March 11, 1968

RA

David Réal Caouette

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Caouelle:

Not the regional director, the general director.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
PC

Georges-J. Valade

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Valade:

-the general director of the French network deems it necessary to make such a criticism known to the public, it is because, in my view, he seems unable to solve the problem. On account of the part he is made to play, of the little authority or the little protection he is given by the government, he felt, at a given time, the need to express publicly his uneasiness in the face of conditions he is unable to correct by himself.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
IND

Joseph-Alfred Mongrain

Independent

Mr. Mongrain:

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to my friend, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), who is usually very objective, but I would not want him to lead the house astray. Twice now I have heard him say that the vice-president wanted to discuss publicly a matter of internal administration, when everyone knows that those were confidential instructions sent within the C.B.C. administration. It was through the indiscretion of some journalists that they were made public. The vice-president did not publish them.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
PC

Georges-J. Valade

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Valade:

Mr. Chairman, I do not feel that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is justified.

If those instructions leaked out or were published in the papers because of an indiscretion, I am willing to take the word of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres for it.

On the other hand, with regard to Mr. Oui-met's statement, one may wonder whether there really was a leak or whether, in certain quarters, someone did not want those instructions to appear in the newspapers.

In any case, whatever the technique that was used, one cannot deny that there is very deep unrest within that corporation, specially when a person in authority such as Mr. Ouimet, feels unable to solve as difficult a problem as that one. I think that, in a case like this it is the duty of parliament or of this government to step into the picture. After the violent accusations the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) launched against the corporation, I wonder what we are waiting for to show that we are not afraid of a corporation which is in some way the child of the government, that we do not hesitate to protect the interests of the public which must pay the cost of the corporation, to set up the machinery of an inquiry?

Supply-Secretary of State [DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

Let us convene the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, let us conduct an inquiry, in camera if necessary, but, if we have some respect for those who have elected us, I do not think we should allow all kinds of doubts or implications to subsist. If there is any basis to them, the situation should be corrected. Otherwise, those who cast doubts within the C.B.C. should be blamed.

I do not want, Mr. Chairman, to dwell further on that point. I will probably have the opportunity to bring it up again, but I would like now to refer to an extremely important thing for the city of Montreal.

Several years ago, that is in 1958, 1959 and 1960, the C.B.C. began negotiations with the Montreal authorities for the construction of a complex for the technical facilities, the studios, cameras, indeed for all that is required for the new television technique.

The former government had committed itself, with the city of Montreal and Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation to build in the eastern part of the metropolis what was known as the "Cite des Ondes".

As we know, this project was to have been started on October 1st, 1965. But of course, after election day, it was put off until October 1st, 1966. The present Secretary of State, and the one before her, who is now in the other place, had, at a number of public meetings, promised the Montreal taxpayers that no delay would be tolerated on this project.

However even though it is of vital importance to the metropolis of Canada, it has been continuously put off. At that time we believed the minister when she said, that this "Cite des Ondes" project was being put off until the end of Expo '67, in view of the considerable amount of works that would accrue to Montreal because of Expo.

Expo is over now; business is extraordinarily slack in the city of Montreal, where you find more than 8 per cent of the unemployed of Quebec. All merchants, businessmen, citizens and workers, who are interested in knowing the government's intentions as regards this project, are still waiting for the implementation of this election promise by a minister, by a government which have given no indication yet of their intentions concerning the execution of that project.

Some people say it will be worth $70 million. Perhaps the population will be told that

March 11, 1968

Supply-Secretary of State because of the austerity program, the government lacks the money. Perhaps the government will say: We cannot afford it, and the project must again be put off.

However, Mr. Chairman, in that is a political and moral obligation of the Liberal government towards the people of Montreal. It consists in carrying out that project in Montreal without any delay. If there is a lack of money, perhaps the government could reduce the C.B.C. budget by $15 or $20 million a year, and after three years, it would have paid for the new buildings of the corporation.

We have no right to leave the entire population of the metropolis of Canada in a state of indecision. All this is extremely prejudicial to the businessmen and the people of the eastern part of Montreal.

I am surprised-and I say this without reflecting whatsoever on my Montreal colleagues-at the silence of my friends opposite who represent ridings in the Montreal area. The population is greatly concerned over the government's delay in carrying out that project and I am surprised to find that no Liberal member from Montreal is rising to insist that his party, the present government, keep its formal commitment toward the people of Montreal. If the government fails to make its intentions known, whatever they are, the people of Montreal will surely not forget it. The government should recognize that that is a formal commitment, an undertaking, an election promise that it is not keeping and has not kept. Mr. Chairman, I feel I had to emphasize in this house that oversight, that anomaly on the part of the Liberal party.

Those are the few remarks I wanted to make.

I want to stress again that millions of dollars which could be invested in the eastern part of the city of Montreal will be so only when the people, the businessmen and the contractors know whether or not those buildings will be erected in the eastern part of Montreal as promised. Incidentally, I met several people who assured me that there will be a recrudescence of activity in the eastern part of the metropolis, as soon as the government makes its intentions known. It will certainly help the workers to get some work and alleviate the serious problem of unemployment which exists in the Canadian metropolis.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
PC

Lewis Mackenzie Brand

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brand:

Mr. Chairman, I intend to be mercifully brief. When the hon. member for

Rosthern was cataloguing the waste the Auditor General found in the C.B.C., to the extent of $320 thousand. I could not help thinking back a year when the Board of Broadcast Governors approved the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's request that television facilities should be built in the city of Saskatoon, my constituency. This facility had been promised for many years and suddenly the cabinet, faced with financial problems and all the other internal problems, squashed the idea very completely. I thought perhaps that now was as good a time as any to rise and briefly ask the government once again whether or not they would consider reinstating the construction of this facility. They seem willing to see $320 thousand wasted which incidentally was the amount of money voted in the estimates from which this facility in Saskatoon would have been supplied. Somehow or other, the money got lost.

I can assure you that the people of my constituency, who are contributing something over $7 per capita to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, would be more than interested in being able to assess the results of their investment in this crown corporation. Saskatoon is the only city of its size in Canada that does not have a second television facility, and I feel the time has come when this should be provided. In addition, provision should be made for a satellite transmitter to cover the other areas to the west. A year has gone by, and we have been very patient in my city. If the aspirants for leadership have any influence at all,-yes, even the good looking ones, and I note that three of them smiled when I said that-it would be very much to their advantage to press on their cabinet colleagues the need for allowing this facility before April 6. Certainly we believe we are entitled to it. Heaven knows we are paying for it. I feel we should have the opportunity to decide whether or not our money is being well spent.

The only C.B.C. programs we get from the station we have are the ones the C.B.C. dumps on that station. Some of them are good, I will admit, that, but some of them are utter trash, as has been pointed out before. I should like to tell the government that from now on, as long as the house is sitting, I intend to raise this matter at every possible opportunity until they see the error of their ways and allow Saskatoon the privilege of having a C.B.C. facility in that city.

March 11. 1968 COMMONS

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
PC

Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Sherman:

Mr. Chairman, I am one of those in this chamber who during the past two years or more has on several occasions had some stern and critical things to say about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly in the area of public affairs programming on television. Therefore it may surprise some members of the committee this evening to learn that I come here not to bury Caesar but to praise him.

I believe that the criticisms that have been levelled at C.B.C. public affairs programming on television during the past two years by a number of members of this chamber, including the hon. member for Elgin, the hon. member for Oxford, the hon. member for Leeds, myself and others who have spoken out, were entirely legitimate. Certainly I know they were criticisms made by those who were entirely sincere and conscientious, and I am now satisfied that those criticisms were compeletly constructive.

I think it is becoming apparent to an encouraging degree, albeit to a limited extent, that some of the shafts of criticism have found their target and are producing some improvements. I like to think that it is because members of the chamber, as well as members of the general public, editorial writers and members of the press, have taken it upon themselves to speak out in this area and objectively and constructively to analyse and assess what our public broadcasting service is doing, what it is achieving and where it is falling short of its legitimate aims, that these encouraging improvements, gradual and minimal as they may be, are now becoming evident in our national broadcasting programming.

I exclude myself from any participation in this exercise, but as far as the others to whom I have referred are concerned I suggest they can take some well earned satisfaction at the degree of study and application that they have brought to bear on this question. In the past little while public affairs programming in the C.B.C. television service has reflected a substantial improvement in the area of balanced programs, an area about which many of us expressed concern. I think this improvement is reflected in a general healthiness in the programming of the corporation that was not present before.

There are two cases immediately in point. I think of some excellent public affairs shows on C.B.C. television last week, one on India and another on the anatomy of communist 27053-473

DEBATES 7511

Supply-Secretary of State espionage. I also think of what I found to be a moving experience last night when producer Beryl Fox's tribute to Bernard Fall was presented on C.B.C. television in the form of a documentary film entitled "Last Reflections on a War". Personally, Mr. Chairman, I found my exposure to that hour of documentary film a moving experience and an infinitely poignant one. I do not agree entirely with the persuasion of the film itself, but generally I thought it was a fair, objective, valuable and, as I said before, infinitely poignant contribution to the current bibliography on Viet Nam.

I did not feel that way about the first film that was produced by Beryl Fox entitled "Mills of the Gods", an award winning film which admittedly was technically and artistically excellent. I did not feel, however, that the content, philosophy, persuasion and message of that film was entirely constructive, objective, fair or balanced. However, that is my personal opinion, and I dare say that others in the country, and certainly Miss Fox herself, have a view that is opposed to mine. I thought her first documentary left something to be desired and I have said so both inside and outside the chamber.

However, Mr. Chairman, whatever shortcomings were found in the first documentary poem that Miss Fox did on Viet Nam, and whatever weaknesses and errors were there, these were more than overcome and compensated for last evening in her moving film that the C.B.C. screened last night under her production, "Last Reflections on a War". I do not believe that such a documentary could possibly have been shown on the C.B.C. network two years ago. Two years ago, even a year ago, I felt that this was the type of balance or objectivity that was desperately needed in television programming on the national network of this country but which we were failing to get because of a particular cant, slant or point of view that was being brought to international affairs as a result of certain influences that were being exerted in the programming department of the C.B.C. However, this kind of objective approach is now possible, and the documentary screened last night was a manifestation of that approach.

Some members of this house, and other people outside it who have spoken out during the last two years or more against what they felt was a serious weakness in the programming policy of the C.B.C., can now take some well deserved credit for having achieved

March 11. 1968

Supply-Secretary of State improvement in this particular area. It is an improvement that a great many Canadians-I venture to say the majority of Canadians-desperately and devoutly wished and which they now hail with considerable satisfaction.

On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I think the programming is now considerably better balanced. There is certainly less of what I regarded as blatant and unreasonable anti-Americanism in the C.B.C. television news broadcasts and some of the more telescopic public affairs programs such as "Viewpoint". As I say, I think this creeping evidence of balanced objectivity is a response to the views enunciated in this chamber and articulated by people outside the chamber, not just by professionals, such as members of the press and people in other areas of professional life who have spoken up, but by the average citizen who has made his opinions known through the mail, at meetings and by word of mouth. I suggest they can take satisfaction from something that represents an obvious improvement in our national broadcasting service and its approach to national events and affairs. Much needs to be done, but there is evidence of the legitimacy of many of the criticisms some of us expressed about the C.B.C.

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)

About ten days ago, Mr. Marcel Ouimet, a top executive of the corporation, felt constrained to issue a directive focussing attention on separatist influences and programming tendencies within the corporation. Inside and outside this chamber during the past two years, evidence, with supporting documentation, was given of this unfortunate and nefarious practice. Unfortunately, though, these activities have been hard to prove. Such activities, which are sensational and invite criticism, tend to compromise the credibility of the person making a charge. I think that those who spoke out against the use of existing C.B.C. facilities for the spread of separatist influences are to be commended.

The criticisms of the corporation which have been made are justified beyond all shadow of doubt. Because of Mr. Marcel Ouimet's initiative a few days ago evidence in black and white was brought forward to show that this unfortunate manipulation and exploitation of national broadcasting facilities, for which each and every one of us pays, was taking place. The evidence of that manipulation and exploitation was so serious and

strong that a senior executive, Mr. Ouimet, felt constrained to tell all program and production personnel working under him that he was aware of this practice, and that it was their responsibility in the interests of Canada and confederation to eliminate it so far as was constitutionally and legally practicable within the national corporation. At the same time it must be remembered that a great many people in the corporation display loyalty and patriotism to this nation.

Much needs to be done to improve the corporation, as was made evident in the past few days. Nevertheless, having been fairly free with my criticisms of the C.B.C., I wish to take this opportunity to say that I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I believe a concerted effort has been made in recent weeks on the part of program directors and senior executives of the C.B.C. to bring a new balance to their public affair programs, and I commend them for that. There is room for better balance, as there is always room and need for vigilance and management responsibility, but a start has been made in the direction of improving matters. I should be delinquent as a member of this chamber and as one who is interested in this field if I failed to recognize the improvement that has taken place.

May I say a word or two about the Board of Broadcast Governors, covered by this item in the estimates. Though some of my remarks have not dealt with this central subject, since Your Honour was charitable enough to allow others to deviate from it I hoped you would allow me to do the same, and I thank you for allowing me a certain latitude.

When considering the B.B.G. we must realize that in Canadian broadcasting we have come to the end of an era, an important era in an important industry. Soon the B.B.G. will be phased out of existence, to be replaced by the regulatory authority, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. It behooves us now to salute an authoritative body that has made great contributions to Canadian broadcasting. In particular it behooves members of this house to salute the outgoing head of the B.B.G., Dr. Andrew Stewart. I do not know what plans Dr. Stewart has for his future because I have not been privy to any decision that has been made. However, judging from the silence on the subject I should judge that Dr. Stewart is not planning to extend his active life in broadcasting at this time. If one may judge from the lack of comment with

March 11, 1968 COMMONS

regard to C.R.T.C. appointments up to now and with regard to Dr. Stewart's future plans, one might expect that Dr. Stewart will be employing his many talents in fields other than broadcasting, though what those fields will be it is difficult to say.

I wanted to say some things about the B.B.G. which the house I think would wish to hear, but time does not permit me to do so now. Perhaps within the next 24 hours I might be permitted to continue my remarks. May I call it ten o'clock?

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
?

@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole

Order, please. Since it is ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again?

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Progress reported.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Sub-subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PC

Michael Starr (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Starr:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader what surprises the government has for us tomorrow?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare; Minister of Amateur Sport; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

Tomorrow we want to take second reading of the tax bill.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Which one?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare; Minister of Amateur Sport; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

Following that, we shall take the supplementary estimates.

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


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


INDIAN AFFAIRS-SASKATCHEWAN-MEDICAL DECISIONS AFFECTING STERILIZATION AND CONTRACEPTIVES

PC

Lewis Mackenzie Brand

Progressive Conservative

Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):

On February 8 I addressed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asking whether he had received letters of protest from certain medical authorities in Saskatchewan regarding actions by officials of the department of Indian affairs in making arbitrary and long distance medical decisions contrary to those made by the local doctors with respect to treating Indians in connection with medical sterilization and the use of contraceptive pills.

Quite properly, the minister pointed out at that time that I should have addressed my 27053-473|

DEBATES 7513

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare within whose purview the question of the health of Indians comes. However, I should like to point out that I deliberately addressed the question to the minister of Indian affairs because it seemed inconceivable to me that decisions affecting Indians and the manner in which they are treated should be made unilaterally by the Department of National Health and Welfare, without consultation with the minister of Indian affairs.

Needless to say, when this matter was brought to my attention I was very perturbed about two factors in particular, first that there should be bureaucratic interference with bona fide medical decisions and, second, that there should be an attempt by the department, whichever it was, to control Indians-to consider them as some sort of imbecile ward of a government department.

The question came to my mind whether we were encouraging the Indian people toward self-determination by acting in this way, and whether this bureaucratic interference with valid medical decisions should be permitted. In support of my statement I have here a copy of a letter from the Department of National Health and Welfare in which, after a reference to the sterilization of two particular native people who are mentioned, the following appears:

Sterilization for Indians is not condoned as a directorate policy, nor is the routine use of contraceptive device or pill. However, with certain medical grounds contraceptive techniques are allowed under physician guidance.

It is true there are valid medical reasons for sterilization, apart from any policy which might be laid down by a bureaucratic administration. For example one could mention chronic disease, such as kidney disease or tuberculosis where further pregnancies would exacerbate the disease, and where there are several children in the family and it was felt sterilization should be carried out. And there are many gynaecological reasons for precluding further pregnancies unless grave risk to the mother is accepted.

The use of the contraceptive pill may also be justified for valid and cogent medical reasons, not just for the social reasons which we have all come to understand. Today we seem to be asking for self-determination for our Indian people, the development of a spirit of self reliance so that they can look after themselves and play their part to the full in our society because, after all, they are the true

7514 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion founding people of this country. Accordingly, it seems to me this interference with valid medical decisions should be ended and that Indians should be given freedom to make decisions for themselves under proper medical guidance.

I would be very interested in hearing either from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), who I know has a sympathetic regard for this sort of problem, or from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Rideout), to see whether or not this policy is going to be reversed, and what are the plans of the departments to look after what to me appears to be a very serious problem.

Topic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS-SASKATCHEWAN-MEDICAL DECISIONS AFFECTING STERILIZATION AND CONTRACEPTIVES
Permalink
LIB

Margaret Isabel Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Liberal

Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, I have checked with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) about the question the hon. member has raised, and I have been advised that he has received no letters protesting the action that his officials allegedly took in connection with medical sterilization and the use of contraceptive pills by Indians. In any event these matters would normally come within the purview of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has also informed me that his officials did not send out a directive regarding sterilization or the use of contraceptive pills by Indians.

Topic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS-SASKATCHEWAN-MEDICAL DECISIONS AFFECTING STERILIZATION AND CONTRACEPTIVES
Permalink

AGRICULTURE-POTATOES-IMPORTS FROM U.S. INTO WESTERN CANADA

NDP

Edward Richard Schreyer

New Democratic Party

Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) is present to listen to the subject matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the department and the minister. What is involved is an application by the Canadian Horticultural Council, on behalf of the potato growers organizations of Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, made to the minister in an attempt to get him to consider imposing value for duty on the importation of potatoes from the United States.

The application for the imposition of value for duty was made on January 22, by which time the groups involved had already become concerned about the effect which American *surplus potatoes was having on prices paid to producers in western Canada. The application was followed up by a delegation which came

.

DEBATES March 11. 1968

to see the minister in Ottawa in February. Since then there has been no indication from the minister as to whether he will accede to this request.

Last week I asked the minister if he was in a position to say whether his officials had made any calculations to determine whether in fact there was dumping of American potatoes in Canada. The minister has said that one of the reasons the government has not as yet agreed to the imposition of value for duty is because of the opposition to such a course of action by maritime provinces potato shippers. It is not clear in my mind, nor in the minds of western potato growers and their representatives, whether the potato shippers from the maritimes are truly representative of the growers or whether they are more representative of the wholesaler and distributor segments of the potato industry in that part of the country.

In any case I would like to point out that section 40(7)(b) of the Customs Act provides that the minister may have a calculation made as to the importation of any fruit or vegetable into this country to determine whether or not the price at which they come in constitutes dumping. The minister should do at least that much. He should indicate to the people who have made this request to him six weeks ago what the findings of his officials were with regard to their application. He should not just simply sit back and say that they are giving the application consideration, but that because they have this opposition from the maritimes they do not feel it would be wise to take any action just yet.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)

The fact of the matter is that very often when a value for duty imposition is requested by producers, if action is not taken within two or three weeks it really loses its effectiveness. At the time in late January when the application was made approximately 40 per cent of western Canadian potato production was still not marketed. As a result of the procrastination and the failure to impose the value for duty there has been a depressing effect on prices to the producers in western Canada. Twenty per cent of that 40 per cent has still to be marketed.

When does the minister intend to take action in this regard and impose a value for duty? If another six week period goes by he might as well forget it. It should be said in closing that the potato growers in western

March 11, 1968

Canada have had to suffer through two consecutive years of depressed prices. This is not a healthy situation for any industry. Last year it could have been argued that the low price was due to over-production on the part of the producers themselves. I believe the minister suggested this last year. His advice was heeded by the growers and aided perhaps by nature. The fact is that potato production is down considerably in Canada this year, but despite this reduction the over-all prices remain depressed. They remain depressed because of the huge surplus south of the line which, as I said, is acting as a depressant on Canadian potato prices.

There is much more in the way of fact and figures which I should like to place on the record, but this is not necessary in view of the fact that the minister was in receipt of the brief and the application of the Western Canadian Potato Growers Association. They show a formula which under the provisions of section 40(7)(b) of the Customs Act could mean that the minister could take action to place a value for duty on American potatoes at a level of approximately $2.75. If this were done I am sure Canadian producers would be satisfied. By doing this the minister would be doing nothing more than what is provided for under the law. The law is there and I should like to know why the minister does not avail himself of it.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE-POTATOES-IMPORTS FROM U.S. INTO WESTERN CANADA
Permalink

March 11, 1968