1958-06-04

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Miss Aitken, Messrs. Argue, Best, Bourbonnais, Bourque, Brunsden, Campeau, Dorion, Eudes, Fairfield, Fisher, Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke), Forbes, Frechette, Grenier, Hanbidge, Houck, Kindt, Knowles, LaRue, Lennard, Lessard, Macquarrie, Martineau, Matthews, McFarlane, McGee, Mcllraith, Muir (Lisgar), Nixon, Pigeon, Racine, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Simpson, Skoreyko, Small, Smith (Lincoln), Smith (Winnipeg North), Southam, Stinson, Tremblay, Tucker, and Van Home, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of this house as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lewis Elston Cardiff: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members: Messrs. Allard, Asselin, Badanai, Barrington, Batten, Belzile, Bissonnette, Boivin, Bourdages, Bourque, Brunsden, Cadieu, Campeau, Clancy, Cooper, Creaghan, Des-chambault, Dubois, Dupuis, English, Fane, Flynn, Gillet, Godin, Grafftey, Gundlock, Henderson, Howard, Jorgenson, Korehinski, Lahaye, Lessard, Letourneau, Loiselle, Maclnnis, MacLellan, Martin (Timmins), Martini, McLennan, McWilliam, Michaud, Morissette, O'Leary, Phillips, Rapp, Ratelle, Rouleau, Rynard, Skoreyko, Southam, Taylor, Thrasher, Winkler, and Yacula will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege which affects every member of parliament, and in doing so I must relate a few background facts. Under treasury board regulation T.B. 477983 the daily check list is the only medium through which persons and institutions, so entitled, may obtain government publications free of charge from the queen's printer. Such requests must be made via the check list within ten days of its publication.
The question of privilege, as this procedure applies to members of parliament, is that it works a decided hardship, because ofttimes, due to absence from Ottawa on official business during sessions of the house, and especially during recesses of the house, members are not able to indicate their requests within the ten day period, for they do not receive the check lists until after the ten day period has expired. In addition, there are instances when members, as the result of events many weeks subsequent to the issuance of a particular check list, realize that they require certain publications.
I hope the treasury board will, at an early date, undertake to amend this regulation in order that members of parliament may not suffer any further inconvenience.


Mr. Speaker:: This is, perhaps, a matter of privilege, or a matter relating to the business of the house. In any event the hon. member has brought it to the attention of the house, and I take it he does not propose any further action at the moment.


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker, except to call attention to what I said at the end of my remarks.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-20, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Noël Dorion: The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the secrecy of reports, files or records in connection with the trial of juvenile delinquents, and to provide further

Proposed Legislation
that such records and files be destroyed after a period of five years from the date of such trial.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-21, to amend the Penitentiary Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of this bill is to remove the statutory provision which makes it automatic for the commissioner and deputy commissioner of penitentiaries to retire on reaching the age of 65. The effect of the amendment would make it possible to extend the term of office of those officials if it was desired to do so.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notices of motions:-The Prime Minister-The following proposed resolution:- That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this house do approve the same.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the item appearing under this heading on today's order paper, I should like to ask that it be transferred to government orders. It was originally intended to have this question of the North American air defence agreement considered on Friday, but in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had a prior engagement for that day this was impracticable. I hope that next week it will be possible to have a day set aside which will meet the convenience of the members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 21 (2) this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I understood, in discussions last evening, that possibly it might be arranged to have the debate on Tuesday. I do not know whether or not

this is agreeable to the house, but it would be helpful to us on this side if we knew Tuesday was acceptable.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish at all times to accommodate the convenience of the house but I am not at all certain it will be on Tuesday, because of prior arrangements which I have made.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How many vessels are owned by the Canadian National Steamships?
2.	How many of these are cargo vessels?
3.	Do any of the cargo vessels carry passengers?
4.	Have any of these vessels been tied up by a strike between the seafarers' international union and the Canadian National Steamships?
5.	If so, what are the names of the vessels?
6.	How long has the strike been in existence?
7.	Was the flag of these vessels transferred to that of another country?
8.	If so, what was the purpose of the transfer?
9.	Was the government consulted about the transfer of flag?
10.	Did the government approve the transfer?
11.	What has the transfer accomplished?
12.	What has the government done to settle the strike since the statement of the Minister of Transport in November, 1957?
13.	How many officers, petty officers and seamen man these ships?
14.	What has been done by the government to find employment for these men?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is eight.
As to parts 2 and 3, all are cargo vessels and three are passenger carriers.
The answer to part 4 is yes; since July 4, 1957.
With regard to part 5 the names of the vessels are: The Canadian Challenger, the Canadian Constructor, the Canadian Cruiser, the Canadian Conqueror, the Canadian Highlander, the Canadian Leader, the Canadian Observer and the Canadian Victor.
Part 6 is answered by the answer to part 4.
The answer to part 7 is yes.
As to parts 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, the answers to these can be found in the statements I made in the house on November 11, 1957, at page 939 of Hansard and on May 21, 1958, at page 307 of Hansard.
The answer to part 13 is 81.
In respect of part 14, the men are still on the payroll.


PILOTAGE AUTHORITY AND DISTRICTS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How many pilotage districts are there in
Canada?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	Under what authority is a pilotage district established?

4.	Is the carrying of a pilot in these districts voluntary or compulsory?
5.	In what districts is it compulsory and in what districts is it not?
6.	Who determines whether a ship should carry a pilot?
7.	Who is the pilotage authority for Canada?
8.	Does the pilotage authority have jurisdiction over that part of the channel in the St. Lawrence-Kingston and Ottawa district which flows in United States territory?
9.	Has an agreement been reached between the United States coast guard and the Department of Transport for compulsory pilotage in this district?
10.	If not, has an agreement been reached between Canada and the United States covering pilotage in this district once the St. Lawrence seaway goes into operation?
11.	Is legislation necessary to implement such an agreement?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to
the first part of the question is 48.
In regard to part 2, the pilotage districts for which the Minister of Transport is the pilotage authority are Sydney, Bras d'Or lakes and Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Quebec, Montreal, St. Lawrence-Kingston-Ottawa district; the British Columbia district and Churchill, Manitoba.
Pilotage districts under local pilotage authorities are the following: In Nova Scotia; Antigonish, Digby-Annapolis-Bear river, Economy, Glace Bay, Hants county, Inverness Southern, Louisburg, Minas, Parrsboro, Pictou, Port Medway, Pugwash, Richmond county, St. Anne, St. Mary's Bay, St. Mary's-Liscombe, Sheet Harbour, Tidnish-Northport and Wallace.


Mr. Pickersgill:: And all points west.


George Harris Hees: In New Brunswick: Baie Verte-Cape Tormentine, Bathurst, Buctouche Cara-quet, Charlotte county, Chignecto, Cocagne, Miramichi, Restigouche river, Richibucto, Shediac and Shippegan.


Mr. Habel:: All aboard.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if it is satisfactory to the house I will table this answer. It is of necessity a very long one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Dispense.


Lionel Chevrier: You are doing very well.


Mr. Benidickson:: You are such a good caller.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer be tabled in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: The Prince Edward Island pilotage district, the New Westminster pilotage district, British Columbia. In Newfoundland, Humber Arm, Port aux Basques, Botwood, Lewisporte, Togo and Wabana-Bell island.
Questions
As to part 3, the Quebec and Montreal pilotage districts were originally established by acts of parliament. Other pilotage districts in Canada, excepting those in Newfoundland, were established under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act.
Regarding parts 4, 5 and 6, the answer is that the carrying of a pilot is voluntary and is not compulsory in any district, and it is the master who determines whether a ship should carry a pilot.
In respect of part 7, the pilotage authority for the first nine pilotage districts named in the answer to part 2 is the Minister of Transport, and the remaining districts are under the local pilotage authorities appointed by the governor in council pursuant to the provisions of section 325 of the Canada Shipping Act, with the exception of the Newfoundland districts which were established prior to union.
The answer to parts 8, 9 and 10 is no, and in reply to part 11 I would say that legislation would be necessary to provide for compulsory pilotage in any Canadian waters.


HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	How many agreements have been signed by the federal government with the provinces pursuant to the provisions of the hospital insurance act?
2.	Have any conferences been held between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and any provincial minister of health or minister of welfare since January 30, 1958?
3.	Has any province refused to sign an agreement with the federal government under the hospital insurance act? If so, what reasons are given for failure to conclude such an agreement?
4.	Have any representations been made by any provincial government urging the federal government to share forthwith in the cost of existing hospital insurance schemes in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is one. The agreement with the province of Ontario, was signed on March 3, 1958.
The answer to the second part of the question is yes, the minister has conferred with a number of ministers of health. In addition a second federal-provincial technical conference on hospital insurance recently took place in Ottawa at which all provinces were represented.
The answer to part 3 is no.
In reply to part 4 since the announcement in the House of Commons during the last session of parliament regarding a proposed amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to enable the federal government to commence contributions as of July 1, 1958, no representations for earlier

Questions
payments have been made by the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.



EXCISE TAX ON AUTOMOBILES

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 4
Mr. Martin (Essex East):: 1.	Has the government received any representations from any group or individual in Canada for the elimination of the excise tax on automobiles?
2.	Is the government aware of the serious unemployment problem confronting the automobile industry?


Hon. Henri Courlemanche (Secretary of State):: The answer to part 1 is yes. The answer to part 2 is that the government is aware that, while employment in the automobile industry in Canada is somewhat lower than a year ago, there has been a noticeable improvement in employment in this industry in recent weeks.



NORTH-SOUTH AIR ROUTE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the air transport board carried out any negotiations with United States of America officials since February 1, 1958, on north-south air routes or franchises?
2.	If so, what are the routes or franchises involved?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is that informal discussions have been held between Canadian and United States governmental representatives since February 1, 1958, on trans-border air routes. The answer to part 2 is that since discussions have not yet led to any final agreement, it would be premature to disclose at this time the routes involved.



C.B.C.-CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BROADCAST

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation log references and a transcript of a Canadian Chamber of Commerce "public service" broadcast given on Sunday, March 30, on certain Canadian broadcasting stations?
2.	If so, on what stations was the broadcast carried?
3.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation examined the transcript to see if Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regulations were violated?
4.	Has the chief electoral officer asked the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a transcript of such a broadcast?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises me that with respect to part 1 the answer is that reference is made in a number of private station logs to a Canadian Chamber of Commerce broadcast on Sunday, March 30, but the corporation does not have a transcript of this broadcast.

With respect to part 2, the answer is that in a survey of private station logs 13 references to the program were found for Sunday, March 30. These stations were:
CKDM, Dauphin:	CHED, Edmonton; CJRL,
Kenora; CKCW, Moncton; CKOT, Tillsonburg; CHLO, St. Thomas; CJVI, Victoria; CJAT, Trail; CJCB, Sydney; CFPL, London; CFCN, Calgary; CKCL, Truro; CJIC, Sault Ste. Marie.
I might say that with respect to the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth station, the name of no sponsor is indicated.
With respect to part 3, the answer is no.
With respect to part 4, the answer is no.



HOWE SOUND MINING COMPANY


Mr. Dumas: 1.	How much money was paid to Howe Sound Mining Company by the federal government toward defraying a portion of the costs of keeping the Britannia mine open?
2.	When was the first payment made?
3.	When was the last payment made?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to the first part of this question is $48,000. The answer to parts 2 and 3 is that the only payment was made on March 4, 1958.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	When was H.M.C.S. Labrador built?
2.	What was the total cost of the vessel, i.e. cost of construction and cost of outfitting?
3.	For what purpose was the ship constructed?
4.	Did it perform duties in the Arctic?
5.	If so, (a) how often; (b) of what nature; (c) when were they carried out?
6.	What was the total personnel in seamen, officers and petty officers during the performance of such duties, and what was the cost of operating this ship for the navy?
7.	By whom are such duties being performed now?
8.	Was this ship transferred to the Department of Transport?
9.	If so, (a) when; (b) for what reason; (c) for what use?
10.	What is the total personnel, and what is the cost of operation under the Department of Transport?
11.	What naval equipment was on board the ship before the transfer, and what is being done with such equipment?


SHIPPING FEDERATION OF CANADA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is the shipping federation of Canada incorporated under federal statutes or regulations?
2.	If so, who are the officers; and what firms, companies, and associations are members of the federation?
3.	Of these members, how many are Canadian; how many British or foreign?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Do the United States aircraft reported to be exercising surveillance over certain Russian ships off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland operate from United States bases on Canadian soil? Do Canadian aircraft participate in this surveillance? Are these planes under the control of the North American air defence command?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the United States aircraft based at Argentia in Newfoundland and Canadian aircraft of the maritime air command carry out routine patrols near the approaches to the North American continent from the north Atlantic ocean. These approaches would include the area of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Those aircraft have not been placed under the control of NORAD.



R.C.A.F.-REPORTED REPLACEMENT OF JET AIRCRAFT FOR AUXILIARY SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that Royal Canadian Air Force auxiliary squadrons Nos. 401 and 438 are to have their jet aircraft replaced by Expeditors, and is this change to be applied to other auxiliary squadrons? I hope this part of my question is in order, Mr. Speaker. If so, what is the purpose of this change?


George Randolph Pearkes: As was announced by me during the estimates debate last fall-I think it was on December 5-a review has been carried out as to the most suitable role for the auxiliary squadrons of the R.C.A.F. It was announced then that they would concentrate their efforts on the search and rescue and transport role, as experience had shown that it was impossible for the auxiliary squadrons to reach a degree of operational efficiency with the jet fighter aircraft.
Last Saturday a conference of the commanding officers of the auxiliary squadrons was held in Ottawa, and all reported upon the success which had been achieved and the interest in the new role. It was therefore decided that the six auxiliary squadrons -two in Vancouver, two in Toronto and two in Montreal-would be converted to
Inquiries of the Ministry this new role or a role which had been given to the other auxiliary squadrons. They will therefore in due course have their jet trainers replaced by a type of aircraft suitable for the role which they are to carry out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Pursuant to the announcement which appears in today's paper, can the Minister of National Defence say whether or not the auxiliary air force squadrons in support of the civilian authorities will, as do land forces, pursue courses at the civil defence college at Arnprior?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is the intention that they will be given the opportunity of attending civil defence courses at Arnprior.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister's attention been drawn to recent reports in the Toronto Star relative to income tax penalties paid by Twin City Gas Company and the timing of the purchase of Twin City stock by Northern Ontario Gas. In view of the implications involved, could the minister inform the house if it is the intention of the government to investigate this situation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this question was sent to me after I came into the house this afternoon. I have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the question. I will make inquiries and in the meantime take the question as notice.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked me about a very weighty matter, the continuation of the Don Messer program by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have made inquiries and can now state on instructions from the C.B.C. that the Don Messer television program has been carried on a maritime regional network during the past season on a commercial basis. It had been

Inquiries of the Ministry hoped to extend this program to the full national network for the summer but unfortunately negotiations with advertisers on which this depended have not materialized. It is contemplated that the program will be resumed on television in the fall, either on a regional or national basis. The Don Messer radio program is continuing during the summer and is expected to go on also in the fall, to the satisfaction of the tens of thousands of Canadians who listen to it.



CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BROADCAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: This question is supplemental to the starred question asked by me and the answer given by the Minister of National Revenue relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since C.B.C. regulations forbid anything of a political nature to be broadcast within 48 hours of the polls opening, is the C.B.C. prepared to obtain a transcript of that particular broadcast and examine it from that point of view?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot direct the C.B.C. as to what they should do. However, I will make inquiries and advise the house at a later date.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The question is based on an article appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail stating that the government plans to make a contribution or grant of $15 million to $20 million for the construction of the new railway north from Waterways to Great Slave lake. Will the minister comment on that statement and say whether or not it is accurate?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, discussions and investigations regarding this matter are still "being carried on by the two railways. I would say that the figures mentioned in the article are pure speculation.


Lionel Chevrier: Has it been decided which of the two routes will be followed, either north from Waterways or northwest from Grim-shaw through the Peace river block?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.



OLD WELLAND CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister make a statement on government plans to remove the old Welland ship canal from the list of menaces to human safety?


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. The clean-up of the second Welland canal, which is an old disused canal running through the municipalities of St. Catharines, Thorold and Merritton, has been under discussion for a number of years with the municipalities. A project was approved by the previous administration a number of years ago but was not considered acceptable by the municipalities, which did not feel it would go far enough to remedy the existing conditions. After further discussion and engineering surveys, a revised and more extensive project was developed about 18 months ago which was in general acceptable to two of the three municipalities, St. Catharines and Thorold, but was considered inadequate by the municipality of Merritton.
Within the last three or four months, however, as a result of further engineering study and discussions between my department and the municipalities, modifications have been made to the revised plan to provide for certain additional improvements in the way of fencing and covering in, and this revised plan has just within the last few weeks been approved by all three municipalities.
Accordingly provision has been made in the supplementary estimates for a start on this work, and directions issued for preparation of the necessary plans and specifications so the work can be initiated as soon as possible this year.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will he now advise the house of the reasons for the government through its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, suspending agency loans in favour of direct loans by the corporation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that, I think, is a matter which should be dealt with on the estimates. As I told the hon. member last week, the small homes loan plan is still continuing. I now have a report for the first week, that is from May 23 to May 30, which shows that loans amounting to $12,657,395 for 1,128 units were made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer to my question. Perhaps the minister did not hear me. I will repeat it. Why has the government through its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, suspended agency loans in favour of direct loans by the corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking the minister to debate the point.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: He is asking him to justify the change. Surely that is asking for argument.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why was the change made?


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, may I be permitted to say that I asked a somewhat similar question earlier during the course of the discussion on housing and I got a very evasive answer. That is why the hon. member has asked the question, and again he does not get a reply.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if I remember
correctly the hon. member for Laurier asked whether the government had done such and such a thing and I answered him. Now the hon. member for Nipissing is asking why. That is not a matter to be inquired about on orders of the day at all.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Lionel Chevrier: A perfectly good question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No information.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that once the
question of the action that has been taken has been decided it seems to me to follow that to ask why it was done is not the type of question that should be asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, is it your ruling that we are not to ask for reasons for government actions on the orders of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: I am only ruling that this particular question is not a proper question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The iron curtain.
4, 1958	827
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



INQUIRY AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS IN OVERSEAS NEWSPAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to put during this period today. As it is always ladies first with me I will address the first one to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it government policy at the present time to insert advertisements in various newspapers and periodicals published in Britain and Europe, advertising Canada as a land of employment opportunity for those with ambition and enterprise?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer to
that question, Mr. Speaker, is no. However, I understand that some railway and steamship companies have been inserting some advertisements. They are not advertisements sponsored by the government or by this department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary
question. Am I to understand that the immigration policy of the Canadian National Railways differs from that of the Canadian government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what the policy of the Canadian National may be, but immigration policy belongs to the government. The other people, I understand, are merely selling space on their respective conveyances.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a further supplementary question. The Canadian national government is advertising on the basis I mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is that a portion of what
is government policy with respect to the solicitation of immigration, according to the answer given to me by the minister a few days ago?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not know what the
hon. member means by Canadian national government. If he means this government I may tell him that the Canadian government does not advertise.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I meant the Canadian National Railways.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member will
have to ask that question of the appropriate minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a
further supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Transport explain why the immigration policy of the Canadian National Railways differs from that of the Canadian government, as indicated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in reply to me?


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member well knows, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Railways has not an immigration policy. The Canadian National Railways quite naturally would like to attract as many people as possible to use these ships and/or railway cars, but the railway as such does not have an immigration policy.



REPORTED DENIAL OF ENTRY TO CANADA OF DUTCH FAMILY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the hon. lady has an answer to the question I directed to her yesterday.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is referring to the Dutch family, I have not yet had that report. As soon as I have had an opportunity to look over the case I will be glad to inform the hon. member.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the financial drain on the municipalities-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Hubert Badanai: In view of the financial drain on the municipalities caused by unemployed persons unable to pay hospital and medical expenses, has the government taken steps to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for hospital and medical care for unemployed persons?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question for the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question relates to one matter forecast in the speech from the throne. I am not sure whether or not it is on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot answer that question, perhaps the Acting Minister of Labour can at least take notice of it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the hon. member would like to repeat the question I should be glad to do so. I am sorry that I could not hear him distinctly.


An hon. Member:: Nobody else did, either.


Hubert Badanai: I have given up my copy, Mr. Speaker, but the question was whether the government has taken steps to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to provide payments to unemployed workers for hospital care and medical expenses?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be glad to give the hon. member a full answer later, but of course under the Unemployment Insurance Act itself there are no provisions for the payment of hospital care.


Mr. Speaker:: There is on the order paper a motion dealing with this subject. I think the hon. member might leave the matter until it comes before the house. It is under private members' motions.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON BENEFIT PAYMENT FIGURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. Is the hon. lady in a position to answer the question I put to her a day or two ago with regard to unemployment figures?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has the latest figures which have been compiled. I hope the current ones, for the month ended May 31, will be available within a week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will those new figures relate to the numbers of persons actually receiving benefits or merely to claimants, as the previous figures did?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Subject to correction, I believe the only figures we have are those of claimants.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. I should like to know whether, since the filing of the royal commission report on coastal shipping on May 22, the government

has considered the report and its recommendations and whether these recommendations are going to be put into legislation to be considered during this session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: We have a large legislative program still before us. Until that program has been more or less implemented no further consideration will be given to additional questions of legislation, unless they are of a most emergent character.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say what consideration has been given to introducing a scheme of crop insurance as a result of the recent conference with provincial ministers of agriculture?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: As a result of the recent conference with the provincial ministers of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, no particular consideration has been given to this matter. The whole matter, however, has been under very active consideration for many months past, and a considerable number of members of the Department of Agriculture have put a good deal of study and a good deal of work into the whole question of crop insurance and have prepared certain recommendations, which I am considering at the moment.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, and I regret that I have been unable to give him notice of it as I have just received information on this subject in the mail. Would the Prime Minister inform the house if he has received a letter from the Victoria chamber of commerce suggesting that the government institute compulsory arbitration in connection with the strike of the S.I.U. against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? If so, what action does this government plan as a result of this suggestion?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection at the moment of any such letter having been received, but it is of interest that my hon. Triend is suggesting in his question the adoption of compulsory arbitration. I will look
Inquiries of the Ministry into the matter and endeavour to give him an answer tomorrow, because I do not think I could be expected to remember all the letters received from day to day.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the Prime Minister misunderstand my question, which in no way implied a suggestion that there should be compulsory arbitration?



STATEMENT ON REPORTED SALES TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Leader of the Opposition asked the following question, as recorded at page 724 of Hansard:
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could state whether the recently reported sales of wheat to communist China were concluded under the agreement which, according to the press, he mentioned at Nanaimo and Port Alberni in British Columbia on March 12 of this year. If so, would the Prime Minister inform the house of the nature of this agreement?
I replied on behalf of the Prime Minister as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice, to check on the agreement which the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned.
What I checked on were the press notices to see what was said, and the research staff of the Leader of the Opposition has not been completely accurate in this matter, as might be expected. I wondered at his nostalgic reference to the election campaign, but I have the press notices with respect to the speeches made by the Prime Minister at Nanaimo and at Port Alberni on March 12 and March 14 last. The one at Nanaimo was reported by Southam News Service and the one at Port Alberni by the Canadian Press. The Southam News Service is a bit inaccurate in its first sentence, because it says:
John Diefenbaker shifted into low gear Wednesday-
He stayed in high gear throughout the election campaign. In that press dispatch there is no mention of any agreement whatsoever; I cannot find the word "agreement". In the Canadian Press dispatch from Port Alberni this passage occurs, and this is the one to which the Leader of the Opposition was perhaps referring:
The Conservative leader also spoke in favour of expanding trade with communist China-an objective being pushed by Harry McQuillan, the Conservative candidate in Comox-Alberni here.


Lionel Chevrier: Answer the question.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Churchill: My hon. friends opposite do mission to united kingdom-purchase not like this-	of electric appliances


Lionel Chevrier: We do not like speeches.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is contrary to the rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, so that everybody will be informed. Then in quotes it says:
"So long as our trade arrangements cover those things that are not strategic materials, there is no reason why we should not do what we can to extend trade with that country."
You will notice the word is "arrangement"; and then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not quite sure where the hon. minister is going, perhaps because I was not altogether clear as to where he started. As we now have a record where this information can be found, the question is probably almost sufficiently answered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, with great deference. The Leader of the Opposition wants to know what agreement which he says, according to the press, the Prime Minister mentioned at Nanaimo and Port Alberni, and I am pointing out that the Prime Minister did not mention any agreement. The press report quoted or referred to by the Leader of the Opposition mentions, not in quotation marks, that a recent agreement for the sale of wheat to communist China was,-and then in quotation marks it says:
"The beginning of what we believe will provide extra trade and opportunity."
My point is, sir, that there is no reference to any government agreement or anything of that kind. The trade in wheat with communist China has been carried out by private interests engaged in the grain business, and that trade has now amounted during this crop year to a sale of Canadian wheat in the amount of $5 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that the word "agreement" has been used in the Canadian Press account of these meetings? If he will read the report in the Vancouver Sun he will find that not only is reference made to an agreement there, at this meeting, but to a "recently signed agreement"; and recently signed agreements, especially with communist countries, are normally between governments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition has now referred to another press report, and it might have been helpful if he had submitted this to me in the first place.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like him to take this as notice. Were any electric appliances ordered or bought by any member of the Canadian mission to the United Kingdom? If so, what was the kind of appliance, what was the quantity and what was the total value in Canadian dollars?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that is not a question for the orders of the day, or even for the order paper.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government reached an agreement with the government of Saskatchewan as to financial assistance in regard to the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam?


John George Diefenbaker: We are always greatly interested to find members from other parts of the country developing an interest in this problem, an interest which has not been theirs over the years. All I can say is this. The matter is being considered, but no final arrangements have been entered into.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister would answer a supplementary question. Could he say when the federal government may make a decision on the request which I understand has been made by the provincial government with respect to assistance in the financing of the cost of power development in relation to that dam?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not the correspondence before me at the moment, but my recollection is that the correspondence to date has simply consisted of a request for a considerable expansion of financial assistance to the province, and that in so far as that request is concerned no favourable consideration has yet been given to the matter by this government.

Interim Supply
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE	INQUIRY FOR RETURN



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the press report in this morning's Gazette to the effect that Premier Bennett informed a press conference yesterday that the government of British Columbia will seek aid from Ottawa in an effort to halt violence in the Kootenays, would the minister inform the house if he has received a request for assistance from the government of British Columbia and, if so, what has been the government's response to such request?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received a suggestion from the government of British Columbia that we meet with them and discuss the problem, and I expect a meeting will be arranged in the very near future.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the welcome news that a new federal approach to security was revealed in a C.B.C. versus labour dispute involving an employee, would the minister care to make a statement to this house on the scope of the new federal approach in allowing adverse security reports to be seen by those reported upon?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think I should at once correct the misapprehension which would otherwise be created by the form in which the question was put. To my knowledge, at the hearing which was arranged as a special hearing in this one case the written security reports, at least in the sense of the complete documents on file, were not shown to the employee involved. It would not be possible to disclose our security files to anyone not authorized to see them.
This particular procedure was an attempt to find an answer to the problem of allowing a hearing, which could properly be called a hearing, to an employee who is suspected on security grounds. In so far as the hearing went, it was a special arrangement, and we are continuing to study the whole question to see if this does suggest a suitable pattern for dealing with this problem.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WORKS, LACHINE SECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I might inquire from the Acting Secretary of State when I might expect a return to my motion for the production of papers concerning the development of power on the St. Lawrence. Since the estimates of the public works department are coming up on Friday I wonder whether there is any way in which this could be hurried.


Howard Charles Green: Any such papers have nothing to do with the Department of Public Works.


Lionel Chevrier: Indeed they have, because the development of power in the Lachine section comes strictly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it does.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope to be able to establish the contrary when the hon. minister's estimates come up for consideration.



BEAUCE, QUE.  INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Public Works received any request from the provincial government of Quebec seeking financial help for the people of Beauceville who suffered grievous losses last December because of the flooding of the river?


Howard Charles Green: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Fleming (Eglinion) moved:: That a sum not exceeding $601,131,574.17 being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, except items 439, 443 and 502, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $408,333.34, being seven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of items 106 and 108 of the said estimates; a sum not exceeding $713,336.50, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of items 144, 182, 185 and 186 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $2,849,749.75, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 10, 70, 111, 152, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 207, 211, 212, 291 and 303 of the said estimates;

Interim Supply
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $14,287,343.67, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; a sum not exceeding $5,002,500.00, being three-quarters of the total of the amounts of items 545, 546, 547 and 627 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $200,000.00, being one-third of the total of the amount of item 635 of the said estimates,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959.
He said: Mr. Chairman, in the present resolution the government is asking for a vote of interim supply to provide for the needs of government for the months of June and July. Three weeks ago the house passed an earlier vote of interim supply to provide for the needs of government to the 31st day of May. Since that time the supplementary estimates were tabled two days ago and the present resolution asks for a vote not only out of the items of the main estimates but those in the supplementaries as well. The total amount which is now asked is $624,592,837.43. The sums already voted have been used for the purposes that parliament approved and now we need these additional moneys immediately.
As to the retention by parliament of its control over the reviewing of estimates and the voting of moneys for public purposes may I say just a word about the extent of the vote in today's resolution. In the case of all but 25 items in the main and supplementary estimates, what is asked for in the present resolution is the equivalent of one-sixth of the item, in other words, two months' proportion on a simple pro rata basis. In the case of 25 items, however, 20 of them being in the main estimates and five in the supplementaries, additional amounts are sought for what is in each case a special reason. In some cases these are items providing for construction and advantage must be taken of the building season. In other cases they are votes for United Nations purposes and are required now. In other cases the amounts pertain to the expenses of the House of Commons and the Senate in connection with the present session and cannot be distributed throughout the year on a pro rata basis by months. In other cases they relate to field services. For instance, in the field services under the Department of Agriculture we have the same need as under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
In the case of no item will the amounts voted today, even in the case of these 25 items I have mentioned, bring the total proportion voted to more than eleven-twelfths of the amount of the item as tabled. I give the committee now the customary assurance that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon.

members to criticize any items in the estimates when they come up for consideration in committee of supply. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as the result of the passing of this measure. In that respect I simply remind all hon. members that every item will be submitted in due course to the committee of supply, will be discussed there and voted on, and every hon. member retains his full right to discuss that item notwithstanding the vote on any such item today.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the minister's assurances that in no case will the house be debarred from the usual opportunity of examining at the proper time in the committee of supply each individual item on its merits, I believe that the minister will be glad to hear, as will the committee, that it is not the intention of those here to unduly prolong discussion of this measure. However, I would point out to the committee that in the case of 42 items on the first appropriation measure on May 14, and as the minister says in the case of 25 items today in the second appropriations bill, more than four-sixths of the annual amount in the estimates is being voted.
In view of the minister's unwillingness so far despite several questions to make any commitment about when we might be discussing in the form of a budget debate the over-all financial record of the government I was disappointed that in his remarks he seemed to overlook the discussion, brief though it was, which occurred on May 14 when the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Welland and I expressed the view that the house was entitled to receive from the minister something up to date in the way of a general review of the budgetary position of the government. As the minister on May 14 had personally referred to certain savings of some $73 millions that he said were being arranged below the 1957-58 appropriations we also felt that some detail of this should have been given to the house and not delayed. To that extent I must say it is rather a disappointment.
It occurs to me that many hon. members of this house are new. Of course, I am speaking in a new role from this side, at least to a motion of this kind. Usually in all motions that come before this assembly we receive 48 hours' notice in writing in some detail of the subject that is to come before us. I can imagine that new members are rather baffled to find that on something as important as this motion involving the expenditure of $624 million-odd we simply have

before us item No. 6 on the routine proceedings and orders of the day which gives us no detail in advance of the rather complicated matters that are involved here. We have only had the Minister of Finance explain today that in some instances he is asking for more than one-twelfth or one-sixth of the proportion of expenditures as outlined in the annual blue book of estimates.
In addition to that, hon. members will recollect that the blue book itself which contains more than 500 items was presented to us only a day before we were called upon to pass the first interim supply bill. This is in no way a criticism of the minister or anybody else but I do think that when we next review the rules of this house we could probably with profit decide upon a new measure under which the introduction of a bill of this kind would be preceded by notice and we would have some detail of the items that are to be under scrutiny and in which there are variations such as the minister has told us just now.
We therefore accept the motion as a routine one. We have just spent two days on a motion with respect to supply, one of six that we will have before us this session. I do not intend to prolong this discussion but I do suggest those who are giving forethought to making parliament more effective might very well consider that it would be helpful to all hon. members if some device could be found by which we would have an opportunity to learn of the intentions of the minister when it comes to asking for extra amounts for interim supply beyond a certain fraction at an earlier date than is usual now.
I have looked them over too hurriedly, as I had to do a month ago, but, as the minister explains, we are meeting at a time that is not usual for parliamentary assembly, having regard to the commencement of the fiscal year. We must appreciate that certain things such as our contribution to the United Nations refugee fund, the United Nations Palestine refugees and, as the minister has said, our own parliamentary expenses, do not operate on a monthly basis and have to be taken care of in a special way. Similarly, I think the other items that have come to my attention, which require more than the basic four-twelfths of the annual grant, involve such things as our obligation to reimburse the Canadian National Railways for its operation of such things as the West Indies Steamships, and so on.
Before I sit down I do want to remind the committee that since we had our first appropriations bill of this type we have had supplementary estimates presented to us. These provide an additional $58 million 57071-3-53
Interim Supply
beyond what was in the main estimates of the blue book and also some $27 million for loans and advances. But parliament, I am sure, will realize that there are many items that will affect our financial position in 1958-1959 that for some reason or other are still not presented to us. We wonder why some of these matters are not before us either in the original blue book or in the supplementary estimates. I can think of a recent debate, which under the rules I am not permitted to review, that indicated on July 1 the federal government will become responsible financially for some contributions to health insurance. There is nothing whatever in the supplementary estimates or the blue book with respect to that. We have heard much about northern development and other items of public works which are supposed to help and relieve the current very desperate situation of unemployment. I see very little in either the blue book or in the supplementary estimates that in any way answers the queries that we hear all through the country on matters of this kind.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we in this
group are quite prepared to pass the supplementary estimates which have been placed before us. We do, however, think that the remarks which have been made were very well taken and if at all possible we should be given a little longer notice of the course that is being followed. I think, too, in discussing the economic picture of this country, it would be advisable for the government, in order to facilitate this matter, to bring down the budget at the earliest possible date.
There are a good many reasons for that. The Minister of Finance must realize clearly that the sooner we see the budget the more likely it is that the business of this house will be expedited during this session. There is the fact that many events have taken place since a budget was last introduced in this house. There are, however, a couple of items that I should like to discuss at this time.
There are two major questions which I believe affect very greatly the people of the prairie provinces. I refer to the need of action by the government by way of deficiency payments or by other methods to alleviate the distress that has occurred because of the very severe price-cost squeeze affecting farmers all across Canada, and more particularly the grain producers of the prairie provinces.
The second item to which I wish to refer at this time is the need for an early announcement by this government that it is going to

Interim Supply
provide for the province of Saskatchewan the same kind of treatment and the same kind of policy that has been provided for the maritime provinces by way of power development so that Saskatchewan and the federal government may reach an agreement that will result in the immediate announcement that the South Saskatchewan river project will be proceeded with. I had hoped that in the course of the session thus far the government would have given western Canada the assurance that deficiency payments were to be made, the assurance that action was to be taken because when this question was raised in the recent election campaign the very clear and distinct impression was left with the voters on the prairies that if the Conservative government was returned they would deal with the price-cost squeeze in an effective manner and they would give sympathetic and favourable consideration to the whole question of deficiency payments.
I can say, Mr. Chairman, paraphrasing the words that the Prime Minister has used in this house so often over the years, that this is one of those questions which is not basically political; it is a question which transcends party politics; it is a question in the prairie provinces which has the united support of the people of the prairies as nothing has had their support in recent years. The demand for deficiency payments is not something that is being proposed and supported only by the great farm organizations, the wheat pools, the federations of agriculture and the farmers unions; it is a proposal and a proposition which is supported by all major organizations in those provinces. It is supported by the retail merchants association; it is supported by the association of urban municipalities and the association of rural municipalities; it is supported by the teachers federation. Every organization of public spirited people say that something should be done.
Just recently there came to my desk a copy of the Regina Leader-Post in which it is reported that the United Church of Canada, in a local conference, went on record as supporting the demand that deficiency payments be made in the prairie provinces. In a very meagre way the government has already accepted the principle of deficiency payments in the operations of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. While that act does not meet with my approval as an effective instrument in dealing with the difficulties affecting farmers outside of the grain-growing areas and outside of the field of grain growing, nevertheless the principle has been established in that act.
Prairie grain producers are disturbed because ever since the end of the war, with the

removal of price control, there has been a very serious and drastic increase in the cost of production. The western index of commodities and services used by farmers in 1947 was 166; in 1957 the same index had reached 249.4, an increase of 83 points. In that same period of time the price paid to producers for No. 1 northern wheat dropped from $1.83 a bushel in 1947 to $1.61 a bushel in 1956, and while the final payment for the last crop year has not yet been announced it is estimated by people in the grain business that the total price will likely be somewhat less. So, Mr. Chairman, here is an increase in the cost of production by 50 per cent since 1947 accompanied by a very substantial reduction in the prices paid to producers for the grain they produce and sell.
The situation is being further aggravated this year by the fact that there has been a substantial drop in farmers' marketings of grain in the prairie provinces. It is true that sales of wheat have gone up but exports of other grains have fallen and farmers' marketings, the thing that puts cash in the pockets of farmers, have dropped by a very substantial amount. According to the board of grain commissioners' statistical summary of May 14 they have dropped from 409.7 million bushels in the period from August 1 to this date last year to 362 million bushels in the present crop year, a decline of some 47 million bushels.
Representatives of the interprovincial farm union council have recently been in Ottawa and have presented their proposal seeking from the federal treasury deficiency payments of 27 cents a bushel for wheat, 11 cents for oats and 17 cents for barley covering the crop years 1955-56 and 1956-57. To indicate the substantial nature of their proposal I merely have to point out to the government that they estimate the cost would amount to $247.9 million. The three western wheat pools made similar proposals at an earlier date. Their figures are not exactly the same as those of the interprovincial farm union council but they are not greatly different. They have asked for a deficiency payment of 22 cents on the 1955-56 wheat crop, 30 cents on the 1956-57 wheat crop and payments for oats and barley of 15 cents and 19 cents respectively. Their proposals would amount to a total payment covering the two years of $228 million from the national treasury.
The farmers of western Canada are not asking the government for a handout. They are not asking for something in the nature of a measure of relief. They are asking that deficiency payments be made because they have become the victims of government policy over the years. They are the victims of

the price decontrol policy. They are the victims of an international trade policy which has failed to sell their products. They have been sacrificed by a nation that has followed an inflationary policy since the end of the war.
I ask the government at this time to consider the proposals put forward by these farm organizations to the end that the government may make a positive and affirmative reply in the near future and may in fact meet the just requests that have been made. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday when the government would make an announcement as to the final payment and also as to deficiency payments and he made this reply, as found at page 782 of Hansard:
Well, Mr. Speaker, the two announcements would not be made simultaneously even if the two announcements were going to be made.
I hope that does not mean that when the government makes a statement on deficiency payments it will be a negative statement. If it does, then a great deal of the good will the government undoubtedly now has in the prairie provinces will fade away very rapidly. On March 31 the people of the prairie provinces felt that under the present Prime Minister their claim for deficiency payments, equality of treatment and economic justice would receive consideration. I express the hope that the minister's statement does not indicate a negative reply. I also hope it does not indicate that the government will take inadequate action in this field or fail to meet the very moderate requests that have been made.
As a matter of fact, even if the requests that have been made were granted to the full extent it would place the grain producers of the country in a much worse position than they were in 1947. I think it is fair to say that the major occupational groups have improved their positions since 1947. There are certain important exceptions. Certainly the grain producers of the prairies are one exception. If the government meets their request in full their position will be worse than it was in 1947 although a good deal better than it is at the present time.
The second request I make of the government, and I think it is most appropriate that I should make it when the Minister of Finance is seeking interim supply, is that the government give favourable consideration to the request of the Saskatchewan government that the federal government lend that province $20 million or half of the amount of money it is estimated will be involved in the power aspect of the South Saskatchewan river project. I believe that 57071-3-53*
Interim Supply
Saskatchewan is perfectly justified in making that request. As a matter of fact, if you go over the history of the proposals respecting the South Saskatchewan river project you will find that until a very few years ago there was no suggestion that the project would impose a financial burden on the province itself. How often in this chamber has the present Prime Minister castigated the former government for any suggestion that the province of Saskatchewan should be forced to pay part of the cost. If, as I understand is the case, the power development feature will cost $40 million I think the province of Saskatchewan would be perfectly justified in saying to the federal government, "So far as a loan for power development is concerned, we want for our province exactly the same kind of treatment that is now being accorded to the maritime provinces." We in this group were very happy last session to support the proposals affecting the mari-times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it now being denied?


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it that so far it has been denied. Apparently the government is still giving some consideration to the application of the Saskatchewan government. The Prime Minister said this afternoon-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question. What is the source of this alleged information he is giving the house in connection with this matter?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very pleased that the minister has asked me that question. The answer is newspaper reports, the evasive statements of the Prime Minister and the refusal of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to stand up in the house and say that Saskatchewan will get the same treatment in the form of a loan for power development with regard to the South Saskatchewan river project as is now being given the maritime provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did not answer my question. I asked him what was the source of this alleged information he is giving the house?


Hazen Robert Argue: It is based on the public records of the house. If the Minister of Agriculture had been listening this afternoon he would have heard the Prime Minister say that no favourable consideration has been given to this application yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was listening. I am asking the hon. member for the source of his information.

Interim Supply


Hazen Robert Argue: I am getting it from the Prime Minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You did not get it from him.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now I am getting it from the Minister of Agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You did not get any such information.


Hazen Robert Argue: But I am learning even less from the Minister of Agriculture than I have been able to learn from the Prime Minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have been making statements and you do not give the source of your information. You have no source as far as I know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We certainly do not get any information from the present government.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the Minister of Agriculture wants to take the responsibility of denying things the Prime Minister has said then he is welcome to do so if he so wishes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not denying or affirming anything. I asked the hon. member for the source of the information and he has not given it.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is the records of this house. I think the minister knows what has been done for the maritime provinces. I think he knows-and he can deny it if he wishes to do so-that some consideration has been given to a proposal by Saskatchewan that a loan should be made from the federal treasury to help them in the financing of that share of the Saskatchewan power development project. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of February, 1958, relating to the South Saskatchewan river dam. I have further articles that have appeared in recent days as to the application that Saskatchewan has made for loans for other development projects. This is the source of some of the information I am using.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the hon. member's source is speculative reports in the
newspapers.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the Minister of Agriculture wants to take the responsibility of saying that about a man by the name of Robert Moon who writes for the Regina Leader-Post, then it is up to the Minister of Agriculture himself to take that responsibility. But I have known this gentleman for a long time and I have known that his reports in the newspapers have usually been correct. Of course, we know that the Prime Minister the other day said that 20 newspaper men were all wrong and that he the Prime Minister was right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have established the sources of the information. They are speculative newspaper articles.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We certainly are not getting any information from the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: If we wish to get away from speculation, the Minister of Agriculture can rise in his place this afternoon and inform the house what the actual situation is and he can tell this house and the people of Saskatchewan whether Saskatchewan will receive the same kind of treatment as that which has been given to other provinces. He can say whether the statements made and the stand taken by the Prime Minister over the years have been correct with regard to this project, namely that it should be built in Saskatchewan without cost to the provincial government as far as the power development is concerned. We are disturbed, I may say very frankly, by the attitude of the government. This matter has been a political football for far too long. We are hoping that the present government will not continue to make it one.
I might remind the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance of the statement that was made by their leader in this house- I refer to the present leader of this house -on March 29, 1949, as recorded at page 2120 of Hansard. He said this:
I am glad to have the sympathy of the hon. gentleman, but what the people in Saskatchewan want is not sympathy at election time but action in parliament.
That is what we want this afternoon. He said the policy of the Conservative party is this:
It will be proceeded with immediately by the Progressive Conservative party when in power. Full consideration has been given to this matter. The leader of this party, having been apprised of the necessities incident to the situation not only in Saskatchewan but also in parts of Alberta and Manitoba, has given his undivided support to the plea that this work be proceeded with at the earliest date that engineering skill _ and capacity will permit.
That is to be found at page 2123 of Hansard of March 29, 1949. We know that the project has been estimated to cost a very large sum of money. The estimates have varied from $100 million to $200 million or more. We know that it is an extremely expensive project. We know that the item of $4 million in the supplementary estimates is just a small part of the cost of this project. The present Prime Minister on March 29, 1949, in relation to another item in the estimates at that time, had this to say:
I ask the government not to play with this matter by dibs and dabs of expenditure, two or three million dollars annually, which will mean that work will not be completed for 30 or 40 years.

Those words which he used in 1949, I suggest, apply today to the very item in the estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member another question. Does he think that it would be possible to do more work than would be covered by the approximately $4 million in the supplementary estimates plus $500,000 in the main estimates in the balance of this year, even if Saskatchewan would sign an agreement immediately, as I should like them to do?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would certainly hope so. I would hope that this government since 1949 had learned that the Prime Minister was right in 1949 when he was talking about dibs and dabs and that we would be able in this year to proceed at a much more rapid rate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member had better get some more advice on the matter. He does not know much about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: In the same vein may I say that the Minister of Agriculture can stand a great deal of advice on many matters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Possibly so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I hope that one of these days he gets the right kind of advice and acts upon it. But the people of Saskatchewan, no matter what their political party, will not look kindly on any federal government which says to them, "We shall deny to you the same kind of legislation that has been given to people in other provinces". I refer to the power development in the maritimes. The law provides that they can obtain loans to be repaid over a length of time of 30 years or 40 years-30 years for electrical development projects and 40 years in the case of power transmission lines-at the federal rate of interest applied to crown corporations and a small fee for covering costs. They are not asking this government for that full measure of treatment. They are saying: "Give us $20 million by way of loan; provide us with half the cost and we will sign on the dotted line". I cannot understand why the Prime Minister should delay making an answer which will give to the people of his province, on an issue that has been kicked around for the last 20 years as a political football, the same kind of treatment as that which is provided to people in other provinces.
In the last session I was pleased to support the legislation presented to this house to assist the maritimes. At that time I supported that legislation without reservation. I supported it because I thought it was good for the maritimes. I do not amend my support in any way at this time. That legislation was required. It was good for the maritimes and
Interim Supply
it was passed by this house. Once that has been done I suggest that a province like Saskatchewan which has an equal need should be given the same treatment.
Further, before I sit down may I remind the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture that Saskatchewan has a difficult power development problem over and above and quite apart from the South Saskatchewan river project. Saskatchewan is looking to the federal government for a favourable reply in its desire to obtain loans for full development of power to meet the needs of the people of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Peiers:: While the Minister of Agriculture is in his seat, I should like to raise another matter connected with agriculture. In the supplementary estimates we notice-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt him? I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that in the past it has been the practice-and it was a practice that my predecessors pressed vigorously to uphold-that motions for interim supply should not be treated as supply motions, and that the house should take account of the fact that there will be in committee of supply full opportunity to raise any matter on any item of the estimates. The purpose of giving the undertaking which is usually given by the Minister of Finance, and which has been given today, namely that the right of hon. members will be preserved to discuss all of the items in committee of supply, is to avoid duplication of debate. I appeal to hon. members to recall that their right is fully preserved to discuss any items in the estimates or any matter relevant thereto.
Some reference was made earlier to wanting a budget brought down sooner. Hon. members can go on raising other matters as though this were a supply motion, but the fact is that it is just delaying by another day the bringing down of the budget because there is a budget conference now waiting to proceed, and I bring this fact to the attention of hon. members.


Hazen Robert Argue: In reply to the minister, Mr. Chairman, I do not think he is suggesting that it is out of order to do this-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not say
it was out of order. I was simply appealing for orderly and expeditious procedure.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think, Mr. Chairman, the
records will show that we have co-operated very closely with the government and have always given an affirmative reply when a request has been made to us to have such a motion as the one now before us adopted

Interim Supply
quickly, but we have never had any intention and I do not believe we have any intention today of holding up an item unduly and so preventing the proper discharge of the financial obligations of the government. I would, however, suggest that we should expedite the passage of this resolution by listening to members who have a contribution to make and I feel sure that when all the contributions have been made even the minister will agree that the resolution has not been unduly held up.


William Arnold Peters: In reply to the objection raised by the minister, I would say that I am a new member and, as such, attended only the last session of parliament, which was very short. At that time we received some assurance that we were going to be able to discuss certain items, some of which have not yet been reached, and we are now into a new parliament.
I think this matter is quite urgent and it concerns a number of reports recently appearing in the newspapers with respect to the outbreak of rabies in the Thurso area of Quebec. This question was raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes a few days ago, when it was pointed out that vaccination had been given to 900 head of cattle and a few horses in the Thurso area. These cattle were vaccinated against rabies and it is a matter of grave concern to the people of my area, and in fact of all northern Ontario, where during the past few years we have had many outbreaks of this disease. I think some information should have been given to this house in the last few days with respect to this matter. We understand that a private veterinarian has used a rabies serum which must have been approved by the Department of Agriculture through its veterinary branch. It has been reported that this serum was intended for use on dogs.
This matter would not be too important if it affected only a small number of cattle but an outbreak of rabies can spread very rapidly. We originally understood the minister's reply to the question of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes was to the effect that there had been 45 deaths and there were about 40 sick animals, but the latest information I have obtained is to the effect that there have already been 112 deaths of cattle from this disease. We hope that this addition in the supplementary estimates will be used for the payment of compensation in this instance. I readily agree that the serum was given by a private veterinarian who gave the vaccinations on his own authority, but the fact is that the Animal Contagious Diseases Act covers contagious diseases as meaning those communicable by

close contact or innoculation. I take this to mean that the affected animals in this case would be covered, though there may be some difference in opinion in this respect. I think it would place them under the act and that the minister could, if he so wished, designate this area as a contagious disease area, as has been done in a number of previous instances in other areas. The previous minister of agriculture on March 11, 1949 so designated an area in which rabies had broken out and on October 22, 1953, the then acting minister of agriculture declared another area as coming within the meaning of this act as a contagious disease area. I therefore feel that similar action should be taken in this case.
The Department of Agriculture normally handles the inspection of vaccines used and I think some consideration must be given to the more effective and efficient examination of labels used on serums of this nature. If this vaccine was intended for dogs, then surely some consideration should have been given to a label indicating that it would be dangerous to use it for any other purpose. I understand the vaccine used for rabies in the case of dogs is twice as potent as that used for cattle, and I think it is well known that vaccine for cattle is not frequently administered for two reasons; firstly, that very seldom are there in any given area large numbers of cattle affected and therefore it is an uneconomical proposition and, secondly, that the serum has never been found to be too effective in the control of rabies.
In northern Ontario we have had very many cases where wild animals such as dogs, wolves, foxes and so on have been infected and many cattle have had to be killed because the animals carrying the infection could not be caught and used for laboratory tests and therefore the disease was very difficult to check.
I think the minister should consider the establishing of this area as a designated contagious disease area. The people facing this problem have the assurance of the government of the province of Quebec and of the federal government that the man they hire as their veterinarian is qualified and there must be some control in the appointment of such men. Furthermore, when the government assumes the responsibility of supplying or allowing to be supplied serum which might be used improperly there should be a similar control. Where as many as nine hundred head of cattle are vaccinated, I do not believe anyone could safely say that if a cow dies of rabies that animal has not caught the disease by any means other than by vaccination.

In addition to the points I have raised, I believe that not only should the people affected by this problem be paid some compensation but consideration should also be given to the slaughter of additional animals now sick but which might not necessarily die. I think the government would have to give assurances to the people who are buying milk from these herds that contamination would not be carried in the meat or in the milk supplied from these herds in cases where pasteurization requirements are not in force.
I hope some of the money available in this additional estimate can be used in order to make some payment in respect of animals slaughtered, or animals which have died, as a result of this outbreak.
At the same time, it should be brought to the minister's attention that many farm organizations, including the interprovincial farm union, as is evident from its latest brief, hope that the payments made under the act may be more liberal. A few years ago, before my time, there was a case where it was claimed that compensation in a particular case involving sheep was too high. I do not think this has been true in most cases where animals have had to be slaughtered because of brucellosis or tuberculosis, and I think consideration should be given to liberalizing the payments made in this regard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should say a word at this point. It seems to me that the hon. member is under two serious misapprehensions with regard to these cattle which have died at Thurso. To begin with, the matter of declaring this a designated area under the contagious diseases act would have no effect as far as compensation for these animals is concerned. These animals did not die of rabies; they died as a result of the injection of the wrong type of anti-rabies vaccine. They did not die from contagious disease, but as a result of the wrong injection. They died because a mistake was made.
I do not think many people will consider that the dominion government should assume responsibility for errors or mistakes made by veterinarians or by medical doctors as far as the treatment of human beings is concerned. If we established a precedent by saying that whenever a veterinarian or a medical doctor made a mistake and, as a result, damage was suffered, and animals or people died, we were going to pay, we should soon end up in an impossible situation. The thing just does not make sense.
The second misapprehension under which, I think, the hon. member is labouring, is that these animals were infected with
Interim Supply
rabies and that as a result there is a danger attached to the flesh or milk that is produced from them. That is absolutely wrong, as I understand it. The information I received from the veterinary director general when this matter first developed was that these animals had no active rabies germs in them. They had been injected with an antitoxin, and it was the effects of the antitoxin which were producing the bad results. But they had no active rabies germs in them and thus it was impossible that they could communicate the disease to anybody either by biting them, let us say, or through their flesh or milk or anything else. To spread the idea that the milk or meat of these animals might be dangerous to humans, as the hon. member has done, is, I think, doing a disservice to the owners of these herds. I am extremely sorry that the hon. member should have made a statement along those lines, because all he has done is to make people suspicious of the milk or flesh that may come from these animals. He has thereby done a disservice to the farmers in the Thurso area upon whom this great calamity has fallen in the loss of their cattle.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, if this information which the minister now makes available had been made available as an addition to the remarks he made the other day, some of the misunderstanding might have been prevented.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was in the remarks I made the other day, and if you had taken the trouble to read those remarks and understand them you would have found that very point there, that there was no danger from these animals.


William Arnold Peters: I have discussed this matter with several veterinarians, and it is my understanding that it is not necessarily so at all. They do not know that the disease can be transmitted in this manner, but they do not know that it cannot be either. As I understand it, the government is still carrying out experimental work trying to ascertain the facts. As I understand it, the scientists take part of the brain of an animal which is suffering from rabies and inject it into a healthy animal. They may or may not be able to produce rabies. In this particular case they have done this and they have not been able to produce rabies as yet. I am certainly not a doctor, but I think the government did assume some control when we experimented a few years ago with vaccines for polio. It may be said that the people who died from certain of the injections died from improper use of the vaccine, and not from polio. That may be true, but they died

Interim Supply
showing the symptoms of polio. That may not be the same thing, but I think that to distinguish would be stretching the point.
I am not prepared to say whether a bite from one of these cows-though I have never heard of a cow biting anybody-


An hon. Member:: I have heard of the minister biting somebody.


William Arnold Peters: -would give rabies or not, but I do know that the minister has the power, if he wishes, to designate this area, and I further know that he has the power if he wishes to pay compensation for the animals which have died, or which would be slaughtered. The act itself, referring to contagious diseases, says that contagious diseases means diseases communicable by close contact or innoculation. Whether the innoculation is done by inadvertence, improperly or not, it is thus brought within the appropriate section of the act. I am not, nor was I, prepared to say that the milk from these animals might be contaminated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then why did you raise that suspicion?


William Arnold Peters: I would hope, however, that the milk would be pasteurized if I were drinking it. It is, I think, a matter for the officials of the department to determine whether or not this is necessary, but in the meantime something should be done about awarding compensation to the people who are losing their cattle, bearing in mind that even those cattle which are not going to die will not be worth very much to the farmer concerned.


Mr. Regier:: I was most amazed to hear a few minutes ago an appeal made to the opposition to expedite the passing of this interim supply after less than an hour had gone by since its introduction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell the hon. member that until this last year, if more than ten minutes was taken on the whole vote of supply, there was always an objection from my predecessors as ministers of finance about the length of time taken.
The whole reason is this: this is not a supply motion in the sense in which we had a supply motion yesterday. If every hon. member chose to raise a point on an item of the estimates when there are 602 of them here, we would never get a vote of interim supply through, and that is the whole purpose of giving an assurance to the house that the rights of hon. members to speak on any item are carefully preserved. Otherwise, there would be endless duplication of debate.
I said something, earlier, about the budget. Now, I have had to call off today's budget

conference, and the budget will be brought down one day later, that is all.


Erhart Regier: Maybe the minister's memory differs from mine but I believe I recollect the committee spending up to a day on interim supply and sometimes even longer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was when there was no undertaking given-on the eve of an election a year ago, when a six months' vote of interim supply was asked for and given, and when, because the election was coming, the minister of finance could not give the usual undertaking. That is the occasion the hon. member has in mind. But if he looks back over the record he will find that year after year interim supply has only taken a fraction of one column in Hansard and if he looks back he will find that five minutes was about the average time taken for all stages of the interim supply measure.


Erhart Regier: I know the Minister of Finance has been in this house longer than I have, and it may be that at one time five minutes was the average, but I can assure him that since 1953 it has not been the average time taken.
We are asked here to approve the expenditure of $624,592,837.43. Of late I am becoming suspicious of the action of the government, at least since the opening of this parliament, when we are seemingly always under pressure to dispose of various pieces of legislation. There always seems to be some urgency about their disposition. May I remind the Minister of Finance that when this session of parliament opened we were asked to pass an urgent measure providing interim supply which we did. We were then asked to pass an amendment to the National Housing Act involving the expenditure of $350 million which we passed in short order indeed considering the amount of money required. We were asked to pass amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which I will grant were urgently needed. We almost had imposed upon us without permission of the House of Commons an international agreement of major significance relating to NORAD. I thought that closure would have been abolished with the election of a new government and the commencement of a new regime. The saying is that there are many ways to skin a cat and it is now obvious that those in office today have found new means of engaging in that ancient occupation.
There is a matter of some urgency which I wish to raise at this time and I do it in full knowledge of the business of the house as announced last night. We have experienced

on many previous occasions that when estimates of particular departments have been announced we have had to wait for a month or more before we actually were given the opportunity to discuss matters relating to that particular department. I have reference at this time to an item appearing on page 69 of the estimates under the Department of Public Works where it indicates that expenditures to provide for contributions to the provinces under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act are estimated for the current fiscal year at $45 million which, I will admit, is a welcome increase of $15 million over last year's appropriation. 1 do not wish to embark on a broad discussion of the trans-Canada highway. However, this is the spring of the year when our provincial governments are launching their highway programs. I would hope that serious consideration might be given to a problem which is of some importance in at least one part of British Columbia. I have reference to the policy of the government in making grants to pay for only a fixed percentage on a standard two-lane trans-Canada highway, and this includes bridges as well, as defined by it.
There is a proposal to relocate the proposed trans-Canada highway in the lower mainland of British Columbia. This proposed relocation includes what is known as the proposed Port Mann bridge. In its insistence on adhering to former policy the federal government is responsible for the delay in the commencement of the building of this bridge. The federal government said it will pay for half the cost of a two-lane bridge. A two-lane bridge across the Fraser river at Port Mann would be ridiculous to say the least. The government of British Columbia recognizes there is need for a six- or eight-lane bridge across that river and is appealing to the federal government to assume a larger share than would be represented by one-half the cost of a two-lane bridge. According to the latest reports there is no indication that the policy of the federal government is going to be altered.
In the meantime the provincial government-and I can understand its attitude- is doing nothing in regard to the promotion of the building of the bridge. It is hopeful that there will be a new announcement from Ottawa in this regard. I realize that an exception cannot very well be made in government policy in order to accommodate us with respect to our need for that bridge. However, a number of us in this group for some years now have pleaded with the government to relax the rather severe regulations as they apply to cost sharing of the 57071-3-54
Interim Supply
trans-Canada highway. There are many places on this highway where bridges are planned. There are many places where a two-lane highway is no longer sufficient. I urge upon the government to amend its policy in regard to cost sharing of the trans-Canada highway. I trust the government at a very early date indeed will announce that it is willing to pay a larger proportion of the cost of any particular bridge in relation to the width of the bridge that is necessary to meet the particular circumstances.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a matter of considerable importance at the present time especially in view of the situation with regard to the defence of this hemisphere and particularly of the north country. My remarks relate to an incident which occurred some two weeks ago in my constituency when a mysterious object was discovered by a businessman from Timmins close to a summer resort he owns and operates. He brought the mysterious object to town. According to the information that has been supplied to me both through the newspapers and from eye witnesses the subsequent developments were even as mysterious as the object itself.
I understand that the local television station took about 100 feet of film of the object in question. According to the reports given to me, as soon as the information was released members of the United States armed forces came in and seized the object and forbade the showing of any film respecting it. I was given to understand that on the following day they relented and permitted 30 feet of the film to be shown but only one particular portion of this object. I hold in my hand a copy of the Timmins Press dated Friday, May 23, 1958. In this edition a description of the object was given and I quote:
It was about 21 inches long, and cylindrical. It had antennas, so it was obviously radio-equipped. Batteries were still intact. On the end of this thing, there was a parachute, with the small pilot chute attached. It had not been down very long, for it was not weathered at all. It was in good shape. It was an intricate piece of equipment.
So far, no information has been released as to just what the object is. I recall that it was described in the local French newspaper as a miniature sputnik. News reports said that it was part of a satellite but there are a couple of matters that should be cleared up. First, if it is at all possible, in keeping with national security, some explanation of the object in question should be given. Secondly, some explanation should be given of the relationship with the United States service police and just what authority they have in this country. One tentative explanation was that it could have been part of some

Interim Supply
weather testing device which had been released much farther north and which could have been driven south by the north winds to fall in that particular area. In view of the present tense international situation, and in view of the understandable concern of the residents of the area, a more complete explanation of this matter should be given.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether there is an application of the Saskatchewan government-if that is the right term for it-requesting that consideration be given to the loan of $20 million to Saskatchewan as part of the cost of building the power facilities connected with the South Saskatchewan river project?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A similar question was asked of the Prime Minister this afternoon on the orders of the day, and was answered by him. In keeping with the practice of the house in committee of supply on a motion for a vote of interim supply, I do not think we should begin to go into detailed questions on individual items.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest with great respect that it is the kind of question the Minister of Finance should answer. A good precedent has already been set this afternoon in that the Minister of Agriculture made a comment on remarks made by another hon. member in this debate. The source of the information that I used some time ago was questioned by the Minister of Agriculture when I was speaking. I said at that time that part of it came from a newspaper article in the Regina Leader-Post, dated May 31, written by Mr. Robert Moon of the Ottawa staff of this paper. The article reads in part:
Saskatchewan's application for a $20 million low-cost power loan for the South Saskatchewan river project will be reviewed again by the federal cabinet, the Leader-Post learned here Friday night.
The renewal of consideration means the chances of a 1958 start on the long-mooted river scheme are not yet dead.
Meanwhile, negotiations between the federal and Saskatchewan governments remain deadlocked over this issue.
A little later on it had this to say:
It is understood the matter has already gone before cabinet once and the cabinet did not give the go-ahead for granting all or part of such a loan.
It is this refusal, understood to have been communicated by agriculture minister Harkness to the Saskatchewan government earlier this month, which has been the block to the signing of a federal-provincial agreement.
This, and other newspaper articles, together with the comments of the Prime Minister, would suggest that there has been an application before the cabinet and that consideration has been given to it but, in the

words of the Prime Minister this afternoon, favourable consideration had not yet been given.
I think the facts that I have used have been completely substantiated. If there is any error as to the figures involved and the fact that an application is before the cabinet then, of course, either of the ministers in the house in the front row at this time can deny it. I see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is in his seat. He, as the representative from Saskatchewan in the cabinet, of course, would be most interested and well acquainted with this subject. He, too, would be in a position to correct any error that there may be in those figures or any error in the press report. However, my main concern is not whether there may have been some error, but in getting a statement from the government which will make it clear that Saskatchewan will be given the loan in question and that the South Saskatchewan river project will be commenced immediately.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, the sum of $624,592,837.43 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-22, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1959.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the Minister of Finance if I am correct in my understanding that we now have only five items with regard to which by the passage of this bill and the previous appropriation bill we will have voted eleven-twelfths of the annual appropriation? I understand there were three under the former bill and that there are two

under this one and perhaps besides four items in supplementary estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct. There were three with regard to which in the last bill we passed up to eleven-twelfths and today we are passing up to eleven-twelfths of items 106 and 108 of the main estimates-


William Moore Benidickson: And four in supplementary items?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and in the supplementary estimates there are four items with respect to which we are today passing eleven-twelfths, namely items 545, 546, 547 and 627.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8-$200,000 supplementary estimates granted for 1958-59.
William Moore Benidickson: Is this a standard clause?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Clause 9 was introduced in the previous bill. It is designed to strengthen the control of the house. Is my friend asking about clause 8 or 9?


William Moore Benidickson: Clause 8.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Clause 8 is customary. It follows the same form as the other clauses in the bill. I thought the hon. member's question related to clause 9.


William Moore Benidickson: Of course, we only
received the bill a moment or two ago.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Purpose and effect of each item.
Donald Methuen Fleming: My remarks were about clause 9.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: the second reading of Bill No. C-17, to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have looked at this bill will see that it is a very short and very simple one. The purpose of the bill is to permit the establishment of 57071-3-54J
Agricultural Products Standards Act federal grades for leaf tobacco. It involves a very brief amendment to paragraph (a) of section 2 of the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act in order to add the words "and leaf tobacco" to the list of commodities for which grades may be adopted by regulation under that act.
The necessity for tobacco grades first arose last year when the newly formed Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board decided to sell its crop by grade at auction. To establish confidence among growers and buyers they desired to have official grade standards set up and to pack their tobacco and offer it for sale under those grades.
The grading of agricultural products falls under both federal and provincial jurisdiction. To avoid conflicting grade standards in their respective jurisdictions it is accepted procedure for grades to be established under federal legislation and for the provinces to adopt similar grades to cover products moving within provincial borders. When the need arose last year for tobacco grades there was no federal legislation under which they could be established. The province of Ontario did have adequate legislation available and they established grades for flue-cured leaf tobacco in close consultation with officers of the federal Department of Agriculture.
The present bill will make it possible to establish federal grades and to provide grade standards for such leaf tobacco as may move in interprovincial trade and which growers or others may use as they desire. The authority over grades which will be conveyed by the bill applies only to leaf tobacco, not to tobacco in processed or manufactured form.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, this is a very short bill. He also said that it was a very simple one. It may be simple, but in reading the report of the restrictive trade practices commission tabled in 1956 concerning the production, purchase and sale of flue-cured tobacco in Ontario we see that the commissioners were surprised to find that Canadian flue-cured tobacco is one of the few Canadian products for which there are no official grade standards in existence. The report continues, as found on page 100:
Evidence was given that it is a difficult thing to establish grades for tobacco. However, it is known that in other countries grades have been established for this type of product and have served to the advantage of the grower as well as the export buyer, if not for the domestic buyer, who follows a private system of grading.
In the report there is also the following:
The weak link in the barn buying system used in Ontario for the purchase of burley and flue-cured leaf is grading.
844	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Products Standards Act
I think that the minister has made the right move in complying with the request of the Ontario association. The association comprises a large number of tobacco growers because we know that the majority of Canadian producers are located in Ontario. The production of tobacco in Canada is a very important matter and commenced long ago. I read in the report that in 1870-71 yearly production amounted to 1,595,000 pounds, 75 per cent of which was produced in Quebec and 25 per cent in Ontario. In 1910 production amounted to 17,500,000 pounds of which 60 per cent was produced in Quebec and 40 per cent in Ontario. In 1920 we see a change. In that year production was 32,500,000 pounds, of which 48 per cent only was produced in Quebec and 52 per cent in Ontario. In 1954- and now we realize that most of the production is Ontario-production was 168 million pounds of which 9 per cent only was produced in Quebec while 91 per cent was produced in the province of Ontario.
The report on restrictive trade practices mentioned that the lack of grade standards constituted a weak link in the selling of the tobacco. It is true that the Ontario association had its own system, namely the system of grades originally set up by the association in 1936 for the purpose of determining the distribution and the minimum price among grades. It is still in effect. However, buyers do not buy on the basis of this system of grades. I understand that buyers have their own system. Hence the producers were at a loss to find out what their production was worth. The fact is that we shall now have grade standards, although I understand it is only for interprovincial and international trade, it is not for trade within the province. The government of the province of Ontario will no doubt enact a proper grade standards act for the province. But as the minister said, it is certainly preferable to have a federal act so that the trade in tobacco between provinces and between countries should be established.
I understand that a small amount of leaf tobacco is exported. I understand that in 1954 some 38 million pounds were exported to the United Kingdom. However, I suggest that those grade standards which will be established by this act will serve for any trade that we have in leaf tobacco with other countries. Maybe the minister will be able to tell us this, although it is not very important. He may be able to tell us whether, by amending the C.A.P.S.A., we shall of necessity increase any personnel engaged in grading leaf tobacco. The minister might also tell the house whether this amendment will necessitate an increase of two, three or four men in the personnel of this branch which administers the C.A.P.S.A.

I said at the beginning that the matter of establishing grade standards for flue-cured tobacco is not quite as simple as we may think. Although everyone agreed that we should have standard grades for flue-cured tobacco, I read in the report that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks as follows:
"If accurate and reliable grading should in fact be possible, it would encourage the replacement of the auction system by some less expensive marketing arrangement."
Studies of the marketing of tobacco in the United States indicate that there are considerable difficulties in the way of developing standards which would be recognized generally by buyers. The following observations are given in a recent study prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This brings me to say this. We should be very careful in the regulations, whatever they may be, not to complicate them so that we can come as close as possible to the buyer system of grading so that Canadian producers of leaf tobacco would know in advance what their crop is worth. By doing this, I think we will certainly help those producers.
We do not object to this amendment. We will vote for it. I do not know whether the minister intends to go into committee this afternoon. However, we do not intend to delay the passing of the act.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group, are quite pleased to support this bill at the second reading stage. We believe that a good deal of advantage is to be gained by establishing grades for leaf tobacco in interprovincial and export trade. Knowing the result of other acts that have provided for grade standards for various agricultural products going into interprovincial and export trade, we feel that a good deal may be accomplished by such a bill when it becomes law. I do not know how the tobacco industry and the producers have got along so far without a system of proper grade standards. It seems to me that this is an excellent step that will receive the support of producers and the industry generally. I express the hope that the standards, when they are set up, will be enforced in such a way as to bring real advantage to all those people who are engaged in this very important industry.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the minister for bringing in this bill to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act. It certainly will do a great deal, as has been indicated by the minister and by opposition members who have spoken, to assist the tobacco industry, particularly to the end
[Mr. Dumas.)

that standards may be established for interprovincial and export transactions. However, I should like to say one or two things. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) is apparently unaware-and I say this kindly- of the new turn of events in Ontario with respect to the marketing of tobacco. Until this year the system referred to by the hon. member was in effect. But now there is an entirely new system of selling tobacco, which system is known as the Dutch-clock system of auction and a different system of grading. I thought I might bring that matter to his attention. The prior system of marketing to which he referred was in effect until just this last year when the new Ontario flue-cured marketing board came into existence.
In the explanation of this bill, one of the things that is mentioned is that it will help the export of tobacco. This is something that I think is of great interest not only to hon. members who represent tobacco growing constituencies, as I do, but to Canada as a whole. I do not think I need to say more. It certainly will be of general benefit and interest to the country. It is my feeling that we can certainly do a great deal to increase our exports, particularly to such countries as West Germany and Holland. Right after the end of the last world war we exported a great deal to Holland, if my memory serves me correctly, but those exports began to fall off very considerably. I am sure, however, that we could increase them not only to the countries I have mentioned but to other European countries.
At the present time the great majority of all our exports of flue-cured or cigarette tobacco goes entirely to the United Kingdom. It has already been indicated that standardized grades would not only have a beneficial effect on the grades throughout the country but by so doing would help to standardize the quality of the product.
We have heard that new areas are to be opened up in Canada for the growing of tobacco. As the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) indicated the vast majority of flue-cured tobacco is at present grown in the province of Ontario, while a small percentage is grown elsewhere, chiefly in Quebec. However, it has been intimated that such areas as British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and even Nova Scotia are now thinking of growing this product as they feel their climatic and soil conditions are suitable. I must say it came as a bit of a surprise to me because I did not think of the climate of Nova Scotia as being entirely suitable for this purpose but I am very glad that it is because tobacco is a most lucrative crop for all those connected with it.
Agricultural Products Standards Act
If such new growing areas are opened up in our country it would be of considerable advantage for everyone if a standard quality of crop could be assured, and I would suggest to prospective growers in such areas that they might very well consult and co-operate with the Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing board with a view to establishing a fairly standardized method of marketing as well as growing these crops.
I would like to deal with another matter which has a direct connection with the amendment to this act now before us. It is my understanding that the buying companies in the tobacco industry are claiming that the export markets of this country could be greatly increased for flue-cured tobacco and they have complained that the growers in Ontario have this year reduced their acreage and consequently the total volume of the tobacco crop. There is no doubt that the export of tobacco could be greatly assisted if the buying companies could agree with the growers on a minimum average price prior to planting time which, in Ontario, is in late May or early June. Tobacco is indeed a highly specialized product both from the point of view of growing and marketing. I do not wish to take up the time of the house by going into all the details because an explanation to provide a full understanding of the subject would certainly take a full day. It is, however, quite unlike any other crop and I am sure that all my colleagues who represent tobacco growing areas would agree with me that such a minimum average price set in advance of the planting season would increase our export market.
The buying of tobacco is semi-monopolistic in nature, and growers naturally do not wish to grow a large crop if they cannot sell it at a reasonable price. The buyers, on the other hand, know their requirements in advance and indeed in other years a minimum average price has been either negotiated or arbitrated in advance of the actual sale of the crop. Consequently there is no reason why buyers could not agree to negotiate or arbitrate such a price prior to planting time so that growers could grow the acreage required by buyers for export purposes.
It would certainly benefit everyone-the grower, the buyer and Canada as a whole- if our tobacco exports could be increased and if potential export markets in fact exist, as has been recently claimed by the buying companies, I cannot see why this method could not be adopted, thus preventing the running of all risks by the growers. It is only fair that the buying companies should

Agricultural Products Standards Act assume some of these risks. It is not reasonable for them to expect the growers to assume all the risks involved, by growing a big crop and then finding themselves faced with the situation of being offered low prices, sometimes indeed even lower than the cost of production.
In conclusion, I would say that while the amendment to this act is very welcome to our growers it would be of great benefit in furthering the markets for our tobacco if the course I have suggested could be adopted and a minimum average price agreed upon prior to the planting season.


Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that this amendment is going to pass this house without opposition, but since it relates to a large and increasingly important branch of our agricultural economy I would like to take a few moments to emphasize its importance to our tobacco farmers. Although there are several benefits implicit in the amendment I will discuss only its effect upon our export markets.
I would first of all like to mention a few of the characteristics of tobacco farming. This industry last year brought some $75 million to Ontario farmers. Tobacco, indeed, is one of the highest dollar-earning products in the agricultural field. The next point I would like to mention is that tobacco is grown on land which is generally unproductive for other farm crops. The labour costs involved in growing and harvesting this product are excessively high, amounting to several hundred dollars per acre of crop and this, together with the fact that tobacco cannot be stored on the farm for more than a few months, makes it absolutely essential for a farmer to have a market for his crop when he begins to grow it.
In addition to this, tobacco is possibly the highest taxed of all commodities grown on farms and it is to be hoped that in the not too far distant future the government will be able to reduce this tax which punishes the user and the grower alike. Our domestic tobacco production greatly reduces our dependence on imports and this in turn helps to reduce our trade deficit. There seems to be an increasing demand by foreign buyers of tobacco which brings me to the importance of the present amendment. Last year in Ontario the public auction system was introduced.
This system met with marked success, and great interest was shown by foreign buyers who under the previous system of barn sales were unable to buy directly from the growers. If we are to encourage these foreign buyers it is necessary to have a uniform system of

grading, upon the quality of which buyers will be able to rely. This, then, is the main reason for the present amendment.
There are secondary reasons for the development of an export market. Tobacco is a crop that by reason of three enemies, frost, drought and hail, is subject to a wide variation in volume produced. Further, once it has been processed it can be stored for several years without loss of quality. With standard grading a reserve of certain grades can be held and diverted either to the foreign or domestic markets as crop conditions warrant. For these reasons alone, and without touching on the great help it will give to domestic growers and buyers in the marketing of the crops, I feel that this amendment deserves the support of all members of this house.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who, in co-operation with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbalier), is _ introducing at this time this bill which provides that from now on leaf tobacco will be classed as an agricultural product.
While the bill proposes to extend the act to leaf tobacco so that standards may be established for interprovincial and export transactions, it is also true, Mr. Speaker, that under this bill it might also be possible in future, for the federal government to place tobacco under the agricultural prices stabilization act, for example through an order in council.
I thank the government for introducing this bill which is of interest to the tobacco producers of my constituency as well as to the tobacco producers of Ontario. In the province of Quebec there are 1,300 producers of cigar leaf tobacco. The overwhelming majority of them are members of either one of two co-operative associations; the Societe cooperative agricole de tabac du district de Joliette, at St. Jacques de Montcalm, and the Societe cooperative agricole de la vallee d'Yamaska, at St. Cesaire.
Here I wish to thank publicly Mr. Henri Mireault, president of the St. Jacques cooperative, as well as Mr. Georges Etienne Turcotte, an agricultural engineer and general manager of this co-operative. These gentlemen have laboured unstintedly on behalf of the tobacco producers. They have provided me with rather interesting figures on the position of cigar tobacco in the province of Quebec. Even though the activities of the co-operative I have mentioned deal with a highly specialized branch of the agricultural industry, the fact remains that the general

economy of an extensive area, is dependent, in large measure, on the progress or otherwise of the cigar tobacco industry. For instance, the cigar tobacco industry is among the stablest in our local farm economy. Its importance in the areas of Montcalm, L'As-somption, Rouville and Joliette is second only to the dairy industry. In normal times, from 4,500 to 5,000 arpents of our best productive land are used for this crop which produces from 4J to 5 million pounds annually. About 1,300 farmers derive from this industry an income of more than one million dollars, which means on the average from $800 to $1,000 per grower.
It is understandable that to the farmer cigar tobacco growing is an important source of income. When, to those amounts received by the grower, we add about $900,000 paid annually in salaries to tobacco workers in the processing plants in Joliette, St. Jacques and St. Cesaire, we have a fairly good indication of the importance of this crop in our local economy.
Finally, let us recall that all or nearly all the tobacco manufacturing industry is in the province of Quebec, mainly in Montreal. It is easy to realize what this means to our economy when it is known that the salaries alone paid by cigar manufacturers to their employees amount to more than $5 million annually.
May I also point out that in my constituency close to 200 cigarette tobacco planters produce about 5 million pounds of tobacco which is the whole production of cigarette tobacco in the province of Quebec.
Up to 1956 it was the exclusive privilege of the province of Quebec to supply cigar tobacco to Canadian manufacturers. This crop is harvested in two well-defined areas, as I said a moment ago, namely (1) the northern district comprising the areas of Montcalm, L'Assomption, Joliette and Berthier and (2) the southern district comprising Rouville and part of the areas of Iberville, St. Hyacinthe and Missisquoi.
The production of the northern district is partially processed for industry by la Societe Cooperative de St. Jacques while nearly the whole production of the southern district is being processed by la Cooperative de St. Cesaire. These two organizations have some 1,300 members whose combined production represents 80 per cent of the crop. Their total assets amount to about one million dollars.
Mr. Speaker, allow me also to take this opportunity to appeal to the manufacturers of cigars and cigarettes, such as the Imperial
Agricultural Products Standards Act Tobacco Company, H. Simons and Sons Limited and others, and ask them to show more fairness and understanding towards the growers of cigar and cigarette tobacco, by paying farmers a fair price for their tobacco, to cover their cost of production and leave them a reasonable profit.
These powerful companies, often under the control of American interests, should always consider in the first place the interests of Canada, that is, of the tobacco grower who is an average Canadian, so that the tobacco producers of Ontario as well as Quebec may enjoy their fair share of the national income.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, on behalf of the tobacco growers, I thank the Minister of Agriculture for introducing this bill.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Agricultural product.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, at this
moment I should perhaps give the committee some information concerning this bill and its background which might be of interest to hon. gentlemen.
The Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers' marketing board operated three auction warehouses at Tillsonburg, Delhi and Aylmer last year. All of the 1957 crop was sold at auctions through these warehouses. Sales started on December 10, 1957 and concluded on April 11, 1958. Bales of tobacco as delivered by growers were graded by graders employed by the board under grade standards established by the province of Ontario and under the supervision of a federal inspection staff. An inspection service was provided by the federal Department of Agriculture. The inspectors were designated by the province as inspectors under their legislation. This is the common procedure in the application of grade standards in fields in which both the provincial and the federal authority are interested. The hon. member for Villeneuve asked questions in connection with what increase in staff might be involved as a result of this legislation and other questions and it is really in answer to those points that I place this information on the record.
The inspection staff consists of one fulltime supervisory inspector, three seasonal inspectors for the full period of the selling and three additional inspectors for the last three months. This was necessary because both day and night operations were conducted during

Agricultural Products Standards Act that period. In other words, there is one fulltime man and these other people are seasonal employees. The inspectors were responsible for supervising the work of the graders and ensuring that the grading was done according to the official grade standards.
A total of 147,873,775 pounds of tobacco was graded and sold through the auctions to a value of $74.4 million, or an average of 50.32 cents per pound. This exceeded slightly the 49-cent per pound price negotiated earlier between the board and buyers as a minimum price for the crop.
In connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve with regard to exports of tobacco I might also comment that the tobacco we export is exported almost entirely in processed form, that is after it has been cured and processed and so forth. Exports total between 30 million and 45 million pounds a year, speaking from memory.
The standards provided for the year, of course, apply to leaf tobacco in leaf form and not really in processed form. Those standards would be applicable in any part of Canada. In other words, if the province of Quebec wished to employ those standards they would be applicable there and any tobacco moving from province to province would have to come under these grading standards before moving into export.


Mr. McMillan:: Is all the grading done at the warehouses to which this tobacco is delivered?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, all the grading is done at the auction warehouses. A grade ticket is placed on each bale at the auction warehouses.


William Hector McMillan: Is there not some grading done right in the field before harvesting takes place?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that is a matter of selection rather than grading. The grading done under the supervision of our inspectors is done at the auction warehouses.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks
to amend paragraph (a) of section 2 of the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act. An agricultural product is defined in that section in these words:
(a) "agricultural product" means livestock (including fur-bearing animals raised in captivity), eggs, poultry, milk, vegetables, fruit, honey and maple syrup, and products thereof-
The proposed amendment seeks to include leaf tobacco in that definition. I wonder if for the information of the committee the minister would tell us what use has been made of this general section and how it has been operated in the past, and how the work that is generally done under this new section

will compare with the type of work that is done under the over-all act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that this
bill was passed to attempt to bring under one act all the various grade standards which had been set up in many cases by other pieces of legislation and things of that sort or by provincial authorities and things of that sort and in order to achieve a uniformity of grades as far as the products named are concerned. From that point of view, of course, it has been quite successful as the hon. member realizes in producing set grades for those commodities which are accepted across the country by buyers as a guarantee of quality both in Canada and export markets.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the answer the
minister has given. I wonder if he would be able to tell the committee either himself or on the advice of his official as to when the act was proclaimed. I have searched the records and while I see it was passed by this house in 1955 and given royal assent I have been unable to discover if the act was in fact proclaimed. I may not have been as diligent as I might have been in my search of the records but if I am correct it seems a rather ridiculous thing that parliament should have passed an act in 1955 with a great deal of fanfare which was designed to bring under one consolidated act the Canada Dairy Products Act, the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, the Livestock and Livestock Products Act, the Meat and Canned Foods Act and the Maple Products Industry Act and now a new section dealing with leaf tobacco if the act was not subsequently proclaimed. However, I take it from the minister's reply that I must be in error in the research I have done so far.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not in error. The act has not yet been proclaimed because of the fact that the business of bringing all these other acts under it and the addition of the leaf tobacco had not been completed. We expect it will be proclaimed very shortly.


Hazen Robert Argue: It seems a rather strange and clumsy practice for parliament to pass an act three years ago which we understood at that time would have some immediate use and application and then not have it proclaimed. I am quite aware, of course, that it was introduced by a previous minister of agriculture under a previous administration but I would express the hope that this government would not follow that practice because it seems to me to be a waste of the time of this house and a waste of public money to have

lying dead on the statute books of Canada for a period of years an act that has not been proclaimed.
It would not be correct to say that the various acts to which I have referred have not been useful because I find that regulations were passed on five different occasions since May 1955 under the Canada Dairy Products Act, on five different occasions under the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, on eight different occasions under the Livestock and Livestock Products Act, on nine different occasions under the Meat and Canned Foods Act and, if I have found correctly, no regulations were passed since that date under the Maple Products Industry Act.
I believe the acts this major act was designed to consolidate have been useful and important acts and have been used a great deal since 1955 but the master act which parliament considered at that time and approved has never been proclaimed. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture would care to make any comment on this point but it would seem to me to be quite normal practice, once parliament has given assent to a particular piece of legislation, that it be proclaimed within a reasonable or within a normal length of time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sure the hon. member would be the first to appreciate that I take absolutely no responsibility for any delay in this connection, which was attributable, up to less than a year ago, to the previous government. This bill has been lying dead, as it were. I can assure the hon. member that it . will not lie dead much longer; it will be proclaimed very shortly now. I am also informed that the delay in connection with the matter has been due to the difficulty of getting all of the regulations which would need to be made under the act ready and in shape and agreed to by the various people concerned so that the act could be proclaimed. The other acts, of course, remain in force in the meantime, so that those standards which were provided for by various acts, some of which the hon. member has mentioned, are still in effect. These standards are being maintained. Once this act is proclaimed those other acts disappear. That is the end of it. Until this whole thing was set, of course, and ready to go into effect immediately, it could not be proclaimed because once it was it did away with the other acts.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hospital Insurance Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if I might ask, by leave of the house, that it be read a third time now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that Bill No. C-17, to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, be read the third time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 3, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Se-vigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to authorize contributions being made as of the first day of July, 1958, to a participating province which has a plan in operation; and to make certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Frank Howard: Last evening, Mr. Chairman, at ten o'clock I was just drawing to a close on my remarks regarding this resolution. I have but one or two other things to say. When the United Kingdom government passed their bill relating to a health plan in 1948, and following the implementation of that legislation there, we in this country heard a great deal of adverse publicity about the operation of the scheme, the abuses which were taking place under it and the opposition to it by the medical profession and by others over there. It is reasonable to expect that sort of adverse publicity because it was something new; it was a drastic change from a system which they had in effect in Great Britain before that time. Usually any time there is a great change, in as much as we are conservative-minded,- and naturally I mean "conservative" with a small "c"-we are reluctant to accept it. There is a transitional period when a change takes place, and it takes time for us to get used to the change. That is one of the reasons why there was reluctance to accept the national health scheme in Great Britain, but it is not the only reason why all the adverse publicity was generated. I think I can say without fear of much contradiction, at least on the general principle of it, that the plan in effect in Great Britain now and for quite a number of years has become completely acceptable to
850	HOUSE OF
Hospital Insurance Act the general public, to the administrators and to the medical profession which opposed it in its early days.
If we in Canada enter into a similar type of an all-inclusive health scheme at this time, as we should, in participation with the provinces, I think we can expect a certain amount of prejudice and biased opposition to such a plan. We can also expect that most of that opposition and most of the complaints which would arise out of the establishment of such a plan would be unfair. We could expect complaints to be similar to those which I recall in the province of British Columbia, following the establishment there of a hospital insurance plan. I will agree, without any request, that there was a great deal of justification for the opposition to and the disagreement with the operation of the plan that we have in British Columbia, for the simple reason that it was put into effect as legislation, on the eve of a general election, as an election program without any planning, without any co-ordination, without any attempt to establish a proper administrative structure to deal with the act. That is the main reason why the feeling arose.
I think it is also true to say that if we establish such a plan as we in the C.C.F. have been propounding over the years, we can expect that there will be initially a heavy drain on public funds, on the public treasury, arising out of the operation of a national health plan. This would be for two reasons. The first reason is what we might call the natural tendency to abuse the plan itself. We in this country are conditioned to the theme of getting something for nothing, and we look upon the federal treasury or the provincial treasury or government institutions, especially in these fields, as providing us with something for nothing, not realizing, of course, that we pay for it in the first instance through taxation either directly or indirectly. But there would still be a tendency to take advantage of the facilities and services offered under such a health plan. That would be one reason why there would be a greater drain initially on the treasury than we might expect and greater than when the plan is established.
There is another reason why we could expect a heavy drain on the treasury initially. People who in past years could not or felt they could not afford to make necessary visits to a doctor or dentist in order to have an ailment diagnosed or dental work done will want to have it done. These people have put off such visits because they felt they could not afford to have these things done. They have said, "I will do it some other time.
I may have ulcers but right at the moment they are not bothering me too much. I need 

dental work done but I will put it off for another few months because I cannot afford it." If such a plan comes into effect there will be a backlog of work that people have needed to have done in years past but could not afford to have done. They will find that there is a chance to have it done at no immediate great cost to them other than their contribution through taxes toward the operation of the plan.
Actually I do not feel that the over-all cost of such an all-inclusive plan would be any greater than the amount of money that Canadians now spend on health care except during the initial period because of the two reasons I mentioned earlier. I believe as much money is spent now on private insurance coverage, doctors' services, dental and hospital care in those provinces where no plan is in effect. I do not believe that the total amount expended throughout the nation would be any greater than is being spent at the moment.
I realize that I have but a few minutes before my time expires and I should like to sum up briefly the attitude of the C.C.F. to the resolution and, in a broader sense, the necessity of instituting a national health plan. The original act introduced by the Liberal government was not good enough. It did not go far enough and its coverage was too restricted. Some changes have been made. Second, the resolution does not go far enough because all it means is six months additional coverage in some parts of the country. The action of the government now as found in the resolution is inconsistent with its pledges and election promises of a few months ago. An all-inclusive plan should be instituted now.


The Chairman:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Frank Howard: I only have one or two points to make.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: With the consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. An all-inclusive health plan should be instituted now. Such a plan should be placed on the statute books, even if some provinces do not have plans in effect to fit into it, in order to give leadership and show that we are prepared to participate with those provinces when they put plans into effect and will pay part of the cost of an all-inclusive health scheme. I reiterate once more that I do not think the total expenditure would be any more than we are spending at the present moment because it would be

. spread over a broader base and based on the ability to pay through taxation measures.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


William Hector McMillan: There are just a few minutes left and I will be a considerable length of time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Six o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why waste the time of the house for nothing? It costs money.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to support the hospital insurance scheme when it was brought in last year. Having been in the practice of medicine for a number of years, I have long seen the need of some type of hospital insurance. It was my privilege to attend the dominion-provincial conference held prior to the submission of the hospital insurance plan to the different provinces. I was impressed by what the spokesmen for most of the provinces said. They impressed me with the need for hospital insurance in every province of Canada. They also called on the federal government to contribute federal moneys toward the scheme, having in mind the rapid rise in hospital costs over recent years. In one report I read it was indicated that hospital costs have
Business of the House
gone up from $3.47 in 1941 to $14.46 in 1956. In addition, in no intervening year has there been any decrease in hospitalization costs.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
leader of the house could tell us what the business will be for the rest of the week.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow is private members' day and I am not just sure about the business for Friday. It will probably be public works estimates but we may decide to go on with legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman try hard to make up his mind because I think it would be a great convenience to some of us on this side of the house if we could possibly know in the morning which it will be on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: I will let the hon. member know just as soon as I can. I presume some of his followers wish to go home.


William Hector McMillan: May I ask the leader of the house a question. When will the hospital insurance resolution come up again so that I may resume my two-minute speech?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member cannot go home on Friday because it might come up on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Have representations been made by any organization in the city of London or elsewhere in the province of Ontario urging the government to institute old age assistance at 65 without a means test?
2.	If so, what reply has been made to such representations?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	The replies acknowledging the representations indicated that the proposals contained therein would be carefully studied. This is being done.
1.	Is there a traffic control representative and staff within the departmental administration of the ministry of transport?
2. If not, on what date did such an office cease?
3. What was the cost annually for the traffic control office since its inception?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Since the resignation of the transport controller, Mr. R. W. Milner, December 26, 1956, the position has remained vacant.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	1951-1952
(Sept 1/51 to Mar. 31/52)
1952-	1953
1953-	1954
1954-	1955
1955-	1956
1956-	1957
(April 1/56 to Dec. 26/56)


$10,392.00 $30,433.00 $33,092.00 $27,000.00 $21,204.00 $17,937.00 MEANING OF LABOUR MARKET AREA TERMS TREE CLEARING, WINDSOR AIRPORT
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has an order been issued to stop the cutting and clearing of trees along the east perimeter of the Windsor airport?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	How many men have been given employment under this program?
4.	When will this work be completed?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Numbers have varied from 15 to 38.
4.	Estimated date July 28, 1958.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC CONTROL OFFICE
Mr. Fisher: Question No. 42-Mr. Houck:
1.	What is meant by the terms as applied to labour market areas (a) in substantial surplus: (b) in moderate surplus; (c) in balance?
2.	How many and which labour areas in Canada are classified at present in each of above categories?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):
1.	An explanatory note on the meaning of these terms is included regularly in the Labour Gazette. This will be found on the inside of the back cover of the April issue.
2.	See page 334 of the April issue of the Labour Gazette for the classification of the labour market areas as of April 1, 1958. More recent information will appear in the May issue of the Labour Gazette which hon. members will receive this week.

Thursday, June 5, 1958