and that agriculture which is a basic industry in any country-and which we should protect to feed the Canadian people-is in jeopardy. We should provide for a fair distribution of this affluence-money, wheat-to feed this portion of mankind which survives on one meal a day.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that we approve of this urgency debate. At the same time, I ask the people from the West to have consideration for the farmers in eastern Canada who also find themselves in great financial difficulties. We shall endeavor by working hand in hand to find not simply a band-aid solution but a means whereby work will be paid for and each farmer will get a sufficient income to meet reasonably the needs of his family.
When we visited western Canada, the farmers told us outright that if they were not to receive any additional grants, they would have to put up with what they called the depreciation of their farm implements, of their buildings and of their lands. However, I must remind them that in eastern Canada, in the Maritimes, farmers have been living with that for more than ten years-and this is why they gave up their lands-and that is the reason why the policy now in force in the West amounts to a fiasco. As far as I am concerned, I put the blame on our economic

system. Let us work together so that we may change it very quickly.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with delight to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) as I always do. He has this fatalistic approach which is summed up in the old song "Que Sera Sera"-"Whatever will be, will be". I think that is the approach the minister has taken in respect of this particular problem. I see nothing in what he has said today to change my opinion. I believe he made only one statement with which I was in wholesale agreement. He admitted that he really does not know what the answers are. I think he should have sat down at that point. That is a good statement. It sets out the government's position; they do not know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not what I said.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was the impression I received and I heard it repeated twice. The minister went on to say that this is not exclusively a Canadian problem. Of course it is not. But to my knowledge no other government have with such great skill and ingenuity exaggerated the problem as have the Canadian government. In plain fact they have been inept in their handling of this particular problem.
Let us look at the situation. A year and a half ago one could see this problem, and variations and refinements of it, developing. The party opposite which now forms the government was very engrossed in the fascinating job of choosing a leader, and then in setting the groundwork for an election. I suggest that this government has lost for this country a year, or a year and a half in which it could well have been dedicating its attention to the problem which was apparent to so many of us. During the election campaign I and a number of my colleagues on this side of the house could see what was developing, and discussed the matter during the course of the election campaign.
I agree with the minister when he says that there also is less of a need now than there was in the past in certain areas of the world in which grain was purchased and used by the emerging countries. I feel, however, that although there is less of a need in certain countries there is still a need in the world as a whole, and will be for a great many years, for Canada to make available a greater portion of the agricultural production which it has been so skillful in developing.
July 21, 1969

I suggest that the government and its agencies have had hardening of the arteries in their approach to this problem, that there is a capacity in the world to absorb a greater degree of our surplus agricultural production, and that the government cannot excuse itself by saying in certain areas there is less need.
We have all known for some time that the development of new strains of wheat in other parts of the world, particularly Mexico, and the capability of some of the newly emerging countries to make use of fertilizer have eased the agricultural problems in those areas. But there are millions of people to which this situation does not apply. I believe this government stands indicted for its failure to recognize that fact, and it is useless for the minister to quote very selective statistics, as he did today, in an attempt to get rid of this impression. The government stands indicted for its failure to look after its traditional markets. The abilities of the agencies of government and of the government itself have not been adequate to do this.
Other members have said this in better words than I can use. My leader, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), have indicated in very eloquent terms that this is the fact. I am sure other speakers will follow me.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. The hon. member says the government is guilty of not marketing aggressively enough. Marketing is the function of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the accusation one against the Canadian Wheat Board? I think if that is what the hon. member has in mind he should say so.


J. Michael Forrestall: As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) would say, accept your own responsibility.


Gerald William Baldwin: This government, led by a new leader, sought and secured election on its claimed ability to solve the problems with which we are faced. It is certainly not for me to indicate to the minister or his colleagues precisely whether or not their responsibility should be increased. But there is no doubt that a government such as this government which, as I said, sought and secured election on the basis of what it would undertake to do, has failed, and in doing so has failed to give leadership to all the agencies in this country which, together with the government, must initiate and carry out programs. What is being done is not adequate and it cannot find
Wheat Export Prices
an escape in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I will go so far as to say that there should be more vigour and more persistence on the part of all the agencies which come directly under the government, and which are ultimately responsible through the government to the people of Canada, in dealing with this problem. I think there is a need for inspiration and leadership. I am convinced that over the course of the last year and a half we have lost some of our traditional markets which we will have great difficulty in renewing in the days which lie ahead.
Finally I should like to deal with one aspect of the question; that is, how to get some of the people engaged in the agricultural industry, who in the past have been involved specifically in wheat production, into other areas of agricultural production so that there may be available for the areas which are most competent to grow wheat the ability and the right to do so?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I should like to give the house a case history involving the Peace River area. This is not the first time I have brought this matter before the house. As a result of asking oral and written questions, by attempting to obtain the unanimous consent of the house for discussion on previous occasions, and through personal communications with the minister involved I have attempted to point out that in the great, fertile northern part of Alberta there have been specific problems. This is an area which for many years grew some of the world's best wheat.
The name Herman Trelle was known in association with championship wheat at all the wheat expositions throughout the world. For years Herman Trelle and those who followed him obtained the world wheat title for this north country. But because it has become apparent to some of the people up there that they have to diversify the agricultural industry, this is no longer the case.
These people have not entirely stopped growing wheat, but they have found other ways of expressing a capacity to produce, and they have been diligent about doing so.
Some weeks ago I drew to the attention of the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the fact that a meeting was to be held in the town of Falher in the Peace River country to discuss a very special problem. I read into the record of this house a copy of a telegram I received from

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
the president of the chamber of commerce in which he invited the minister and his colleague to attend.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Where's the minister today?


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is here, but I look in vain for the Minister of Agriculture who is no doubt exhausted by his efforts to attempt to shepherd the Prime Minister through parts of western Canada.
This invitation was extended personally to the minister. I did not seek to make a political issue of this because the problems of thousands of people were involved, but I did genuinely hope and desire that the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, would attend. Falher is, generally speaking, the centre of a large French-speaking area in northern Alberta. Agriculturists from Quebec have come to this area and they are some of the best farmers we have in the Peace River country.
At the time of this particular meeting these people were deeply interested in a debate which was being carried on in this house on the official languages bill. They were particularly anxious that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as a minister from Quebec, and the Minister of Agriculture from their own province, would attend the meeting. In any event this invitation was extended.
I went up there and learned about problems of which I was aware, at least to a certain extent. These people presented me with details of a solution to a problem about which the government had done nothing. In the agricultural industry there are general problems and specific problems, which exist in various areas. In this regard the government could have acted. It is of some interest to note that the northern part of Alberta, and what is known as the B.C. block of the Peace River area, have more farmers on a unit basis in their populations than exist in any other part of this country.
This meeting was attended by a number of farmers, representatives of agricultural industries, farm unions, co-operatives, municipal organizations and elevator companies-all the people who are dependent and concerned in respect of their livelihood upon this agricultural industry in northern Alberta.
I discovered that in this Peace River area there were between five million and six million bushels of feed grain. This grain does not have to be exported or carried in box cars to

Vancouver or Fort William where it is piled up waiting to be unloaded in order that the cars can be sent back. This is grain which could be sold, and there was a market for it in British Columbia and in parts of eastern Canada. It included barley, oats, and a lot of lower grades of wheat available for sale as feed, and it was wanted by the feed mills for agricultural purposes in the two regions I have mentioned.
It is also a fact that a great many of these farmers did not have a one bushel quota. The majority of them had two bushel quotas, although a few had a three bushel quota. This information was confirmed by representatives of elevator companies. Many of these farmers could never achieve a five bushel quota which I understand has been underwritten by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the government.
These people were asking for the opportunity to have boxcars moved in, so that they could be filled with this grain and dispatched to those areas in Canada where they could be unloaded immediately and the grain utilized. Some of these farmers admitted to me that they had illegally hauled grain in their trucks, or by custom trucking, a distance of 100 to 125 miles to elevators at Dawson Creek in British Columbia. Some of them were turned back and one or two were prosecuted. Uultimately the police were alerted, and I understand this practice has now stopped. This was grain needed by buyers of feed grain in Dawson Creek, who had urged these people to bring it over.
I was told by certain farmers that they had gone to Edmonton in a desparate effort to find markets for their feed grain, and that this grain could be sold. When these potential buyers were told that the grain was in Peace River they in turn informed the farmers that when they obtained an undertaking for the supply of boxcars they would buy the grain.
As I have said, this whole problem involves some five million to six million bushels of grain, the sales of which would have brought in revenue to the extent of $4 million or $5 million. These people would not need some of the government's guarantee, about which the minister has told us. This is the sad story of these people in the northern part of Alberta. It represents the unwillingness of the government to acknowledge the problem, and the failure of the government at the appropriate time to appoint, as it could have done, people to expedite the marketing and transportation of this grain. Had this government asked this
July 21. 1969



house for the authority to do so, I am sure it would have obtained it. This is a sad story of the ineptitude and the failure of this government to recognize a problem which so seriously affects all the people of western Canada, and particularly those people of Peace River for whom I am trying to make this case.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This failure is recognized. I have in my hands a recent editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, a paper which usually supports the government but which is objective when it comes to the recognition of the problems of agricultural Canada. This editorial says in part:
The federal task force on agriculture, in a report in March, was strongly critical of policies of both the government and the Canadian Wheat Board which had put undue emphasis on the production of wheat. It found that the temporary Wheat Reserves Act which provided assistance to farmers with farm stored wheat, "subsidizes producers' incomes after they have produced in excess of market demands, and encourages them to continue producing." It held that the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was stacked in favour of the production of wheat: it pays a higher price per bushel on wheat than on oats and barley. It held that the Canadian Wheat Board had been traditionally prejudiced against feed grains and in favour of milling wheat-
Further, on, in dealing with probable solutions-I come back to the question which the minister slid over regarding one of the proposals which emanated from this party, and from other opposition parties, on the matter of acreage payments-it reads as follows:
Acreage payments were three times used by the Diefenbaker government to cushion farmers over bad years, though the payments then were $1 an acre with a maximum of $200 per farmer. It is the quickest way of getting cash-which is the immediate need-into farmers' hands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous agreement of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have one more sentence, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I say that there are solutions, and that we are not prepared to forget the defects and the deficiencies of the government over the last year and a half. I suggest that they seek out the ways and means which can be utilized to bring the farmers of western Canada over the most difficult of periods, and if they do so I assure
Wheat Export Prices
you, Mr. Speaker, that they will find ample support from this side of the house.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should apologize for speaking on agriculture as in a way I am a city person whose only real experience with agriculture has been working on ranches in Alberta in my youth, which does not qualify me to speak on present day wheat problems because, first, I was not on a wheat farm, and second, my youth was long enough ago that the knowledge I gained then is almost irrelevant today.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't you worry, the Prime Minister speaks about them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And so do you.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But I wanted to speak in this debate, and I think I know a little about the problem. I felt therefore that I must get up and speak; especially when I find that the much-publicized western rump of the conservative party is so poorly represented in the debate this afternoon, and someone must give a western point of view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think that we have all had a very instructive speech from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I just hope that there will be more hon. members who will express their thoughts because though they have been vocal at other times, this is the time for them to be constructively so.


Mr. Aiken:: They will be. Just wait, they are here today.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I suppose they will speak when their roster system allows them to do so.


An hon. Member:: Don't be jealous just because you cannot work one out.


Edmund Boyd Osler: However, speaking seriously, I do not think anybody, anywhere would try to say that there is not a large problem. Every man and his dog have an opinion about how they can help the farmer, but most of their solutions are so costly, and would be so ruinous to the country as a whole that not much of the country would be left if they were adopted.
However, there is a very bad world wide problem in agriculture and X suppose that no matter what government were in power the problem would exist. There are at least four

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
countries that share the problem with Canada. As the minister pointed out, it is not a uniquely Canadian problem. Price structures have been breaking down throughout the world, and Canadian farmers cannot earn a decent return on the capital that is involved. A little while ago a letter came to my hands which I find rather typical. It is from a man in Manitoba who runs a fairly good sized operation, and who wrote as follows:
At the moment our current operating debt is in the neighbourhood of $19,000 acquired over the past year and a half. Our interest charges this year have been in excess of $5,000 and farming over the past years has not been able to generate that kind of money-
He is operating 820 acres. He has about a $90,000 investment, and he is considered a model farmer in his area. He has 12,000 bushels of wheat, plus a lot of other crops, but he has no cash and he cannot meet his commitments. This is like any other industry that is going through a long-term problem to which long-term solutions must be applied. The traditional export markets have evaporated. The types of wheat in demand in the world have changed. To a large extent we are growing types of wheat that are no longer needed because milling techniques have changed. Inflation has driven up operating costs. According to an article in Maclean's magazine, which states the obvious but in a rather dramatic way, farm costs have been rising consistently. It reads:
By 1967, according to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, they were 68 per cent higher than in 1949, yet farm income was up only 9.7 per cent in the same period. On the basis of 1949 dollars, income was down by 33.1 per cent.
There is another thing which I do not think any government should try to sidestep, that is that governments in the immediate past encouraged farmers to grow everything that they could grow and told them that they could sell it. But if you look at the record, again broadly speaking, whether under the former Conservative regime or under this regime, large quantities of wheat have only been sold effectively when there has been trouble; and it is a poor type of practice in any business if you can only succeed when someone else comes a-cropper.
If you have a famine in Russia, in China or somewhere else, then the major wheat producers can unload their surpluses; otherwise they cannot. What I am trying to suggest is that we hear a lot about short-term solutions, but this government would be less than honest with people if it did not say the sort of

thing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been saying, and it would be less than conscientious if it did not go for long-term solutions.
There is no use being sentimental at the expense of the poor guy who is out on the farm and saying that we have always produced all the wheat in the world and we can always sell it in the long term, and that sooner or later it will work out; let the boys sit on their wheat for a few years and let the people of Canada carry them for a few years because one of these days the wheat will be sold. I think that is being romantic at someone else's expense. It really is time that the fundamental problem was faced.
There are several solutions to which reference is made all the time. People want two-price wheat. I do not think you can ask the people in the rest of Canada to pay extra for their bread on a long-term basis so as to keep wheat producers producing all the wheat they want, especially at a time when the trend in tariffs is down in eastern Canada and in the central markets of the world.
9 (5:10 p.m.)
We cannot have it both ways. If we encourage a tariff-protected industry in western Canada-which we have never had to this date-at the same time as we discourage tariffs in the east, we are being more schizophrenic than anybody would expect even a democratic government to be. I am all for democratic government, but we are sometimes accused of trying to buy people with their own money.
The same argument applies to acreage payments on a long-term basis. Perhaps a case can be made for acreage payments to enable people to live through an emergency, if they are tied in with a policy which encourages farmers to change from wheat to other types of production. However, I believe that long-term acreage payments for the sake of subsidizing a farmer are a dishonest approach to the solution that is required.
Rhetoric such as we have heard here all winter will not help much; neither will misquotes or partial misquotes of the Prime Minister's speeches when he goes west and makes famous statements such as, "I am not going to sell your wheat." I was there, know what he said and what he meant when he said it. If I had been a little less new at the game I would have gone right back and given the rest of his speech at every opportunity, so the message would have been conveyed loud
July 21, 1969

and clear, rather than its being sullied and misquoted for several weeks.
To illustrate that the present government is not completely ignorant of the situation and completely misunderstands it, I should like to quote from a lead editorial which appeared in the Financial Times this week, dealing with problems in the west. The editorial reads in part:
To say that there is no chance of a general and unselective payment being made to wheat farmers is to face the facts of government economics in this day and age.
This is what we have heard so much talk about: general, unselective payments with no long-term objectives in mind. I believe this type of program would do a disservice to the Canadian farmer in particular and the country as a whole. I hope the government will continue to have enough guts not to advocate such programs, but will move forward with imaginative, long-term policies that do not involve unselective payments generally.
With regard to general subsidies, the New Democratic party seem to want people to be subsidized for this, that and the other thing when the mood of the country is to try to get away from subsidies. A short time ago the Winnipeg Tribune, commented editorially on the difficulties experienced in Europe, where in the 1967-68 season because of subsidies 30,000 tons of Italian oranges were destroyed. The article continues:
This year grapes and apples have joined the waste in rivers and garbage dumps. In France and Belgium thousands of tons of potatoes, peaches, pears, cauliflowers and fish have been destroyed while the cost of living for city people has grown at an ever faster rate. The high cost of food is a major factor.
This situation developed because of the policy of subsidization that all the common market countries have been following; so let us not join our N.D.P. friends in following that Pied Piper very far. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on these matters, but I believe that short-term solutions to meet specific problems such as we have can be devised. In the long run these would not hurt the country as a whole. Shortterm aid is already given for drying wheat, and there are advances on unsold and undelivered grain. Further advances will be made next year, as the Prime Minister has said, amounting to millions of dollars. It is all very well to say that these advances are purely loans. They are cash infusions which, if hon. members opposite are correct, should be enough in themselves to help the situation
Wheat Export Prices
because their purpose is to tide people over to the time when we shall again be selling unlimited quantities of wheat to Russia.
But over and above these, there should perhaps be some form of cash subsidy for a stated length of time to help the farming industry to meet specific, long-term objectives. These objectives might be defined as diversification, rationalization of farm size and efficiency and replacement of some farm employment by industry, using government "seed" money through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, with the cooperation of provincial governments. Another solution would be the encouragement of food banks by the United Nations or other international agencies. These are long-term objectives, and any further short-term aid should be tied in with them.
I apologize again for not being an expert on these matters. We have heard a great deal in the last few months about the great government of Manitoba that was recently defeated at the polls, what a terrific job they were doing and what a lousy job everybody else was doing. We have been told how terribly difficult it was to get Ottawa to pay any attention to them. According to a brief presented to the Manitoba legislature by the Meat Packers Council of Canada last May, within the province of Manitoba itself lies the solution to at least part of its agricultural problem; yet the province did precisely nothing about it.
This is why it is very important to take a long-term view of these problems and to achieve co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in working out policies which are of lasting benefit, rather than shouting names at each other. Hog production in Manitoba has seriously declined, as has cattle production. They are not producing nearly as many cattle and hogs as they should be. The province has the capacity to improve their situation, with federal government help, presumably, if they ask for it and if they have plans that are worth considering and can be used as a basis for co-operation.
Iowa produces 22 million hogs a year. Manitoba, which has about the same population as Iowa and is about the same area, produces only 750,000. North America is a huge meat market and there is no reason for Manitoba producing so few hogs. The Manitoba meat industry is working to only about 65 per cent capacity, mainly for two reasons. The first is that Manitoba farmers are not producing enough cattle and hogs, and there

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
is not within their shipping area a market of sufficient size for the packing houses. Second, they are not producing cattle or hogs of the quality required.
Many farmers in Manitoba are primarily concerned with dairy products and sell "on the side" the cattle they do not need. There are exceptions, of course, but statistically this is true. Somebody will have to take steps to upgrade the industry in that province and obtain a sizeable proportion of the available market. Manitoba has less than one per cent of the North American hog market, and approximately one per cent of the cattle market. This is one reason for the decline in the industry. From the point of view of quality, 43 per cent of hogs produced in Canada are graded A; in Manitoba only 35 per cent are graded A. The same is true of meat: 56 per cent of cattle slaughtered in Canada are graded as red or blue beef; in Manitoba the figure is 47 per cent.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Manitoba's average is considerably below the national average, both in quality and quantity. Instead of bleating about wheat production and inability to sell, some federal action should be taken in co-operation with the provincial government to improve grades and achieve 100 per cent production capacity. If necessary, more plants should be built to reach a future 100 per cent capacity. The market potential is well-nigh unlimited, but quality must be improved and the product merchandised, the same as with other commodities. But as I say, there must be co-operation between the federal and provincial governments toward these ends.
If this immediate past history of the late provincial government of Manitoba means anything at all, it is indicative of a lot of time-wasting and wringing of hands instead of tackling problems that exist. I guess the late government has now received its just deserts.
I do not have any easy solutions. As I say, even the four major wheat producing countries of the world cannot seem to find solutions. However, I do think that short-term cash infusions are required, and I hope such infusions will be increased. We also need long-term, well thought out plans. Even if we have to listen to the opposition criticise our "inaction" for another six months we would do better to stick to sound principles and prepare some long-term plans to assist the west to return to what it should be, a farming 
community though not necessarily a predominantly wheat farming one. If we have to take another few million acres out of wheat production, this is not going to be a long-term tragedy. Let us not be romantic about the fact that because we have always grown millions of bushels of wheat we will have to continue to do so, even though the poor farmer has absolutely no way of making an economic living therefrom.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is but one of a number held this session on agriculture, particularly on agricultural problems in western Canada. Many of the arguments and statements that have been put forward today are a repetition of the arguments addressed since last September. A number of times Your Honour has been requested to grant an emergency debate, and in your wisdom on most occasions Your Honour has ruled it out because the matter had already been brought up repeatedly. I trust Your Honour will understand that we of the opposition have felt obligated, as one of our responsibilities, to keep raising the question, no matter how inconvenient it may be or how untimely or uncomfortable for people in some places. This is an issue that affects the entire nation. It is not narrowly confined to just one or two provinces; all of Canada is affected.
I was hoping that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would have some announcement to make about new government initiatives to deal with Canada's agricultural problems, particularly in the area of immediate concern today, western Canadian cereal grains and world markets. The minister spoke of it being an international problem, and of course it is. He has told us nothing that we did not already know.
I submit that the minister is incapable of dealing with the problem or of taking new initiatives to find solutions. I say this because when the minister goes to Washington or to Winnipeg he is handcuffed by the government of Canada's lack of policy. In this way the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the minister have been continually handcuffed for the past year. Until the government of this country takes new initiatives and introduces new policies to enable the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Wheat Board to do the kind of job of which they are capable, there will be no quick solution or improvement to the present situation.
It is all very well for the minister and for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to talk
July 21, 1969

about an objective of 1,300 million bushels of wheat sales in three years, or whatever the figure is. It is, of course, good to have objectives, but unless the government has the policies to achieve such objectives, or to give some reasonable chance of achieving them, they are all to no avail.
The Prime Minister's recent trip to western Canada, uncomfortable although it may have been for him, is the most recent example of the kind of callous disregard there is for the wheat farmers, as well as an illustration of the government's complete failure to understand the size of the problem, let alone its immediacy. The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) illustrated this in a first class manner. The hon. member does not comprehend the size of the problem, let alone its immediacy. Only when the government declares that agriculture is a primary industry that is basic to the health and wealth of the entire Canadian economy, and takes action accordingly, will some shortterm and long-term policies be forthcoming.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on a question of privilege.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, it did not seem to me that I had indicated that I had no realization that agriculture was a major industry. What I was trying to express, though it may have been difficult for some members to comprehend my remarks, perhaps because I spoke badly or perhaps because of a natural disadvantage, was that agriculture was a major industry, one that had to be given serious consideration. I said that perhaps the emphasis within the industry should be redirected. I was not advocating that agriculture be neglected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is hardly raising a question of privilege. I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) should be allowed to continue his remarks.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a fresh illustration that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, like a lot of his colleagues, does not understand the totality of the problem. The hon. member talked about diversification and referred to hogs and cattle. The farmers have been hearing this kind of talk from Liberals for the last 25 years. One has only to go back to the 1950's when the plea was for diversification. The farmers diversified their
Wheat Export Prices
operations, and what happened to hog and cattle prices? We were up to our eyes in hogs. We were told that too many hogs were being raised.
The hon. gentleman expects the farmers to diversify their operations and compete with corporate enterprises. I would ask the hon. member if he is prepared to support measures to prohibit corporate enterprise operating farms? If he is, then I will believe that he does understand the problems of the farming industry. We are not talking about a private corporation and its board of directors. We are talking about farmers who work on the land, about people, not corporations. This is what the government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre still do not understand.
During his trip out west last week the Prime Minister made reference to income protection and mentioned a number of measures that, are supposed to ensure income protection. First of all, the Prime Minister felt somewhat insulted by some of the signs and yelling at some of the meetings held in Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister may find things difficult when he arrives at a place where nobody loves him, but I suggest he will become increasingly aware of this sort of thing unless he quits shrugging his shoulders and starts rubbing his shoulders with the problems confronting Canada.
I may say that the kind of demonstration carried on last week by the farmers of western Canada is unusual and extremely rare. Demonstrating is not something that they are prone to do, unlike some people in large urban centres. The farmers are just not built that way. They never have been. If ever there was a sign of outrage, of their extreme disgust and despair, then this was it. The prairie farmers do not make a habit of that kind of demonstration. But for years they have been back and forth to Ottawa with resolutions, briefs and agricultural delegations. At times, when they have become desperate, they have elected a few Liberals, but to no effect. All the time they have received the run around. The government which has refused to face facts, has victimized them. This government has not taken into account the fact that the Canadian agricultural community is basic to the nation's welfare and that western problems cannot be treated as separate problems. The Prime Minister has talked about income protection, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Corporation. Well, farmers do not need more loans. They have debts

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
enough already. And what did the amendments to farm legislation that the Prime Minister spoke about accomplish? In the end, the result of those measures was to raise the interest rates that farmers have to pay from 5 to 7J per cent.
e (5:30 p.m.)
Mention has been made of cash advances. It seems that all those on the government side have forgotten these must be paid back. The more you advance to a farmer, the more he must pay back. Opposition parties share the government's view that cash advances are necessary. The opposition spent years trying to persuade Liberals to implement those advances, and only after they were defeated in the late 1950's did they become converts to the idea. Although these advances are interest free, they must nevertheless be paid back. The farmer, in fact has not had income protection but he, in common with his fellow Canadians, has been victimized by parasitic, high interest rates. The farmer has been victimized also by the private grain trade, and I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) will agree with me, I submit that this private trade in grain should be subject to controls. These traders have been parasites on the backs of the Canadian agricultural community for too many years.
The Prime Minister talks about income protection at a time when grain prices are low and about to go lower. Bearing these factors in mind, our party proposed a cash deficiency payment program of, say, 20 cents per bushel to be based on deliveries in the 1967-68 crop year, for a maximum of $2,000 in each case. What was the government's response to that? Nothing. It has made no response. If our suggestion is no good let the government explain why it thinks so. Over two dozen proposals have been made by opposition spokesmen, and we are still waiting for the government's reaction to them.
The Prime Minister asks how he can give "X" million dollars to the farmers when he must also consider fishermen and pensioners. He asks, how will he explain it to these other elements, in the population. We are not asking him to explain anything to the farmers, fishermen, pensioners or the unemployed. We want him to explain why he can do nothing for farmers, fishermen, pensioners or the unemployed at a time when his Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will be sitting on his fat surplus of $250 million for this fiscal year. The Prime Minister says nothing about bank

profits or outrageously increased corporate profits. Why do the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all the other mouthpieces on the government side, talk about fighting inflation and then hurt the people who are not causing inflation. Farmers who have no cash cannot contribute to inflation. Fishermen, pensioners and the unemployed are not guilty of contributing to inflation, on the other hand, all the so-called bastions of private enterprise that contribute to inflation are aided and abetted by this incompetent government.
May I make a few suggestions to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? To implement them he will need the authority of the government, because neither he nor the Wheat Board can do very much unless the government changes its policies substantially. I hope the minister will go to the cabinet and say, "Let's give these suggestions a try." I hope he goes to caucus and says, "These are the measures you must adopt; if you do not go along with me, get yourself a new boy." If he does that, he will go down in our history as the minister who struck a blow for our farmers.
I suggest that the minister ought to go to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in cabinet and say that the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board must be tremendously extended, and that we must provide it with finances that will enable it to undertake the export of our wheat in competition with other countries. If necessary, let us wage an export war. Countries that break their agreements have victimized us. Canada did not break those agreements. If Australia wants to play games, we too can play. We can teach them a lesson or two. I say to the minister that it is unfair and immoral to leave Canadian farmers alone to compete with the treasuries of the United States and other countries. If the agricultural community of this country is left in that plight, it will be destroyed. That is quite right, and that is why I say that the Canadian Wheat Board needs financial resources to do the kind of job that must be done. If in order to sell wheat we have to cut our price to $1 a bushel, let us do so-but not at the expense of the farmer. Let us not call on our farmers to pay the whole shot. Is it not socially desirable that we maintain in Canada maximum number of economic farm units? I am sick and tired of hearing vague hints from the government side that we should have fewer farmers. Where are the farmers we take off the farm to go, Mr. Speaker?
July 21. 1969

Instead of supporting ex-farmers in metropolitan centres, is it not cheaper to help them maintain themselves on their farms?
Another suggestion is this. Could the government not enter into barter arrangements? Has the government considered seriously accepting as part payment for grain sold abroad, the currency of the country to which the grain has been sold? We could leave the currency in that country and invest it in whatever way would be best. For instance, has the minister considered the quantity of fertilizer that India needs? Would it not be a good idea to accept rupees-or the appropriate currency-in part payment for grains and use that money to build a fertilizer plant, a hospital, or whatever else is needed? Have Wheat Board officials considered these barter arrangements? Have these suggestions with respect to foreign currency been brought to their attention? Has the minister thought of authorizing the Wheat Board to wage a wheat war to meet foreign competition? If that is what our foreign competitors want, they will get it. But, surely, Mr. Speaker, this government does not expect our farmers to carry the burden of that war. Our farmers need to be backed up by the resources of the whole nation. The set back they received when the bottom dropped out of the I.G.A. was bad enough.
But it seems that the government and this country's transport industry are incapable of organizing the movement of grain to ensure even a five-bushel quota by the end of July. I may add that this five-bushel quota is the lowest in our history. May I draw to the attention of the house an instance when the minister, unknowingly misled the house? On July 3, in reply to a question raised in this house, the minister read a telegram from the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board, as reported at page 10784 of Hansard. I do not think I will be taking this statement out of context if I quote from the middle of the paragraph. It had to do with the grain movement. The telegram read in part:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Would further advise that both railways currently have a very substantial number of cars under load to lakehead and Pacific coast-
This is true.
-and are spotting cars for additional loads each week to the full unload capacity of the terminals.
On July 1, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool issued one of the strongest statements I have ever seen
Wheat Export Prices
from a president of that organization. He reported 10 million bushels in their terminals at the lakehead. He reported that, in order to handle their expected export or unload shipments into ships, plus filling that space, their grain company would require 11,000 box cars of grain. They would require a minimum of 440 cars a day to unload. But at that time they were unloading exactly half that number, yet the Commissioner of the Wheat Board states in his telegram that the terminals were being supplied with cars to their maximum unload capacity. That was not true then, Mr. Speaker, and is not true now.
The minister knows what kind of railway equipment is required to have a grain movement that will complete the delivery of the five-bushel quota. We all know the number of cars required. What we want to know is, are they being supplied? A few days ago, in a telephone conversation with people in the grain trade and the transportation business, we were talking about the unload capacity of the terminals. At the lakehead, on July 9, there were 3,600 carloads of grain, give or take 50 or 100. I cannot vouch for the exact figure, but that is very close. There were 3,600 carloads of grain waiting to be unloaded. Of that number, only 414 were for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminals. The Saskatchewan Pool terminals, going full blast six days a week, three shifts a day, can unload over 600 cars a day. In order to fill up the space they have to handle their outgoing shipments, as well as to properly utilize a maximum staff, on overtime, going six days a week, they would require 1,200 cars.
The same situation occurred at Vancouver. One day this month they ran out of cars to unload. They worked half a day and sent the workers home. This kind of record for the grain movement indicates incompetence on the part of the government and the railroads, Mr. Speaker; there is no other way to describe it.
While half the shipping points in the three prairie provinces are all on three or four-bushel quotas, the minister is still too willing and ready to accept the assurances of the railroads that they are co-operating. Of course, they have a lot of cars for the grain movement. What else is new? I have some questions which I wish to address to the minister. I hope the minister will read a statement on motions tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest. As of now, what number of railway cars are in the grain movement? What number are required to complete the delivery of the five-bushel quota? I am sure that, as

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
of now, this figure is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 cars. The minister can get the exact figure.
What number of cars, additional to those now in the grain movement, are required from the railways between now and July 31 to complete delivery of the five-bushel quota? This could do wonders for the cash income position of the farmers. What additional number have already been supplied, compared to the number in the grain movement on July 1 ?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What action have the government and the Canadian Wheat Board taken to ensure that the terminal facilities of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool at both the lakehead and Vancouver are, in fact, being utilized to full unload capacity? Will the minister advise whether the grain companies have been authorized to buy grain after July 31? If not, will they be?
Will the minister advise if the crop year will be extended? Will the government authorize the Canadian Wheat Board to complete the purchase of a five bushel quota from farmers? They can deliver it any time in August, September, or whenever required. Will the minister discuss with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners the possibility of allowing offsite and offtrack storage, including the piling of wheat on the ground? Will the minister assure the Canadian Wheat Board that if there are any losses incurred as a result of this kind of handling, the tab will be picked up by the government of Canada? In that way, the minister will get the five-bushel quota delivered.
Will the minister discuss with the railways the possibility of using different kinds of railway equipment? I made a trip to the United States, through North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin, a few weeks ago. I stopped in a number of rural communities to inspect their country elevators. They are not only using box cars, they are using gondola cars. At one point they had even boarded up stock cars, filling them with grain or corn. At present 
there are several hundred gondola cars, which hold almost 2,000 bushels of grain each, and which are normally used for hauling of potash, sitting idle in gravel pits and side tracks. Will the minister ask the railways to use their imagination in order to turn this and other kinds of equipment into grain moving equipment?
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) mentioned the situation in Peace River. You can go anywhere in the prairie provinces and see the same thing. We have found a consistent pattern of lack of co-operation by the railways, lack of imagination by the government, refusal by the government to authorize the Wheat Board to take extraordinary measures, because they know how to do the job. What they need from the government is authority and money.
I wish to repeat to the minister one of my earlier sentences. Surely, the minister will agree it is socially desirable to have the maximum number of people possible on the land on economic units. We do not want to hear this nonsense about less farmers. We need a government which will put the resources of the entire nation behind an industry that is basic to our whole economy. The ramifications of dropping farm income will hit the constituency of every single member in this house. Any member who does not believe that is under a great disillusion.
The ramifications of the drop in farm income over the past year and succeeding year are being felt by the farm implement industry, automobile industry, steel industry, transportation industry, fertilizer industry, building industry and lumber industry. Even the fishing industry will suffer. This is not proper. This is not civilized. It is not even good business. That phrase should appeal to hon. members across the way.
A basic industry should not be in this kind of financial condition. All we are asking the government to do is to come up with proposals, both short and long-term. We may criticize some, but we will undoubtedly support some. We may make alternative suggestions. We in this party, as well as farm organizations, have pleaded with the minister. The minister has yet to mention the latest submission from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Surely, they must have some knowledge of the subject. Proposals have been made to the minister week after week and month after month by farmers' unions, but we have yet to have any definite response
July 21. 1969



from the government as to whether they will accept any of these proposals.
If the government is not going to accept the proposals what are they going to do on their own initiative? After the experience of the Prime Minister last week, I hope the government will now wake up and bring about some positive action, if not on what the opposition parties have mentioned then on the proposals of the people engaged in the farm industry, or their own, if they have any. We have waited, and we do not want to wait much longer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I be allowed to say, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of the things the member mentioned are already being done. Potash cars are being used and cars are being rented from the United States. Also, with respect to the Wheat Board using money available for temporary wheat storage. I would not like to leave the impression that what the hon. member suggests is not already, in part at least, being done.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The minister has already taken part in the debate.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: I should
like to say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I notice the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from this most important debate. There may be some slight excuse for the Prime Minister because he has been looking into this matter personally. The Minister of Agriculture cannot be excused. I have before me an extract from Throop's Scrapbook at page 112. The heading is Political Humour. Mr. R. B. Hanson having interrupted Mr. C. G. Power, Mr. Power is reported to have said:
The honourable member had better not talk so much or they will make him a minister and keep him quieter.
That is what I think about the Minister of Agriculture. He should be here. This is an agricultural matter. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) should be complimented in one sense, and I shall have more to say about that later. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) dealt particularly with subsidies as a western member. What he said was new to me and I come from a little farther west than he does. I compliment the Prime Minister on his visit
Wheat Export Prices
because he conceded there was a problem in western Canada relating directly to the wheat situation. This is what we are talking about.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It took him a long time to find out.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes, as my hon. friend says, it took him a long time to find out. It certainly did, but at least he came to that opinion. He found out there was a problem. During his visit he said there would be no handouts. I take it that that means subsidies. That is what my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre said.
I should like to refer to the 1968-69 estimates in respect of subsidies paid by the Canadian government. Quoting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) page 3474 of Hansard, the 1968-69 subsidies amount to $415 million. Running down the page one can see that the quality premium on high grade hogs and lamb carcasses amounted to $110 million. Freight assistance on western feed grain totalled $21 million. The payment under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was $15 million. Payments in connection with the movement of coal were $35 million. The carrying cost of temporary wheat reserves totalled $29 million. Subventions in respect of eastern coal were $2 million. Payments to the railway companies under the Maritime Freight Rates Act were $14 million. Payments to the railways under the provisions of the National Transportation Act were $127 million. Steamship subventions for coastal services amounted to $12 million. The trading loss on the agricultural products account and the agricultural stabilization account were $113 million. Other subsidies amounted to $11 million. The only one I can see here which would appear to relate directly to what we are talking about, western wheat, is the freight subsidy on western feed grain. In reality, this subsidy helps other parts of the country as well.
My arithmetic, as well as my English, are not too good, but according to my arithmetic the goverment is paying $386 million in subsidies today. So I would ask the hon member, through you, Mr. Speaker, what is all the talk about helping the western grain farmers by way of subsidies. I have not even mentioned the $80 million given away to the automobile industry. I do not know whether it is permissible to mention that in this debate, but it might be. I complimented the Prime Minister for having found a problem in the west. Some people on his side of the house do not agree.

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
He says the problem arises because there is overproduction of wheat and the farmers should not grow so much. I have been here for some time and was here when the Liberal party was in opposition. At that time they were saying the same thing. They ridiculed a minister of that government who said, "Grow more; we will sell it". Today, they are saying, "Do not grow it; we cannot sell it". There is a point here. Wheat boards and brokers cannot sell to governments, but governments can sell to governments. I should like to say more about this later in my speech. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.

At six o'clock, the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Just before I called it six o'clock I referred to the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I see he is present now, so perhaps I should repeat what I said. Earlier I complimented the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his visit to the west, as a result of which he found there was a problem there. I hope you will forgive me for the time I am taking at this moment in reference to the Minister of Agriculture Mr. Speaker, who is my neighbour. Perhaps I could call him my friend. He may want to hear what I had to say earlier, in order that he might reply.
I recall the time when the minister had a great deal to say about the government, and I recall the time when he joined that government. In looking through some scrapbooks today I was reminded a little bit of the Minister of Agriculture. I have in mind particularly Throop's scrapbook at page 112. Mr. R. B. Hanson having interrupted Mr. C. G. Power, Mr. Power is reported as having said:
The hon. member had better not talk so much or they will make him a minister and keep him quieter.
I think that is what has happened to our Minister of Agriculture.
I note that the Prime Minister is not in is seat at this particular moment. How in the name of heaven can we resolve an important debate like this when the house is adjourned

for a specific purpose and the ministers responsible are not here? This whole matter also involves the rule question, but perhaps we should go into that on another day.
When the Prime Minister was out west he expressed the conclusion that there would be no handouts to people with assets of $100,000. I think the press was very kind to the Prime Minister. At one time he said they were not, but I think on his recent visit both writers and broadcasters were reasonable. In spite of the Prime Minister's visit, and the moon trip, the press paid particular attention to a particular problem in Canada. Everyone admitted there was a problem. The Prime Minister said that he could see the problem. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, and the other ministers of the Cabinet, what they consider to be assets of $100,000 in today's economic situation and with today's interest rates.
The present government must accept the responsibility for the high interest rates which now prevail. The Minister of Agriculture is from the same part of the country in which I live and knows full well that interest rates average about 15 per cent, having regard to assets of $100,000. Farmers have to pay anywhere between 8 per cent and 10 per cent on bank loans, and higher rates on borrowings from other sources. Anyone who is operating a wheat ranch, if you would like to call it that, is paying an average of 15 per cent interest on financing.
I pointed out earlier in respect of subsidies that only $29 million of $415 million in Canadian subsidies is being paid to the Canadian wheat grower. This means that over $380 million is being paid in subsidies to people other than wheat growers. Let me bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Prime Minister are listening to what is being said. It has been suggested that the government does not subsidize people with assets of $100,000 or more, but this government obviously has been subsidizing other industries, including the gold mining industry and the railway companies, to say nothing of the C.B.C. and other Crown corporations. These are virtually monopolies, not prime producers.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is now here and I should like to deal with another subject before I conclude. This minister who has direct responsibility for this subject was recently in Washington. Was the Minister of Agriculture with him at that time?
July 21, 1969


Mr, Pepin:: Yes, he was.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Was the Prime Minister with him? The answer is no. I remember an occasion when I spoke in this house when the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for this problem were both in Washington. They conferred with the President of the United States. In the first instance they asked him, "are we friends and allies or are we enemies?" I hope both the ministers realized this. The President of the United States said, "Of course, we are friends. What do you have in mind?" But the matter of wheat was never brought up. It seems to me this is a question of management. They went on from there, reminding the United States that we are their best customer and their best supplier. In other words, they want our iron ore, our oil, our gas, our water, and even our air space as well as refuelling stations. Is that not a bargaining position? What did our government do when they were in that bargaining position? They never mentioned one of those points. Let the minister tell us, I would be glad to hear him.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke to Mr. Nixon on that subject.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: You just said the Prime Minister was not at that meeting.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was in Washington three times last month and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was there on a couple of occasions.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: That is beside the point. I was talking about the last wheat agreement. The minister says he was there three times. He only needed to be there once.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You asked a question, I answered it.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: That was not the question. You said you were there three times. I asked if the Minister of Agriculture was there and if the Prime Minister was there. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said yes.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: You said you were there three times. Probably at one of the three meetings the three of you were there but, I ask, who were your advisers on the wheat agreement?
Wheat Export Prices


Jean-Luc Pepin: In Washington? The Canadian Wheat Board, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. They were all represented there.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: That is exactly what I thought. The Wheat Board has no authority to deal with a government. Only the government can deal with another government. I say this loud and clear to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that the heads of the wheat boards are very selfish people who are interested only in storage, not in handling and selling. I refer particularly to the Saskatchewan farm union, which almost disgraced this whole country at their meeting with the Prime Minister. I am very happy that, in my constituency, he was treated with courtesy and dignity as a Prime Minister should be. He understood that there was a problem out there, but his ministers and his advisers did not.
I should like to ask one more question. How much money has the government supplied to the grain council as of June 1?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Department of Agriculture is providing $50,000 and my department is providing $50,000 this year.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: My information is that it is $2,500, not even enough to hire a secretary.


Mr. Olson:: You need some better
information.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I am not so sure. I will call Paul Martin. He has a good bureau of statistics. This is the information I have as of June 1. It is not even enough money to hire a secretary. How do they expect that council to work? Who are the members of that council? This reminds me of a remark a friend of mine, formerly a member of the house, once made, that you might just as well put a bunch of weasels in charge of a hen house. The reference was the way this government managed our business.
They tell us to sit here in the house while they go across the country telling the farmers not to raise wheat. This takes me back ten years. I remember when the Liberals were on our side and we were on their side of the house. At that time they said exactly the same thing. I remember when the minister of agriculture of that time said, "Don't listen to the opposition; grow wheat and we will sell it". What happened? We sold it, and they can do the same thing.

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You mean Alvin Hamilton?


Mr. Asselin:: He was a good minister.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: It can be done. All it requires is good management. To say, in Canada or anywhere else in the world, "There is too much wheat; do not grow it" when there are millions starving and millions half starving just does not add up.
As I said a moment ago, if you deal with your allies and so-called friends properly, you will not have that problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret but there is no unanimous consent.


J. Michael Forrestall: Chopped down by the
minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In case the last remark was recorded in Hansard, may I say that the Minister of Agriculture did not chop anybody down.
I welcome the opportunity this evening to talk about the problem which we have in the wheat economy in particular, and in the cereal economy in western Canada generally, because I have just spent a few days in western Canada talking to farmers from many parts of that area where wheat and related products are an important base to their agricultural enterprises. I do not believe that a good purpose can be served at this time by reviewing the international situation and trying to analyze what should be done in those areas where we, as the government of Canada, only have the power to persuade, to discuss, and to try to influence representatives of other governments. I believe that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) adequately covered that in the debate earlier today. However, I believe that an additional explanation should be given of several measures, and of one measure above all others, that this government has taken to alleviate the situation with respect to cash flow through the grain economy in western Canada because of the restricted markets or the contracted markets as compared with a couple of years ago.
It seems to me that the most useful thing that we could do at this stage is. first of all,
iMr. Gundlock.1
to analyse the problem and see if we can agree on this before we try some of the so-called shotgun assistance programs that have been advocated by the opposition and by others as well. I think that all members in this house, even those who come from the grain growing areas in the prairies, will agree that the major problem today is the cash flow in the hands of those people who rely almost exclusively on the sale of wheat and other grains. It is not that they have no product to sell or that their assets have been reduced, bringing them down to the poverty line. The fact of the matter is rather that they have some desperate problems in some cases because the cash flow has been reduced substantially from what it was in 1964, 1965, 1966 and part of 1967. There is no argument about that so far as I am concerned.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Surely, the obvious answer to this problem is to substitute a program that will provide a significant flow of cash. I suggest the government has done this. There is one other kind of problem some farmers in western Canada are having, as well as those in other parts of the country. I refer to restricted net income, that is, income that is not at an acceptable level because of the so-called cost-price squeeze.
Let us get back to the other problem about which the opposition are complaining. I am not criticizing them for complaining, because it is a very real problem. I refer to the problem of the contraction and restriction of the cash flow necessary to meet commitments for operating, capital requirements and income on which to live. If this is the problem, we ought to institute a substitute program which would provide the cash flow required. I suggest we have done that. It seems to me-this was drawn to my attention rather forcibly during the last few days I spent in western Canada-that there is a misunderstanding, or at least a lack of understanding, of both the significance and the magnitude of the cash advances program that will become effective August 1, 1969.
Let me deal with acreage payments. There are 84 million acres on the permit books of western Canada. If we were to make an acreage payment of $1 an acre, or even $2 an acre, to most farmers in western Canada who are suffering severe problems in obtaining enough cash to meet their current operating requirements, it would not be enough. On the other hand, there are millions of acres of the 84 million involved in connection with which
July 21. 1969

the cash flow through the farmers' hands has not been reduced in 1969 but is, indeed, substantially higher than it has been in the past. This is mainly because a large part of the farmers' agricultural enterprise is based upon livestock, the prices of which have risen significantly in the last six or eight months. So if we are to be fair and honest in our analysis of the problem, making advances on the wheat farmers have in store is the way to provide them with an income. This refers to farmers who rely on wheat for their income.
Commencing August 1, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has already announced, there will be full reinstatement of the entitlement of every permit holder, producer if you like, to go to his elevator agent and obtain $1 a bushel, times the number of specified acres in his permit book, times six. This is regardless of whether or not he has been able to deliver sufficient wheat up to July 31 this year to retire the cash advance made during the 1968-69 crop year. Hon. gentlemen opposite, and perhaps farmers in western Canada, have the right to an explanation of what this means. It means that on August 1 and thereafter, the farmer will be able to go to his elevator agent and apply for a cash advance if he has grain on hand, which we assume he has. He will immediately get $6 per acre, times the acres on his permit book, up to a maximum of $6,000.


Stanley James Korchinski: Provided he has not had a loan.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: His having had an advance will not interfere with his entitlement for the new crop year. That is the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in June.


Stanley James Korchinski: You had better explain that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hon. gentlemen opposite should have listened to that statement and understood it.


Stanley James Korchinski: You had better explain it, because the press do not understand it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We carried out some calculations in this regard. If you subtract the acres in excess of 1,000 that are in the permit books, you arrive at 472 million acres. If every farmer in western Canada had the necessary amount of wheat and applied for a payment of $1 a bushel on his wheat, there is the potential of injecting $472 million into the
Wheat Export Prices
western economy. That program is already under way. Of course, every farmer will not have the necessary maximums of wheat; therefore, we have to scale the program down somewhat. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in Lethbridge last Saturday that the program would probably amount to something in the order of $250 million.


Mr. Bigg:: In two years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In one year. In fact, it could happen in 90 days. The program is already under way and will be effective in nine or ten days, I believe. Two hundred and fifty million dollars is a fairly substantial amount to inject into the economy during the next two or three months. Indeed, it will be available on August 1. However, I am realist enough to know that all the qualifications needed by a farmer to make application will not be present at that point in time. I suggest that after they harvest their 1969 crop and have wheat on hand, they will be able to qualify. That is a fairly realistic amount of money. As I say, it is somewhere between $250 million and $300 million. This amount will be injected into the western economy and will assist in the grain harvest this fall.
I ask members of the opposition to compare this with the references made to past glories when $1 an acre, up to 200 acres, was injected into the economy. This program gives five times as much. There is one other thing that should be made very clear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the minister will permit a question if he has time at the end of his remarks. Let us be very clear on one point. Arguments have been put forward that farmers do not wish to go into debt in order to take advantage of the cash advance. There is no debt, in terms of money, which has to be repaid until a farmer has been given an opportunity to deliver his grain to the elevator, and is unable to do so. Then, of course, it becomes a debt and is repayable in cash; that is, if he is given an opportunity to deliver and does not do so. That is the only qualification. In the meantime, there is no interest on the advance; the carrying charges are paid by the government of Canada through the Canadian Wheat Board. Let there not be any confusion about its being the farmer's own money in this respect.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the minister that any

July 21, 1989
Wheat Export Prices
charges due the wheat board are paid by the farmer and not by the government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member do a little more homework. I remind him that the treasury of Canada pays the interest on cash advances.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister was not talking about storage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. That is not a point of order.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The point I am trying to make is that the cash advances on wheat stored on farms are certainly the best possible substitute for actually being able to deliver grain to the elevators.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Mackenzie is rising on a point of order.


Stanley James Korchinski: The Minister of Agriculture stated that the treasury of Canada picks up the interest rate. I think the minister himself should be aware that there is a reserve fund within the Wheat Board itself-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: -and a portion of this is transferred-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
That is not a point of order.


Mr. Boulanger:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Mercier on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. Although the debate in progress was initiated by the leader of the socialist party across the aisle, I should like the house to note that not a single member of that party is presently in the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, so there is no confusion let me review in detail the exact procedure that a farmer must follow to obtain the benefits of the program. On August 1, or on any date thereafter during the crop year 1969-70, a farmer may go to his local elevator agent and apply for a cash advance on grain [Mr. Gundlock.)
stored on the farm up to six bushels multiplied by the specified number of acres in his permit book. In line with the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, any carryover from the 1968-69 crop year as far as cash advances are concerned will not be held against his entitlement unless the farmer is in default; and the only way he can be in default is if he has had an opportunity to deliver grain but has not done so.
Let it also be clear that the farmer must sign a declaration that he does have that amount of grain on which he receives advance payment stored on the farm. The total acreage appearing in the permit books is in the region of 84 million. Multiplied by six, the total is something over 500 million bushels. There must be subtracted from this total that number of acres over 1,000 that appears in each permit book. This reduces the figure to 472 million acres, and it is these 472 million acres on which acreage payments may be made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have said that twice.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will say it a dozen times more until people both here and in western Canada understand it. This is the entitlement as of August 1. I am certain that something in the neighbourhood of $250 million, perhaps $300 million, will be paid out during the next 90 days under this program, unless, of course, there is a significant increase in the volume of grain that passes through the elevator system.
Again, I suggest that an analysis of the situation will lead most people to conclude that the restricted market is the problem here. I contend there is no more fair, feasible or just way of dealing with this transitional problem, as we hope it will be, than by providing farmers with cash whether or not they are able to deliver their grain, and this is exactly what is happening under the program I have outlined.
I should like to answer one or two further questions that were raised. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) stated that a former minister of agriculture had told the farmers: "You grow the wheat and we'll sell it". The only minister I can recall saying that was the former member for Qu'Appelle, who at one time was Minister of Agriculture, and the house knows what happened to him. I should think that if a Minister of Agriculture told the farmers that they could indiscriminately grow large volumes of farm produce which he would undertake to sell, he would
July 21. 1969

be making an irresponsible statement. I think the former member's greatest claim to fame-
I do not want to abuse him because the electors took care of him-was when he arrived in Hong Kong three days after a big wheat deal was signed in order to make the announcement.


Martial Asselin: That was when the farmers were happy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Another matter that was raised was this. It has been said a number of times that farms are being foreclosed, or sold at below current values, and so on. I should like to put on record some statistics produced by the Farm Credit Corporation, which is by far the largest lender of funds to farmers on the prairies, indeed to farmers all over the country.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to give unanimous consent and pay the minister that courtesy that he would not pay the hon. member for Lethbridge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent for the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. There is one matter I should mention that is of interest to members on both sides of the house. Experience has shown that even in the serious circumstances that are presently existing in western provinces there is a wide range between the amount and proportion of income lost and the financial circumstances of individual farmers. For example, this is borne out by the fact that in spite of current marketing problems at least 75 per cent of the prairie farmers-I am sorry I cannot be more precise than that-holding mortgages from the Farm Credit Corporation met their May 1 commitments within one month of the due date.
Another important factor is that of the 25 per cent who did not manage to meet their payments within this period, over half had arrears outstanding from previous years. Therefore, it must be pointed out that this particular problem is not quite as serious as some people have indicated.
In conclusion, may I say that other programs may have to be instituted in order to 2S1S0-722
Wheat Export Prices
deal with farmers facing serious income problems that are not necessarily directly related to restricted opportunities for marketing grain. The Prime Minister did make mention of this particular aspect, and we are working on the problem. But let me be fair on this question of cash flow. It seems to me that the greatest amount of financial assistance that can be provided to those who need it the most will flow from the program that will come into effect on August 1. In my view this program is both large and significant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Athabasca.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, before the next speaker commences his remarks may I ask the minister one question. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) introduced the cash advance legislation in 1957, did the minister speak about that legislation with the approval that he gave it tonight? The hon. member was at that time a Social Credit member of the opposition and I ask whether he voted for it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember all the speeches I made on that occasion but I think as a matter of principle I supported that legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must tell the minister that our memories are better than that of the minister. I ask him to check on how he voted on that occasion.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I could check on that. I should also advise the hon. member that we have substantially improved the legislation since then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not listen to any more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the hon. member for Mackenzie rising on a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: No, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to have the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Chair was about to recognize the hon. member for Pembina, but recognized the hon. member for Mackenzie temporarily, being under the impression that the hon. member was about to ask a question. The hon. member for Pembina has the floor.

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is here to hear my remarks. I have waited some time for this opportunity. The people in my part of the country think agriculture is of prime importance. Having been in office for one year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has at last discovered western Canada, and we are very pleased.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am not asking a question but making a speech and I would appreciate it if hon. members on the government side allow me to continue.
As I said, having been in office for one year, the Prime Minister has discovered western Canada, and we are pleased. Unfortunately, he speaks first and thinks later, as is his custom. His first reaction on discovering western Canada, and being told the government should consider western farmers, was to say that the government could do nothing. That is exactly what I expected him to say, and I am not disappointed. I did not expect this government to aid western farmers. The Speech from the Throne contains the warning that this government will do little, if anything, for the farmers of Canada. The speech of September 12, 1968, shows that the western farmer can expect little help.
Because the government established the Grains Council everybody hoped western Canada would benefit. I have been patient in my hope that western agriculture would be aided-notwithstanding this administration's record of not helping farmers. Of course, nothing happened. It has been most difficult to get questions answered in the house. When we have received answers they have been offhand answers or non-answers, so to speak. No sooner had we completed the throne speech debate than I drew to the minister's attention serious difficulties in western Canada involving damp grain. Western farmers suffered because their grain was damp. Any grain that had been harvested had not been dried, and any government action had come too late. There was too little of it, and what there was came too late. And what happened, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister went to western Canada and said, "The government can do nothing more." Well, the government could do much more; the Minister of Agriculture could do a tremendous amount of good, particularly on the prairies. As I say, I am not disappointed in what has happened. I am a westerner and for one year I waited patiently for the government to act. For one
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
year I hoped that the government would answer my questions which touch intimately the bread and butter of thousands and thousands of people.
Of course, nothing has been done because, since 1963, this government has pursued an entirely wrong course in Canadian agriculture from coast to coast. They wanted farms to grow bigger and bigger, and they wanted small farmers to get out of farming. The government boasts about the bigness of all sorts of farm loans. Not long ago the Minister of Agriculture spent half an hour telling us how many millions of dollars had been advanced to the farmers of Canada. I hope he is not serious when he says that he is injecting money into the farm economy, because how in the world can you inject money into the farm economy when farmers have to repay debts. In some cases it is impossible for farmers to pay back money they have borrowed. Farmers do not want to borrow; I know perfectly well they want to stand on their own feet.
This government, Mr. Speaker, wants to nationalize all land in Canada. That is its policy. That is why it wants proposed rule 75c, and I shall remain in Ottawa all summer to make sure that the rule is not adopted. The government wants to nationalize all the farms of western Canada, and I for one will not permit it to do so. I do not think the people of western Canada will be bamboozled by an itinerant prime minister. Let him use his charisma in the chain stores of the nation. He may use his charisma on 13 year old girls and in the shopping centres, he may wear different flowers in his buttonhole each day, but I say to him the people of western Canada are tired of this. They are tired of the flower show; now, they want the grain show to begin.
If the Prime Minister has charisma, let him use it in Washington on his United States friends. Let him stop quoting Mao and begin quoting Mr. Nixon. The United States will buy our products; that country is competing with us in world markets. It is Mr. Nixon who will help us to set up a food bank, do research, make better use of our resources and, in the end, help us to sell our grain. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? I say it because in this world hundreds of millions of people go to bed every night hungry and Canada and the United States will help to feed them. The manner of our payment will have to be settled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
July 21. 19S9

In this government, ministers do not know what their colleagues are doing. Our Indian policy was introduced by our fine young Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), but it seems his colleagues did not know anything about it or they would have not have made their faux pas.
It is said there is too much wheat in the world. Is there, Mr. Speaker? Where? Are there not 700 million or 800 million people in the world who go to bed hungry every night? Are we to deny them food when we have it? Is that how the just society behaves? I say to the members of the cabinet that they are not world statesmen because they are not big enough to be Canadian statesmen. If they cannot put Canadian agriculture on its feet, how do they expect to participate in international affairs and become leaders there. Before venturing into the international field our politicians had better make sure that the hungry of Canada are fed and that the underprivileged of Canada have better living conditions.
If the Prime Minister says that we cannot have a two price system for grain because it will mean that a loaf of bread in this country will cost five cents more, I say that we should subsidize that bread. For goodness sake, do not take it out of the farmer's pocket. I was impressed when I heard the Minister of Agriculture tell us that in the next 90 days about $250 million is to be injected into western agriculture. What does he mean when he says "injected"?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The acreage payment was a subsidy needed by marginal farmers on small farms in Canada. It was the greatest boon to the small, marginal farmer that western Canada ever received. The name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is still a byword in western Canada. Apart from anything else he may have done in his political career before or since that time, a great deal can be attributed to the statesman-like idea of giving money to the people who needed it most.
The policy of this government in the field of agriculture has been one and the same, to give more money to those who need it least. In this session of 1968-69, three promises were made with respect to agriculture. These were made back on September 12. There was the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which provided bigger loans to big farmers but no 29180-722J
Wheat Export Prices
help to the little man, and the Farm Credit Act, which provided bigger loans to big farmers. Then, there was the crowning act of all, the Farm Machinery Act.
The farmers in my area have to sell their wheat now, if they have any, or their cattle now, if they have any, because the price of farm machinery is a crushing burden, particularly when they have to borrow money at 8, 9, 10 or 12 per cent. Only owners of large farms are able to borrow money for farm machinery or farmers who belong to a farm machinery syndicate. Even if you smell socialistic, you can get money. There will be bigger and better farms until the all-knowing, all-powerful Liberal government of Canada owns every acre of land. This is their style of socialism.
I have a Bible in my hand, not written by Moses, but by no less a man than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I commend it to hon. members. The name of the book is "Federalism in Canada". In this book he says there is only one answer, deep socialism, and you will take it or we will ram it down your throat. Participatory government? By whom? For whom? By Liberals for Liberals. That is the new name of the socialistic government in Canada.
I am surprised because I believe there is a great deal of good in Liberalism, the Liberalism I was raised on and which is found in school books. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Gladstone of England are great names in Liberalism. It was this dream of Liberalism which swept across Canada on June 25, 1968 when people said, Laurier has come again. They did not know they were being sold a pig-in-the-poke. They did not know they were being sold a negative program.
If hon. members do not think this program is negative, let them pick up any article written by this man. They will find, statements to the effect, I am not going to say this; I am not going to say that, and I am not going to not know they were being sold a pig-in-a-book, he has never told us what he is going to say. Would you like to hear some of it


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This is hate literature. I will read it.


An hon. Member:: Read the book.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: My Liberal friends say, "Read the book". On page 164 of "Federalism and the French Canadians", this is the kind of Canadian Liberalism he states will unite

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
Canada. I quote from the second paragraph on this page:
So the Anglo-Canadians built themselves an illusion of it by fencing off the French Canadians in their Quebec ghetto and then nibbling at its constitutional powers and carrying them oil bit by bit to Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am going to read on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that the book he is reading from should have some relation to the actual debate on wheat.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It has, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is not solving the wheat problem.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The wheat problem cannot be solved until we know what this government is going to do.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Go back to the book.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The wheat problem cannot be solved because it is tied in with the economic problem. If government members have not read this book, their Bible, they are poor Liberals. This book was written and printed in the spring of 1968. It is not ancient history. You should know about it. If you have not read it, you should.
There is only man in the Liberal Party who admits having had no knowledge of what the book contains, and that is the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). He had the courage to leave the cabinet.
The negativism in the whole approach to the wheat problem in Canada is sickening. The Prime Minister went out west. He thought all he had to do was smile, change his suit, smell his rose and all would be well. The people of western Canada are not that easily fooled. They want to pay their bills. They want to support their children. Many owners of small farms in western Canada are not satisfied to sell out to owners of larger farms, no matter what the deal is. A great many of them are not content to go deeper into debt, even though for 18 months they do not have to pay on the money that is going to be injected into their economy. They want to sell their grain for cash. They know their taxes will go up. Somebody has to borrow the money at 10 per cent to pay the carrying charges. This is only a stop-gap measure.
We were told acreage payments were only stop-gaps. The small marginal farmer in
fMr. Bigg.J
Canada needs a little help when the government will not sell his products at reasonable prices so that he can stay on his own land. No matter what my socialistic friends on the left think of this socialistic government, we in this party are thoroughly fed up with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What is the answer? I think the acreage payment is worth while. The three acreage payments brought in by the Diefen-baker government amounted to a total of $120 million. This is less money than we wrote off to the city of Montreal to help pay for Expo. I do not begrudge paying the bills of Expo, but what is fair for Paul is fair for Peter. In this case it is not Pierre, but Peter out west who needs the help. He needs it badly. When you help the farmer out west, it is reflected here.
There are places in western Canada full of farm machinery, most of which was made in eastern Canada. The backlash has not hit the east yet. It is all very well to say, never mind them; they are a long piece away. Some day we will find the corporations in Ontario and Quebec will not be able to pay the fat dividends they have paid for the last two or three years.
The western farmer is the best spender in Canada when he has the money. He can only spend it once. If he has to borrow money, someone has to pay the interest. The minister is only fooling himself when he speaks of injecting $250 million into the economy. He knows perfectly well he is doing no such thing. He is lending money, at the expense of the people of Canada, to enable an economy which is sagging badly to continue. There is much that can be done. I would suggest some things if I had time, but I will just make one suggestion now.
More research should be done with regard to the uses of wheat. A day or two ago I heard of some research that had been carried out with regard to the use of fish. The fish are being dessicated, mixed with cereal products and sold or given away under our international give-away program to the hungry people of this world. This product is heavy in protein value. Wheat is the finest protein grain in the world.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It can be ground up with fish from the maritimes and in that way two problems can be solved. It can be ground and mixed up with codfish and if you do not like codfish,
July 21, 1969

then science can look after that. The taste of the fish can be taken away and it can be made to taste like wheat or pizza or anything you like. There are 40 Ph.D.'s in the Department of Agriculture. What are they doing except emulating the Prime Minister by saying, we cannot do anything about it. Such attitudes do not help one bit in this situation. If there is nothing the government can do about it, then may I say that I, myself, could do a great deal more than the whole tribe over there put together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We do not want a dictatorship in this country, but if we did I would volunteer for the job because I have more brains in my little finger than the people over there have in all their heads put together. I have given them more ideas in the last five minutes than they have had in the last year. I say, give us some reason to believe in you; give us some morale so we can tell our people the Parliament of Canada likes them and wants to do something for them. But let me say that when the government says it cannot do anything, the just society will never be built on that.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I have the opportunity to agree with the editorial department of the Calgary Herald, but I should like to take my text for this evening from an editorial in that distinguished Conservative newspaper for Saturday, July 19. The editorial entitled "Don't Pretend" reads:
It would be wonderful if oratory could sell Canada's wheat.
Then something worth while might be expected to result from the special debate to be held next week in the House of Commons on the wheat crisis.
But it's no use pretending that rousing words and rolling phrases are going to do the trick. That has been tried countless times before and didn't work. The pages of Hansard that have been filled through the years with words about Western Canada's wheat problems could well command a small fortune as scrap paper.
Unfortunately, the clairvoyance of that newspaper in discerning that a debate would be held here this week was not shared by members of the opposition. Because this party, through its co-operation and concern, permitted the debate to commence early, the opposition speakers were not prepared at all. They simply were not ready and as a result dusted off old speeches and were undeterred by facts relating to what is developing in the world. Furthermore, they have permitted this debate to proceed without the
Wheat Export Prices
hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), St. John the Baptist of the wheat farming people. The hon. member who spoke no less than eight times on the farm credit bill, no less than five times on the farm improvement loans bill, once on the farm machinery syndicates credit bill and four times on the prairie farm advance payments bill, has not been given an opportunity to participate in this debate. I think this is a gross unfairness to him.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) saw nothing wrong with assistance for farmers short of cash, regardless of their substantial assets. Again, if I may, I should like to refer to the editorial in the Calgary Herald, and I agree with it:
It is hard for people to understand why an industry such as wheat farming cannot withstand the economic rigors of one or two bad years like other industries without demanding government hand-outs.
Prime Minister Trudeau said it is hard for a fisherman earning only $2,000 a year to understand why a farmer with land and equipment worth $100,000 should consider himself eligible for government assistance. It is hard to understand because it simply cannot be justified.
The Leader of the Opposition sees nothing wrong with this. I think the perspicacity of the Leader of the Opposition is destined to assure him in his present position at least until he is replaced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) or the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). The Leader of the Opposition does not accept that conditions in the grain industry are the result of international circumstances beyond the control of the Canadian government. With respect I would suggest that the following would summarize the facts of the case.
The last three years have seen excellent harvests throughout the world, mainly as a result of favourable climatic conditions. In each of these three years, world production was higher than in any preceding year in history. Much of this increased production occurred in importing countries whose requirements of wheat were thus increasingly met from domestic supplies. As a result, imports of wheat declined and world trade dropped in the last four years. In 1965-66 world trade totalled 2.3 billion bushels. In the most recent crop year, shipments of wheat were less than 1.7 billion bushels, a reduction of more than 25 per cent.
The drop in world trade in wheat has been matched by an increment in stocks held by the five major exporting countries. On June

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
30, 1969 these stocks had reached a record level of 2.4 billion bushels. At the conclusion of the Kennedy Round negotiations in the spring of 1967, stocks amounted to only 1.4 billion bushels. In the meantime Canada has maintained its share of the export market at about 20 per cent. Again, gentlemen, I should like to refer to the editorial with which I started:
The best that can be hoped from next week's debate is that it might produce some ideas to assist the government. If so, surely it will be only too glad to accept them.
Unfortunately, the debate may be short on ideas and long on politics.
No amount of talking should be allowed to conceal some important facts. One is that the Canadian government did not create the wheat surplus; it is world-wide. Another is that farmers were warned repeatedly during the bumper-sale years of this decade that they could not depend on Communist countries as steady customers. The big sales to the Soviet Union and China came about because of droughts and wheat-crop failures in those countries. Some of the fat profits from those years should have been used by wheat farmers to branch out into other lines of production.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was caught when the debate was sprung on him a little early. He did not have a single, solitary suggestion. However, this was not so in respect of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). His first suggestion was that we expand the power and authority of the Wheat Board by giving unlimited ability to enter into the price war, with no holds barred. Is that what Canada should do? Are we to take the leadership in this price war? He also wants to reverse the trend to urbanization. He wants to keep the people down on the farm and make sure that the taxpayers of Canada support those who want to stay on the farms. This is really a very progressive move and one, I suggest, we would hardly expect from a member of his party. The third suggestion was that we should accept foreign currency and invest in fertilizer plants. What would these foreign countries which would have these fertilizer plants do with the production they would have? Would they grow grain?
The Leader of the New Democratic party referred to the A.I.D. record and the Leader of the Opposition referred to the acreage payments. I think we might deal with both these at once. I should like to refer to the same O.E.C.D. figures referred to by the leader of the New Democratic party. They indicate that France is first with .95 per cent of IMr. Mahoney.]
its national income devoted to A.I.D., followed by Portugal with .77 per cent and Australia with .74 per cent. One might think it strange to inquire as to how much of France's foreign aid program is devoted to payments of notes due to its colonial empire, how much of that aid goes to north Africa? In the case of Portugal, one might question whether Mozambique or Angola have anything to do with this. In Australia we might think of the Polynesian empire and New Guinea colonies; possibly even the Vietnamese participation.
* (9:10 p.ra.)
The other countries which have any significant amount of foreign aid over that of Canada, are the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands. This brings us down to 6/100ths of one per cent of the national income over the Canadian contribution. In each case we are dealing with ex-imperial nations, and in each case I suspect strongly that the foreign aid programs are coloured very much by contributions to former colonies.
Le us look specifically at the aid program so far as Canadian grain is concerned. We could increase income by straight payments to farmers or we could increase it by moving wheat through food aid programs or through other subsidies. The opposition continues to refer to the three crop payments of $40 million each it paid to the farmers in 1958, 1960 and 1962, totalling $120 million. In those same years only $66 million worth of grain was moved out in foreign aid. I feel very strongly that farmers would be quite prepared and quite happy, indeed would prefer, to accept a government payment by way of foreign aid than receive subsidies. We also believe in moving wheat and we have done so with our foreign aid program on a scale almost four times as large as that of the previous government.
During the four crop years from 1958-59 through to 1961-62 the foreign aid expenditures in wheat by the Canadian government amounted to something over $66 million. In the most recently completed crop years these have amounted to $240 million, almost four times as much. The total amount of foreign aid, plus crop payment indulged in by the previous government, was about 25 per cent less than the total in foreign aid exports of grain by the present government.
The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) in the midst of a diatribe involving the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which quite frankly assumed almost pathological overtones at some points, suggested that the
July 21. 1969

barter system would be a good idea. This is another sort of progressive recommendation from one who avowedly admired the liberalism of Laurier and Gladstone. I am sure that he might have found the conservatism of disraeli and Macdonald somewhat radical even for him.
In any case, the barter system just does not work in respect of commodities as great and as important as wheat to Canada. We cannot possibly get involved in a barter system in respect of our grain or we immediately are going to start facing demands from some of our larger potential customers, and our larger customers in the past including Red China and so on, who are themselves short of cash, who will insist on dealing with us on barter terms when it comes to buying our grain. We must maintain the integrity of our marketing system.
None of this denies the fact that there is a real cash problem which has been well identified by the opposition, for which they are to be congratulated. It would seem from the speeches of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of agriculture (Mr. Olson) that these problems had indeed previously been identified and that many worth while steps had been taken to meet them. However, the cash shortage is there, and certainly some farmers are suffering very seriously.
I do not share the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition that all deserve help regardless of their assets. I do not really believe that we should indulge in this area in another program of universal assistance when we have disavowed such programs for the future in any case. We must provide cash for farmers who find themselves in real need because of the failure of the grain market. We must be selective in this provision and we should, if necessary, resort to a form of means test. I do not think there is much point in trying to solve the cash problem unless we can also try at the same time to solve the market problem.
One thing that the government might consider is the possibility of seeing whether there are not markets for No. 5 or No. 4 grain, which we are not in a position to sell. We could then let our assistance program take the form of paying all or part of the spread between the price we can get for grain of those grades and the value or the price of the actual grades delivered. In this way we might solve both cash and market problems. The types of advances being recommended on acreage payments and so on will leave us
Wheat Export Prices
next spring with the same problem we have today, intensified by whatever surplus we might enjoy from this year's crop, and it looks as though it is going to be a pretty good one.
The two price system has been advocated. Roughly speaking we consume for domestic purposes about 10 per cent of what we have grown in the last few years. The two price system involves fundamentally a tax on the consumer to support the producer in this area. Once this idea is introduced, it will be a simple matter to sit here regularly in this House of Commons listening to the extent of the grain farmers plight and determining just how much the city and town dwellers are going to be taxed by way of extra cost for their bread in order to make up this difference. I think the two price system is a very dangerous thing, and we should avoid it altogether if we can.
Certainly, the long range solution is diversification. This has been recognized by such eminent authorities as Premier Ross Thatcher and the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, a man who is at least regarded in some quarters as being an expert in this area. Certainly, a reduction of wheat acreage is absolutely essential.
I do not see that our economy can possibly support a U.S. type system under which we would be making continuous payments to maintain land out of production. I do not see why we cannot utilize the same sort of programs here that are utilized in the maritimes, and places where industry has fallen into distress, where relocation grants are given to people who are willing to change their vocation. It is questionable indeed that taxpayers should have to pay for something that farmers might well have done for themselves and which, in many cases, progressive farmers have in fact done. These are not miners or people employed in Cape Breton coal mines. These are basically self-employed businessmen, with wide discretion as to how they should handle their affairs. When they find themselves in some trouble we very definitely must give them assistance, but the programs that we advocate in this area must be selective; they ought not be universal.


Stanley James Korchinski: After listening to that last word of authority on this problem, I am somewhat taken aback. I felt that this was perhaps another Senator in the making. One of the suggestions he made was that there was a need for some sort of assistance to the western economy. Naturally, this would include the province of Alberta. The

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
hon. member suggested that we should be very selective. Does his reasoning also relate to old age security, which is paid to millionaires? Is that the type of reasoning he has in mind, and does this apply across the board? Is this Liberal policy that is being enunciated, because apparently the member has been selected as one of the spokesmen from the west.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) suggested that only 25 per cent of the loan payments were not made as of the date they were due. If he would look up the previous record, he would find that about a year ago only 6 per cent of the loans had not been repaid. There has been a great increase in unpaid loans. Let me say further that the irresponsible statements have been made to the effect that the former minister of agriculture said "You grow wheat and we will sell it". There could be no more irresponsible statement than the one that came from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he said, "We intend to sell one billion, three hundred million bushels in three years". Nothing of the sort came about. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) tried to explain to us why this goal could not be achieved now. He said this was a kind of goal, but this is not an election year.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce attempted to chastise the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for having made only one suggestion in his speech, that is for only advocating cash advances for the purpose of injecting money into the western economy in a hurry. Let me say that the only thing with which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) dealt in his speech was cash advances. If anyone can find anything else in his speech, apart from a lot of words, then let him stand up and say so. I think it is somewhat unfair of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of having dealt with only one subject in his speech.
Many suggestions were made from this side. I realize that I have only a limited amount of time at my disposal and therefore I should like to organize my comments somewhat. First, I wish to list some of the ways in which the government could inject money into the western economy, money which even the Prime Minister himself admits is needed there. After about three days of indoctrination, and after having seen for himself what

the situation was like, he was ready to admit there was a problem. If the meetings which we had in Saskatchewan with the members of the touring agricultural committee were not sufficient evidence, and if the representations to the government by various farming organizations were not sufficient proof for the Prime Minister, then I don't know what proof he needs. He was going to use the charm he possesses, Trudeaumania-mania it is, but not the type of mania he thought. He believed all he had to say was, "follow". They socked him right there, and he said, "whoa, there" instead of "follow".
The first thing I would suggest, regardless of what anybody else may say here is acreage payments. The Prime Minister asked, "why should we subsidize a rich farmer who possesses $100,000 worth of property?" It is all right provided there is a ceiling, and it is up to the government to select that ceiling. The point is to inject some money into the economy in the west. What the government does not realize is that it is not only the farmers who are broke; it is everybody down the line. The businessmen in the west have gone broke and so have the municipalities which have had to hold back plans for new roadways. The hospitals have had to hold back their projects. The people are sitting and wondering what kind of government we have. I regret to have to say this, Mr. Speaker, but-


An hon. Member:: Be careful, now.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am very careful. I say this because I heard it. People are saying that this government turns only one way. They spend $200 million on the city of Hull, and people are asking why the government does not spend $30 million in western Canada. I will make a suggestion as to how this could be done. The International Grains Arrangement price for wheat is $1,951. In recent days this price has gone down by ten cents to $1.85. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated that he sold only 305 million bushels. Is $30 million too much to spend on the three prairie provinces? Is this too much to ask of this government? Do we have to drive a tractor over the Prime Minister before he realizes that assistance is needed? What the government must realize is that these people do not want to act the way they did when the Prime Minister visited them. In the past they have not acted that way because there was no need for it.
I will speak about the Farm Credit Corporation now. In the last four or five years
July 21, 1969

almost $1,100 million has been borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation. I believe that at present the figure stands at $1,070 million. But the significant fact is that almost one third of that sum has been borrowed in Saskatchewan. The reason is that the people there are more desperate, as is obvious from the statistics. When the people of Saskatchewan did not give the Prime Minister the type of treatment he would have liked to have had, it was not because they are less kind than other Canadians but because they are more desperate. The Minister of Agriculture suggested that cash advances will help them. I say to him, let him come and make a few Liberal speeches in my constituency. I invite him to do so. Let him tell the farmers in my riding, who last year had dry crops and this year had frozen crops, how they can get a cash advance. What is he going to inject there? I know what he is going to inject.
We ask for the adoption of a two price system. It is too much to ask? What is all the talk about guaranteed income? Does it mean something or does it not? Is it or is it not part of the Liberal philosophy? Let the government adopt it if that is what they believe in. Let them go ahead and increase family allowances. It is the families with children that will eat the bread, so let us give them more. But do not deny assistance to those people who have been working hard. I do not think everyone realizes how much work farmers have to do. When you realize that they have borrowed to the hilt and worked their fingers to the bone, there is little enough reward. It was the Conservative government which increases the amount of available loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, but it was the Liberal government that increased the interest on the loans. There lies the difference. At one time the interest rate was 5 per cent. Now, when you go to a bank, you are told "I do not think I will renew your loan because you are a bad risk".
At one time the banker used to say to you, "you are a good risk. Any amount of loan you want is fine". This is not the case now. How can you sell your wheat? The credit is not there any longer. What should the government do? They should make arrangements with these banks, and this can be done, to make loans available at rates lower than they are at present. At one time the interest rate on a loan was 6 per cent, but later it went up to 12 per cent-even 15 per cent as my seat-mate has suggested. That is why there is a shortage of money in the west. No one can tell me that farmers do not need the money,
Wheat Export Prices
but the fact is that the banks have slowed down the granting of credit. These people will not add to the inflation any spiral. They are simply trying to regain credit facilities. They are trying to repay their notes at the bank so they may establish credit with which to carry on. As has been suggested, they will carry on because there is no more enterprising individual than the farmer.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: The government makes no effort to solve the problem, despite the banks' earnings being at the highest level on record.
I put those figures on record about six months ago and shall not repeat them now because my time is limited. The fact is that the banks have made a great deal of money from the farmer, because he is a continuing borrower. The government must realize that when the farmer goes to the bank, this kind of arrangement is made. What is regional development all about, if it is not to help those areas which are in need? If this is the kind of development we need, the government must institute a program to implement it.
I do not know what I have to do or say to convince the government of the seriousness of the problem. If it is necessary to get down on my hands and knees to do so, I will do it. Does the government realize how many farmers are broke? They are not able to buy groceries. The grocer who allowed them an advance for a month or two is no longer extending this privilege. The situation is extremely serious.
The government says that in three or four months time it will give the farmer a cash advance. I will arrange for the Minister of Agriculture to visit my constituency and explain the government's stand to my people, because an explanation is vitally necessary. I have tried to explain these things to my constituents. I ask the minister to persuade the government to do something to solve this problem and upgrade its image in the west.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) visited my area and knows the type of people I represent. They welcomed him. They spoke kindly of him and to him. Would he please appeal to the Prime Minister, on behalf of these people, to do something to solve the problem? We do not have surpluses. My area developed after the 1930's. There are in Canada depressed areas in provinces other than Quebec. My people cannot

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
understand assistance being concentrated in one area. It has been said that $125 million was written off in respect of Expo. This was great for Canada, but it did nothing for me or my constituents. It does not enable a family to go to the grocer and obtain a pound of coffee without paying for it. The farmers in my area cannot get their tractors out of the repair shops. Their business suddenly collapses, and some people wonder why. The banker says to him: If you cannot pay up, sell your tractor.
The government has tried to establish economic units. We thought we had economic units. If a farmer is not able to sell his grain, he does not have an economic unit. The Prime Minister has said that if the farmer does not have an economic unit the government will buy his land. Does this offer apply to a man who is unable to sell his grain?
There are on the other side of the house good Liberal backbenchers to whom constituents have opened their books and exposed their income tax returns. This is not an easy thing for people to do because their business .dealings are private, but it has been done. 1 appeal to the government: Let us not be wishy-washy. Let us not be silly about cash advances. There has to be an injection of money into areas of the country which are worse off than others.
I have never opposed anything I believed was good for the country. If a program has been necessary for the maritimes, I have suppported it. Let us not ignore the plight of the western farmer. Let us not delay taking action for political reasons, because later may be too late. If action is not taken now, Canada win lose its best farmers. This is a question of simple mathematics: if you have 1,000 acres under cultivation-this is a much greater acreage than the average farm-and a five-bushel quota, you produce 5,000 bushels, which if sold at $1.70 a bushel amounts to $8,500. One pays about $2 an acre in taxes, and at least $1,000 for fertilizers. The average farmer pays from $1,500 to $2,000 for fuel. If one obtained a loan of $15,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the interest at 5 per cent is $750, which for five years amounts to $3,750.
In addition, a farmer has to pay for repairs to machinery; he has to have enough money on which to live; he has to pay insurance premiums and many other things. The only way one can live on a farm at this time is to send your wife, if she is healthy enough, to work off the farm so she can make some 
money in order that the family may eat. This is the seriousness of the present situation with a five-bushel quota. A $290 million reduction in the final payment last year, compared with that of the previous year, and a reduction of $80 million in sales this year, amounts to $370 million. As I have said, the farmer's costs have increased.
I should now like to deal with the International Grains Arrangement. I believe I understand the situation in this regard. If under this arrangement we have not been able to produce a satisfactory deal for Canadian farmers, we had better scrap it. I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question today about the International Grains Arrangement. According to the fine print of that arrangement, members of the European Economic Community are allowed to deduct from the price-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the house. However, I think at this point I should remind hon. members that the Chair has been given a long list of applicants for participation in this debate; therefore, hon. members may wish not to abuse the privilege of speaking beyond their allotted time.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for its indulgence. I shall finish my remarks very quickly. France is a member of the International Grains Arrangement. France is our big problem in this regard because she is a large producer and is a supporter of the price level. She has the right to subtract the cost of the freight from the gulf to the port of export and establish her price at that level. Then, France has to add the charge from Marseilles to, say, somewhere in Turkey. This is always lower than the price at the gulf. This is why France is in a preferred position, and her exports are 30 per cent higher this year. But Canada cannot benefit from the same kind of arrangement. I realize that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not want to reveal the fine print, but the government had better face up to the fact that Canada has had the wool pulled over its eyes once again. In fact, Australia is now doing what France is doing.

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Another reason why France does not care about exporting to the far east is that the transportation would be so costly it would raise that country's export price to the level of the Canadian and the United States export price.
I like the $1.95 level, I can assure the house. I want it as security for our farmers. But if it works only to the advantage of France and Australia, then we had better take a second look and see whether we cannot find something more advantageous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We finally have an N.D.P. member in the house.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I hear some comments from across the way, Mr. Speaker, and it is nice to know that government members do have something to say. Except for the tractors that were purring up and down the roads of Saskatchewan last week, the silence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been deafening.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Prime Minister was
listening.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. George Bain of the Globe and. Mail said that he had made some remarks about kicking a small boy in his posterior, though I do not know whether that is correct or not.
If hon. members across the way will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some remarks about the grain situation in Saskatchewan and particularly in my constituency. I listened to the bland remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as he talked of cash advances. Certainly, he must have been in a different part of western Canada from the region I visited last week. Surely, as he watched the television and saw, as I did 7,500 farmers gathering in Regina, another 8,000 or 10,000 gathering in Saskatoon and the thousands of tractors driving up and down the roads, it must have been brought home to him that something was amiss on the prairies.
Today I was informed that the price of wheat has again declined. The members have repeatedly asked over the last several months for a policy statement from the government with regard to meeting the existing situation. Neither the members nor the farmers have received an answer. In view of the situation
in Saskatchewan, I would say that the farmers of that province treated the Prime Minister very well.
I asked the Acting Prime Minister last week whether it was the intention of the Prime Minister of Canada, when he visited Saskatchewan, to meet with the National Farmers Union officials. I was told that no such arrangement had been made. If the farmers union had not put those tractors on the road and made a protest, I submit the Prime Minister would have gone to Saskatchewan, entering on the one side and leaving on the other, without sitting down and talking with the representatives of thousands of farmers in the province.
I like to hear talk of participatory democracy but I am not interested in gobbledy-gook. If the term "participatory democracy" is to be used, let it be used in its real sense. In order to have real participatory democracy the government must be prepared to sit down with the individuals in whom the farmers have confidence, those they have elected to head their organizations, organizations to which the farmers pay a certain amount every year as members.
Eventually the Prime Minister did meet these officials, and we heard talk of farmers with assets of $100,000. This was supposed to be an indication that these farmers were well off, rich. This is the application of the new economics. I did not have the advantage of going to a school of economics to learn about such things, but I have talked to a good many economists and I never thought that one judged a person's income by the amount of capital he was able to invest. But it seems that you do judge the financial position of farmers in Saskatchewan, in Ontario, or for that matter in the maritimes, on the basis of how many tractors they have, the size of the tractors that are standing in the yard, and the acreage that they have.
In all sincerity, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he use a different yardstick, because this one is going to lead him badly astray. The measure of a grain farmer's income is well known. It is measured by how much grain he sells and by the price at which he sells it. The same is true of a livestock farmer. One member on the other side of the house stated that the problem facing the farmers would still exist no matter which government was in power. I do not think the problem would be quite so bad as it is under this government. The difference would be that something would be done to solve the
Wheat Export Prices problem, and this would be quite an important difference.
I should like to tell the government why this is not the first time that the farmers of Saskatchewan and western Canada have found it necessary to demonstrate when a Liberal government was in power. The same thing occurred in 1946. The farmers picketed the grain elevators and dairies in western Canada, and I was one of those who took part. Circumstances at that time had become so intolerable that the farmers just could not make a living. A few years following the action that we took in 1946 the government was bounced out of power, a very prominent minister of the day having tapped a Manitoban on the tummy and told him that he looked very well fed. Perhaps the farmers look well fed, but I am sure the government knows that the credit unions are strapped for resources to make loans in Saskatchewan at this very moment. Surely, the government's sources of information are as good as mine. Surely, the government knows that banks are being selective in granting loans. They must have this information if they are trying to assess what is the present financial situation of the farmers.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I hope the government will take an honest look at the situation and consider just what is at stake at the present time. What is at stake is the economy of the province of Saskatchewan in particular, that province being the main wheat producer, and that of its two sister provinces of Manitoba and Alberta. Some business people have asked prairie provincial governments to clamp a moratorium on interest rates. This is a business economy and when certain people ask for a moratorium to be clamped on interest rates it is time that the powers that be took notice, because something adverse obviously has happened. The government's real failure is in coming to grips with the existing situation. The Prime Minister has told us we must grow less wheat. He could have saved himself the trip to Saskatchewan if that is all he wanted to tell us. The farmers of the country have reduced the acreage of wheat under cultivation from 29 million acres to 24 million acres in one year, which is a pretty hefty reduction. What are they to grow if they do not grow wheat? That question must be answered by the government and farm organizations. Why has the government not consulted with farm organizations and worked out these matters? 

the country are on a four bushel delivered quota right now; others are on three bushels; other areas have delivered five bushels. The price of wheat is nosediving on the international market and I plead with the government to heed the plight of farmers in western Canada. Let us forget all about the gimmicks and the bickering. Let us try to help the farmers of western Canada before it is too late.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We do not want handouts and charity; we want some plan that will enable our farmers to operate their farms. Many practical steps can be taken. For instance, it is amazing that the Canadian Wheat Board, which has been in operation for 20 years and has a pricing policy, should have no storage policy. We have never said that in this country "We will store this much grain and no more." In Saskatchewan we can now store an entire crop of grain on the farms. We have storage capacity in the elevators on the track and storage capacity at the terminal points. Why does the government not get down to cases and examine these facilities. Talk about a guaranteed income! The grain companies are the guaranteed income boys in western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Richardson and Company.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A storage policy should be worked out and we should determine how much grain we want to store and what that will cost. We could even pay farmers for the grain on the farm, and seal it up there. That grain will be available when needed, and will cost us less to store. Is it not ridiculous that in a country like Canada we have difficulty in moving the grade of grain we want to tidewater at the right time? Should we not examine our entire system of transportation with a view to making it more efficient? We want to move grain more efficiently. After all, we have a big investment in grain. Is the government not concerned about these matters?
The fellow who has been done to death in western Canada is the legitimate grain farmer. We relinquished our control over the feed mills and, now, the situation is completely out of control. Is it not ridiculous that farmers have to haul their wheat down the highways and sell it for a pittance to avoid having their tractors and trucks repossessed? That is what we are talking about, and that is what we ought to be concerned about. Only grain grown on a farmer's own land should be
Wheat Export Prices
delivered on a quota system. No other grain ought to be included and any one abusing his quota privileges ought to be called to account. The Departments of Agriculture, and Industry, Trade and Commerce ought to be concerned about this matter. We ought to enforce our quota system and try to expand our export markets to the maximum.
[DOT] (10:00 p.ra.)
I think I am right in saying that from the time the International Grains Arrangement was signed the government and the Wheat Board found themselves in a bind, to put it bluntly, for two reasons. One is that the very large productive capacity of the Soviet Union was left out when, under the auspices of GATT we negotiated the new International Grains Arrangement. The U.S.S.R. was in the old International Wheat Agreement, but when we negotiated the I.G.A. the U.S.S.R. was left out. I am satisfied, after reading the record of what happened subsequently with the common market countries, that the second problem is that the International Grains Arrangement never came to terms with the common market countries.
The common market countries have done just as they wanted ever since. We have been trying to live with the grains arrangement and hold an umbrella over prices, in the face of countries who did not care whether a price was maintained or not. When I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about the situation with respect to importers, he said they wanted cheap wheat.
How cynical these countries are. They signed that agreement. As importers, they are equally responsible with exporters. How do we ever hope to have peace in the world if countries cannot be depended on to keep an ordinary commercial agreement? They should be called to account, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate on the situation in which prairie grain farmers find themselves, particularly in view of the recent cut in wheat prices by the United States which has been followed

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
in part today by Canada. I spent last week in Saskatchewan because of the visit of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to my province on Wednesday and Thursday last. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the Prime Minister's day in southern Saskatchewan last Wednesday, for all of which time I was with him.
In the forenoon we had a very cordial and frank meeting with the executive committee of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They presented a brief which was a model of clarity and objectivity. It was a good source of information for the Prime Minister and a fine preparation for meetings with farmers on two farms later that day and in other parts of the province the next day. The wheat pool requests were moderate, well reasoned and thoughtfully expressed.
I wish to point out in passing that the government recently appointed Mr. Charles Gib-bings to the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Gibbings had been President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for over eight years. He is a practical wheat farmer in Saskatchewan, one of the best informed and respected farmers in the grain business. Farmers have been asking for such representation for many years and I believe the people of western Canada are very appreciative of the fact that this government has made this extremely significant appointment which I believe augurs well for the future operation of the Wheat Board.
We had a noon meal with Premier Thatcher and members of his government. The discussion again centred around the farm income problem, including box cars, quotas, prices and markets. I am sure the Prime Minister must have been impressed with the gravity of the farm income situation and its evident effects on the urban centres, the provincial economy and the dangers inherent for the national economy.
After abruptly concluding this luncheon meeting in order to keep on the planned schedule for the afternoon, we were met by a group of people outside the hotel, many of whom I am sure were not farmers. Our Prime Minister was asked to speak to the crowd, which he agreed to do. It turned out to be one of the worst displays of bad manners on the part of some individuals in the crowd that I have ever been unfortunate enough to witness.
The Prime Minister was interrupted constantly by catcalls, unfriendly remarks and some that were almost obscene. Many placards were displayed, some of which were to

the point, but many others were rude, crude and vulgar. We were struck in the face by handsful of wheat thrown by someone in the crowd. The private cars which had been arranged for transporting the Prime Minister's party to the airport were damaged by sabotage. We were not able to use them and had to use R.C.M.P. cars instead.


An hon. Member:: We read all this in the newspapers.


Albert B. Douglas: I do not quarrel with the right of people to put on demonstrations, but this was unreasonable. I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the vast majority of the people in Saskatchewan who were shocked, embarrassed and saddened by this shabby display, to publicly apologize to the Prime Minister for the appallingly bad manners exhibited by some persons in that gathering.
I am happy to say the rest of the day was pleasant and informative. We went to two farms south of Regina, in one of the main wheat growing areas of the west, one of which was my own farm.


An hon. Member:: That figures.


Albert B. Douglas: There, the Prime Minister discussed farm operations and intimate financial problems with ten selected farmers and their wives.


An hon. Member:: Carefully selected.


Albert B. Douglas: These farmers were chosen because they were representative of different age groups, different sized farms and different stages of the development of their farm enterprises. The Prime Minister saw and operated some of the high-priced farm equipment which is required on grain farms. He saw bins full of grains that cannot be delivered. He saw the figures for last year and this year which show that even in good farming areas farmers cannot pay their expenses at present quotas and prices, much less meet capital payments where they, on advice from agricultural authorities and experts, have tried to expand to become economic units and to increase their efficiency.
I know from news reports that the other days in the prairie provinces were also very informative and, for the most part, cordial and candid. I am sure that the Prime Minister is much better informed, especially about grain farming and the current problems surrounding that industry, than he was before his trip. I trust that he and the government
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
by the literal construction of the orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the house with respect to them."
The practice of the house, with a few exceptions, has been to make our rules collectively and by consent. Experience has taught us that they are the only rules that work. Rules imposed upon us do not work, and rule 75c imposed in this way will simply take this house into trouble.
Let me quote from citation 11 in Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which I believe is still issued to every member of the house. It states:
An amendment to the standing order which is only intended to settle a small detail in the procedure and on which there seems to be general agreement may be passed on a simple motion after notice has been given under Standing Order 41. But if it is desired to make a general revision or to adopt some important rule-
Surely this is important or we would not have given it this much time.
-a special committee is appointed "to assist Mr. Speaker" for that purpose. The Speaker acts as chairman and the Clerk of the House acts as clerk of that committee.
Has that happened in this case? Has Mr. Speaker been given a committee to assist him to revise the rules of the house? That was the way it was done in most previous instances, and Mr. Speaker was chairman and the Clerk of the House was the clerk of the committee. In this instance it was decided that there would be a committee without Mr. Speaker, and without the Clerk of the House, but with a government member being the chairman of the committee.
I submit, when we are called upon to make such an important change as is proposed in 75c that the house should not be asked to act contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. That is what is being done by bringing in this report, which is a report of the majority of the committee, representing nothing more or less than the will, dictation or intent of the government.
I draw your attention to another quotation from Beauchesne's, only this time it is from the third edition. I have them all upstairs; editions one, two, three and four, but I brought down extracts from only two pages from the third edition. They are pages with roman numerals lvii and lviii.


An hon. Member:: Aye, aye, aye.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Ole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am glad to hear the Liberals say "Aye, aye". I invite them to read this bit of Beauchesne's third edition:
"The government of the day, says Sir Guthbert Headlam, M.P., whatever may be its political complexion, must always regard itself, during its tenure of office, as the trustee of the whole nation and not as representing only the views of its own party or of a section of the community". Mr. Hugh Sellon, in "Democracy and Dictatorship", p. 40, says:
'To hasten drastic and contentious legislation through parliament-
Under 75c we have been told that this may be done during the next session of parliament because there are half a dozen tough decisions that have to be taken, so the government needs this rule to get them through quickly. I continue the quotation:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
"To hasten drastic and contentious legislation through parliament, except on the basis of the clear and unmistakable approval of the majority of the electorate, might, strictly speaking, be legal. But it would be unconstitutional in the sense that it would offend against one of the foundations of parliamentary government, the principle that no party in office shall act so drastically along party lines as to cause grave apprehension among large numbers of citizens or as to be regarded as action designed solely to protect one class of the community, and not the community as a whole.
I commend to Your Honour, and to hon. members of the house in all parties, the principle that the role of the government of the day is only that of trustee; that it has no right, especially under the use of closure, to bring in rules that would make it possible to put legislation through in a hurry without the proper consideration that is constitutionally required.
The whole attempt to violate this basic concept, and to do it by putting through rules that have not been agreed to collectively, rules to which we have not consented, is, I submit, contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. In my view, under Standing Order 51 Your Honour should so advise the house. I hope Your Honour feels as strongly about this as I do, and will say that in view of this action being so contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament the motion ought not to be put to the house at all.
Let me read one or two more quotations. Listen, please to this one:
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the opposition, whatever its policies and tactics may be, shares with the government and, of course, with the electorate, the responsibility of making our form of democracy, based on parliamentary institutions, work for the welfare of all the citizens.
July 24, 1969


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that one word, the word "collective", is the word that this government is defying throughout this whole debate. That one word is something they do not understand over there at all. They think that because they may have a majority of seats in this house they have the right by majority decision to change the rules of parliament. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of parliamentary procedure that is not the way it is done. We settle our own rules on a collective basis. Mr. Speaker, collectivity includes us all. I submit that what is being done now under closure is so contrary to the terms of Standing Order 51 that Your Honour should so apprise the house.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I go on with citation 7, paragraph (1), and perhaps I might read the first sentence again to connect it with the following sentence:
Another collective right of the house is to settle its own procedure. This is such an obvious right-
I wish it were.
-it has never been directly disputed-
It is being disputed now by the government opposite, and I think Your Honour should so find. The citation continues:
-that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it except to say that the house is not responsible to any external authority for following the rules it lays down for itself, but may depart from them at its own discretion.
Your Honour has been apprised of the fact, which has been recorded several times, that the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleion (Mr. Blair) is dealing with a recommendation by a committee which all of the opposition members on the committee opposed. It has been made clear that proposal 75c-they seem to think this comes from the committee and is before us in the normal way-is a proposal or direction from the government, which is an external authority so far as the House of Commons is concerned.
This attempt to change the rules of this house on the basis of an external authority is again contrary to the privileges, practices and rules of this house. Let me quote citation 8, paragraph (1):
The proceedings of the houses (Senate and Commons) are governed by statutes, by rules and orders adopted by themselves-
It does not say adopted by the majority, it says adopted by themselves. It states that immediately after the citation which says we
Procedure and Organization do this thing collectively. There is no authority, despite all the alleged authority there may be, for a majority to pass rules, and there is no authority for a majority to alter the rules of this house to meet the desire of an external authority, namely, the government. I submit what is happening now under closure is striking at the very fundamental proposition that the rules of parliament are parliament's rules, that they are the rules we arrived at collectively, and that they cannot be altered in this way.
Let me go on with the sentence in the citation:
-and by those usages which have grown up in the course of time and consequently become a part of their own practice or are derived from the common law of parliament by which they have consented to be guided in all matters of doubt.
Let me emphasize that word "consented". If I can zero in on the two words I have now quoted, the most important two words to this debate are the words "collective" and "consented", one which appears in citation 7 and the other in citation 8.
This the way the rules of parliament are made, and this is the way the rules of parliament are altered, by collective action and consent, not by dictation from an outside source, and not by the will of the majority being pushed roughshod over the minority, especially under a closure motion.
Citation 8(2) states:
The usages of parliament are to be collected from the entries in the journals, from the history of parliamentary procedure, from the treatises on parliamentary practice that have been published from time to time; and from the observations of experienced members, and the remarks of the Speakers in the House of Commons, with relation to the forms and methods of proceedings, as contained in the published debates.
It is difficult in this debate to single out individuals and put them in any special category. We are all equal in the debate as we are in freedom of speech, but I think it is significant that there have been no reasoned states ments in defence of 75c from experienced members of this House of Commons. The older and experienced members-the ones who are steeped in the parliamentary way of doing things-know for a fact that we do not change the rules by the will of the majority, but that we change them collectively and by consent.
Perhaps I should read paragraph (3) of citation 8:
"In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders the house is generally guided, not so much
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization I believe you should apprise the house of that fact before you put the question, which, as I say, may be some time after one o'clock tomorrow morning, and I think you should go further and refuse to put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
in any case if Your Honour will apprise the house of the fact that this motion is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, I am confident that the house will govern itself accordingly. In fact, despite the non-confidence I have in the government I believe even the government would be guided by your opinion in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, since I seem to be taking a position which involves Your Honour in making a decision, may I make it clear now-and I shall do so again at the end of my remarks-that I am not trying to involve Your Honour in the details or in the substance of a motion; I am not trying to involve Your Honour in the question as to whether the time limitation should be two days, one day or many days; I am not trying to involve Your Honour in the question of any of the terms of proposed Standing Order 75c. But I am trying to involve Your Honour in the more fundamental and more basic question of whether any government has the right to seek to amend the rules of parliament in the way that is being sought on this occasion. That applies in any case, but it applies even more seriously now that we are under the closure motion of Standing Order 33. The statements I have just made of course must be more than just assertions of mine; they must be backed up by statements from the authorities. I should like to read a few of them.
First of all may I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 4 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which is found at page 8, quite early in this book which I trust members have read from cover to cover:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority;


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: submit that an attempt to change the rules in a way that is contrary to that basic principle should not be allowed by the impartial occupant of the Chair. Let me go on:
-to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner;


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to enable every member to express his opinion within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a close contest when the House is considering a highly controversial measure, the positions oi parties are equalized:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
me emphasize that. There is nothing in here about one side being master of the other. The basic rule of parliamentary procedure is that in a close contest when the house is considering a highly controversial measure the positions of parties are equalized. The quotation continues:
-the Government side may rely on its majority but the Opposition is strengthened by the rules of procedure which both are bound to observe and which the Speaker must enforce.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if any attempt is made to change the rules of this house and to do it in a manner which destroys that equality and gives the government not only the force of its majority but the force of the rules, we have gone completely contrary to the basic principles of parliamentary procedure on which this house relies.
I regard that citation 4 in Beauchesne's fourth edition as one which every member of this house should read very carefully before he decides what to do in the remaining part of this debate. I submit that because the attempt to change the rules by government majority, in a way that will destroy the quality between the parties, is wrong, Your Honour, under Standing Order 51 should so apprise the house before you put the question tonight, and indeed in my view you should refuse to put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now let me draw your attention to citation 7(1). Again I am looking at Beauchesne's fourth edition. I wish to emphasize this sentence and one word in it as strongly as I possibly can:
Another collective right of the House is to settle its own procedure.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is
right.
July 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Procedure and Organization
O'Connell	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Orange	Stafford
Osier	Stanbury
Otto	Stewart (Cochrane)
Ouellet	Stewart (Okanagan-
Pelletier	Kootenay)
Penner	St. Pierre
Pepin	Sulatycky
Perrault	Sullivan
Pilon	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Portelance	Tolmie
Pringle	Trudeau
Prud'homme	Trudel
Reid	Turner (London East)
Richardson	Turner (Ottawa -
Roberts	Carleton)
Robinson	Wahn
Rochon	Walker
Roy (Timmins)	Watson
Roy (Laval)	Weatherhead
Serr6	Whelan
Sharp	Whiting
Smith (Northumberland-	Yanakis-136.
Miramichi)	
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Aiken	Lambert (Edmonton
Alexander	West)
Alkenbrack	Laprise
Asselin	Lewis
Baldwin	MacEwan
Barnett	Maclnnis
Beaudoin	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Bell	MacLean
Bigg	Macquarrie
Brewin	McC leave
Broadbent	McGrath
Burton	McKinley
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)	Marshall
Caouette	Mather
Carter	Mazankowski
Coates	Monteith
Code	Moores
Comeau	Muir (Cape Breton-
Crouse	The Sydneys)
Danforth	Muir (Lisgar)
Dinsdale	Noble
Dionne	Nowlan
Douglas (Nanaimo-	Nystrom
Cowichan-The	Peddle
Islands)	Peters
Downey	Ricard
Fairweather	Ritchie
Flemming	Rodrigue
Forrestall	Rose
Fortin	Rynard
Gauthier	Saltsman
Gilbert	Schumacher
Gleave	Scott
Grills	Simpson
Gundlock	Skoberg
Hales	Stanfield
Harding	Stewart (Marquette)
Harkness	Tetrault
Hees	Thomas (Moncton)
Homer	Thompson
Howard (Skeena)	Winch
Howe	Woolliams
Knowles (Winnipeg	Yewchuk-83.
North Centre) Korchinski [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.	
29180-730J



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to Your Honour's attention the point of order, notice of which I gave on Tuesday and which I tried to raise a few minutes ago. I do not in my experience recall a point of order being raised under Standing Order 51. I recognize that it is a very serious matter to ask Mr. Speaker to make a ruling under this Standing Order. Nevertheless I feel the importance of the matter so deeply and seriously that I believe Your Honour should be called upon to act under Standing Order 51. This Standing Order reads as follows:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As I indicated earlier my point of order is against the main motion which is before the house in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). If it were possible I would have preferred to wait until the house had voted on the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) so that I might then raise my point of order against the main motion, but in view of what has just happened it is likely that point will not be reached until after one o'clock tomorrow morning, and having had some experience with this device in the past I recognize it might be difficult to get the floor at that time.
We are back on the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and on the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River and it is my contention that before we proceed further I should call on Your Honour to face up to the fact, as I see it, that the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. Because of that

July 24, 1969
Division
Knowles). First I will read the motion, and then we may perhaps have a debate as to whether we should hear the hon. member's point of order at this time.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) moved:
That the debate on the motion, ''That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in", and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed thereto, shall not be further adjourned.
My understanding of the procedure is that this motion should now be put to the house and disposed of, following which we will resume the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), at which time the hon. member's point of order could be raised. Does the hon. member agree with this interpretation of the proceedings?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that now was the time to do it, but it does not make that much difference so long as it is clear that I have the right to raise the point of order. Your Honour is perfectly right in saying that my point of order is not against the procedural validity of the motion just now made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) but rather that Your Honour should take certain action under Standing Order 51 with respect to the main motion, namely the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). If I do not raise my point of order at a moment when it is possible for me to do so, I might find myself denied the floor by Standing Order 33 tonight at one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it would be necessary for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to wait until tonight at one o'clock to make his point. I think he could make it on a point of order when we resume the consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). If the hon. member were to raise the point of order of which he has given notice at this time, I would have to tell him that it should not be raised now. If I understand his point of order correctly, his objection is not against the motion of the President of the Privy Council but against the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am not against it procedurally but, I am against it in substance.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against the motion 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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon
between five and six o'clock I indicated to the house that at an appropriate time I would raise a point of order under Standing Order 51. May I say that if I had my choice, if I were sure I would be permitted to do it at that time, I would raise this point of order at one o'clock tonight, assuming things go as they probably will go, after the vote has been taken on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting, but I thought it might be better to interrupt him before he is fully launched into his submission with regard to the point of order. As the hon. member indicated a moment ago, he gave notice in the house of his intention to raise this very important point of order.
My understanding is that the discussion on the point of order would be raised not in connection with the motion under Standing Order 33 but in connection with the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mir. Blair). I want to make it clear that the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) should be disposed of by the house before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can raise his point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fair enough.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 33,1 move, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith:
That the debate on the motion, "That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in", and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed thereto, shall not be further adjourned.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
July 24, 1969
Business of the House
by hon. members when this point of order was raised. These precedents have been studied very closely, the Journals have been looked into and the debates have been read.
I should like to assume the dubious honour of taking the time of the house to go through these precedents. I think that after referring to a lot of these precedents the conclusion will be clear.
On August 30 of 1917, and I begin this review of precedents with this particular one, a motion was proposed and adopted in the following terms:
That the debate on the third reading of Bill No. 125, providing for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company shall not be further adjourned.
At that time an amendment to the motion for the third reading of Bill No. 125 was also under consideration. Both the amendment and the main motion were subsequently disposed of under the provisions of what is now Standing Order 33. I refer hon. members to Journals of August 30 1917, pages 606 to 608 inclusive.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
On September 10, 1917, a motion was proposed and adopted as follows:
That the debate upon the second reading of Bill No. 133, the War-time Elections Act, shall not be further adjourned.
It should be noted that in this case there was no amendment before the house when the motion to close debate was adopted. Later in the sitting of September 10, 1917, in the course of the debate following the submission of the motion under what is now Standing Order 33, an amendment was proposed and disposed of by a division. Subsequently in the same sitting a further amendment was proposed and debated. The latter amendment and the main motion were both disposed of by the operation of the provisions of the closure rule. In this connection I refer hon. members to Journals of September 10, 1917, pages 643 to 645 inclusive.
On September 14, 1917, a motion was proposed and adopted as follows:
That the debate on the third reading of Bill No. 133, the War-time Elections Act, shall not be further adjourned.
Again, it should be noted that when the motion to close debate was adopted there was no amendment before the house. Later in the same sitting an amendment was proposed and debated. Both the amendment and the main motion were disposed of by the operation of

the provisions of what is now Standing Order 33. This is to be found in Journals of September 14, 1917, pages 659 to 661 inclusive.
On March 2, 1926, when the house was considering the Address in Reply a motion was proposed and adopted as follows:
That the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Elliott, for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in answer to His Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: "That this question be now put", shall not be further adjourned.
Once more, it should be noted that the motion to close debate related to more than one question, namely, the Address in Reply and also to a motion "That the question be now put''. I refer hon. members to Journals of March 2, 1926, pages 123 to 126 inclusive.
On March 29, 1932, a motion was proposed and adopted as follows:
That the present debate, namely the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Bennett: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor; and the proposed motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort): "That this question be now put", shall not be further adjourned.
Here again it is suggested that the motion to close debate referred to two debatable motions. I refer hon. members to Journals of March 29, 1932, pages 177 to 181 inclusive.
On May 22, 1956, a motion was proposed and adopted as follows:
That the debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and on any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.
On that occasion, in addition to the main motion there was an amendment and also a subamendment under consideration by the house. The reference here is to Journals of May 22,, 1956, pages 587 to 594 inclusive.
On June 5, 1956, a motion was proposed and adopted as follows:
That the debate on the motion for the third reading of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and on any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.
On that occasion in addition to the main motion there was also an amendment under consideration by the house. Hon, members will find the reference in the Journals for June 5, 1956, pages 699 to 705 inclusive. The latest precedent for the use of Standing Order
July 24, 1969

with our procedures of today. This should not limit debate merely to the proposals put forward by the government in respect of a particular debate. It is for that reason I share the difficulties of my colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). To me Rule 33 is very questionable and imprecise at the present time.
I put this additional argument to Your Honour in order that your ruling, whatever it might be, will not exclude or settle the question which I feel has not been investigated or considered. I refer to Standing Order 33 which has to do with stages other than the report stage. I put to Your Honour that this rule is fraught with pitfalls, particularly as to the extent set forth.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in reply to the three points raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). First, with regard to his interpretation based on the British rule, I think it is fair to note that the British Standing Order 33 expressly talks about a question in the singular, while Standing Order 33 here in its final three lines refers to all such questions as may be decided. So, it is quite clear this rule is intended to cover all possible questions included in the order.
Secondly in respect of the amendment to Standing Order 33, since 1964 as I see it the amendment is really an amendment to delete the reference to the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means, committees which were abolished in 1968 under our new rules. Those amendments were made in that part of the rule which the member indicates does not apply here. Therefore the amendment does not in any way affect the substance of the motion made here.
Finally it seems to me that it would be difficult to have a case more on all fours with this situation than the case which was decided in this house on December 14, 1964, in connection with the flag debate resolution. At that time the amendment outstanding was in the name of the former member for Middlesex West, Mr. Thomas. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), who at that time was the President of the Privy Council, gave notice and moved a motion of closure in these terms and in identical circumstances. The Chair having the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, to decide on the question of order at that time found it to be in order.
Business of the House
For those reasons I submit that the motion made here in the terms of Standing Order 33 is equally in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to hon. members for the comments they have made as guidance to the Chair. The objections that have been made by hon. members have been logical and I have given very serious thought to them. At the same time I have given very serious consideration to the arguments advanced by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) in support of his rejection of the point put forward by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), of which he gave notice of his intention to bring forward procedural objection at this time.
I also recognize the difficulty referred to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness). It is obvious that we may some day want to resolve the difficulties to which he has referred. That relates also to one of the difficulties referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
There is no question that Standing Order 33 as it now reads is not without uncertainty and pitfalls. As has been suggested it might well be that early consideration should be given to that Standing Order in relation to a consideration of other Standing Orders.
It has been my pleasure, good fortune and privilege to hear all the contributions which have been made to this debate during the last two weeks. I have had the impression that at times the discussion has not related to the amendment before the house. At the same time I thought some of the speeches which referred to the motion initially presented by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) had greater relevancy to the motion proposed by the hon. President of the Privy Council.
Let me now go to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who has suggested that in view of the fact there may be some point at issue in the interpretation of Standing Order 33, we might be further ahead to consider the similar standing order in the British parliament, and how it has been interpreted. I would be in full agreement with this suggestion if there were not considerable Canadian precedent and practice in the interpretation of our Standing Order 33, as this Standing Order has been in effect in the House of Commons over 50 years.
There are many precedents, and more than those which have been quoted and referred to

July 24, 1969
Business of the House
as to make it very clear there are two procedures to be followed, one when the Speaker is in the chair and the other when the house is in committee of the whole. The clause which might have been difficult to interpret at the time of the flag debate is much more clear now. It is clear to the point where it includes only the debate on the matter which we are now considering. So, therefore, I would say if there was any sort of a precedent established at the time of the flag debate that precedent does not necessarily apply at all now.
That is the burden of my point of order. I think it is an extremely important one because if the government can now move closure on amendments without any limit-and that is the effect of the notice the President of the Privy Council has given-then there would be a much broader application of Standing Order 33 than I feel is justified. It is a very heavy handed rule, to be used only in very extreme circumstances which, incidentally, we do not think apply at this time; but nevertheless it is a very extreme rule and I suggest that it should be applied with extreme caution. In this particular case it is quite clear that the debate we are considering is not a debate on the main motion but merely a debate on the amendment, and my contention is that that is as far as the closure rule should apply at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I do not want to cut off debate and I tried to establish the practice yesterday of allowing all hon. members, who feel they have a constructive and positive contribution to make to these debates on points of order, to make their contributions, and I am prepared to hear such contributions at the present time. However, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) indicated he was generous enough, as usual, to advise the Chair in advance of the very important point he was going to raise today. I have given the matter extremely careful consideration. With the assistance of the advisers to the Chair many hours have been spent poring over precedents, and I am inclined in the light of the arguments of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, to give a ruling now. However, I am also inclined to wait for a moment to see whether hon. members have a contribution to make in respect of the point of order.
[Mr. Aiken.l
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I do not do so on technical grounds, but on the broader ground of the intention of this rule, and general grounds of logic and reason.
If a motion can be moved imposing closure on a main motion, such as the one under consideration, and also on the amendment which has been moved to that main motion, what this means is that no members, except the member who moved the amendment and the minister, will have an opportunity to speak on the motion itself. In other words all the discussion we have had so far has been on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). There has been no discussion on the main motion itself.
If this application of closure is applied today on the motion and the amendment itself, this means that every member of this house, except the hon. member for Peace River who introduced the amendment, will be precluded from speaking on the main motion. I do not think there ever was any intention, as far as the rule of closure was concerned, to create a situation in which members were to be precluded from speaking on a motion before the house.
I submit to Your Honour that on the general grounds of reason and logic it would be inappropriate and contrary to the general rules of debate in this chamber to allow a motion of closure covering both the main motion and the amendment, the amendment being the only matter which has been discussed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: intend only to add one point which I think Your Honour must consider and take into account. This concerns the effect of your interpretation of Standing Order 33. At the present report stage we must consider that the motion is to adopt the said report. There may be a number of amendments put forward to Your Honour, some of which are on the order paper. If the debate on the first items becomes protracted the first notice of closure is put forward, and then the minister conceivably closes off the consideration of every other amendment. This is why I feel the suggestion made the other day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in respect of this whole question relating to Standing Order 33 should be given much closer attention, in order to bring it more in keeping
July 24, 1969

That is the part of the rule which relates to the sitting while the Speaker is in the Chair. There is a second part to Rule 33 which relates to closure while the house is in committee of the whole, which does not apply in this case. I point this out because the rule goes on to refer to:
-further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles,-
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This applies only when the house is in committee. Therefore, in the first place, Standing Order 33 applies only, as I read it, to the debate when the Speaker is in the Chair. The adjourned debate which we are considering at this time is a debate on the amendment and not on the main motion. I am contending that is all that can be affected at this time by closure.
I should like to make a reference to the British practice because our rule 33 does not cover the situation where two motions are being considered. In cases where our rule does not cover a situation we are entitled to look at the British practice, which is set out in Standing Order No. 1. The British practice is that on a closure motion only the amendment can be moved for closure under one motion. I am referring to May's sixteenth edition. I refer to that because all the seventeenth editions are out, but the reference is the same in both editions. It is referred to at page 479.
In the British practice there is a special provision, subsection (2) of the closure rule, which is called closure of contingent questions. The British practice assumed there could only be closure on the amendment, but a subclause of that rule states that under certain circumstances the Speaker could permit a second closure to be moved upon the main motion. I am pointing out that there had to be a special rule to that effect under the British practice. Therefore the rule as it stands in the British practice, and as we have adopted it in this house, is that closure can apply only to the one amendment on which debate is being considered, and if further closure is required it would have to be under a second notice and second motion. I am mentioning this only because our own rule does not cover the situation. It merely says "an adjourned debate". This is what we are considering now. The adjourned debate is the debate on the amendment.
Business of the House
Finally I should like to refer to the flag debate because I am anticipating someone may say that the practice adopted there covers our present situation. In the flag debate we were considering a committee report and we were considering an amendment. Closure was moved on both the amendment and the main motion, and it was so put.
I want to point out two distinctions between the flag debate and this debate. The first is there was no ruling whatever made by Mr. Speaker in that instance, or requested by anyone when the procedure was followed. In other words the matter was not raised. It proceeded at that time by acquiescence of the house to a vote.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I may have been a little doubtful about my ground yesterday but Your Honour's decision in connection with the motion moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has strengthened my case very much. I should like to read Your Honour's ruling of yesterday in connection with the hon. member's motion under another rule. The hon. member for Calgary North referred to an adjournment which was made on a previous occasion on which no ruling had been made by the Chair. At page 11510 of Hansard in the second column, Your Honour, in referring to this debate, said:
-no ruling whatsoever was made by the Chair when this matter first came up when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre first proposed his motion. As he knows, this is a very new type of motion; it was new to the extent of having been difficult for the Chair alone, or with the assistance of the Table officials, to accept or refuse the motion, but in view of the fact that no objection had been made to it the motion was put to the house. So I do not feel bound by anything because actually there was no ruling. A question was simply put to the house, and this is my view, one which I hold very strongly.
So I suggest that the flag debate could not be considered a precedent in this particular instance because a question was not raised at that time. It was a procedure which was followed apparently by acquiescence.
The second distinction is that Standing Order 33 has been amended since the flag debate was ended by closure. The amendments are not extensive but they do, I suggest, clarify the situation.
At the time of the flag debate Standing Order 33 included closure in committee of the whole as it related to supply and ways and means. There was a very long and complicated section. When these rules were revised last December rule 33 was altered in such a way

July 24, 1969
Business of the House
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	waiting for Your Honour to call orders of the

 day-


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it is a perfectly innocent one. It is the usual Thursday afternoon question. I wanted to ask the President of the Privy Council, who I congratulate for feeling free to wear the white flower of innocence, what the nature of the business will be for the rest of this week and next week. I understand some government members are having problems with their travel plans.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am very hopeful we might in fact be able to dispose of all the remaining business for this part of the session, if not at the close of this sitting day-


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. gentleman give some indication possibly later today or tomorrow of the means he will use to acquaint hon. members with the nature of the business to be discussed when we come back-on the assumption there will be an adjournment rather than prorogation, so that members will be fully prepared for the business which will face them when the session resumes next fall?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can assure the house there will be an adjournment. It is proposed that the final day of this session will be used for the purpose of completing committee reports and other business and we will then go right into adjournment. The contemplated day of resumption, subject to any contingencies that might arise, would be October 22 as indicated in the motion for adjournment.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 33 I move, seconded by Mr. Mcllraith:
That the debate on the motion that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-I was


An hon. Member:: He did it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: With all due respect they have been called for the last 40 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had called orders of the day because the question period had expired two and a half minutes before that time. I had allowed the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to ask a supplementary question. In any event I will certainly recognize the hon. member on a point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a point of order to raise, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given Your Honour notice. It is in connection with the notice given by the President of the Privy Council as it appears in Votes and Proceedings for July 22, that is, the notice that he will move under Standing Order 33.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that the minister cannot give notice of two motions at the same time under the Standing Order. I contend that he has given notice of closure of the debate that we are now engaged in, that is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and also on the main motion which is the committee report.
The reason I raise this at this time is twofold. First, I contend the notice given by the minister was invalid because it attempted to do something he could not legally do. Second, even if it is not considered invalid by Your Honour, it can apply only to the amendment which is being considered and upon which the debate is being resumed, and cannot apply to the main motion. I wish to point out that closure is a procedure by which the basic and fundamental right of free speech is restricted. It must therefore be interpreted very strictly. If there is any doubt, it should not be applied against freedom of speech.
I present the proposition that there is considerable doubt in our rules about whether this motion can be moved to cover both the amendment and the main motion. I wish to read Rule 33 as it relates to a debate being held while the house is sitting with the Speaker in the Chair. It reads as follows:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned,-
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, concerning his new program of industrial incentives.
Since anxiety prevails in northern Ontario, where people have been awaiting for a long time some assistance that would encourage secondary industries to settle in the area, is the minister in a position to tell the house what regions will be designated, particularly in northern Ontario?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement, but I hope I can do it very shortly.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Donald MacInnis: I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Because of resignations at the National Arts Centre, I ask the Secretary of State whether Mademoiselle Madeleine Gobeil is still a director of the National Arts Centre and have other personal friends of the Prime Minister been appointed?


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


Donald MacInnis: Possibly I could put a supplementary to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CRIMINAL LAW REFORM

[Stage Direction]
REPORT OF OUIMET COMMISSION Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a copy of the report of the Ouimet Commission on criminal law reform? If so, is it his intention to table same?
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: think under its particular terms of reference that report would be directed to the Solicitor General in the first instance.


Mr. Gilbert:: May I direct the same question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker? Has the minister received a copy of the Ouimet Commission report on criminal law reform and will he table the same?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received copies of the
Inquiries of the Ministry report in English. When it is translated and available, the question of tabling will be decided. I anticipate it will not be tabled in this part of the session.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Is his department co-operating with and/or having discussions with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the province of Ontario which is at present investigating charges of discrimination in the national capital area? If so, to what extent? I ask this question notwithstanding the fact there may be some constitutional grounds on which this government feels it should not be involved.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has quite aptly pointed out the constitutional problem. I am sure he will be pleased to know there is the maximum degree of communication between my department and the various agencies charged with this responsibility in the provincial field. There is the maximum degree of co-operation and communication despite constitutional barriers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I hoped the Chair might have the opportunity of recognizing two or three other members quickly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I have been so quiet for the past three or four days I thought I would have the opportunity to ask a supplementary. Am I to take it from the minister's answer that at the present time during these investigations his department is in dialogue and having consultations with representatives of the Ontario Human Rights Commission?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that no responsible department, federal or provincial, would want to hide behind the constitution in an area as important as discrimination. We are not trying to evade our responsibility. We feel we have a moral obligation to communicate: and co-operate with all provinces in this sensitive area.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
July 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked a question the other day about the movement of large numbers of students from other parts of Canada to the west. I have checked and I do not find that there has been any government sponsored movement of students from other parts into the west. I know that students from the Atlantic provinces have been placed on farms in the west, but relatively small numbers are involved. As my hon. friend no doubt realizes, we have freedom of movement in this country and students may go from one part of the country to another. For example, there are certain hotel resorts in the west to which many students from all parts of Canada have customarily gone for summer jobs, and that seems to me a highly desirable state of affairs. We should like to take more westerners on in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addingion):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since in many cases persons under 18 years of age are not covered by workmen's compensation, has the minister made sure that these students working in various provinces are covered by workmen's compensation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The question of workmen's compensation is not a responsibility of my department.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What are the results of the investigation into allegations that Canadians of Greek origin are being harassed by agents of the military government of Greece?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been investigating this matter for some time. The information we have on the subject is certainly not very conclusive. It does not support the charges which have been made. We are inclined to the view that the information we have is inadequate and therefore I would hesitate to give more of an answer on this occasion.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External

Affairs said he would look into allegations, contained in the report of the Salzburg committee on human rights, that 15 Greek women political prisoners have been tortured. Has he done so? If so, could he give us an explanation of this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the European Commission on Human Rights is currently seized of these and other similar charges brought before its investigating committee, which will no doubt make a judgment on the allegations of torture of the 15 women prisoners. In the meantime the Canadian government is not in a position to make any useful comment. Indeed, the matter is in a sense sub judice. It will wish to consider its own attitude in the light of the report of the commission, which is expected to be made public this fall.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice. As he will be making his announcement about the omnibus Criminal Code bill after the house has recessed, will he assure the house that the Department of National Health and Welfare will have available a record of all abortions performed pursuant to the provisions of Bill C-150?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think a question of that sort should be put. It might be interpreted as being argumentative. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Simcoe North rising on a supplementary question?


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice if records will be kept?


John Napier Turner: They will be, Mr. Speaker, in so far as we can keep them.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the
July 24, 1969

extension of the crop year by the Wheat Board or the government.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please answer the second part of my question as to the initial prices that will be available for next year, because I do not think any price has been announced for next year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as far back as 1962, if my memory serves me correctly, initial payments were not announced until about August 6. I hope to be able to do as well this year.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian Wheat Board received representations from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to allow farmers to receive the cash equivalent of a five-bushel delivery quota, whether or not it is delivered by July 31? If so, does the government or the Wheat Board intend to adopt this proposal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if that suggestion has been made to me by the pool the hon. member mentioned or another organization I do not remember. In any event, no decision has yet been made upon that subject.


Albert B. Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the government or the Wheat Board any plans to take care of those many farmers who will definitely not be able to deliver the promised five-bushel quota by the end of August?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, suggestions are being studied. The hon. member has made five at least, and the Wheat Board has been considering every one of them. I have a study outlining the advantages and disadvantages of many of these suggestions. The Wheat Board will make an announcement in due course.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us what steps Canada has taken within the past two or three months to sell wheat to Nationalist China?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



REQUEST FOR TASK FORCE TO STUDY PROBLEM

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the increasingly grave problems facing many sections of Canada because of the widespread pollution of our environment, will he consider setting up a task force to examine every aspect of the problem so that it may report to the house its findings and make recommendations for action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government is not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the setting up of another task force will be the answer to this problem. Too often the setting up of a task force is criticized by the opposition.


David Lewis: Why stop now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because we are looking at the alternatives at our disposal to solve this problem. It is our intention, during the life of the present parliament, to grapple with this problem in a thorough way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some days ago I asked him to report about the matter of students from outside western Canada seeking summer employment in the west, thus displacing western students from potential jobs. Twenty per cent of the students attending the University of Saskatchewan have not been able to find summer work this year. That is a high percentage for that university and the same thing is true of other western universities. Has the minister a statement to make about students from other parts of Canada coming to the west and taking jobs which might be filled by western students?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer to that question ought to be given by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the question might be asked in that way, with that in mind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into an argument with anyone but the minister said he would look into the matter and answer. Perhaps he might be allowed to do so.
July 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Monday, I think it was, I asked the hon. gentleman a question with regard to the position of the Canadian representative at the disarmament conference with regard to biological and chemical warfare weaponry. The minister said the matter was of such importance that he would like to be able to give a precise answer. Accordingly, he took the question as notice. Can he be precise, or general, but informative today?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for asking this question. I was about to rise and endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that I might answer it. The Canadian position will be outlined in more detail at the conference which is now proceeding in Geneva, but I can assure the hon. member that we welcome the British initiative in the search for supplementary measures which will strengthen existing agreements and preclude the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare.


David Lewis: In view of reports, which had not reached my notice when I first asked this question, that the British proposal relates only to biological warfare and does not concern chemical warfare weaponry, will the minister instruct our representative in Geneva to insist that chemical warfare be included as part of the agenda for discussion and in the eventual protocol?


Mitchell William Sharp: One of the reasons I did not go further in supporting the British initiative is that in our opinion it does not go far enough. It would be our intention to press for even stronger measures in both the chemical and biological fields.


David Lewis: Can the minister make certain that members of this house obtain as quickly as possible a copy of the statement to be made by Mr. Ignatieff, I imagine, at the conference on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: To the extent that it is not a confidential document, I shall endeavour to do so.



FINANCE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that during the past five months the federal government has approved capital expenditures in Quebec totalling some $1J billion, including a $125 million write-off

in connection with Expo, would the right hon. gentleman seriously consider writing off the deficit on the Pan-American Games in Winnipeg amounting to some $600,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked seems to be argumentative in intent and I do not think it can be accepted. The hon. member for Hillsborough.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question?


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



INDUSTRY


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I apologize to him for my late notice and for sending that notice in long hand. That may be a grievous error. The question is about the Irish moss industry and arises from an encouraging answer to a question on the order paper the other day. Can he advise whether he and his department are co-operating with the Prince Edward Island government in efforts toward encouraging the establishment of an extracting plant in Prince Edward Island?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am vaguely aware of this but I think I should ask for a more precise report. The hon. member may be sure that we will co-operate to the fullest extent if this man is serious.



WHEAT-CLOSING OF CROP YEAR, PRODUCER DELIVERIES

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it still the intention of the Wheat Board to close the present crop year at the end of the month? At that time will the new prices for the fall be available? Also, may I ask whether any plan has been worked out with the Wheat Board so that the full five-bushel quota may be delivered by producers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, no statement has been made with respect to the
July 24, 1969



VENEZUELA-REFUSAL TO GRANT IMPORT LICENCE FOR PETROLEUM TANK WAGONS

['Mr. Speaker, when provincial premiers meet they do it, of course, without any official representation from the federal government. However, they have the courtesy and the good sense to ask us to send observers. Actually, we have selected some observers who will attend the conference to be held in Quebec.']
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: 
Jean-Luc Pepin: We are trying not to look at trade in bilateral terms; we are defenders of a mutilateral trade system. However in view of the wide imbalance in trade between the two countries, Venezuela has been made aware on a number of occasions that we are looking toward a strengthening of imports by Venezuela from Canada.


John Leroy Skoberg: Has any assurance been
received from that government that further consideration will be given to Canadian imports?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Venezuelan minister for mines and hydrocarbons was here three or four weeks ago. The minister without portfolio from Saskatchewan and I met with him; I had a list of items which we believed could be exported from Canada to Venezuela, profitably for both countries, and I can give the hon. member a copy of that list if he is interested.



Paul Yewchuk: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether Canada has a permanent trade commissioner in Taiwan.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no Canadian representative in Taiwan.


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the fact that the Taiwan minister of economic affairs has indicated that Taiwan is interested in buying Canadian wheat, would the minister consider sending a permanent trade commissioner there?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian Wheat Board is very successful in selling wheat to countries in which we do not have trade commissioners and I am sure it will be equally successful this time, if business can be done.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
I would like to know if the provincial premiers have forwarded an invitation to the federal government in order that it may be represented by observers at the next provincial conference which will be held in Quebec soon? If so, will the government send observers and does the Prime Minister know what the agenda will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when provincial premiers meet they do it, of course, without any official representation from the federal government. However, they have the courtesy and the good sense to ask us to send observers. Actually, we have selected some observers who will attend the conference to be held in Quebec.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that all immigrants contribute equally to Canadian welfare, would the government consider bringing in legislation to give equal voting privileges to all Canadian immigrants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize that the hon. member is referring to an important matter, but I wonder if it is urgent. I do not suppose he is referring to new legislation during the present term of the current session. I hope not.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Lewis: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Last
July 24, 1989

Inquiries of the Ministry INFORMATION


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington in which he referred to a secret report of the task force on information. I answered that I knew of no such secret report. I do want to make it clear to the house that I told the house a couple of weeks ago there was a task force on information which had reported to me, and of course I am not denying the existence of that particular report. However, if the hon. member had something else in mind in terms of a secret report, I do not know of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of his answer with respect to the task force on information. Is it the government's intention to make that report public in view of the importance of the subject matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do intend to have parliament discuss this subject. Whether it will be by discussing the task force report or some other government decision has not yet been decided by the government.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having in mind the most recently announced increase in the cost of living index, is consideration being given to increasing the efforts of his department to combat this situation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We are always considering ways of making my effective department more effective.


George Harris Hees: Don't strain your wrist patting yourself on the back.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The government recently
appointed the Prices and Incomes Commission which is now at work in Ottawa. I shall be meeting with them this afternoon, for example, to consider how their work can be carried out most effectively.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Now that the hon. gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has accepted a lower price for wheat on behalf of the

western farmer, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs see that this lower price is passed to the consumer by having the price of bread reduced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



SALES TAX REMOVAL-PASSING ON OF BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS

Mr. Max Salfsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it relates to the rise in the cost of living. In the light of the minister's reply to my question the other day, when he told the house that pharmaceutical prices fell only 5J per cent after the 12 per cent sales tax was dropped, does he intend to institute an investigation to discover why the full sales tax reduction was not passed on to the consumer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The progressive
action taken by the government involved the removal of the sales tax at the manufacturers' level, and 11 per cent at the manufacturers' level is not 11 per cent at the retail level.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: In
view of the seriousness of this question, would the minister consider bringing forward government order 91 which would at least have the effect of setting up the joint committee of this house and the other place on price stability, incomes and employment so that the committee could commence its work early in September?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I believe the President of the Privy Council dealt with that question the other day.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary to the
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of reminding hon. members that we shall soon be running out of time. Many members did not have a chance to ask questions yesterday and perhaps we should try to give them an opportunity today.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the question asked-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We might
return to this question after we have allowed other members an opportunity to take part.
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
it is, and given full weight in the making of any decision?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of Naiional Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can make the commitment that I will very gladly receive the premier of the province and discuss this problem with him whenever it is feasible for both of us to do so.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that assurance. Will similar arrangements be made in respect of other provincial governments that wish to take similar action?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the case of each base is different and I do not think calls for the same kind of treatment.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one more supplementary question on this very important matter. I address it to the Prime Minister. Win the Right Honourable Prime Minister assure the house that before any closure takes place the government will implement measures to compensate as far as humanly possible for any economic hardship that may be caused to the people and communities concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not give that undertaking in respect of any closure, because it is conceivable that in some areas closure would not have the significant consequences about which the hon. member is concerned. But in cases where there would be significant hardship, as the hon. member says, I can give an undertaking that the government would not proceed with the closure without having considered alternative ways of alleviating that hardship.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his assurance and say, by way of clarification, that I had in mind areas that are heavily dependent economically on the existence of defence bases.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is the case, we would give the type of consideration which the hon. member is suggesting before making any announcement of such closures. We do realize that some bases are not economic units and if any such bases were closed in less developed parts of Canada we hope that they would be linked to some other action by the government to ensure that growth centres spring up in the areas where closure is contemplated.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact he stated that in cases where bases are closed down the government will do everything it possibly can to ease the situation imposed on those who are affected, would he initiate this policy with regard to Camp Picton which is practically closed down now and where nothing whatsoever has been done to ease the situation of the 1500 people who are affected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will recognize that we are now getting involved in the field of individual stations. I wonder whether this is what hon. members want to do. Now that the hon. member has made his representation I think we should go on to another subject.


J. Michael Forrestall: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can he tell us whether or not he is still able to adhere to the August 1 deadline for the announcement of the reported 15 or up to 15 bases that are going to be closed? While he is on his feet, could he also give some indication as to the progress achieved by him and his colleagues in the formulation of an interim program of financial assistance where the economic impact will be quite severe?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister should be
allowed to answer the first part of the question. However, it seems to me that the second part is too wide in scope and would require a statement on motions.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, may I say with your permission, first that we have never contemplated closing 15 bases. This is an exaggeration. I should like to say in reply to the first part of the question that there is not much hope that I can meet the August 1 deadline. There is a possibility, but it is rather remote. However, this is not a bad indication.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The purport of the second part of my question was not to ask for an explanation but rather for a yes or no reply on whether or not the minister and his colleagues have arrived at a workable formula, and not necessarily to explain the formula.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I could say that we are pretty close to it, Mr. Speaker.
July 24. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hees: Is the reason for the delay that the Vatican is showing the same kind of enthusiasm to being recognized by Canada as Red China is at the present time?



COMBINES


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he and his department are considering an investigation in respect of the relationship between C.N.-C.P. Telecommunications and Computer Sciences Canada Limited to ascertain whether it is in the nature of a monopoly and whether continued development may not be in the best interests of the Canadian public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is inviting a very general statement which normally should be made on motions. I will not suggest to the hon. member that his question be placed on the order paper because this would show a lack of confidence in respect of what may happen in the next few days. But I do not think the question can be asked at this time.



FINANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister said he was pleased that the banks had so far resisted any temptation to raise interest rates. Three of the major finance companies yesterday raised their interest rates, which may have an effect upon the decision of the banks. Has the minister had conversation with the near-banks with respect to holding interest rates at their present level, as he has with the chartered banks?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to hold conversations with the major finance companies in view of the fact that if they continue to raise interest rates it will create problems for the minister in holding the level of interest rates generally?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that lenders will contain their interest rates as much as possible. My hon. friend knows there is a difference in the relationship between the government of Canada and the banks, and the government of Canada and finance companies which may be incorporated provincially or federally.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? I am, of course, aware of the situation the minister has outlined. In view of the fact that the government refused to implement the recommendation of the Porter Commission to bring near-banks under the control of the Bank Act, is the minister prepared to announce to the finance companies that he will, if necessary, implement the recommendation of the Porter Commission which would bring near-banks under federal jurisdiction?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this would of course be a major policy decision which would be made only after consultation with my colleagues and announced in the normal fashion.



CHARTERED BANKS-ASSURANCE RESPECTING INTEREST RATES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of his communications with the banks through the Governor of the Bank of Canada, he has received any assurance from the banks that they will avoid further increasing their interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: Not really, Mr. Speaker. All I see are the actions that have been taken. As my hon. friend knows, I am not in continuous contact with the banks; my contact with them is generally through the Governor of the Bank of Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he assure the house that no irrevocable decision will be taken regarding the future of the Canadian forces base at Summerside until the submissions of a delegation from Prince Edward Island, led by the premier of that province, are received on Monday, I believe
July 24, 1969	COMMONS


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot announce the date, but I can inform the house that satisfactory progress is being made.



WHEAT-DIFFERENCE IN PRICES TO JAPAN

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce related to one I asked yesterday. In view of reports that the Japanese are refusing to buy Canadian wheat because they claim there is an adverse price differential between the prices quoted to Japan and those quoted to European markets, will the minister say whether wheat is being offered at different price levels in the European and Japanese markets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, debate on this subject is normal. It is customary for buyers to believe that the price is too high. It is very seldom that sellers believe that the price is too high. Consultation is taking place between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Japanese buyers in respect of this matter. If the hon. member wants a copy of the price schedule of the Wheat Board I will be glad to give him one.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Is the Wheat Board departing from its standard practice of quoting each day the same prices to customers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Is it true that one of the reasons Japan is not placing orders for Canadian wheat is the expected labour trouble in the Vancouver area next month?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is no strike yet but businesses are usually affected by even the threat of a strike like this one.



COMPETITIVE POSITION OF REDUCED WHEAT BOARD PRICES

Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the recent decrease in the quoted prices of our wheat has put Canada in competition with the United States, particularly in view of the large decrease of 12 cents a bushel they put into effect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is debatable, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. John Burton (Regina East): Mr. Speaker, in view of the drop in wheat prices during the last week, and in view of the fact that the International Grains Arrangement is regarded by the government as representing a commitment on the part of Canada, is the government now considering implementing a price guarantee to farmers based on the International Grains Arrangement minimum price?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer is the same as on previous occasions, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO SECOND PARK Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he tell us whether negotiations have begun with the Quebec government with regard to the establishment of a second national park in the Eastern Townships, more exactly in the Mauricie?
['No final decision has been taken as yet in this regard, Mr. Speaker.\n11534\tCOMMONS DEBATES\tJuly 24. 1969\nInquiries of the Ministry\nthe subject of referrals to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I hesitate to suggest that to the hon. member. I think perhaps his remedy at this time might be to ask the question a third time or seek to have the matter debated. Perhaps there might be some way to clarify the difficulty. But I do not think it would be in order to send this kind of question to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. It seems to me there should be a more effective way to clear up the very legitimate and evident difficulties which the hon. member has met. Perhaps we could have a conversation about it within the next few days and we might be able to find some way in which the matter might be cleared up other than by having this grievance referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.\n[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)']
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I met with Mr. Loubier yesterday and we discussed the matter of national parks in the province of Quebec in general.



[Stage Direction]
DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGE WITH THE VATICAN Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister said a few months ago that he was particularly enthusiastic about the idea of establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican. We have heard no news about this matter during the intervening months. Is it his intention to proceed with this plan, or has it been abandoned.
An hon. Member:: Do you want to go, George?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure this is an urgent matter, but perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister might want to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No final decision has been taken as yet in this regard, Mr. Speaker.
11534	COMMONS DEBATES	July 24. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
the subject of referrals to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I hesitate to suggest that to the hon. member. I think perhaps his remedy at this time might be to ask the question a third time or seek to have the matter debated. Perhaps there might be some way to clarify the difficulty. But I do not think it would be in order to send this kind of question to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. It seems to me there should be a more effective way to clear up the very legitimate and evident difficulties which the hon. member has met. Perhaps we could have a conversation about it within the next few days and we might be able to find some way in which the matter might be cleared up other than by having this grievance referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, once again, out of an abundance of caution and in the event the motion of which I gave notice yesterday under the provisions of Standing Order 33 is not disposed of in this sitting, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the house, immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming the debate on the motion "that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be concurred in", and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed thereto, I will move that the said debate not be further adjourned.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why do you not put it on a perpetual basis?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
CANADA-ONTARIO JOINT COMMITTEE__

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for water and energy. Arising from the press release issued by the minister today stating that the governments

of Canada and Ontario have agreed to establish a joint committee of senior officials to advise on water management policies and operations including pollution, will the minister advise whether similar arrangements are being made with other provinces and, if not, why not?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will be our hope to work out similar arrangements with other provinces. I met with the minister from Ontario yesterday and we agreed that this kind of committee should allow for a maximum amount of information and consultation, to ensure that efficient use is made of all our resources in such fields as pollution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the minister entered into any definite discussions with other provinces or has he any firm intentions of entering into such discussions across the country on any regular basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention to enter into such discussions as soon as reasonably possible in this connection and expressly in connection with the proposed new Canada Water Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister say whether this joint committee is supposed to consider a proposal for diversion of waters in the James Bay area into the Great Lakes?


Otto Emil Lang: It certainly is not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say at this time whether the study of water diversion from north-western Ontario into Lake Superior and the six progress reports which have followed from that study will be tabled in the house before we recess?


Otto Emil Lang: I cannot give a definite answer to that question. We are looking into the possibility of the publication of these documents but a firm decision has not yet been reached.



POLLUTION


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he can announce a date in respect of the signing of an agreement between the federal government and the province of British Columbia on a water pollution policy?

Thursday, July 24, 1969