1960-02-09

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall that on January 28 last, when I announced the opening of a new diplomatic mission in Nigeria, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked me whether I could inform the house of the government's intention about the appointment of an ambassador to Mexico.
I now wish to inform the house that the government of Mexico has given its agreement to the appointment of Mr. William Arthur Irwin as Canadian ambassador to that country.
Mr. Irwin distinguished himself as assistant editor, managing editor and then editor of Maclean's magazine from 1925 to 1950. At that time he entered the public service of Canada as commissioner and chairman of the national film board, a post which he held until his appointment as Canadian high commissioner to Australia in 1953. In January, 1957 he was transferred from Australia to Brazil as ambassador, where he served until his return to Canada last September. Last fall Mr. Irwin became a member of the Canadian delegation to the fourteenth session of the United Nations general assembly in New York, where his knowledge of Latin-American affairs and his ability to establish contacts with Latin-American delegations was most helpful.
Mr. Irwin has thus had useful and varied experience in and outside the public service and as a diplomat. As ambassador to Brazil particularly he had an excellent opportunity to observe at close range the economic, political and social problems of Latin-America. I am sure that Mr. Irwin will use his diplomatic experience and his knowledge of Latin-America to help fulfil the common desire of the Mexican and Canadian governments to strengthen their already close and friendly relations, as evidenced by the highly successful visit of His Excellency President Adolfo Lopez Mateos of Mexico to Ottawa last October, and soon to be re-emphasized by the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to Mexico next April.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of press reports last evening and ask him whether he can comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the report to the effect that the Canadian government has decided to give financial support to the holding of an international fair in Montreal during the centennial celebration of confederation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The report in the press was based in part on a recommendation of the national provisional committee which convened yesterday for the purpose of considering the nature of the centenary celebrations. However, some weeks ago there were discussions relating to the question of a world's fair in Canada in 1967. Various cities across Canada were aware that it is necessary to make formal application before the hearing to be held in the month of March. Consideration has been given to such an application, but I think it would be better if I were to delay giving a full and complete answer to the hon. gentleman's question until tomorrow. I feel that in the circumstances it would be better that I should deal with it at some length.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre)
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the great interest taken in the west in the government's new farm credit program, now placed under the Department of Agriculture, can the minister inform this house when the farm credit corporation will be making loans under part III of the Farm Credit Act, which applies to young farmers between the ages of 21 and 45?
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Applications for loans under part III of the act have been accepted now for some time-since before Christmas, in

Inquiries of the Ministry fact-and these loans will be processed when the winter is over and it is possible for the land to be appraised. As soon as the land can be appraised the loans will be available.



HOGS-INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN PREMIUM PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexander Best (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, as pigs are in the news, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the government to increase the premium on grade A hogs and withdraw the premium on grade B hogs, as suggested by the breed associations. And as a result of urgent requests for more space, does the government intend to build a new swine testing station or to enlarge the present one at Waterloo, Ontario?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In answer to the first question may I say that whilst the breed associations request that the premium be paid only on grade A hogs and be increased to $3, and at the same time that the premium be removed from grade B hogs, a number of other farm organizations have made strong representations that this action should not be taken until a fair length of time has been given in the way of notice that this was going to be done. As a result, when we changed the grade regulations last October we announced that premium payments would be devoted entirely to grade A hogs at some time in the future. No decision has been made as to when this action will actually be taken.
As far as the latter question is concerned, may I say that there are no present plans to enlarge the swine testing station at Waterloo, Ontario. In explanation of that statement I think I should add that the R.O.P. policy for swine has been revised recently. Formal advanced registry on the basis of litter carcass scores at official test stations has been discontinued. With this change we have taken the position with swine breeders that a considerable amount of litter testing, to determine the performance of breeding stock, can be done at home. We think it is impractical to provide public testing facilities for all the litter testing that needs to be done for swine improvement.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he has

anything to report to the house concerning negotiations respecting the Columbia river.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Labour of which I have given him private notice. In view of the press report in the Vancouver Province of January 30 which states that the Canadian brotherhood of railway transport and general workers are appealing to the federal labour relations board the result of a secret ballot for jurisdiction among seamen aboard Kingcome Navigation vessels, which they lost by one vote, can the minister inform the house whether this appeal, based on an irregularity in taking the vote, has been allowed by the federal labour relations board?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South, I understand that the case to which the hon. member has made reference is one in which counter-applications were filed by the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers and by the seafarers international union for certification as bargaining agent of seamen employed by the Kingcome Navigation Company.
I am advised that the Canada labour relations board heard representations from the two unions concerning the result of a vote by secret ballot of employees in the bargaining unit ordered and conducted by the board, and that the board has given a decision rejecting the applications of both organizations for certification because in each instance the applicant failed to obtain the support of a majority of the employees in the unit.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the claims of intimidation being practised by the S.I.U., are any steps contemplated which will relieve this pressure on seamen and allow a free vote in future ballots for jurisdiction?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I am in a position to make with respect to this question is to say that all votes ordered by the Canada labour relations board are taken by secret ballot under the direction of a returning officer appointed by the board and with scrutineers appointed by the interested parties in attendance.

If any interested party has evidence of intimidation during the balloting, I would assume that this would be brought to the attention of the returning officer by the scrutineer, and to the attention of the board when the results of the vote were being considered.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: In answer to a question that was asked by the hon. member for Essex East regarding the number of unplaced applicants, I am happy to advise the hon. member that I am now in a position to give him this figure. As at January 21, 1960 there were 772,644 unplaced applicants.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. I thank him for giving the figure of unplaced applicants for jobs. 1 take it that is the figure as of January 21. Perhaps the minister could tell the house whether he has the figure as of January 28.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in giving that answer I did stipulate the date to which this figure relates. No other figure is available as yet.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister make a statement to the house concerning the raids made by R.C.M.P. officers over the week end on the homes of employees and former employees of the national harbours board at Montreal?
May I also ask this question, if the minister is able to make a statement now. Was the minister not aware on Friday last that this investigation was under way, when the Minister of Transport moved his motion in the house?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question I can only say that as the inquiry is current I would not consider it appropriate at this time to make a detailed statement as to the findings which have been produced as a result of the raids that took place over the week end.
With respect to the second part of the question, as I believe was explained by the 79951-0-55
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport in the committee this morning, it is true that in December of last year the Minister of Transport requested me to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police resume some inquiries they had made about a year before. Those instructions were accordingly given. Up until Friday last I had no report as to the results of that R.C.M.P. investigation. The first report I had of the results was on Monday of this week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just as I sat down, after completing my answer to the hon. member for Laurier, I was handed a note which had just come down from my office. They have supplied me with some general information as to the results of those raids. The information is as follows. As a result of continued investigation, which included a number of searches-[DOT] 25

during the past few days, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have received a great deal of additional information and a number of documents. While a thorough examination of this new evidence has not been possible as yet, there is a decided possibility that it will be found sufficient to warrant the laying of criminal charges. The evidence is being examined as quickly as possible, and a decision will be made without undue delay.
As 1 said, it was yesterday morning that I first received any information concerning the raids, and this is supplementary to that information.


Mr. L. D. Creslohl (Cartier):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the raids in Montreal were made on the basis of warrants issued by a judge of the police court there, does the minister not think that the matter is now entirely sub judice and that the parliamentary committee may be invading those rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hees:: The hon. member should have been at the committee meeting this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an opinion, and also is raising a matter which was dealt with at the close of yesterday's proceedings.



MERVIN MCKEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I might address one further question to the Minister of Justice and ask him-should this lie within his responsibility-whether it is his intention to comply with the request of Mervin McKee to be buried in the prison
866	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry yard in order that his grave may serve as a permanent reminder to others that the ways of crime should be abandoned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under section 650 of the Criminal Code responsibility for this matter rests with the lieutenant governor in council of the province.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of External Affairs arising out of newspaper reports that France is preparing to explode a nuclear bomb almost momentarily. Would the minister inform the house as to the attitude Canada is taking with regard to the resumption of nuclear weapons testing by any nation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that at the United Nations last fall we took a very definite stand against any further nuclear tests and voted accordingly. At the moment I do not think there is anything further the government can do.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether, since the commendable action by the government at the United Nations in this respect, any further representations have been made to the government of France, placing Canada's position once again before that government?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. Our stand was made perfectly clear at the United Nations and in conversations, and at the moment I am afraid there is nothing further we can do on a matter which is not under our control.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question for clarification. Is it the position of the government that these tests should not be renewed under any circumstances?


Howard Charles Green: Our position is very clear, Mr. Speaker; we are against further nuclear tests, period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question arising out of his statement just a moment ago that the position of the government was that it was against nuclear tests without any reservation. I should like to ask him if this decision has been made known to the western powers with


which Canada is now conferring in Washington prior to meetings of the disarmament commission and if Canada has been informed by the United States and by Great Britain or by any of these countries separately about proposals which would not meet the Canadian position, and which it is said will be put forward at Geneva before the end of this week.


Howard Charles Green: That is a hypothetical question with several "ifs", and I do not believe it should be answered.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise the house whether the uranium interests of Canada will have an opportunity to present their views to some committee of the house at an early date?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. If the house is agreeable, a committee to study this and related matters will be set up very soon and it will be within the competence of the committee to determine what aspects of this investigation shall be looked into first. It might well be that the situation with regard to the uranium industry would be the subject to which they would give attention first.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Thursday last I asked him whether the government was making a study of the economic and technical feasibility of the Richelieu waterway, and the Prime Minister answered that when the last government was in power there was an investigation which was still under way. Did the Prime Minister mean that the government has asked the international joint commission to resume the investigation the commission was carrying out and which was interrupted until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completely finished?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): The answer is no.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can the Prime Minister tell the house what department of government is making such a study of the Richelieu waterway?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as in the past, several departments are engaged in this work.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I direct another question to the Prime Minister. I did not get the chance to put this as a supplementary to the questions asked a while ago. Would the Prime Minister inform the house to what department questions on the Richelieu waterway could be addressed, and which department has responsibility for the study mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if questions are directed to me 1 will see that they are redirected to the proper department.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to reply to a question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday last. The question was:
Now that the Prime Minister no doubt has had an opportunity of considering the statement of the President of the United States on the sharing of atomic energy information, has he any comment to make on that statement, with special reference to the President's remark that the United States laws should be liberalized, in his view, in respect of those friends and allies on whom they could count in time of trouble?
As a preface to my remarks, and with leave of the house, I would draw attention once again to the position of the government as stated in this house on February 20, 1959; namely, that the Canadian government believes in the importance of limiting the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of national governments and that, as a matter of policy, it does not intend to undertake the production of nuclear weapons in Canada.
As to the sharing of atomic energy information, it will be recalled that I tabled in the house on May 25 of last year an agreement for co-operation with the United States on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. This agreement was concerned principally with the conditions under which Canada can receive certain categories of restricted information and equipment required by our armed forces. By means of this agreement we are now able to obtain all the information and equipment necessary to meet our immediately foreseeable requirements.
In so far as the President's remarks at his press conference may be related to atomic 79951-0-55J
Inquiries of the Ministry weapons, I do not think it would be proper for me to elaborate on what he has said, but I should like to draw the attention of the house to a statement issued by the White House on Friday last which reads as follows:
The question of possible amendments to the atomic energy act in relation to the transfer of nuclear weapons, or information concerning them, to other friendly nations is, like all major policy matters, under continuing review within the executive branch. There is no executive proposal now before congress, nor in preparation, for amendments to the act in either of these respects.
The house will now understand why I quoted the statement in question in view of the earlier remarks of the President.
If any changes are made in United States policies they will, of course, be taken into account in discussions which we will have with the United States authorities as to these matters. I might add that if and when Canada does acquire nuclear weapons it will be in accordance with our own national policies and with our obligations under the North Atlantic treaty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of one part of his very significant remarks. When he said-and I may not be quoting his exact words-that we in Canada are now in receipt of everything that is necessary to meet immediately foreseeable requirements, was he referring to requirements in respect of nuclear weapons?


John George Diefenbaker: No; atomic energy information for mutual defence purposes.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. If I heard the Prime Minister correctly in his statement this afternoon, he said that if and when Canada used atomic arms it would be in accordance with our own policy under the North Atlantic treaty. I wonder if the Prime Minister included in that statement the possible use of atomic warheads for the Bomarc missiles, or whether that would be under a different arrangement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I was perfectly clear in the statement I made, and I am sure the hon. member, after perusal, will come to the same conclusion.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    BOMBARDMENT OF SNOW SLIDES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National



S88 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Resources. My question is related to a very unique event when, apparently tor the first time in Canadian history, a civilian authority chose the enemy and the targets and gave instructions to the Royal Canadian Artillery when to fire and when to cease fire. Has the minister received any dispatches from the western front in British Columbia with respect to the success of the bombardment of snow slides along the trans-Canada highway by Canadian artillery, under his instructions?
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question through my colleague, the Minister of Public Works. This operation in the national parks along the route of the trans-Canada highway is part and parcel of the continuing program, going back over two years, to try to stimulate avalanches deliberately as part of the safety control program along these very dangerous sections of the highway. The co-operation of the Canadian army, together with that of the scientists we have working with us, has made it possible for us to be able to assure ourselves that the safety of travellers will be greater because of this experimental work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister then say that the experiment was a success?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would say that we precipitated avalanches, that they came down the mountainsides, and we know we can control them to that extent.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Department of Transport giving consideration to the control of civil air traffic over Canada by the air force through the SAGE network, as mentioned in the Financial Post of February 6, which would in effect mean giving control of air traffic over Canada to the direction centres in the United States?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question, but as I received it just before coming into the house, and as it is a rather detailed question, I would request that I be permitted to take it as notice and give an answer tomorrow.

(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with a competition for the position of air terminal superintendent at the Montreal airport.
Under the qualifications required of applicants, there is a sentence that reads:
A knowledge of the French language is not essential.
In a bilingual city such as Canada's metropolis, does the minister not feel that the Montreal air terminal superintendent should speak both languages?


George Harris Hees: Allow me to take this question as notice and I shall answer it tomorrow.
(Text):



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: If I may be
permitted to do so, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Can the minister indicate what the attitude of the government is with respect to appealing the decision of Chief Justice McRuer in the Canadian Breweries Limited case?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any indication as to that matter at the moment, and would not be able to do so in any event until we have had a chance to study the written reasons for judgment and to discuss them with counsel. We have not yet received the written reasons for judgment.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. When a decision is made whether or not to appeal, will the minister communicate that information to the house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking generally, I would say that the appropriate course would be to follow the ordinary legal course in the matter. After all, this is a matter of appeal which would have to be considered and disposed of in accordance with the court requirements, and I do not think I would be at liberty to discuss such matters in the house before the legal requirements have been complied with.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 29 I undertook, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), to make available statistics showing the compilation of the production sharing figures which I had used in the house on the previous day. I have this table now, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have this table which he has introduced printed as an appendix to today's Hansard'!


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):: Before the minister is given consent, I wonder whether he could tell us the origin of these figures.


Mr. O'Hurley:: As I stated in the house on January 28, these figures are taken from the annual reports of the Department of Defence Production, and the officials of the department deleted all contracts in those categories that we exclude from our figures which are connected with construction, petroleum products, general service and the like. It was compiled in co-operation with Canadian Commercial Corporation; and in getting the figures on subcontracts we compiled the figures given us by the contractors with subcontracts who were subcontractors at the time. These figures are just as accurate as it is possible to get them to date.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For the table referred to above, see appendix]


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: While I am on my feet I might at the same time clear up a point which was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) following my statement on Thursday, January 28. The hon. member asked whether the figures I had used in connection with production sharing included the expenditures in Canada by the United States on the three defence warning systems. In the exchange that followed the hon. member and I seem to have been at cross purposes, and you will recall that I undertook to check on the point he raised.
To make matters clear, I want to say that none of the figures for production sharing, as I indicated before, include any United
Inquiries of the Ministry States orders for construction, fuel, catering, transportation, or rental of communications, either for the warning lines or for any other purpose.
In the matter of orders for equipment for the warning lines, the situation varies. By far the greater part of these orders related to the Pinetree line, and since these were ordered by the United States through the Canadian Commercial Corporation they are included in the figures I gave for the years since 1952. Equipment purchases in Canada for the D.E.W. line, however, which were comparatively small, were made directly by the United States management contractor and are not included in the figures I gave. These would account for some, but not all, of the $8.8 million noted in the table which I have just presented. The mid-Canada line, of course, was entirely financed by Canada.
I should point out that while the hon. member for Ottawa West spoke about expenditures, all the figures I have given relate to the value of contracts awarded.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. I did not catch the beginning date of these figures. Was it 1952?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I gave the figures in the table, 1953, but we started it at the end of the year 1952.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister.



TSABLE RIVER, VANCOUVER ISLAND    REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN KEEPING MINE OPEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: I should like to direct to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys a question of which I gave notice this morning. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received urgent requests for assistance in keeping open the Canadian Collieries coal mine at Tsable river, Vancouver island, which is due to close on March 1. Has the minister any comment to make on the situation, and is any federal assistance contemplated in view of the fact that 200 men are involved and that this is the last coal mine operating on Vancouver island?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for giving me notice of this question. I have received a number of representations about the Tsable river mine. The impending withdrawal of Canadian Collieries Resources Limited from the operation of this mine has been a concern of the dominion coal board and myself for a considerable time.

Inquiries of the Ministry
It does not appear likely that the company will change its decision to withdraw. However, as hon. members from British Columbia probably know, a group at Cumberland have a plan to take over the mine and operate it on a reduced scale. An application was received from this group for a loan under the Coal Production Assistance Act.
This application had to be submitted by the dominion coal board to the Department of Justice for a ruling on whether it met the terms of the act as laid down by parliament. The Department of Justice found that it did not meet those terms. The loan, therefore, could not be granted. This occurred late in October and early in November. Since then we have received no new or revised application from the Cumberland group for a loan within the terms of the act, though we have attempted to explore other possibilities of assistance.
I may say further, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the dominion coal board and I held a conference in Ottawa on January 25 with a senior representative of one of the interests concerned in the Tsable river matter. This gentleman has now returned to the west and I have some hopes that the ideas we discussed may be useful in the situation.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED REDUCTION IN VALUE RESULTING FROM DELAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary will take it as notice. The president and general manager of Canada Steamship Lines, Mr. T. R. McLogan, addressing the annual meeting of the Port Arthur chamber of commerce recently, made the statement to the effect that tolls and cost of delays has reduced the value of the seaway. Can the minister inform the house whether there is any discrimination against domestic trade when foreign ships travelling light cause most of the delay, yet pass through the canal almost toll-free?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the weather which exists at the lakehead, I doubt if that is a question of great urgency. I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, this question also relates to the lakehead,
[Mr. Comtois.l
but it is of some urgency. Can the Minister of Public Works, in regard to an announcement he made ten days ago that work on the lakehead terminal fill contract would begin on February 3, explain why the work has not started as of today?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I want to thank the hon. member for Port Arthur for this question. As of last Thursday, February 3 no work had been done under the contract. Therefore in accordance with the terms of the contract a registered letter was dispatched on February 4, stating that if work did not commence within six days of that date the contract would be terminated.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker,
another important question was asked by the hon. member for Essex East as to whether a request had been received from the town of Belle River for a new post office. The answer is yes.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. minister very much.



SUGGESTED HOLDING OF 1968 WINTER OLYMPICS IN WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted, I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is to give serious consideration to the holding of a world's fair in Canada in 1967, and in view of the fact that the international Olympic committee will be meeting next week in Squaw Valley, California, when consideration will be given to a site for the winter Olympics in 1968, would the minister of northern affairs indicate whether his department will give the same consideration, and in turn its blessing and encouragement, to the holding of the winter Olympics in western Canada in 1968?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to the minister by the winter Olympics committee of Calgary, and these matters are under consideration by the department of northern affairs.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which I sent him a couple of days ago. Has the minister received a request from the lakehead chamber of commerce and retail merchants asking government consideration to keeping the border crossing at Pigeon River, Ontario, open 24 hours a day each and every Friday throughout the year to accommodate United States skiers, who have difficulty in reaching the Canadian border before closing time on Friday nights? If so-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hubert Badanai: -will the minister indicate whether favourable consideration will be given to their request? I think it is a perfectly good question.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, no such correspondence has come to my office, and I am advised by my departmental officers that no such correspondence has reached the department. The office is kept open 24 hours a day from May until September and from eight o'clock in the morning until midnight every day of the week from September to May. If such an application is received the petition will receive the careful attention of the department. In view of the fact that the hon. member particularly refers to skiers, and we are now rapidly approaching the middle of February, I would not think very much favourable action could be taken to assist United States skiers between now and the time when the snow will have disappeared even from Fort William.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the United States food and drug administration considers that human health may be affected by residues of a synthetic hormone used to fatten cattle and poultry, and in view of the fact that this hormone is known to cause cancer if taken in large quantities, why does the minister's department continue to permit the use of this hormone in the fattening of cattle and poultry in Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that poultry producers in this country are no longer obtaining synthetic hormones to inject into their poultry.
As far as cattle are concerned the synthetic product, stilbestrol, is used in the fattening process, but in very small quantities and under a feeding plan that was investigated at length by my department's food and drug directorate before being approved. The directorate has maintained its interest in this matter and to date has not found any residue of stilbestrol in the slaughtered animals. As I told the hon. member in reply to a similar question a year ago, the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act specifically prohibit the sale of poultry for food purposes if it contains any residue of added hormones.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether it is the intention of the hon. lady to put a motion on the order paper for the re-establishment of the joint committee on Indians. At the same time, perhaps I could ask her if it is her intention at this session to carry out the intention she expressed in an earlier session to recommend a committee to study the Canadian Citizenship Act?
Hon. Ellen L. F airclough (Minisler of Citizenship and Immigration): In reply to the first part of the question the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the second part, the volume of work of the department has prohibited the careful study which is necessary up to the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. lady indicate whether the government has yet decided whether any amendment to the Immigration Act or any revision will be undertaken at this session?


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker, just as soon as I can give a factual answer to that question I shall do so.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. May I ask the hon. lady when we may expect a motion for the establishment of the joint committee on Indian Affairs?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I believe the resolution will appear on today's Votes and Proceedings.

Supply-Agriculture POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EXPERIMENTS WITH SCOOTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Does he intend to make a report soon on his experiments with scooters, and at the same time will he explain to the house why he has added a fourth wheel to them?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Having, perhaps, more regard for the rules of this house than the hon. member for St. Denis, I shall reply to those points on the estimates, when they may be properly discussed. I feel that such questions at this time are very much a fifth wheel.



BRITISH FOOTBALL POOLS-COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General relating to the playing of British football pools by customers of the minister. Has the minister any information on any actions of treasury officials of the British government which might have encouraged the popularity of the British pools in Canada for interested Canadians through the adjustment of the currency regulations?


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Plant products division-
613. Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces to farmers in respect of unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm; and to authorize, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, contributions to the governments of those provinces (or their municipalities) in respect of the administrative costs incurred by them in making such payments to farmers, $6,000,000.
Mr. Peters:: I should like to refer, while discussing this estimate, to a number of incidents which arose out of the debate which took place the other day, and in particular to the headlines that are appearing in western newspapers over an article carried by the Canadian Press which, I think completely misrepresents what happens in this house. One story carried in the Winnipeg Free Press on

February 6 bore the headline "Are Prairie Farmers Pampered? Comments in the House Indicate Some M.P.'s Think So."
I think if those who wrote the headline were to read the whole article this type of headline would not appear. The one in the Winnipeg Free Press is very similar to the one appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune and in another of the prairie newspapers.
I believe the remarks made in the house the other day by all hon. members who spoke, whether from the fishing communities of the east coast or the fruit growing areas of the west, made it clear that there was no one in this house who opposed the payment being made under the supplementary estimate to the western farmers. I think, in the main, that not only did hon. members approve these payments but that in many cases they felt the amount should be increased, not eliminated. I believe consideration should be given by some of the newspapers to the actual news which is contained in the stories rather than turning out headlines of this nature which are completely erroneous.
Nevertheless I think this draws attention to a question which this government should consider, namely a policy which would apply equally to all segments of agriculture which met with disaster or suffered unduly from the type of problem which affects farmers in western Canada. If it is proper that assistance should be given to the western farmers-and this has certainly been indicated by every hon. member who has spoken on this estimate-then there should be a policy which would make it possible for fruit growers in British Columbia to get a similar type of assistance. It should be possible for the grain farmers of Ontario to get this type of assistance, and the same measures for relief should apply to all the other segments of agriculture. I think it is time this government developed an over-all policy which would apply in times of disaster or special need to all farmers, no matter what products they happen to raise.
In the course of the considerable discussion which took place with regard to this particular estimate a question was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate which I think deserves much more consideration than it has been given by the government. I refer to the manner in which this type of legislation has been introduced. It would appear that the government has been willing to accept the criticism of the Liberals in opposition and to reply to it by saying, "We are not doing anything you did not do. By introducing this payment in a supplementary estimate we are following the precedent

which you yourselves set up when you were on the government benches". I do not think this is an answer to the criticism that this matter should have been introduced by a resolution, giving members an opportunity to link this particular measure with the over-all assistance given to farmers and the overall agricultural program. This procedure would enable hon. members to reach a much better understanding of how this assistance will fit in with the government's general program.
I feel the farmers of the west can rest assured that every member of this house is interested in helping farmers who have suffered because of unreasonable weather conditions in western Canada. 1 think they have the right to know that, and certainly the government was not wrong in telling them so. I think also that the provincial governments which have been asked to give assistance to their people should be assured of cooperation from the federal government.
The Prime Minister says no such assurances were given. I think such assurances should have been given. I believe a province which has been asked to make a large contribution, and which would have to provide the total sum required if the federal government did not come in, should have an assurance from the federal government that some assistance will be available. I think the government has no obligation then to introduce an immediate resolution so the question can be discussed as part of an over-all program.
As the representative of a farming community in Ontario I am very pleased to support this resolution. Because of the fact that I have been in western Canada since the snowfall took place-I was out there in the fall, and know what problems these farmers face-I suggest that the amount of money now envisaged is not sufficient. I think the provincial governments are going to be asked for further assistance and will have to provide more assistance than is contemplated in this particular estimate. I believe the federal government itself will have to be more generous to these farmers than it has been. If conditions in the spring are unsatisfactory, many of these farmers will not reap any crop at all. What the precise situation will be in the spring is hypothetical, but if certain conditions are not met many of these farmers will have no prospect of a harvest. If there is an unusually wet spring there will be no return to the farmers, and this contribution will appear to be very small.
The type of headline referred to, making reference to the pampering of prairie farmers, does not reflect the opinion of hon. mem-79951-0-56
Supply-Agriculture
bers of this committee, nor is it a fair comment on the debate that took place in this chamber.
It has been suggested that fishermen, fruit growers and other segments of agriculture need assistance in similar circumstances. No one is suggesting that the farmers are not entitled to assistance under this system, but most are of the opinion that the amount is too small and that more money should be put into P.F.A.A. as a method of assisting those who have suffered this loss.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this emergency legislation to assist the farmers of western Canada I am pleased to say I am particularly interested in it because I come from a constituency in which there are 25,000 people either engaged in farming or dependent on the farming industry.
I am especially happy that the cost of the assistance provided in this way will be shared equally by the provinces and the federal government, and will apply to farmers who have more than 50 per cent of their crops under the snow up to a maximum of 200 acres.
I was keenly interested in listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on Friday last as he voiced his criticism of the method by which this emergency assistance was brought in through a supplementary estimate. I reached the conclusion that the hon. member in question is against this type of assistance. I may point out that we have a precedent for this. This is not something new in western Canada. In the fall of 1951-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member for Bow River does not want to be unfair. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate definitely said he was in favour of this particular legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Essex East let me say that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate may have said one thing in one place, but he appears to have said another thing in a different place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. My personal honour has been attacked by the hon. member for Bow River. I am not asking the hon. gentleman to withdraw, but I am asking him to substantiate his statement. If he can find anywhere inside or outside of this chamber any statement by me in opposition to these payments I will apologize to the committee, but he will find none because I have never opposed this. What I have opposed is the cavalier way we are being treated by the

Supply-Agriculture
Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister in this committee. My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River demanded this legislation a month ago, and we could not get it.


The Chairman:: I do not think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a question of privilege there. As I have already indicated, if any hon. member wishes to correct any statement made by another hon. member he may do so after the hon. member who has the floor has completed his remarks. A question of privilege or point of order does not arise as the result of a difference in interpretation of the oponion or attitude of any hon. member.
Hon. gentlemen have been in the habit of raising questions of privilege and points of order which are not valid. Therefore I submit that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will have occasion when the hon. member for Bow River has resumed his seat to make any correction he wishes to make.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order Your Honour has raised, I was not seeking to make any correction of the hon. gentleman's statement. The hon. member made a false statement about me, and that is a question of privilege if anything is to be considered a question of privilege. In rising I demanded, in essence, that the hon. member put up or shut up.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Again I say that is not a question of privilege. If a statement does not reflect on an hon. member's character it does not give rise to a question of privilege. If it is only a question of interpreting the opinion of an hon. member it is not a question of privilege, in my mind. I do not think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should have insisted, because I think his last words were rather near raising a question of privilege.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, are you making the ruling that a false statement made in this committee by one hon. member about another in the course of a debate is not a question of privilege?


Jacques Flynn: If I may explain further for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, what I said is that if a statement about an hon. member does not reflect on the character or honesty of another hon. gentleman it is not a question of privilege. If it is merely the interpretation of an attitude or an opinion of an hon. member it is not a question of privilege, and an hon. member may make any correction he desires after the hon. member who has the floor has completed his remarks. That is the only ruling I have made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to put up or shut up. What I was saying was that we can be sure of this; that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was against the method we used in providing this emergency assistance, if he was not against the substance.
As I was saying before being interrupted, there are lots of precedents for what the government did. In the fall of 1951 we had in western Canada many acres of crops under the snow, both in Saskatchewan and Alberta, which provinces I know very well. I would ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate why the party to which he belongs did not on that occasion bring in emergency legislation of this type. That is why I said it would appear that the hon. member may be opposed to the assistance provided by these supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 rise on another question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is now surmising what may be in my mind, contrary to what I said in this chamber, and that is certainly a question of privilege. For the hon. member to insinuate that my statement repeatedly made in this chamber is untrue is certainly a reflection which should be withdrawn.


Mr. Chambers:: Anyone who suggests there is anything in your mind is obviously wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, a very clever
observation.


Jacques Flynn: Order. What I said earlier applies again in this case. In my opinion this is not a question of privilege. I would ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to take all the notes he desires in order to reply or object to any statement made by the hon. member for Bow River after he has completed his remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue, as I was saying there are precedents for this action. In the autumn of 1951 we had circumstances in Saskatchewan and Alberta similar to those that obtained last fall. That is why I feel this type of assistance is commendable.
Now I come to another point. In this debate there has been what almost amounts to a personal attack on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture in reference to a certain question that was asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I now have the record before me, and I think this matter should be cleared up as to what is the difference between an assurance and a contract. I propose to make the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate an offer this afternoon. I understand he is a law student. I



I960

[Stage Direction]
have a law firm in Calgary. I should like to invite the hon. gentleman to come out and article to my law firm, because my associates there would be happy to acquaint him with the difference between a contract and an assurance.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly I will permit a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman tell me where he got the word "contract"; because the word that was used by the Prime Minister and by me was "agreement", not "contract".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Again my hon. friend
quibbles, Mr. Chairman. The reason for my offer is now amply clear. The hon. gentleman does not know that the terms "contract" and "agreement" are synonymous, that the same definition applies to both. If my good friend will bear with me for a few minutes I will place a few things on the record to indicate what is the difference between an agreement -if that is what he wishes to call it-and an assurance. Speaking on Friday afternoon, as reported at page 796 of Hansard, the hon. member was interrupted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and then went on to say:
The hon. member says capable, and I would also think truthful. The minister of agriculture of Manitoba said that they have a verbal agreement, but on the following Monday the Prime Minister of this country says there is no agreement. In other words, the minister of agriculture of Manitoba was lying to the legislature of Manitoba. [DOT]
Let us see what the Prime Minister said in reference to this matter when questioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, as reported at page 546 of Hansard. I will put the question on record so the question and answer are together. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given any other assurances to any provincial governments to share in expenditures made by those governments which have not been communicated to parliament and. if so, when the government intends to communicate such assurances to parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman that it is difficult to understand a question such as that. He has been given the answer that no agreement was entered into with any of the provinces. From the nature of the questions he continues to ask there is every indication that the hon. member-certainly speaking for himself if not for those associated with him-is in opposition to any preliminary work being done in order to meet the situation that obtains in the provinces.
79951-0-56J
Supply-Agriculture
Later on the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, the interest of the hon. gentleman in the field of legal semantics has been so recent, that apparently he does not understand the difference between an agreement and an assurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why does the hon. member not read it all?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say this, Mr. Chairman. Surely the hon. member by his questions is leaving a wrong impression. How can we ever come to an agreement or make a contract if we do not have some negotiations? Everyone would expect that in this type of emergency assistance the government, or the officers of the government, would meet with the provinces and discuss the problem. No doubt-I do not know; I am merely a backbencher-some assurance was given to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that there would be some assistance to help the farmers whose crops were under the snow. Surely when you are negotiating an agreement it is not an agreement itself, and that seems to be the point the hon. member for Bona-venture-Twillingate missed. I say this without any reservation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seemed to be missed
by the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, who said there was an agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member will
just bear with me for a few moments I shall explain exactly what I am driving at so far as this matter is concerned. There is a difference between an agreement and an assurance, and there is a difference between a consummated agreement and an assurance. One person can make an agreement in this regard, but there is one final condition precedent, and that is that the matter must be approved by parliament. I am sure it was in the minds of the Prime Minister and his ministers that they would come to parliament, as they are doing this afternoon, and ask parliament to approve the expenditure of $6 million to help the western farmers in their emergency.
The hon. member said that the Prime Minister had said one thing and the Minister of Agriculture another, but he was splitting hairs so far as the difference between an agreement and an assurance is concerned. When we misinterpret the terms and the facts in that regard it reminds me of a story. A fellow was sitting at home and a knock came on the door. The traveller said, "Look here, I am selling some woollens". The fellow who owned the apartment said, "Let me have a look at those woollens". After he looked at them he said, "I do not think I will buy them off you; you have only a few dirty yarns to offer". That seems to be the whole impression left in the debate

Supply-Agriculture
on the emergency assistance for the western farmers by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I come back to my original point. We had a similar situation in 1951 and the Liberal government of that time did nothing for the western farmers. That is why there is not a Liberal member west of the great lakes today. I feel that this emergency assistance provided for in the estimate before us is going to be of great help to the farmer to assist him in paying his fuel and repair bills, and to take care of the other things that are of importance when you are operating a farming concern.
I also wish to say a few words to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I have always enjoyed listening to him. I wish to say to him today that I feel he made a tremendous speech. I have heard him make the same speech in this house on 15 different occasions, but he did a much better job the other afternoon than usual, because he was louder. He calls this legislation peanuts. To the hon. member for Assiniboia everything is peanuts. It reminds me of another story that was told to me when I was a boy. A clergyman once said, "If you good people will come out to church with all of your good friends I will show you something that has never been seen before". That sounds like the hon. member for Assiniboia. The church was packed, but what happened? The clergyman took a peanut and opened it up, and what he saw inside was a nut. Maybe that is what the hon. member for Assiniboia should do, look inside and see the problem. He should do a little real research into this problem and talk sense when he is speaking about the problems of the western farmers.
I have taken a little longer than I intended, Mr. Chairman. Before I sit down I wish to say that I completely support this emergency help provided by the government. I think it was commendable on the part of the Prime Minister and the ministers to meet with farm organizations of this country immediately the problem arose. In my own constituency much of the harvesting has been completed, because we live in the chinook belt. The fact that the Prime Minister of this country and his ministers were aware of the emergency and immediately met with the farm organizations showed that this government is concerned with the problems of the western farmers.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, as has
already been pointed out, this is an emergency measure. This estimate, and the emergency in that anxiety-ridden part of the prairies where early snow and unfavourable harvesting conditions struck with such devastating

effect, serves to underline the urgency with which this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and with the guidance of the Minister of Agriculture, brought forward a national crop insurance plan during the last session of parliament.
I think it can be said that the severity of conditions in western Canada at this time cannot be compared with conditions in other parts of Canada, even though they may be unfortunate. I refer to the conditions mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who incidentally never lifted their fingers when theirs were the fingers that could have written history. They made statement upon statement, acknowledging their utter lack of knowledge in regard to the situation in western Canada at this time.
This estimate can only cover a small part of the loss sustained in western Canada, and emphasizes the need of a sound, working crop insurance plan.
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his action in bringing this matter to the attention of Canadians everywhere, when he called together the representatives of farm organizations and leaders of governments on the prairies to deal with this particular problem. I believe the record of this government is commendable in that regard, and I think it can be favourably compared with the attitude of the provincial government in Saskatchewan in regard to the emergency situation in our province today.
As I indicated the other day, the leader of the government of our province left the province at the time of greatest anxiety to sun himself in the Mediterranean area. His ministers cannot help but know that the regulations they have brought forward have made it necessary for many people who are in need to do without the benefits of this legislation. I should like to quote from the New Year's message of the premier of Saskatchewan, who referred to this matter in these words:
The weather in the fall of 1959 dealt harshly with standing grain on many farms but our Saskatchewan farmer has never lacked fortitude and he will weather this storm as he has so many others in the past.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia that it will take more than fortitude for the provincial government to fulfil its responsibility to those who suffer in this emergency. The hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have indicated that this measure would meet with their wholehearted support if it were more universal. That is one way of indicating that their support is unwilling as

it now stands. They should not need to be reminded that the Liberal party always maintained that it could not bring a crop insurance plan into being because it infringed upon provincial rights. The C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan always abdicated their responsibility by saying that they were prepared to go ahead but could not do anything because the laissez-faire Liberals in power at Ottawa would not participate. It remained for a Conservative administration to bring forward legislation to meet both these circumstances.
At the time of the annual meeting of delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, Hon. I. C. Nollet, minister of agriculture for that province, indicated that he would not jeopardize the social service program in Saskatchewan for any crop insurance plan. I can understand the impact of that slap in the face to the people of rural Saskatchewan, and I was not at all surprised when he indicated a few days later that the government would set up trial units, and would have done so sooner had it not been for the fact that the federal legislation was passed at a time when the provincial house had ended its work and the members had left for their respective homes.
All I say, Mr. Chairman, is measure that situation with the changes made in the regulations after they were originally announced by the C.C.F. in the province of Saskatchewan. It will be clearly apparent why the hon. member for Assiniboia has been so reluctant to deal with the particular measure now before us and which was also before us last Friday. He has dealt with almost everything else and kept very much away from the subject in which we are all interested.
Before we leave this item I think I should compliment the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on the barricade he has been building between his party and the people on farms in all parts of Canada. I must confess that he divests himself of all modesty in that regard so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned. He is gaining a certain reputation, but I assure him that his efforts to build a barrier between western and eastern Canadian farmers are doomed to disappointment.


Mr. Benidickson:: Nonsense. He was bom on a farm.


Edward Nasserden: Farm people are among the best informed of Canadian citizens today. They do not need anyone to do their thinking for them, and they do not relish the thought that every time the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate opens his mouth they get a dose of cod liver oil.
Supply-Agriculture
There is another aspect of this debate that deserves comment. It is the frequency with which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has referred to those who speak from the government backbenches as freshmen, young and inexperienced and backbenchers. Indeed, sir, we recognize our limitations, but we do submit in all sincerity that even the least of us have an equal right to the floor of the House of Commons to express the views of our constituents. This unabashed and deliberate attempt on the part of the hon. member to shutter and silence the backbenchers on the government side is an indication of the kind of attitude they took to their own backbenchers when they sat on the other side of the house. I maintain in all sincerity that this does not justify such actions, which are not in conformity with the dignity of this committee or the symbols of democracy. I did not wish to mention this matter, but the arrogance that was displayed on Friday last brought to my mind a quotation from the works of Sir William Jones:
What constitutes a state? . .. Men who their duties know, but know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we have had a very interesting contribution by the hon. member for Rosthern, who ranged over a very wide field. In his remarks he went out to Saskatchewan some months ago, talked about the premier having gone to Europe for a period of some three weeks, and did so in order to try to insinuate that the Saskatchewan government had abrogated its responsibility to the producers of that province. As a matter of fact the federal government was most reluctant to act, and acted only as the result of pressure exerted by three provincial governments, one of which is a Conservative government.
Even then the federal government only went half the distance in meeting the requests of the provincial governments. According to the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a statement I made, the provincial governments presented a united front to the federal government and asked for full compensation from the federal treasury on the basis of this being a national emergency. However, the federal government made an announcement and the provinces could then either take it or leave it.
Much has been said about the Saskatchewan government's attitude to crop insurance. The Saskatchewan government can speak for itself. However, my understanding as of some weeks ago-the hon. member for Rosthern can correct me if subsequent events have made my statement inaccurate -is that farmers in Saskatchewan who

Supply-Agriculture
wish to have crop insurance will be given the chance to have it. But I do submit that it is a misuse of federal power to enunciate a crop insurance scheme, placing 80 per cent of the financial responsibility outside the federal government, without at least the courtesy to have had prior consultation with the provincial governments. If anything is designed to wreck federal-provincial relations precipitously it is this kind of ill-considered action by this government.
The Saskatchewan government are anxious to bring any possible benefits to the people of that province that may accrue from crop insurance, but they resent very deeply the effort of the federal government to put most of the financial responsibility on the provinces, and they resent very deeply the callous disregard for normal federal-provincial relations and normal consultation.
The speech of the hon. member for Ros-thern is quite understandable. This is his bid to get back into the good graces of the party.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hazen Robert Argue: We all know that he made a very interesting speech some days ago-


An hon. Member:: How low can you get?


Hazen Robert Argue: -and that his speech came as a jolt, as a shock, to the government. In my memory of the house no government member has been more critical of government policy than was the hon. member for Rosthern in the speech he made.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska?


Hazen Robert Argue: He might run a close second. But there are these two hon. members at any rate who have exposed the government's policy for exactly what it is. Apparently the pressure has been applied.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member now wishes to get back into the good graces of his party and so he is making this effort to restore his position. I think his independence has been very much a flash in the pan and that it will soon be forgotten because we now have this speech seeking readmission to the caucus of his party. He is asking for reinstatement and this is the speech of apology to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Lambert:: The hon. member is talking nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is the truth. That is why we are getting all these interruptions. However, I am hopeful that the hon. member for Rosthern will reread his correspondence from the prairies and will reread the speech

that he made in this house some days ago which was in much better perspective than was his speech today.
The item before the committee is one that will receive, I have no doubt, the unanimous support of hon. members. I have no doubt about that whatsoever,-


An hon. Member:: Then why are you talking?


Hazen Robert Argue: -even though hon. gentlemen opposite may wish to interpret what we have said. With the hon. member for Timiskaming I should like to say that I feel that the reports made on the proceedings of this house could leave the wrong impression. I think the situation will be straightened out when this item, at an appropriate time, is passed-as I am certain it will be-unanimously by the committee.


Edward Nasserden: May I correct an impression that was left by the hon. member for Assiniboia before we leave the matter?


William Arnold Peters: You mean you are still with us?


Jacques Flynn: I recognize the hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: I should like to say that the hon. member for Assiniboia has tried to leave a wrong impression. I cannot let pass any implication that I ever fell from grace in the party in which I consider myself one member. I want to assure him that anything I said today or said at any other time I will say in this house as the member for Rosthern and as the Conservative member for the constituency of Rosthern.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should correct at this time some very incorrect statements which the hon. member for Assiniboia made. He asserted that the dominion government was reluctant to act to provide assistance for the farmers whose crops were covered by the snow. This statement is the very reverse of the truth. As soon as the early snow came we began to collect information immediately with the idea in mind of determining what steps would be necessary in order to provide some form of assistance to the farmers. To state that we were most reluctant to act is, I think, the complete reverse of the facts in connection with the matter and I am surprised that the hon. member would make that statement in view of the fact that I think he knows we began to move immediately after the snow came on.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: But it took you so long to move.


Hazen Robert Argue: You refused the submission that was made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Another statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia was that the dominion government made the announcement of what assistance would be available and the provinces could either take it or leave it. He went on from there to discuss crop insurance and to say that we had not consulted the provinces and so on. As far as this matter is concerned, the announcement which was made by the dominion government was made only after weeks of consultation with the provinces with regard to the form of assistance which would be provided and in an attempt to get the provinces to agree to the form of assistance which would be provided.
The hon. member for Timiskaming said, "You took weeks to do it". One of the reasons that it took weeks to get the form of assistance in operation was the length of time that we took in consultation with the provinces in order to try to work out something mutually satisfactory in the way of assistance. In other words, the idea that we just made an announcement and said to the provinces "Take it or leave it" is also directly the contrary of the facts. I say that we spent weeks in consultation with them in an attempt to arrive at a mutually satisfactory formula of assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister saying that when the announcement was made agreement had been obtained at that time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; I am not saying that.


Hazen Robert Argue: No; of course not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member is talking about reluctance. The reluctance in connection with this matter did not come from the dominion government. We were unable to get the provinces to agree to a formula of assistance, so eventually we announced what we, as a dominion government, were willing to do in connection with the matter. That was the only step-


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly what I said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -we had left open to us.
I thought I should correct those two statements at this time and not allow them to remain on the record uncontradicted. Had I allowed them to remain uncontradicted, the hon. member would probably say that as they were not contradicted, they must be true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps this item would have been passed by now if there had not been some statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite earlier this afternoon. Of course,
Supply-Agriculture
they have the right to make those statements. But when those statements create a false impression as to the attitude of the opposition we have a similar right to correct that false impression. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, when in the course of the statements that have been made, personal attacks were made on my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, if a member on this side of the house takes exception of that kind of tactic and replies, I think he should not be subjected to the cries that were raised this afternoon, "How low can you get". The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not need any defence from me. But it is surely in order for us on this side to take exception to statements of that kind which are made, when they are made, without the kind of interruptions that we had when that was done this afternoon.
The position of our party in this matter has been made quite clear and it leaves no room for misrepresentation or misunderstanding. We have said from the beginning that we were in favour of this estimate. Indeed, the position we have taken is that weeks ago

two or three weeks ago-this should have been done by legislation, in which case the amount would have been made effective by now. But we can be in favour of this act or strongly opposed to the way in which it has been dealt with. Indeed, if the way we recommended it should be done had been followed by the government, the action would have been taken by now. That is surely an answer to the criticism that we are delaying the legislation.
It is also interesting to hear hon. members opposite depreciate the attention we are giving to procedure with regard to this matter. It was only Saturday night that the Prime Minister, in a speech in this city, talked about the restoration of the rights of parliament. It was not very long before that when some hon. members sitting on the opposite side of the house were very vociferous on every possible occasion when they thought the rights of parliament were being violated in respect of any kind of procedure.
We on this side feel that this is not the right procedure to have followed in this matter. We are being asked through this item in the estimates-and incidentally, it was not the procedure followed in 1951, as stated by the hon. member for Bow River- to vote $6 million to be spent on conditions prescribed by order in council. This, Mr. Chairman, from a government headed by a Prime Minister who not very long ago never lost an opportunity, and indeed was very expert in creating opportunities, to denounce in strong language what he used to call

Supply-Agriculture
government by order in council. This particular item reads, as was pointed out last Friday, "to authorize, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in Council", which, on the face of it, was an indication that some order in council must have already been passed. When that question was asked by my hon. friend for Kenora-Rainy River of the minister, as reported on page 793 of last Friday's Hansard, he was told to look it up. Then later the minister got up in the house and corrected himself, and apologized to the committee for having made a mistake; none had been passed. But the word is "prescribed", and we are entitled to take from that wording that an order in council has been passed. It is very surprising indeed that the minister concerned with the estimates did not know what the situation was at that time but had to find out later.
Parliament, then, is being asked to give a blank cheque for $8 million, and the government is later to write the conditions for spending this money by order in council. We ask what agreement, what arrangement, what assurance-whatever word you wish to use- has been reached with the provinces, presumably laying down the conditions under which this money is to be spent, but we cannot find out.
The minister said a few moments ago that there were weeks-I think he said weeks- of consultation and correspondence. He said in reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia that it was quite wrong to say the government was reluctant to act, because they had been in touch with the provinces from the very beginning, as soon as the emergency occurred. Then one of my hon. friends to my left said how wonderful it was for the members of the government, including the Prime Minister, to show they were aware of this emergency. If the government has had this contact and consultation and correspondence with the provinces, why cannot we get it?
Last Tuesday the Minister of Agriculture was asked to produce the correspondence. An order of the house to that effect was passed on Wednesday. A request for it was made again on Thursday so that we would have this correspondence before us when discussing this estimate.


William Moore Benidickson: It was put on the order paper the opening day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. Now, a week after, we are asked to pass an estimate of $6 million without this information before us. I know that the minister has said that he has not been able to get the consent of the provinces to the tabling of this correspondence. But the minister knows perfectly well-he has had a

lot of experience with provincial correspondence-that a request by telephone last week would hardly have been refused by any of the provincial governments concerned who are getting help under this estimate and in whose interest it would be to get the estimate through as quickly as possible. No doubt the provincial governments would recognize, even if this government does not, that it is the right of this parliament to know exactly for what this money is being voted and how it will be spent as a result of any assurance, agreement, contract, or whatever you wish to call it, with any provincial government.
I would ask the minister now before the estimate goes through if he has that correspondence? Can he tell us what is in it? Will he table it? Will he let us know the conditions involved in the correspondence, because this is an item to be passed by parliament but to be spent under conditions laid down by order in council. Are we not entitled to know, so far as any correspondence from the provinces can make it clear, what the conditions are to be? When we bring this matter up in this way, surely we are not to be accused of delaying the estimate, of showing our unwillingness to let this go through, or of being opposed to the substance of the matter because we are standing up for proper procedure and the rights of parliament in this matter.
So, Mr. Chairman, we reiterate our approval of the principle involved in this estimate. However, I would like to say, although perhaps the minister dealt with this in previous discussions when I was not here, and if so I apologize for mentioning it, that it seems to me to be a pretty rigid kind of provision when you get help if you qualify by reaching the 50 per cent mark, but if you have 49.5 per cent of your acreage under snow you do not qualify. Might it not have been more effective, and more desirable in every way, if there had been a kind of sliding scale of acreage qualification worked out? I do not know whether this has been dealt with or not. However, it is an important technical point.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of the principle and want to see the farmers helped in this emergency; but we protest the way it has been done. If our suggestion at the beginning of this session had been followed, this amount would have been voted by now and would have been available to the governments concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I must protest once more at the Leader of the Opposition setting up this straw man and knocking him down again, and suggesting that there has

been any disregard of parliament, that the procedure has not been correct, and so on and so forth. I have gone over this thing half a dozen times now and explained exactly what was done. I have pointed out it is exactly the same procedure as has been followed in the past with matters of this kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not accept that
statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This constant reiteration
on the part of hon. members of the opposition that the procedure which has been followed shows a disregard of parliament just will not stand up.
The Leader of the Opposition said that this was not the procedure which was followed in 1951 when there was a similar disaster of snow-covered crops. It certainly was not the procedure followed then, because in 1951 the Liberal government of which he was a part gave no assistance whatsoever, so naturally it was not the same procedure. They refused to give any assistance-


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question. Does he realize that one of his colleagues on this side just stated as part of his argument that it was exactly the same procedure as followed in 1951.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not hear any colleague of mine make any such statement. The fact is, which I think the hon. member on reflection will admit, that in 1951 the government of which he was a part refused to give any assistance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What assistance did they
give?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Guaranteed loans by legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They provided for bank
loans, the same type of thing which we put through the house the other day and which we indicated would be of very limited value.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You said "no assistance".
You should withdraw that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You gave no cash assistance, not one nickel's worth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now you are changing it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition also stated that parliament has been asked to give a blank cheque, and he went on to say that the minister should let them know what the conditions are, and so on and so forth. I have let the committee know. On Friday last I gave in detail what the situation was, how it had come about, and exactly what were the assurances which
Supply-A griculture
we gave to the provinces. They were very, very simple indeed. They were that the dominion government, if parliament approved of course, would pay half the cost of assistance up to a maximum of $3 an acre for a maximum of 200 acres if a farmer's crop was 50 per cent or more under the snow. That was the case with cereal crops. For non-cereal crops we would pay up to a maximum of $600 a farmer. They were the only terms which we ever laid down. They are the terms embraced in the item which is before the house, and it was then at the discretion of the provinces to put in the type of scheme which they wanted in each particular case. As I pointed out last Friday, there was a different type of assistance scheme put in in each of the three prairie provinces.
The Leader of the Opposition started out by complaining about the cut-off at 50 per cent. He said it would have been better if this had been put on a sliding scale and so forth. But there was nothing to prevent a province putting it on a sliding scale if it wished to, and, in fact, in Saskatchewan, for example, they have put it on a sliding scale and there are 20 different categories of payments.


William Moore Benidickson: That is if over 50 per cent unthreshed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Payments ranging from $3 an acre down to 20 cents, and I put a table on record in Hansard to show what these categories are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition was speaking of under 50 per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He did not know what he was talking about.


William Moore Benidickson: Government arrogance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the other two provinces, Alberta and Manitoba, they have put in categories of $3 payments and $2 payments depending on how much grain each farmer had threshed. I do not think anything more needs to be said with regard to these various allegations-and that is all they are-there is nothing to support them-made by hon. members opposite that there has in some way been a disregard for parliament. This is a perfectly normal and legitimate way of achieving this object and all the precedents of the past support it as a means of dealing with a matter of this kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Agriculture is wont when he finds himself in a difficult position to assume that he alone in this house has any knowledge of the problem under discussion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do not judge me by yourself.

Supply-Agriculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: In other words, the Minister of Agriculture is the only man in this house who knows anything about agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now we have confirmation of that from some of the minister's own supporters. The Minister of Agriculture is the only man sitting on either the government or the opposition benches who knows anything about the problem of agriculture. And what is the proof of that? The minister himself has said so: I am the only man who knows anything about agriculture-


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, I ask the hon. member to point out any place in Hansard or any place in a press statement reporting a speech of mine where I have ever said any such thing. I have never made any such statement. It is the last statement I would ever make, and the hon. member, I think, knows it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This last act of humility on the part of the minister has a persuasive effect. If it were not for the fact that I think the point still should be made I would not ask him to consider his observation of a few minutes ago when he said in answer to an interjection of mine: "The Leader of the Opposition does not know what he is talking about."


An hon. Member:: Correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the reply which the hon. gentleman makes at every point. I wonder if it was the kind of reply he wanted to make when the former independent member from Rosthern made the very courageous and constructive observation that he did on the government's change of agricultural policy from one of price support to one of deficiency payments. The Minister of Agriculture ought to realize at the beginning of the session, since he is going to be piloting a number of measures, that one of the effective ways of getting legislation through is by some condescension, some expression of humility; a little acknowledgment that there might be a scintilla of knowledge of the subject on benches other than the one he himself occupies. That, I believe, the minister would find an effective way of dealing with the question in hand.


Mr. Slogan:: On a point of order, I fail to see what relation the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East bear to item 613 of the estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You wouldn't see it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree that there is not too much relevancy in what I have been saying to the point at issue, but there

is as much relevancy as the unwise remark of the minister that the Leader of the Opposition does not know what he is talking about. What I am trying to do now for the benefit of the experienced member for Springfield who has just intervened is to indicate that if the Minister of Agriculture wants to make some progress in the passage of measures which concern him he ought to develop a quality which is really characteristic of him, particularly when he was sitting on this side, and that is a little humility. After all, when the minister is playing golf he shows understanding and good fellowship; he understands the position of others. He should not let the fact that he has become Minister of Agriculture to so affect him. After all, it is not worth it.


Mr. Pallett:: You are off the fairway now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition has made some important points, and the Minister of Agriculture has not dealt with two of them. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether in respect of legislation which everyone in this house supports consideration was given by the federal government or by any one of the three provinces to giving assistance to farmers whose crops were under snow in respect of an amount less than 50 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture misunderstood the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition recognized that some provinces, notably Saskatchewan, did make provision on a graduated scale with regard to that portion of the crop which was under snow but which was over 50 per cent. The point made by the Leader of the Opposition was this: could consideration not be given to the case of an individual whose crops were, let us say, less than 50 per cent under the snow, but which had suffered considerable damage? Suppose the percentage was 49.5? To that question the minister did not address himself.
There is another point to which I think the Minister of Labour should have his attention directed, and it is this-


An hon. Member:: You are mixed up in your portfolio.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just anticipating that the Minister of Labour and I, once this measure has been dealt with, have some questions to discuss. That is undoubtedly what was in my mind. I am now saying to the Minister of Agriculture: what you are doing now is providing by way of an estimate for a group of farmers in this country who need assistance. The hon. member for Rosthern was guilty of a terminological inexactitude when he said that we on

this side of the house, by indicating that there were other classes of farmers in the country who needed assistance, were thereby attaching a condition to our approval of this measure. Nothing of that sort was stated in this house by any member of the Liberal party or in any other section of the chamber, and I have followed every bit of this debate.
What the Minister of Agriculture has failed to do is to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition: if we are not to be given the right to deal with this matter by way of legislation in the usual form, by way of a bill on which a wide measure of discussion is permitted on the preamble and on the first clause, then, surely, we should have been furnished by the Minister of Agriculture with an opportunity of perusing the correspondence between the two governments concerned. The order was passed on Wednesday, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out. There was nothing to prevent an active minister of labour who knows everything about agriculture-


Michael Starr: The Minister of Labour hastens to confess that he knows nothing about agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -having one of his officials contact one of the ministers concerned in the provinces so we could now determine whether or not this legislation is considered by provincial governments who are paying 50 per cent to be a measure which fully meets the situation. For this government through the Minister of Agriculture to not be in a position of being able to put this correspondence on the table of the house when the motion ordering the production of these documents appeared on the order paper the first day is to reveal nothing less than a real indication of this government's contempt for the rights of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend the learned member from an Edmonton constituency whose contributions this session have consisted of groans and that kind of intervention knows perfectly well that it is contemptuous of any government toward parliament to refuse to bring down correspondence that has such relevancy to an item such as that under discussion, and that from a government that continually prides itself on being the champion of the rights of the people and of parliament.
I regret that the Minister of Agriculture who does not understand these things concerning the rights of parliament apparently should be the instrument in this particular
Supply-A griculture
instance of this further disregard by the government of the rights of the representatives of the people. That is understandable in the case of a man who, as he says, knows everything about agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East from that pinnacle of wisdom that he takes for granted he has reached loves to lecture the House of Commons and the members in it as to what they should and should not do. He has just given us a demonstration of that. After lecturing me for some considerable time he managed to lecture two or three other hon. members of the committee during the course of the few short remarks he has just made. I know it tickles his vanity to assume this Olympian attitude and to deliver these lectures but I do not think many people in this chamber pay them as much attention as the hon. member for Essex East thinks they deserve.
In addition to soothing his vanity and delivering his lectures the only thing the hon. member accomplished in his remarks was to reiterate the matter of disregard for parliament. I do not propose to repeat time after time what I have already said on the subject which I believe demonstrates as clearly as it can be demonstrated that there has been absolutely no disregard for parliament in the conduct of the government.
Although the hon. member for Essex East has implied that 1 am not in a position to recognize disregard for parliament I should like to point out that my record in that regard is much better than his or those of the hon. gentlemen who sit with him who were members of the previous government and who distinguished themselves in the last parliament in which they were in office by their utter disregard of parliament particularly during the pipe line debate.


William Moore Benidickson: Blank cheque legislation here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All of this, Mr. Chairman,
I must confess is completely out of order as far as discussion of this estimate is concerned and therefore I do not intend to pursue these matters further.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, before the minister sits down will he deal with the two points raised, one being the correspondence which he refuses to table and the other the question of the sliding scale which might take into consideration percentages below 50? He has not dealt with either.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with the second point before when I mentioned

Supply-Agriculture
that any province that wished to put in a sliding scale was tree to do so and Saskatchewan did that.


William Moore Benidickson: Below 50 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All below 50 per cent, yes. As tar as any assistance scheme ot this kind is concerned you have to take some point as a cut-off. I went into that question on Friday last and dealt with the reasons for making the cut-off at 50 per cent. In any scheme of this nature you have to make a cut-off some place be it at 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent. If it were made even at 75 per cent one could say that the person who had only 74.5 per cent of his crop harvested would not be assisted. It is true that this situation arises no matter where you make the cut-off. It is inevitable when you lay down a certain condition on assistance for crops under the snow that this situation should arise unless you are going to put in a system which would not really be practical, workable or necessary under which you would pay everybody who had even one acre of crop under the snow.
As far as the correspondence is concerned, the hon. member said that an order was passed on Wednesday last. There was no order passed on that date. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let me finish. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on Wednesday last-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On Tuesday. I did not say
a word on Wednesday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -asked me to secure correspondence. I said I would do so and I immediately wrote to the provinces-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did you not send it by freight?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -asking if they were prepared to have me file in the committee whatever letters they had written to me in this connection. The order that was passed, I think it will be found-


William Moore Benidickson: Do you refer to the hon.
member for Essex East?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. It was not for the
correspondence which was asked for, but what was asked for was the information which had been sent to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and any other department in connection with what crops were under the snow and so on.


William Moore Benidickson: That is this problem.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not the correspondence. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked for the correspondence with the provinces on Wednesday last. As I say, there was no order of the house. I said I would get it if I could and that was it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member for Assiniboia would let me read the motion that was passed by the house because there is no use arguing about something that is a matter of fact.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to read the order and nothing else. I apologize to the hon. member for Assiniboia because I realize he has been extremely patient.
The order passed on Wednesday, February 3, reads as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, reports and other relevant documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or any other bodies or individuals, relative to the investigation ordered by the Prime Minister into the seriousness and extent of the damage which resulted from early snowfalls which buried unharvested grain in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The word "agreement" apparently does not mean agreement to the Prime Minister, but the word "correspondence" surely means correspondence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, may I just point out-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


The Deputy Chairman:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the Minister of Agriculture is so anxious to preserve the dignity and decorum of the committee I am certain he will be happy to follow the ruling of the Chair.
In reply to the statement I made earlier, the Minister of Agriculture said there was no great delay on the part of the federal government and that the federal government itself had taken the initiative in this field. I point out to the minister that the initiative was taken by the farm organizations, that the provincial governments themselves took the initiative with the federal government and that there was a substantial delay. It was not until November 27 that the government announced the policy it was prepared to follow.

The minister talks about co-operation with the provinces. He himself has said that his government, in his own words, was unable to get provincial agreement. The reason the government was unable to get provincial agreement was that the provinces had asked the government to accept this condition as a national emergency and to assume the full cost of those emergency payments. In other words, the government did not act in accordance with the requests that were made. It was not prepared to consider it a national emergency, and it used the unilateral method of making a public announcement as to what part the federal government was prepared to take, and leaving it to the provinces as to whether or not they would put up their funds.
The action taken by the government has not had the approval of the farm organizations. I hold in my hand the Western Producer for Thursday, December 3, 1959.


Mr. Smallwood:: That is your bible.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member thinks it is not a good paper?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It is a lot of trash, just trash.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a very interesting comment by the hon. member. That is the attitude of many hon. members on that side of the house toward what is, in my opinion, a leading farm publication on the prairies. This publication is held in contempt; it is called trash by members of the Conservative party. When the Prime Minister was in opposition, Mr. Chairman, this publication was not trash; it was an important publication; it was one of the documents he quoted from in almost every speech on agricultural matters. This is an excellent weekly newspaper published by the wheat pool, through their publishing company in Saskatoon, and it is termed trash.
From page 1 of the Western Producer of December 3 I quote the following which has to do with the farmers' reaction to the government's announcement:
Ed. Nelson of the farmers union of Alberta, Alf. Gleave of the Saskatchewan farmers union and Rudy Usick of the Manitoba farmers union agreed that the proposed aid was inadequate and that tying it to the provinces was wrong.
"I would have preferred a plan under which the federal government would say what it is prepared to contribute, leaving it to the provincial governments, after discussions with the farmers, to say to what extent they were prepared to supplement the federal contributions", said Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Gleave, president of the Saskatchewan farmers union, said:
Provincial governments will have enough on their hands providing aid in the form of seed and fuel to put crops in the ground next spring. Some municipalities were running too close to the line to be able to provide much help. Weather
Supply-Agriculture
conditions had done great damage to roads in some districts and provinces would have an expensive job repairing them.
The situation as to the government's action is this. The provinces did not agree with this action in the first place, although they have gone along with it to make certain that the benefits are paid to their producers. The spokesmen of agricultural organizations on the prairies have said that the government was not accepting its responsibility when it did not pay the full cost under national emergency conditions.
Harsh words have been used in the committee this afternoon. It has been said that the Minister of Agriculture is holding this committee in contempt. I am certain that if the Minister of Agriculture had wished to have the correspondence with the provinces produced at this time it could readily have been done. I am certain that if in that correspondence the minister knew there were arguments to support his position this afternoon the correspondence would have been produced; the minister would have come in with the file in his hands and he would be quoting from it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think you realize that an inference of this kind is completely beyond the rules of this house and is something which the hon. member, under the rules, cannot draw.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder how thin-skinned this minister can be?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not a matter of being thin-skinned.


Hazen Robert Argue: I made the statement, and I repeat it, that if in that correspondence there had been arguments to substantiate the position of the minister, I am certain he would have exercised himself to the point that the correspondence would be in his possession this afternoon and available to hon. members.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I deny that absolutely and unequivocally.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can deny it if he wishes. I challenge him to send a note to his office.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: I think we are getting beyond the matter under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, we are not, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: The question of the production of papers is a matter that does not come up at this time; it comes up at another time. We are discussing item 613, and I feel we had better get back to it.

Supply-Agriculture


Lester Bowles Pearson: The papers we are talking about that we want produced concern this item and give the background for the expenditure of $6 million. If that does not concern this discussion, what does?


Charles Edward Rea: I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition says, but I do not think this is the place to debate whether they should be produced. This is the point I was making.


Hazen Robert Argue: In answer to the statement you have made, sir, I would remind you that you have listened very patiently-and I think very properly-to the pertinent remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. Although I might not have been able to make them as fluently or as effectively as the hon. member, nevertheless I had the same points in my notes, and I was trying to catch your eye to make those very points. As to whether or not you were correct, sir, in allowing it to be brought into the discussion, I would point out that we are now debating the passage of an item of $6 million and surely it is necessary to the judgment of hon. members as to the value of this item, as to the conduct of the government in recommending it to parliament, to be able to discuss and, if possible have produced the position of the provincial governments which have agreed to this item coming before parliament.
I resume where I was interrupted, Mr. Chairman, by challenging the minister to have an official in his office get in touch with the departments of agriculture of the three provincial governments and ask them if they will permit this correspondence to be made public. I am positive that if the minister wishes to act, that certainly not later than eight o'clock, after the dinner adjournment, he would have the required permission of the provincial governments.
The minister let the cat out of the bag in a former discussion. He agreed that the provincial governments had presented a united front to the government as far as this proposition is concerned. In other words, the provincial governments did not agree with what has been done. The provincial governments, according to publications at the time that the whole question was under discussion, had asked the government to accept the full responsibility for these payments. The federal government refused to do so. The minister says they were unable to get provincial agreement. That being so, the minister has been slow in taking the steps necessary to have this correspondence produced. I think it is very much in contempt of the House of Commons that the minister has not been more active in bringing about the production of this correspondence.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
I know what will happen. Very likely the correspondence will be produced soon after the debate is over but then it will no longer be possible to use the information in that correspondence in order to assess properly the item now before the house. When the minister and his colleagues were in' opposition they were very loud in condemning the government of the day for having hidden reports. As far as the house is concerned, this is hidden correspondence because the government has not taken the required action to make it available to us at this time. In my opinion the minister does not want the information found in this correspondence made available to the house and the public while this estimate is under discussion and that is the only reason for this unnecessary and unwarranted delay and this further instance of holding of parliament in contempt.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have already stated that that statement is completely incorrect. I am the only one who has knowledge in that regard and can say whether or not it is correct. The hon. member has gone on to say for the second time that I have deliberately tried to prevent this correspondence being brought before the house because I think it contains something that would not be advantageous to the government. I state again that that is absolutely incorrect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you get permission then?


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. The minister has failed to produce this correspondence while, by a left-handed method, he is telling the committee what is not in the correspondence. I think this is further evidence that the committee is being held in contempt. He has information not available to other members. He will not tell us what is in the correspondence. He wants us to be content with his assurance as to certain things he alleges are not in the correspondence, and I think that adds to the contempt.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not a point of order at all. It is just further argument. In connection with the matter of the correspondence, I reiterate what I said before and I point out that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate confirmed my statement in reading the order passed by the house. He confirmed my statement that the order passed by the house was for the correspondence relative to the investigation ordered by the Prime Minister into the seriousness and extent of the damage resulting from the early snowfalls. In other words, the order of the house had nothing to do

with the correspondence which passed between the provincial governments and the federal government respecting the scheme of assistance. The correspondence with regard to the scheme of assistance was first asked for in a question by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last Wednesday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tuesday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Wednesday, I think you
will find.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman will find that he was not here on Wednesday.


William Moore Benidickson: Page 614, Tuesday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And again on Thursday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. members opposite,
including the hon. member for Assiniboia, know that such correspondence is never tabled until the matter is referred to the provincial governments in the normal way so that they will have a chance to look up the correspondence and decide whether or not they were agreeable to it being tabled. All this takes some time, as hon. members who were in the previous government are particularly well aware. I have no worry whatever over this correspondence being tabled and no objection in the world to it being tabled although no order of the house has been passed for it to be tabled. The hon. member talks about contempt of parliament. I am quite willing to table the correspondence as soon as I get the consent of the provinces although no order of the house has been passed for it to be tabled. All that happened was that I was asked if I would table it and I said I would take measures to get the consent of the provinces as soon as possible to that end. I am quite willing to do that but I can also assure hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia, that they will find nothing in the correspondence which they will be able to make anything out of as far as attacks on the government are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: I just do not believe that.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister be willing to hold this item over until eight o'clock and ascertain by telephone if he has permission to release the correspondence?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I wrote immediately to the provinces asking them to look up the correspondence and to let me know whether they are willing for it to be tabled. That is the normal method to follow and I think that is the way it should be done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter came up as the
minister has admitted by a question on
Supply-Agriculture
Tuesday. He says now that on Thursday he sent a letter to the provinces. This estimate was to come up on Friday and the correspondence certainly did have a bearing on the estimate. A letter went to the provinces on Thursday and the discussion was to begin on Friday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you do not mind, I did not say any such thing. I said that I sent the letter immediately. The letter was sent on the very day that the question was asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The letter was sent last week and now that the minister has sent the letter will he telephone during the recess and find out whether this correspondence can be made available at eight o'clock when we can continue the discussion of his estimates?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but a red herring which these hon. members are trying to introduce. I have already said that I followed the normal procedure to get the consent of the provinces to table correspondence and I am going to continue to follow it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this point I should like to remind the minister that when I asked the second time on Thursday I suggested to the house that there was a telegraph service and a contemptuous observation was made by the Minister of Finance. As a former minister who had frequent occasion to seek the consent of the provinces for the tabling of correspondence in the house when it was wanted for debate, I should like to say that when we were in office we telegraphed or telephoned and produced it for the house. We did not have the kind of exhibition we have had here today.


William Arnold Peters: The minister has now got into fisheries. He spoke about a red herring. From the discussion that has taken place I think there certainly must be some indication from the leaders of the farm organizations as to what is in the correspondence with the provincial governments, and I suggest there is enough information available to give some indication that the correspondence is very important to the discussion of this particular estimate. I suggest that the minister get the correspondence before the matter is finally dealt with.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair feels that we have been discussing this question of producing correspondence for a rather lengthy time and I suggest that we get back to the item. However, as it is five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
888	HOUSE OF
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY IN CANADA

Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mr.   Morion@: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this bill perhaps the house may be interested to learn that the British and Foreign Bible Society was founded on March 7, 1804, at a public meeting held in the London tavern, 123 Bishopsgate street, London. Its sole object was to encourage the wider circulation of the scriptures without note or comment. Its first foreign translation was for Canada, a Mohawk-English gospel of St. John, translated by Captain Norton, chief of the Six Nation Indians in Upper Canada.
From that beginning in Canada this society spread from east to west until 1904 when it was decided that the various auxiliaries throughout Canada should federate and form a national society. Royal assent to the act of incorporation was given on March 22, 1906, the reference being chapter 74 of the statutes of Canada of 1906. This act was amended from time to time. On May 30, 1930 royal assent was given to one amending act. Also at the time of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation a further amendment was made.
One purpose of this amendment to the present act is to change the name of the society from "The British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada" to "Canadian Bible Society, Auxiliary of The British and Foreign Bible Society". The British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada is the national bible society for Canada and one of the 23 national bible societies in the world. The present name conveys the impression that the society is a British society and a foreign society and therefore not primarily a Canadian responsibility. The new name will designate the society as a Canadian society in a way in which the present bill does not designate it and it will also preserve the close and intimate links with the parent society.
Another purpose of the bill is to make possible the appointment of certain prominent Canadians to the general board, with the provision that the majority of the members shall be elected by the auxiliaries or districts. The society feel that this provision will enable them to obtain greater representation on the general board of their society.
The act, of course, also restates the objects of the society but there is no real change in the purpose of the society. It also changes
[The Deputy Chairman.]

the limitation that presently is on the society in respect of holding property. I believe the amendment in 1930 raised the limitation to $1 million. I understand the limitation in the original act was $20,000. This time they are asking that no limitation be put on the value of real estate which might be held by this society.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the house that the amendment is quite in order. When this bill is referred to the appropriate committee the officers of the society together will the legal representative of the society will be present to answer any questions hon. gentlemen might have.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. McCleave:: I wonder whether these divorce bills could be grouped together, if the house has no objection?


Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading, is it the wish of the house that these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Frank Gerald Donnelly.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-2, for the relief of Romeo Dilorio.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-3, for the relief of Marie Evelina Simone Lorette Charest Gelinas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-4, for the relief of Yvette Dubois Leduc.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-5, for the relief of Lily Cohen Turner Hamburger, otherwise known as Lily Cohen Turner Hamburg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-6, for the relief of Marthe Turcotte Bazire.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-7, for the relief of James Joseph Kalmin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-8, for the relief of Barbara Dolores Jones Ogilvie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-9, for the relief of Margaret June Barrie Belanger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-10, for the relief of Hannah Margaret Bur lie Griffiths.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-11, for the relief of Ruth Sherman Roll.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-12, for the relief of Francis Lawrence Bray.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-13, for the relief of Beverley Cowan Moore Robinson.-Mr. McCleave.


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


Mr. Ricard:: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before the motion is put, perhaps I could be permitted to say a few words. Last year at this time I made a rather lengthy statement. I do not propose to make such a statement this afternoon. However, as sponsor of these bills, I simply wish to point out for the committee-although it has not yet been formed-that if there is any lobbying in the house or in parliament on behalf of any bill, the warning of last year stands.


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


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 105 said bills stand referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



FLAGS OF CANADA


Samuel Boulanger: the second reading of Bill No. C-14, respecting flags of Canada.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, before making a few brief remarks on the bill respecting the flag of Canada, let me read the explanatory note that appears in the printed bill.
As it is desirable and urgent that Canada possess a distinctive national flag, this bill provides a method of obtaining a flag with the least possible delay. The method adopted is to have the governor in council prepare the design immediately upon the passage of this bill and to submit the design for approval to the house and the other place at this session. In this manner Canadians could have a distinctive national flag at the end of this session.
Mr. Speaker, I will make only a few remarks on this bill, so that I will not prolong the debate and risk having Bill C-14 buried under a mound of flowers.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that, strange as it may seem, we know in advance that hon. members opposite will rise in praise of such a bill and take a long time-unfortunately too much time-to say they are absolutely
Flags of Canada
in favour of a truly Canadian flag without any symbol reminiscent of colonialism or of our subservience to European countries.
Let me point out that one of the members who dealt recently with this problem of our flag was the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), who has long advocated a distinctive national flag. I wholeheartedly support his request for a truly Canadian flag for the 100th anniversary of confederation. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to be even more optimistic than the hon. member for Ottawa East. I believe that we should have a national emblem long before that. Why not this very year?
Long before our centenary as a young country, we should prove in the face of the world that we are now an adult nation, that we have reached maturity, and that for quite some time now, we have had no need of tutelage by European countries. That should be shown on our flag, and the matter is urgent.
At a time when Canada is growing increasingly popular throughout the world, it is almost an insult for us not to have either a distinctive flag or a distinctive national hymn.
So it is that, at times, even now Europeans, Americans, Asiatics and other people look upon Canada as a colony.
Our national pride should at last be aroused and make us take concrete, realistic and truly Canadian action. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are adults, and we must prove it without delay.
Public opinion polls show that Canadians tend to accept a purely distinctive emblem with growing enthusiasm. This is more obvious among the younger people born and educated in this country.
A few years ago, the leader of the C.C.F., Mr. M. J. Coldwell, recalled that in Europe during the war our soldiers used to make up their own flag, so that Europeans would not confuse them with the soldiers of another friendly country. "In their pride, they would cut out a piece of cotton and draw a maple leaf on it," said Mr. Coldwell.
Whether our future flag includes a maple leaf or not, it is not my personal problem. What counts is that we should have a flag of our own as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not reiterate the brilliant speeches on that matter that have been made through the years. I only want

Flags of Canada
to beg our friends opposite to tell us as briefly as possible, whether or not they favour the distinctive national flag bill.
The briefer my friends opposite will be in their remarks, the better chance we will have in this house to vote on this bill. Otherwise the more speakers there are and the longer their speeches, the more they will help to kill the bill while the Canadian people are anxious to get their flag.


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate on Bill C-14, concerning the adoption of a distinctive national flag, as introduced by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger). I am prepared to admit that, if the hon. member had been a member of the House of Commons under the former administration, he would have introduced a similar bill with the same sincerity. However, I shall not dwell on the omissions and inaction of the former administration, because we could discuss this matter for hours without ever reaching any agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the adoption of a distinctive national flag is a matter of too much importance to make it a political or party affair. There is no doubt that the majority of Canadians now favour the adoption of a distinctive national flag, one that would include no other flag nor any other symbol of some other country.
For many years, we have been receiving folders and letters from all parts of Canada, including resolutions recommending certain flag designs. Most of those resolutions favour the adoption of this or that design, one which includes the union jack, or one bearing some distinctive symbol such as the maple leaf. However, I am of the opinion that the pleas of a large proportion of Canadians for inclusion of the union jack should be seriously considered, even if we are not bound to share that opinion.
In this regard I should like to quote part of a resolution sent in to us by the Supreme Bodge of the Sons of England Benefit Society: (Text):
At a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Sons of England Benefit Society, held in the Sons of England building, Toronto, on May 1, 1959, the following motion was presented and approved. Moved, W. J. Phillips, seconded, H. Pickering:
Be it resolved, that the Supreme Council of the Sons of England Benefit Society request the government of Canada to retain the union jack as part of any Canadian flag which may be approved or adopted by the said parliament.
(Translation):
It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that those people want us to keep the union jack on our flag. About this, Mr. Speaker, I should like

to express my personal opinion, even if it is not original. I believe there is something to be said for the idea expressed by a Canadian citizen, now a senator, that the union jack is too fine a flag to be demeaned into an accessory symbol on some other flag.
I have here another folder received from an association known as the National Council of the Native Sons of Canada which, through Mr. Eugene Collins, a lawyer in Calgary, submitted a brief on this matter. Here is a summary of the opinion held by that group:
(Text):
A flag which included the union jack would tend to suppress our individuality, while a flag excluding it and built around the maple leaf would tend to stress that individuality. The flag with the union jack has failed to inspire the maximum affinity between Canadians of all ethnic origins while the maple leaf would serve such a function with much greater effectiveness.
(Translation):
That, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of a group of Alberta citizens.
Polls which have been taken recently on the matter, both by crown corporations and by independent firms, have quite definitely indicated that a strong majority of Canadians want a distinctive flag.
Personally, I think it is time that Canada should have a distinctive national emblem.


Mr. Deschatelefs:: Try to convert your leader to the idea.


Marcel Bourbonnais: You should have converted your own leader, in the first place, but I think you just couldn't manage to do so.


Paul Comtois: What has your party done about it in 20 years?


Marcel Bourbonnais: Many Canadians want us to put on our flag such symbols as a fleur-de-lis, a four leaf clover, a rose, and an artichoke, which would represent all Canadians whose origin goes back to Great Britain, Scotland, Ireland and France.
In my opinion, such symbols would be appropriate on an escutcheon or a coat of arms, whereas a flag should be made up of colours combined so as to make them distinctive of the country represented.


Mr. Rouleau:: A fine flag, buried by yourself.


Marcel Bourbonnais: I shall leave it to you to bury it.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that a flag should be made up of a combination of colours and, if you make a careful study of history, you find that Canada was discovered and founded, before being colonized, by people of French extraction. They were followed later by Englishmen who carried on the work of

civilizing and developing Canada. It was those two great races that enabled Canada to reach its present status. If we include special symbols for those two races, it might give rise to discussions among people of other races who are now immigrating into Canada and adding their own contribution to our country's greatness and expansion, thus precluding any practical conclusion.
I am therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, to recommend and support all those who think a committee should be set up to determine which symbol would best characterize us, and to give Canada the best possible distinctive flag, so that it might fly side by side with the union jack and the American flag, as a symbol to the world of Canada's greatness.


Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker,
I sincerely admire the patriotism of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger). Indeed, I can only regret that so much patriotism failed to inspire the Liberal party at the time it was administering the country. This would have spared the sponsor of this bill the need to resort to a political stratagem to arouse public opinion once again and attempt to start quarrels that are always bitter and fruitless.
Need I say that I look forward to the day, not too distant I hope, when my country will have a distinctive emblem that will be further official evidence of its political sovereignty, a sovereignty that our people have well deserved after many years of bitter and difficult struggles. I also hope that this emblem will carry no emblem reminiscent of any bondage. On the contrary, I like to think of it as representative of a young, vigorous and independent country which however does not forget out of be-knighted vainglory, its past, and all its rich traditions.
Like a good many of my fellow citizens, I have waited a long time for this national flag. I waited, like all those in my generation, all the time the Liberal administration lasted in Ottawa. If I sometimes happened to believe those who, within the Liberal party, raised their voices to ask for such things as a national hymn, a flag or bilingual cheques, I soon realized that those phony patriots, whose prototype the former Liberal member for Quebec-Montmorency had become were fooling the people by trying to talk black into white.


An hon. Member:: That is what you are doing-talking black into white.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: For my part, it did not take me long to mistrust that calculated oratory
Flags of Canada
delivered at psychological moments on nationalist themes. It sounded like the current pathetic clamourings of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) when he blows into the hero trumpet of Quebec. He is hardly more successful at it than his chief who recently-quite recently in fact-has developed a new hobby: nationalist problems; a flag, a national hymn or repatriation of the constitution.


An hon. Member:: At least, he was not afraid to speak out.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I hope he gets a prize, which he might share with the hon. member who sponsored this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill seems to bear the earmarks of haste. It calls for a unity, which is perhaps not yet achieved, on a matter which has always been controversial in this country, as, indeed unanimity has not yet been reached on the choice of an emblem.
I think that, basically, this bill is not so much concerned with the necessity of having a flag as with the urgency of legislating in this matter. It takes the character of an ultimatum which could be expressed in this way: let the problem be solved within a few months, i.e.: let us choose a design and rally divergent opinions on the project; in a word, let us do in a few months what the Liberal party was unable to do in 22 years.
In this respect, I may perhaps be told that some spade work was done under the Liberal administration. True, a committee was set up, and received a great many suggested designs, etc. However, the government did not take any efficient steps, which might have finally solved the problem. And is it so urgent now, after two years of Conservative administration, to settle an issue without at least taking some elementary precautions? I think, Mr. Speaker, that haste in this matter is dangerous and might involve disputes which, far from contributing to national unity, would divide the country and prevent citizens from considering the question with due serenity.
That is why I mistrust this bill. And, in the face of such strategy by the Liberals, I feel that I have to ask a few questions. For instance, I wonder whether the manoeuvre was based on the sincere wish to promote national unity or whether it is not simply aimed at the press and at public opinion, which is to be roused. I also wonder whether this is not attempting, by a procedural trick, to have the bill "killed" by the Conservatives.

Flags of Canada


An hon. Member:: You are going to kill the bill.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Is not this an attempt to provoke, on both sides, incriminating statements?
I have a right to ask questions, more particularly when the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska comes so late, after years of Liberal inaction in this field.
Certainly, nobody would chide me for reiterating my question, which may, of course, be considered naive: "Why was no action taken for 22 years?"
This leads me to think that there is an attempt to put the onus on the Conservatives for a situation which the Liberals themselves have fostered and which they turned into a political football.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that legislation of such significance should be sponsored by a minister and I am assured-


An hon. Member:: What are they waiting for?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I am assured that the Conservative government, which has proved so many times in the last two years that it is in favour of national unity, will soon be able to give this country the emblem it wants.


An hon. Member:: You had better change your leader.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: However, this bill, as it is drafted although I do not agree with it in its present form-


An hon. Member:: It is because it is not of your making that you find something wrong with it.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Even though I suspect the intention with which it is being introduced, the bill will receive on my part, if put to a vote, an earnest consideration, that is to say that, regardless of party considerations, for the sake of solidarity-


An hon. Member:: You can't do it-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Out of solidarity with the racial group I represent, out of courtesy for the Quebec member who is introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, if a vote is taken, to support the proposed legislation introduced by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


An hon. Member:: They have got together on this-


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in this debate. However, this matter is near and

dear to me for the following reasons. More than twenty five years ago, I was starting in public life and, on the occasion of the visit in Canada of their Majesties the King and Queen in 1939, I was a member of the Ontario legislature. At that time, a motion had been introduced for the presentation of an address to their majesties. And on that same occasion, I did deplore the fact that, in the legislature our country was receiving their majesties with a flag which, actually, was not ours, because in certain oases it was the union jack, for which I have the greatest respect, while in other places, the French flag-for which I have also much respect- was being flown, while in still other circumstances, the Scottish flag was flown, for which I have also much respect.
Therefore, as early as 21 years ago, I was advocating in the Ontario legislature, the adoption of a national flag.


Mr. Fortin:: Quebec has one.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: That is why I deplore the attitude of some hon. members, such as the one taken by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), casting suspicion on the intentions of those who have advocated those measures.


An hon. Member:: That shocks you, doesn't it?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Let me tell the hon. member who just interrupted me that after twenty five years of public life, interruptions such as his are hardly frightening.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to adopt an attitude of suspicion in a matter such as this, is unworthy, it seems to me, of a member who takes his responsibilities seriously.


Guy Rouleau: He won't be here for long.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: At the close of his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he did say he wanted to be fair to his fellow citizens and, therefore, to the sponsor of this bill. He said that if it came to a vote, he would support the bill, but only after he had criticized it bitterly and deeply suspected-I would say-the hon. member's intentions, and after he had asked why the government had not given us such legislation in the course of its twenty years of office. Well, does the hon. member for Roberval believe that it would have been appropriate, between 1939 and 1945-at a time when the country was so divided about the war effort, at a time when its present leader felt that Canada was not making a reasonable war effort, that the province of Quebec was not making a reasonable effort-to talk about

a distinctive flag for Canada? However, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the work done in 1945 by a joint committee of the house and of the Senate; thanks to the work which has been done since, in the course of discussions which took place within the Canadian government on the part of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, as well as members of the C.C.F., the idea gained momentum, and if, it seems to me, we wish Canada to have its flag some day, we should keep the discussion on this matter on a level which may command the respect of all Canadian citizens. That is why I wish to say today these few words, hoping that those who will participate in this debate will find a way to keep the debate at a level higher than did the hon. member for Roberval.


Mr. Asselin:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Yes, certainly, two if you like.


Martial Asselin: You said that, during the war, the province of Quebec had not made its effort.


An hon. Member:: No, no, that is not true.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I deny the statement. I said that your leader kept saying throughout the war years that the province of Quebec was not making its effort; and I asked, after that, if the hon. member for Roberval believed that, at that time, it would have been appropriate to talk of a Canadian flag.


Martial Asselin: Would the hon. member quote chapter and verse of where the premier of Quebec said that he did not want to make his war effort?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You misunderstand me. I said that throughout the war years, your present leader claimed that Quebec was not doing its duty. Then I asked the hon. member for Roberval whether he thought it was advisable to ask for a Canadian flag at that time.


Louis Fortin: Is that your idea of keeping the discussion on a high level?
(Text):


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. gentleman not aware of the views of the premier of Newfoundland on this question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am fully aware of those views. Newfoundland has the same rights as other-parts of Canada in this respect. If we can keep the discussion on a high level the Canadian people will finally come to understand that we should have our own flag.
(Translation):


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I quite sincerely
Flags of Canada
congratulate the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) for sponsoring this bill which, over the years, has occasioned many a debate in this house. However, I must say I genuinely regret his coming up so late with it. Indeed he could have, between 1945 and 1957-since, as pointed out by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), between 1931 and 1945 it was neither logical nor proper to present such a bill in the house-between 1945 and 1957 he could very well have undertaken to convince his political leaders of the necessity of giving Canada a distinctive flag, for the greater glory of Canada, wherever its influence was being felt.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont (Mr. Deschatelets) directed a few critical remarks, a few minutes ago, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Well, let me say to the house that, despite the lately found fervor of hon. members of the opposition, never has a party leader done so much for national unity than the present Prime Minister of Canada.
When I hear the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska point to all those who, on this side of the house, will be taking the floor, and accuse them of trying to kill the bill, I believe that proves he has kept the mentality of his Liberal predecessors at the time they were in power. It shows us the cab wit which characterizes the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) since it is only in 1957 that he noticed that Canada needed a distinctive flag.


An hon. Member:: He hasn't noticed it yet.


Rémi Paul: He who has travelled all over the world as an ambassador of peace, who was awarded the Nobel peace prize, failed to realize until 1957 that Canada had no distinctive flag. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska-


An hon. Member:: He did bring up the subject long before that.


Guy Rouleau: Yes, he did.


Rémi Paul: At the time the hon. member for Dollard was sitting on the government side of the house, he could have taken on the role of advocate of that national unity which we have been lacking for 22 years.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You should try first to convert your leader.


Rémi Paul: Let me say to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that he should start by converting himself and his own followers, for indeed the Liberal party has never

Flags of Canada
given the matter serious study even though it has repeatedly been discussed in past years. Yet, this bill, introduced by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska concerns the adoption of a distinctive flag, which is a symbol of political independence, sovereignty and national unity.
Let me point out to the hon. member for Dollard, to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and to the present Leader of the Opposition that it was a Conservative government that gave Canada its sovereignty in 1931, and that it will also be the Conservative party-and not for a political purpose but to promote unity throughout the country- that will, in due course, give its supporters a distinctive flag, symbol of the truest national unity.


Guy Rouleau: I hope the Prime Minister is listening in on his office intercom.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Dollard is fond of making snide comments. I think his stay in the opposition has made him regret not what he has done but what he failed to do for national unity and for the progress of Canada at the time he could count on the support of his many colleagues.


Guy Rouleau: Come and ask my constituents about that at the next election.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I respect those who want to have the union jack in the Canadian flag but, on the other hand, I respectfully submit that this attitude would not meet the true situation of Canada since, in 1931, as I said earlier, Canada has obtained its full sovereignty.
May I quote from an article by Mr. W. J. Sisler, a Winnipeg newspaperman who, on the subject of the union jack, said, according to page 742 of Hansard of the 1953 session:
In the United Kingdom sovereignty resides in parliament. The union jack, then, represents the authority of the British government. It is therefore the proper flag to fly in any country under the rule of that government. This includes the United Kingdom and the crown colonies. Canada is not dependent, but is a self-governed country. It is not proper therefore to fly as our national flag one which indicates sovereignty of another country . . . Since that authority has, in the case of Canada, ceased to exist, it is not proper that we should fly a colonial flag. The place of honour on the Canadian flag should be given to an emblem distinctive of the country for which the flag flies- that is for Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, those who insist on placing the union jack on a distinctive Canadian flag do not contribute to the national

unity which should characterize our party any more than do French-speaking citizens who insist on the inclusion of a fleur-de-lis.


An hon. Member:: A fine statement.


Rémi Paul: I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is too important an issue to let it become a political football. It is unfortunate, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) pointed out a moment ago, that some supporters of the bill on the opposition side have been trying to make political capital out of it with the suggestion that the Conservative party has always stood against a distinctive flag for Canada.
In closing, I wish to commend the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska for his interest in this matter. However, I hope his interest will last longer than an hour or two a year, and that he will at all times promote a distinctive Canadian flag, so that Canada may take its place among the great independent nations of the world.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point not, as the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) has falsely asserted, to help kill the bill, but because in any democratic country, I believe every representative of the people in the house has a right and a duty to rise on important issues and place the views of his constituents on the record. I realize this democratic freedom seldom pleases Liberal opposition members, and that they are not used to it, but we shall see what attitude they will display when we come to Bill C-28, which is being introduced by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). They will then have an opportunity to prove their sincerity.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with certain statements that were made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, when he said that the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) had fought for years to get what is proposed in this bill. Is that not an admission that the Liberals were not sincere in demanding a distinctive national flag?
In those brief remarks, may I first commend and congratulate those who in the past have pleaded in this house for a truly distinctive Canadian flag.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That was the whole Liberal party.

Flags of Canada


Georges-J. Valade: It was the whole Liberal party that did nothing. Opposition members should read Hansard for November 8, 1945, on page 1932 of volume II. They would find a resolution introduced by a minister of the crown to that effect. It was not just a private member, yet the members at the time discussed the justification of such a distinctive emblem through 53 pages, with the result that no decision was reached on the subject. If our hon. friends do not mind, I should like to quote that resolution, introduced by Mr. Ilsley, then a cabinet minister. It read as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;
That, Mr. Speaker, shows how little sincerity our hon. friends in the opposition have shown in the past. So I think the Conservative party has no lessons to take from them.


Guy Rouleau: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Georges-J. Valade: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, in view of the little time left at my disposal, I think I shall now discuss the question not from a party angle, but with reference to the technical aspect of the flag itself.
If you look up the Petit Larousse dictionary, you find the following definition of the word "flag":
A piece of cloth attached to a sort of staff, and bearing the colours or emblems of a nation.
That is what we are seeking today. Thai is what we shall get from the Conservative party. That is what the Liberals failed to obtain in 25 years.
Such a distinctive flag must be different. The words "different", "separate". For members of the opposition, a flag that is distinctive is just the opposite of an equivocal and of an identical one.


An hon. Member:: Like the Conservative government.


Georges-J. Valade: We do not want a distinctive flag that would be equivocal. What Canadians want is a distinctive flag, one identical to no other and, above all, one that cannot be mistaken for any other. Mr. Speaker, we all remember the unfortunate incident in the wake of the confusion that happened in Suez, when Canadian warships flying the red ensign were attacked.
That is the danger we want to avoid about our flag: have it free of symbols that would lead to misunderstanding and confusion.
Mr. Speaker, our national flag should not be a mere definition or a mere piece of fabric; it should bear colours and symbols reminiscent of the origin, the mission and the destiny of our nation. The origin thus reminded should not be that of quarrels and strife, but that of great feats of arms which shed lustre upon our history. The heroic sacrifice made by the pioneers can be recalled with pride, but it also should be emphasized that the battles of early days have led to bonds of staunch friendship between both races, a friendship which has led first to union and then to unity.
Out of those early difficulties has come confederation, which grows stronger with the years.
The mission of our nation is clearly indicated by that union of two great races; but that mission should be rid of its harmful aspects. Feelings of allegiance towards other nations divert the minds and hearts from our ultimate mission, that of a full Cana-dianism. Nobody can serve two masters and, if we want to be true Canadians, everything must daily remind us of that fact.
In this way we shall achieve, I think, the wish so often expressed by the present Prime Minister of our country, that we be true Canadians.
As for the destiny of our nation, Mr. Speaker, it is through that distinctive emblem that Canada, our country, will be in a position to make it even greater. Is it not true that our motto-from sea to sea-accepted by one and all, is the eloquent expression of that destiny which should be ours. Hon. members, such is our destiny.
That is also, Mr. Speaker, the theme that should be the basis for the design of a really distinctive national flag, one that is truly Canadian.
In short, Mr. Speaker, our flag would be a rallying sign, a sign of maturity, a countersign uniting all native Canadians. As far as new Canadians and immigrants are concerned, it would meet one of their most legitimate aspirations, the feeling of being true Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my time is running out-


Guy Rouleau: You have only got five minutes left.


Georges-J. Valade: -and may I say that most of the briefs, most of the flag designs that were sent to us came from the province of Ontario, with only a few coming from the province of Quebec and from western provinces.

Flags of Canada
Allow me to quote a letter written by a Sarnia resident and which was addressed to all members of the house:
(Text):
One of the most vital of these issues is a distinctive national flag for Canada. Nothing will unite a nation closer than a national flag. Citizens will honour it, fight for it, guard it and die for it, because it represents the character, the traits, the patriotism, the customs and the institutions of its people. Canada, in her own right, is one of the foremost of the world's trading nations. Canadian ships ply in and out of all the important ports on the map. It would be no act of disloyalty to our British or French heritage if we had a national flag that would be recognized as such in every port of call. To remove all taint of favouritism or prejudice, Canada's national flag need not display the British lion or the fleur-de-lis. We have a well established emblem in the maple leaf, let that stand out.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, we will let the country judge as to which is the best argument. My time is very limited. I too have a right to my say and I take issue with anyone who says that most Canadians are just clamouring for a new distinctive Canadian flag. I will take issue with anyone in the house or outside of the house. I know that a certain portion of Canadians want a new flag but remember that you have got to respect the opinions and wishes of those who are satisfied with the old union jack.
I had the honour to participate in a similar debate last session on May 29 and I received letters from all over the country, from the eastern provinces, the western provinces and Ontario, praising my efforts in defence of the union jack. Time does not permit me to read any extracts from these letters, but I feel as I felt last May.


Mr. Bourque:: Read one.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Certainly. Here is one I received:
Sir:
I received a big thrill from your stand in parliament on the question of a new flag and national emblem. In my opinion what you said is the best thing I ever heard from any member of parliament.


Romuald Bourque: Whom is that from?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Does the hon. member wish me to read another?


Romuald Bourque: Did you write it yourself? V/hom is it from?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: It is from a man by the name of A. T. Klassen.


Romuald Bourque: From where?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Toronto, Ontario. If you want another one I will read it. I do not intend to continue with the letters I received.
[Mr. Valade.l
I have something more important to bring to the attention of the house. There was some talk in the debate last May about people of different ethnic origins who were just clamouring for a new distinctive Canadian flag. I have here an editorial from the Ukrainian Voice, a weekly that has been published in Winnipeg since 1910. I am not going to read the original because it is in Ukrainian but I have made a translation which I will read. I hope the house will bear with me. The heading is, "Let Us Keep The Union Jack", and it reads:
One of the most abortive discussions in our opinion revolves for some time in Canada around the question of a new national flag which would replace the present flag known as the union jack.
The editorial goes on to give its history and how Canada developed from a colonial to a sovereign status. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I know you are trying to rise but I should like to complete this.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to allow him to continue.
(Text):


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I be permitted to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I continue.
Amang many Canadians who desire a new Canadian flag are some who would get rid of the union jack altogether. They wish nothing which would remind them of their colonial status under British domination. However, we have no doubt that amongst the same people there are many Canadians who wish to reserve on some part of the new flag a place for the union jack. It is their flag in the full sense of the word. Under this flag fought and died Canadians of many different races and origins. To those who came to Canada from other continents the union jack became the symbol of freedom and human dignity.
I am leaving out a part that I had hoped to read but I will read the last sentence if you will permit me.
We are not against a distinctive or a new Canadian flag. But we are in favour of and insist that on the new flag, which we will no doubt have, a space for the union jack must be reserved because it is under it that Canadian history was written.
On motion of Mr. Mandziuk the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
613. Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed

by the governor in council, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces to farmers in respect of unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm; and to authorize, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, contributions to the governments of those provinces (or their municipalities) in respect of the administrative costs incurred by them in making such payments to farmers, $6,000,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before five o'clock we were discussing this matter and the suggestion was made that the minister would have had time to telephone some of the provincial premiers and probably be able to get permission to present the letters and exchange of documents between the provincial ministers of agriculture and himself. It has been pointed out that the manner in which the government has seen fit to bring this matter into the house is not in the best traditions, in my opinion at any rate, of parliament. We are being asked to pass this supplement, to which we have no objection at all; what we object to is the way in which it is done. We object to the fact that an order in council is going to be moved after this estimate is passed, and this order in council will do certain things. We have not been given a draft of that order in council.
It is true we have been told how the various provinces are going to pay this money, but we have not been told what correspondence has taken place, and we do not know if the ministers of agriculture of the three prairie provinces affected consider this amount of assistance sufficient. We do not know if this is the way in which the provincial governments would have liked it done. In the reports which came from the presidents of the various farm organizations there are indications that this is not what the provinces had originally asked for and that it is not satisfactory.
I see the minister is in the house, and I wonder if the minister has this correspondence and is going to give it to the house at the present time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it just so happens that when I went up to my room following the adjournment at six o'clock I found that letters had come in in this afternoon's mail from the ministers of agriculture of Alberta and Saskatchewan to the effect that they were agreeable to the tabling of the correspondence we have had with them. As a matter of fact, I have had my staff
Supply-Agriculture
working all during recess getting copies of this correspondence reproduced so that it could be filed immediately, and I expect it to be here within four or five minutes.
In view of this, I would hope that the hon. member for Assiniboia, who made certain statements which I said were completely without foundation, will now have the courtesy to apologize for the statements which he made.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think we will all welcome the information which has just been given to the committee by the Minister of Agriculture. It comes rather late in a long, drawn-out debate. The minister will realize that it would be impossible while the debate continues for any member of the opposition to have an opportunity of perusing adequately the correspondence that he has in mind. But I do see a merit in this, that up to now we have all had the feeling that the minister was unnecessarily reticent about even his discussions with the provinces with respect to this matter, and I assume that while in a practical way it may be very difficult for us to become familiar with the correspondence, at least with respect to two provinces out of three the Minister of Agriculture will now feel it possible to discuss with other hon. members of the committee some matters that are probably referred to in the correspondence.
I want to give the committee a few illustrations of the impossible situation we were put in without our being able to consider the correspondence and the communications between the provinces and the federal government with respect to this important matter. This afternoon the minister, I think in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition with respect to opportunities for some form of graduated assistance for those who had unthreshed crops which were less than 50 per cent, made the statement, which I do not think has been clarified, that the provinces were free in the area under 50 per cent down to zero of unthreshed grain. It was not made clear, but I think the Minister of Agriculture will agree that what he was suggesting was that, in respect of unthreshed grain to a degree between zero and 50 per cent, he was anticipating that in that category the provinces were free, but they were free simply to go ahead and do something 100 per cent at their own cost. Am I not right in thinking that the federal government stipulated that its assistance would only be provided with respect to unthreshed grain over 50 per cent?
The other point that I was curious about this afternoon was this relationship between entitlement under the Prairie Farm

Supply-Agriculture
Assistance Act and entitlement for assistance under the proposition which is before us in this estimate. I find that on February 2 there is a report in the Winnipeg Tribune saying that questions were being raised in the Manitoba legislature as to whether or not persons who were eligible for Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments would be eligible to receive assistance under this assistance scheme shared equally between the provinces and the federal government. I assume that the correspondence will have something to say as to the decisions made in each of these three provinces with respect to this particular qualification.
I hope the minister will perhaps now give more information to the house on this point. Would he tell us whether or not it was a federal stipulation that payments would not be made on the two accounts, or whether this was open entirely to the provinces to make a decision, and which provinces did actually decide that any one that received anything under P.F.A.A. would be disentitled to a payment under this scheme. Alternatively, would he tell us whether or not they were not entirely disentitled but perhaps would have their payment under this scheme discounted by the amount of any payments under P.F.A.A.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will read Hansard for Friday last he will see I made it very plain indeed that the only conditions that we laid down in regard to this matter were the ones I mentioned earlier here today as well as on Friday. No mention was made in any way in connection with P.F.A.A. payments. As a matter of fact, I pointed out to the provinces that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act stands on its own feet and that under that act any farmer who is in a township which is entitled to payment will be paid, and must be paid, under the P.F.A. act. We as the dominion government at no time made any stipulation in regard to P.F.A.A. payments. I stated that on Friday last as clearly as I have now stated it here.


William Moore Benidickson: I recall that, but I ask the minister whether or not the correspondence which we have not yet before us indicates what, for example, was the decision made in the province of Manitoba in that respect?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite, I think, will be very disappointed in this correspondence. The amount of correspondence is not great to begin with, because most of these discussions were carried on at actual conferences and by means of the telephone. Therefore the amount of

correspondence is not extensive. The particular point which the hon. member brings up comes into the correspondence only to a very limited extent in the form of requests or queries as to whether P.F.A.A. payments should be made or not.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the minister unaware of what stipulations are being put into force under the regulations in Manitoba in this respect? Because I find that the lack of adequate information, not only in a provincial legislature, but up to now here, has caused a fair amount of parliamentary confusion. In the article which I read I found that in the Manitoba legislature the minister of agriculture was asked whether or not the responsibility for deciding that entitlement under P.F.A.A. would disqualify payments under the assistance scheme was a provincial decision. The speaker there ruled that it had nothing to do with the provincial legislature, and consequently the matter could not be a subject for a question to the provincial minister of agriculture.
I am asking the federal Minister of Agriculture what he knows and can tell the committee about the rules in Manitoba in the relationship of P.F.A.A. payments to payments under this assistance scheme.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have
already stated the only stipulations which the dominion government put in as far as these particular assistance payments are concerned. Therefore, it must be clear to the hon. member and to every other hon. member of this committee that whatever restrictions were put in with regard to P.F.A.A. payments and these assistance payments were not put in by the dominion government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is the point that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is making at all. We are asked in this parliament to pay 50 per cent of the cost of these payments in the three provinces. Surely, when we are called upon to vote money to pay half the cost we are entitled to know the condition under which these payments are being made by the government of Manitoba. That is what my hon. friend is asking. We want to know precisely what these conditions are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like now to table the correspondence with Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Jacques Flynn: The usual procedure in
committee, is, I believe, to file it with the Clerk.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you. In connection with the point which has been raised, may I say that the particular type of scheme put

into effect in each province was the responsibility of that province. The province took responsibility for it and is in each case administering the scheme and putting it into effect. As far as the dominion government is concerned, we said we would pay half the cost of making a payment of $3 an acre to any farmer who has less than 50 per cent of his crop threshed up to a maximum of 200 acres, which comes to $600. And we would pay half the cost up to the same amount for people with special problems. Those were the only stipulations we laid down, and what stipulations any particular province puts into effect are its own business. As long as the provinces do not make payments in excess of what we said we would pay half there will be no difficulty. As a matter of fact in practically all cases-perhaps I had better say in a very large number of cases, particularly in Saskatchewan-the payments made are less than the amounts of which we offered to pay half, and surely that is the only thing with which this parliament is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These payments are being made to Canadian citizens by Canadian taxpayers and surely we are entitled to know precisely the conditions under which these payments are being made. It is most unreasonable to ask us to vote this money without the knowledge which any person who has any sense of his responsibility to the taxpayers of this country and any sense of his responsibility to the electorate is entitled to have. Surely this government did not tell the provinces: you can pick farmer A and exclude farmer B but we will still pay 50 per cent even under the most arbitrary scheme possible. It is impossible for me to believe that any government would be so irresponsible as not to know the basis on which these payments are being made. What we want to know are the terms and conditions under which the Manitoba government is making these payments, payments of which we are being asked to pay half.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the little political speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate bears on the matter at all. I think I put the situation very clearly when I spoke a moment ago. We have not attempted to dictate to the provinces as to the type of scheme they should have. That is what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with his usual authoritarian point of view thinks we should have done. We did not do that. It has been the responsibility of each province to devise the type of scheme which it wished to put into operation within the general conditions we laid down. The schemes are the responsibility of the provinces concerned. They are 79951-0-57J
Supply-Agriculture
receiving the applications, carrying out the inspections and making the payments. When they have done this they will bill us for half the cost. We will examine the accounts and make sure they have stayed within the limits we have laid down. And so long as they have done that, we will pay half the cost of the payments they have made. I do not think anything could be simpler than that.
As far as the actual details of the schemes put into effect in the three provinces are concerned, the information which I received from the provinces was in the form of press releases which they put out in each case. It just so happens I have not got them with me at the moment, but I have sent for them and expect them to be here in a few minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might remind the minister that the authoritarian government to which I belonged did have a number of schemes involving payment of 50 per cent of the cost of provincial measures-the old age assistance program, for instance-but my hon. friend from Essex East had enough sense of responsibility to the treasury to know the conditions under which the provinces made these payments, and those conditions were ratified by this parliament before one nickel went out of the treasury. I have not the least doubt that the hon. member who succeeded my hon. friend from Essex East, the hon. member for Perth who is now Minister of National Health and Welfare, is also insistent on knowing these things, because he told this house so in the case of hospital insurance and in the case of the changes which were made in the unemployment assistance provisions. In every case in my knowledge in which 50 per cent was paid, we have known in this parliament, and been told, the precise conditions under which the money was made available.
The Minister of Agriculture can put words in my mouth if he likes, but I did not say he should have dictated the terms. I said he should know the terms. We who have to vote this money and who were elected to look after the treasury are entitled to know these things and all I am asking now is that the hon. gentleman should tell us what are the terms under which we are voting this money.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Slogan: Is it not a fact that the information which the hon. member requests is already on record in Hansard and was put on Hansard at page 781 beginning in the middle of the page, where it says: "The program in Manitoba is as follows" and lists the circumstances under which the payments are being made in that province?

Supply-Agriculture
The hon. gentleman, who claims to be a spokesman for Manitoba, has not shown the interest even to read Hansard or to pay any attention when other hon. members are speaking to this item. It seems to me that members of the opposition want the government to instruct them not only on what the policy of this government is with regard to these payments but also on the policies of all the provincial governments. That policy is on record and it is available for members of the opposition to find. If they wish they may obtain it from the newspapers or through their colleagues in the Manitoba legislature who are putting up the same kind of obstructionism as we are witnessing here today. If members of the opposition do not know more about agriculture than to talk around the subject, it is about time they sat and listened.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I feel that this is a good measure and one which will put a lot of money into the hands of farmers whose crops are under the snow. I have many farmers in my constituency who are facing this experience. I will say that I also have some farmers in fringe areas who are going to have a difficult time getting paid under this program. We must admit that under any legislation which may be introduced it will be hard to see that everybody is paid.
I am sure that this government will bring in some legislation to help out the farmers who have not been assisted by this program.
Of all those who have participated in the debate today I am the only farmer who has risen to speak. By farmer I mean a man who lives on his farm and operates it. That is what I do. I saw the snow fall on 300 acres of my crops last fall and on my neighbours' crops. I did not sit back and wait for somebody to come to my assistance. I immediately phoned the Minister of Agriculture and told him that disaster had struck our part of the country.
What have we witnessed in this chamber during the discussion of this estimate over the course of the last few days? We have seen the farm expert, the hon. member for Essex East, and another distinguished farm expert, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, rise in their places and speak at length. In my submission the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not know a head of wheat from the tail end of a codfish. Both he and the hon. member for Essex East wasted the time of the committee with political manoeuvring.
We have also seen the hon. member for Assiniboia, who in this chamber is up and down and up and down wasting the time of the committee and has been doing it for 16 years. I got tired of listening to him and

said, "That is C.C.F. trash". The hon. member said, "Oh, do you mean to say that you call the Western Producer trash?" I maintain that I called his speech C.C.F. trash.
Let us examine what the Western Producer has said on the subject. An article entitled "Emergency Disaster Fund Asked by SFU" reads as follows:
The Saskatchewan government should establish a $10 million disaster reserve fund which would serve to cushion provincial funds in any future distress problems that might affect any segment of the population, the Saskatchewan farmers union urged in its annual presentation to the provincial cabinet Dec. 29.
On Friday last my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia and my very good friend the hon. member for Essex East suggested that if these deficiency payments had been paid as requested by the farm delegation we would not need this relief measure today. Let me point out that I attended a meeting in my constituency of 120 farmers. The chairman rose and said that in 1957 we were hailed out, in 1958 we were dried out and in 1959 our crops lay under the snow. I ask these hon. gentlemen how these farmers would get a red cent out of these deficiency payments on a bushel basis? They would not get a five cent piece nor would many of the farmers I represent.
The hon. member for Assiniboia says that the farm organizations are the spokesmen of western Canada. I will agree that they probably are for the constituency of Assiniboia because the hon. member for that constituency is too busy travelling around eastern Canada organizing that new political party to attend to the needs of the farmers in his constituency. In my constituency I work in co-operation with the farm organizations. I came to parliament to speak for the farmers in my riding and that is what I am doing here tonight.
In the Winnipeg Free Press we saw a headline which read:	Are Prairie Farmers
Pampered? The article went on to deal with the suggestion that eastern members of parliament are of the opinion that the western farmers are getting too much money. I do not believe that of hon. members of this committee. I invite any hon. member in this chamber regardless of his party to stand up and say he is opposed to the farmers getting this money.
You see, Mr. Chairman, no one has stood up. Therefore, since we are all in agreement, I say that for two days we have wasted time witnessing something which amounts only to political manipulation. The opposition has taken the position in which it said: When you were over here you treated us like this so now we are going to treat you the same way.

I say that if we are all in agreement, as I am sure we are, it is time to close this debate and vote on this estimate so that the money will be passed on to the farmers of western Canada and this committee can get on with other important business. Surely this is what the people of Canada sent us here for, not to sit like a bunch of kids playing political games.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to ask a question of the hon. member for Springfield before he took his seat. After the reading he has undertaken of the Manitoba Hansard and the Hansard of this parliament, would he answer this question which was ruled out of order by a vote of the Manitoba legislature 32 to 18:	Why are
farmers eligible for P.F.A.A. not eligible for assistance under the provincial-federal emergency aid program?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is within the province of any hon. member of this committee to answer a question concerning why a question was ruled out of order in the Manitoba legislature. If the hon. member wants an answer to that question I think he should write a letter to the speaker of the Manitoba legislative assembly.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I asserted that the question was overruled in the Manitoba legislature and I did not ask why it was overruled. The hon. member indicated that he had done a lot of homework in looking at provincial Hansards and the records of this house. I invited him to answer the question as to why farmers eligible for P.F.A.A. are not eligible for assistance under the provincial-federal emergency aid program. The question was ruled out of order in the Manitoba legislative assembly where it was considered not relevant but presumably it is relevant here because it refers to a federal statute.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Agriculture has already said, I think rulings in the Manitoba legislative assembly are not for me to comment upon. However, what the hon. member was trying to drag in was the question of P.F.A.A. payments. Naturally the Manitoba legislature did not want to discuss those payments because they come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to take a rest from the beautiful English language and to listen instead to the beautiful French language, though I do not speak it so well.
We are asked to vote an amount of $6 million. Needless to say, we are in favour
Supply-Agriculture
of voting these $6 million in order to help those who suffered from bad weather conditions in the three western provinces.
However, we find it strange that the Minister of Agriculture has given us no detailed account with regard to the amount of $6 million provided in this item. We are called upon to pass an item of $6 million, as we would be asked to vote $6.
I would like to know what portion will be paid to each of the three provinces. We would also like to know how many farmers, farms, and acres were affected by weather conditions. Moreover, as the federal government is paying this amount by request of the provinces, we would like to know who inspects the damaged areas. Moreover, we also would like to be informed whether the federal government, which will have to pay out $6 million, will send inspectors to check whether the people employed by the provinces are submitting accurate reports.
I believe we are entitled to receive this information because-as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said recently-we are asked to vote a sum of money for which arrangements have been made in advance. We are placed before a fait accompli. Those payments are practically promised and we are asked to vote an amount of $6 million without getting any detail.
I surely would like to know from the Mini-ister of Agriculture whether this government is relying exclusively on the authorities of the various provinces that will benefit from this amount of money, or whether he has, first of all, taken into consideration the interest of Canadians, in personally sending out inspectors to check whether the number of farms, the number of devastated acres have actually been inspected, and if, really, farmers are entitled to that amount of money we are asked to approve? Besides, that amount is perhaps inadequate.
We would also like to know whether, tomorrow or the next day, when other supplementary estimates are asked for, we might be asked to vote an additional amount for the same purpose.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member does not like this item very much.


Mr.   Der.is@: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I now have the floor, Mr. Chairman.

Supply-Agriculture


Azellus Denis: On. a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Is the hon. member for St. Denis rising on a point of order? (Translation):


Azellus Denis: Yes sir, I would not like to accuse the Minister of Agriculture of being deaf, but I stated clearly in the course of my remarks that I was in favour of that amount of money being voted; what I object to-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not accurate.


Azellus Denis: -is the fact that we have no details, and that you are asking us to vote amounts of money reaching the $6 million mark, after having promised them to the provinces, without prior consultation with parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this interjection is out of order; it is a false argument. But, in reply to the question of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), I must say it is not possible at this moment to supply the specific amounts of that payment.
Mr. Chairman, I have here the estimated amounts for the three provinces, and I shall give them to the committee.
(Text):
These estimates of cost were made by the provinces. In the case of Manitoba, the payments to farmers amount to $1,200,000, administration costs, $50,000, benefiting farmers, 4,000; Saskatchewan, payments to farmers, $4,500,000, administration costs, $40,000, benefiting farmers, 15,000; Alberta, payments to farmers, $5,400,000, administration costs, $50,000, benefiting farmers, 18,000. This makes total payments to farmers of $11,100,000, administration costs, $140,000, for a total of $11,240,000, and benefiting farmers, 37,000.
As I attempted to say in my regrettable poor French-


Azellus Denis: It was good.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -it is absolutely impossible to estimate the total amount that would be required with any exactitude. However, the provinces have estimated that this is the probable amount of payment and, as a result, in order to pay half of this cost we have provided this estimate of $6 million, which will pay half of their estimates plus a certain amount more because it is likely there will be more people coming in during the later period than the provinces probably estimated.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the minister if he will answer my question? Did the federal officials inspect these premises or is the minister relying upon provincial inspectors?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The administration of the scheme, Mr. Chairman, is entirely in the hands of the provinces. As I said before, the accounts will be checked by officers of the dominion government, but the officials of the provincial government made the estimate as part of their administration of the scheme.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, as this debate goes on one becomes terribly confused. At this hour of 8.40 p.m. on Tuesday, February 9, I am not quite sure whether we are trying to give some relief to the western farmers who had crops snowed under last year or whether we are laying the basis for next year's disaster. This debate has revolved around two or three points. Last Thursday or Friday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made a great point of whether or not there was an agreement with the provinces before the agreement was signed by the federal government. Today he has had a great deal to say with respect to the production of papers.
I do not know too much about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I do not know whether he lives in Bonavista or Twillingate or Ottawa or Winnipeg or on a farm in Manitoba. He told us the other night he was raised on a farm and became partially emaciated. If he did, he has certainly made a remarkable recovery. I should like to say to him that mine is a very simple mind and when these tremendous problems arise I always try to reduce them to simple principles. I should like to say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, to his colleagues and to my good friends in the far corner, if he were going to build a house he would certainly consult with a contractor and, if he had enough money and he probably has, an architect. Having decided upon the plan he was going to follow, he would probably call in a lawyer-perhaps he would not now- and he would draw up a contract.
This is what this government has done, Mr. Chairman. This whole discussion has been a waste of time. We had a situation in western Canada that required some discussion. Those discussions were held and a general principle was evolved by this government. I want to say to you, so far as I am concerned-let me add I know nothing about agriculture; I leave that to the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia-I feel that when the emergency arose the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture became concerned. They held these conversations, and now we are drawing up the contract. I wonder what kind of a house my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate would obtain, when he becomes domiciled somewhere, if he did not follow that procedure?



I960

[Stage Direction]
So far as the production of papers is concerned, Mr. Chairman, that means very little to the western farmer. We have an emergency and we are trying to deal with it. The government has dealt with it on the best and most practical basis possible. For heaven's sake, let us get on, pass this appropriation and move on to something that may be more important to the whole Dominion of Canada.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the proceedings I made the statement that the three prairie provinces were united in presenting a proposition to the government that differed from the action later taken. I suggested that in the correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the governments of the three prairie provinces would be found evidence that the action taken by the federal government was not in keeping with the requests that had been made and that there would likely be evidence damaging to the stand taken by the federal government.
The Minister of Agriculture denied that this was so and said that the correspondence contained nothing that would not be advantageous to the government. 1 believe he even went further in his denial with regard to the statement I had made. I have in my hand now the file of correspondence that was tabled a few moments ago. I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on his excellent use of the French language and this further additional evidence of his efficiency on occasion in finding, between six o'clock and when we met again at eight o'clock or shortly thereafter, that he was able to produce the correspondence.
There are many letters exchanged in the file of correspondence but I want to refer to one in particular dated November 6, 1959. It is addressed to the minister and was sent to him weeks before the federal government's policy was made public. I wish to point out that this letter bears three signatures. I have seen a lot of correspondence tabled in the house from time to time consisting of exchanges between the federal government and various provincial governments but in my memory this is the first time a joint letter bearing the signatures of responsible cabinet ministers has been submitted by a number of provincial governments.
The letter is signed by G. H. Hutton, minister of agriculture for Manitoba, I. C. Nollet, minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan and L. C. Halmrast, minister of agriculture for Alberta. In the letter they set forth very clearly the policy that they wish the government to follow. The letter reads in part as follows:
Dear Mr. Harkness:
Following your telephone conversation with each of the ministers of agriculture of the three prairie
Supply-Agriculture
provinces, we met in Regina on November 6 to discuss the matters you raised, and the general feed and income situation. I should add that following your telephone conversation, each minister discussed the situation with his government and the following represents the viewpoints arrived at.
We agree that need must be the determining factor to the granting of financial assistance, but this requires that realized yield per specified acre be the basis upon which the award is calculated and financial assistance distributed. We also agreed that due to a most unusual phase of weather experienced this fall, the present situation was of the nature of a national emergency.
That is the first main point made by these representatives of the three prairie governments. The letter goes on:
The federal government, through passage of the P.F.A. Act in 1939, together with western farmer participation, accepted the responsibility of providing financial assistance to farmers suffering disastrous crop losses. The only difference between the current emergency and others suffered during the past 20 years is that farmers are now much less uniformly affected than they were, as for example, in drought years or during rust infestations. As a result a great many farmers in distress will be located in ineligible P.F.A.A. areas.
Therefore we propose that needy farmers who will not qualify for P.F.A.A. awards because they are not in eligible areas be dealt with individually and assistance be granted as of December 1 on the same basis as to those farmers who qualify under the provisions of the act. The foregoing proposal should not be considered an extension of P.F.A.A. but rather as an emergency measure.
We also request, as discussed at Winnipeg, that P.F.A.A. be authorized to consider all swathed or standing crops not threshed as at December 1 to be complete failures and P.F.A.A. awards to be made on this basis.
Here then is a proposal by the three prairie governments that this situation be considered a national emergency and that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be modified so that farmers who have crops unthreshed may be eligible for prairie farm assistance. As hon. members know, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a charge on the federal government and not on the provincial treasuries. Therefore this proposal is in keeping with the statements I have made that the provinces were asking the federal government to assume this responsibility instead of doing what they have now done, that is place half of the responsibility on the provincial treasuries. I will omit two paragraphs of the letter having to do with specialized crops. The minister can put those on the record if he cares to do so. The letter then continues:
We discussed at length responsibilities which the provinces could reasonably be expected to assume in this emergency. First, it is inevitable that the conditions referred to will have a depressing affect on provincial revenues. Second, all provinces have undertaken to provide freight assistance on the movement of fodder and bedding on a shareable basis with your government and also on feed grains. Third, all .provinces expect to be required to render financial assistance to municipalities and unorganized districts for the purchase of feed and in providing seed grain, tractor fuels, etc., for

Supply-Agriculture
field operations in 1960. Furthermore, the need for public assistance or social aid will certainly be affected by these conditions.
For these reasons we consider that provinces cannot reasonably be expected to assume further financial obligations.
That then is the position of the provincial governments as of November 6. They say to the federal government that this situation should be considered a national emergency and that the provincial governments should not be required to assume further financial obligations. The government's offer, of course, was predicated on the provinces accepting additional financial obligations to the extent of paying 50 per cent of the cost.
This is the very type of thing that I suspected would be in this correspondence. It was for these reasons that I said to the Minister of Agriculture that in my opinion the correspondence would show that the provinces had asked the government for something more, that the provinces were united in making these requests and that in this correspondence there would be evidence damaging to the federal government. I think this is very true. The provinces were united in asking the federal government to assume the responsibility of making these payments. The government refused to do so and has forced the provinces to pay half of the cost. I think the correspondence contains precisely the type of thing that I alluded to in my remarks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to point out that the reading of this letter has added precisely nothing to what I said on February 5 as reported at page 799 of Hansard. The hon. member for Assiniboia had been making a great point of the fact that the provinces had asked us initially to pay the whole cost of this assistance program. In replying to him, as reported at the bottom of that page on the right-hand side, I said as follows:
The hon. member for Assiniboia brought up the point that the provinces initially asked to have the dominion government pay the whole cost of this type of relief. Naturally the provinces asked the dominion government to do so-
I made no bones about the fact that they asked that. I said they asked that. Therefore, as I say, the reading of this letter does not add a bit to the information of the committee. The quotation continues:
-and they follow this course with respect to practically every expenditure that is going to be made. I suppose it is human nature that that should be the case. However, the actual situation is that the primary responsibility for relief or assistance in a situation of this kind rests with the municipalities and the provinces. They are primarily responsible for the assistance which is necessary in situations of this nature.
I then went on to point out that we as a dominion government, just the same as when disasters of various kinds took place in the

past, had recognized this as something to which the dominion government should contribute. As a result we held these numerous conversations with the provinces and had made to them an offer to pay half the cost of the assistance program. The fact that they asked us to assume the whole cost, as I say, I do not think is a material factor. I stated that that was the case to begin with when this matter was up for discussion, so this reading of the letter adds nothing to the information of the committee.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall item 613 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
615. Payments to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1959-60 and 1960-61 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1959, to the 30th day of April, 1960, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $15,000,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to say something?


Michael Starr: This item of $15 million is for the municipal incentive program similar to the one which we had during the winter of 1958-59. Perhaps the whole amount shown here will not be used up but the funds are there should they be needed. At the outset I would say that the program has been widely accepted by the municipalities across Canada, so much so that they again have asked us to institute this program for this winter of 1959-60. I should like to say a few words about the background of this program.
When this government assumed office we saw that unemployment was rising and that action would have to be taken by this government in order to alleviate the situation. Some of the measures we took have been described on previous occasions, both inside this house and outside. One of the things we did at once was to call a conference of management, labour and other interested parties in this country specifically to deal with the unemployment problem and to give us their advice on this situation. This conference was called in July of 1958.
I should like to note now, Mr. Chairman, that one of the recommendations of this conference was this municipal incentive program. As a matter of fact, many of the recommendations at this conference were based on the incentive aspect. This we did at the time and it was then followed subsequently by a special conference with the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities where this particular incentive stemming from the July

conference was put forward to the government in respect of the participation of municipalities in order to alleviate the seasonal unemployment problem. From the brief of the federation of Canadian mayors and municipalities which was presented to the Prime Minister in April, 1959 1 should like to quote as follows:
This program is substantially along the lines proposed at the special meeting on winter employment called by the Minister of Labour last July and at which representatives of the federation were in attendance, and which proposals were discussed in principle at the informal federal-municipal conference held last October-
As a result of this program-some 32,000 jobs were created during the period.


Lionel Chevrier: How many?


Michael Starr: Thirty two thousand. The quotation continues:
The municipal governments were thereby relieved of a potential further cost of direct unemployment relief and, at the same time, were enabled to carry out certain local public works at less cost to the municipalities than otherwise would have been possible

The municipalities are of the view that the municipal winter works program has justified itself and they commend the dominion government for initiating the program.
This was the way in which the municipalities viewed this program at that time and are still viewing it at the present time. So out of this conference in July of 1958 and specifically out of the special conference between the municipalities and this government this program was inaugurated. I would also point out that this conference in July of 1958 and the discussions at this conference also helped to give birth to the $750 million program that built 280,000 homes in two years.
This problem of the municipalities was no new problem. Prior to that time for many years the municipalities endeavoured to interest the federal government in participation in just such a program. The records show that as far back as 1955 representations were made by the municipalities to the federal government to institute such a program. At that time I might say that no action was taken.
However, I want to quote some figures as to what happened last year under this program. There were nearly 2,000 projects and the figure to December of this year is 1,232; that is as of December 31. Last year the federal government spent $6.5 million. In consideration of that rather modest expenditure from the federal treasury, work projects were put into motion totalling nearly $50 million-the actual cost was $49,501,000. This year the estimate is now in the neighbourhood of some $84 million. The cost to the federal treasury is over $10 million as of now. Last 79951-0-58
Supply-Labour
year we provided a little better than 35,000 jobs. I should explain at this time for the benefit of the members of this committee that for every man employed on site on these projects, employment off site is estimated to have been provided for an additional two persons. Hence the figure of 35,000 in direct employment would be further enlarged by an additional 70,000 off site, that is those engaged in industry and the supplying of materials used on these projects. The program this year is still ahead of last year and the figures to the end of January are already over last year's total.
I do not know what else I can add at this time in respect of this program. However, I want to say that I feel that it has been a worth-while program, even though in some instances criticism has been put forth that the program is not sufficient, that it does not take care of the whole situation.
But I say that this is only one of the programs that this government instituted in order to alleviate the situation, as a result of that conference which was held in July, 1958 and the subsequent conference with the municipalities. This is one of the things which were recommended, and it is one of the things which were asked for. This year we did announce the program sooner by two months in order to give municipalities an opportunity to plan ahead of time, and thereby undertake more projects than they were able to last winter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question before he resumes his seat. There is reference in this item in the estimates to payments to provinces and in respect of Indian bands. I wonder if the minister would explain what the Indian bands section is, and what is its relationship paymentwise and projectwise between the Indian authorities and the federal government?


Michael Starr: Some requests were made approximately a month ago by Indian bands, particularly in the western part of Canada, that they be allowed to be included in this municipal incentive program. The government felt that this was a worthwhile proposal, and consequently they have now been included.
What happens there is that the Indian band deals directly with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, in the same way as a municipality deals through the province, and then through the citizenship and immigration branch with the Department of Labour and Department of Finance, who ultimately pass on these projects. The Indian bands are putting up 50 per cent of the cost. At least,

Supply-Lab our
we participate in 50 per cent of the labour costs in the same way as we do with the municipalities. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration look over the projects and approve them and send them on to our department for final approval. The same thing will be done with the final payments for these projects; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will perform that same function in respect of these same bands.


Frank Howard: One other question. Does the minister know what the accounting relationship is within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to these Indian bands, or are they dealt with under the general vote of the Indian affairs branch? What is the internal relationship there?


Michael Starr: As far as I know it is that the bands put up their own money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, at the great risk of offending a good many hon. members in this house who seem to think it is improper for some of us on this side to take part in debates, I intend to say something about this item.
It is perhaps appropriate that the debate on this item should be begun by a member of parliament from the province of Newfoundland which enjoys the unhappy distinction, I regret to say, of having the highest level of unemployment of any province in Canada.


Mr. Anderson:: They need a better representative.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What they need is a good government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not only does the province of Newfoundland have the unhappy distinction of having the highest level of unemployment of any province, but the Atlantic region has the highest level of unemployment of any region in this country; and that was, of course, the region in which a new era was going to be introduced after hon. gentlemen won the election of 1957.
I am afraid that I was unable to share the happiness expressed by the Minister of Labour earlier today when he told us that on January 21 over 774,000 Canadians were applying for jobs at the employment offices throughout this country. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact, the regrettable fact, a fact which all of us should regret, and none so much as those gentlemen who were going to cure all of these problems a couple of years ago, that this figure of 774,000 persons seeking work in the minister's

own employment offices, apart altogether from a great many others who think it worthless to go there, is not very much below the average figure of 855,000 for the month of January, 1958 which the minister described as the lowest point in the recent recession. Yet the minister told us the other day on T.V. that the recession was now over and everything was all right in this country.
With over three quarters of a million people looking for work from the Minister of Labour's department-


Mr. Grafffey:: That is not right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister gave us the figure himself, and if the hon. member wants to quarrel with his minister, let him quarrel with his minister and not interfere with my speech. What words did the Prime Minister put in His Excellency's mouth about this?


An hon. Member:: What are your ideas?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Supply-Labour
Minister believed to be the facts at that time. That is how much discernment he showed. Then we find the minister himself speaking in Montreal on December 10 of that year. Here is what the minister said:
There is hardly an economist or a student of the situation who does not feel that the unemployment situation is merely temporary and that given a brief breathing pause the natural buoyancy of the economy will assert itself.
That was the minister speaking in December, six months after he had come into office. Then, that blinding revelation came to the Prime Minister when he found a dusty book in a drawer. What he could not see with his own eyes, and what the minister could not see with his eyes, what this government which had been in office for seven months had not perceived at all, they blamed Walter Harris for not having told them about nine months earlier. Of course that was the great dramatic performance we witnessed here on January 20, 1958.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: I am inclined to think that the hon. member is straying away from the subject under discussion. I feel that the item under consideration does not lead to a general discussion about unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Jacques Flynn: I think that if the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had been only introductory they might have been in order but I feel that the item is concerned only with the question of financial aid to the municipalities in respect of winter unemployment. Since the rule in committee is to be strictly relevant I think that to initiate a general debate on unemployment on this item would be entirely out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister himself in opening the discussion on this item dealt not only with this particular winter works program but with the problem of unemployment in this country as he sees it. Surely we are entitled to say that we do not see the problem in the same way and that this item for winter works is not adequate to meet the problem as we see it. Surely we are entitled to build up the case and condemn the government for directing inadequate attention to this vital national problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order which has been raised, item 615 under discussion is an estimate of $15 million covering the federal government's winter works program in conjunction with the municipalities. I suggest it is impossible to discuss this item in a vacuum. You cannot discuss a $15 million winter works program except in the context [Mr. Pickersgill.l
of the need for a winter works program. I think that ranging far afield, talking of ten years ago, perhaps, and going back into the detailed record of previous administrations would be beyond the scope of this item, but I do feel that the unemployment figures which throw light on the unemployment situation in Canada at this time, and the government's program to deal with the current situation, are very much in order. Anything pertaining to unemployment in Canada at the present time and the government's policy, adequate or inadequate, is very much in order.


Michael Starr: In answer to what has been said about my opening remarks in respect of this item I wish to point out, and Hansard will show, that I have been very scrupulous to keep within this particular item and only those things pertaining to the work undertaken under this plan were dealt with by me. I did not range over any other field of employment or unemployment in this country. I dealt only with matters coming strictly within the scope of this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I remind you that the minister did discuss housing at quite considerable length giving a good many statistics.


Michael Starr: No, I did not, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have taken down the
figures he used. The minister claimed that $750 million had been spent by this government to build 280,000 houses. He also discussed the conference with management and labour held in July of 1958. It seems to me that the minister was ranging very widely over the field. The idea that all we can discuss are the projects that the government chooses to bring before us and not discuss the question of whether or not this is an adequate way to meet this problem would, it seems to me, simply deny us any right whatsoever to discuss the most urgent and immediate problem confronting at least three quarters of a million of our fellow citizens.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may I say that the only reason I mentioned the unemployment conference was to point out where the incentive for this program stemmed from. That is where it stemmed from and there followed consultation with the municipalities at a later date. That was the reason for the reference.


Mr. Caron:: If the minister dealt with these subjects I feel we should have the right to discuss them.


Jacques Flynn: I did not rule that hon. members could not discuss unemployment.

What I said was that the item under discussion did not lead to a general debate on unemployment. I am inclined to agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Assini-boia that as long as we discuss unemployment with regard to this item I think it would be in order. I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will agree that he was ranging much further afield than I have just indicated. I would ask him to co-operate with the Chair in trying to discuss unemployment with regard to this item, or this item with regard to unemployment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to discuss within the limits the Chair has indicated my reasons for feeling that this is _ a totally inadequate way to deal with this problem. If our freedom of speech is to be abridged by the dictate of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Withdraw.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member may wish to correct that statement which I think is a reflection on the Chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intended no reflection on the Chair. I apologize to the Chair if the Chair considered there was any reflection. I was seeking to reflect on hon. gentlemen opposite, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance, who used to lecture us hour after hour on the rights of parliament and freedom of speech and who boasted on coming in to power about securing the rights of parliament.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinfon):: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not need any lectures from the Minister of Finance.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I remind the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the Chair raised the point of order and nobody else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, to return to the question of unemployment, I shall deal with what the minister also told us in the television program in which he was giving us the background for the situation which makes him feel that this program that is now before us is adequate to deal with it. He said:
You will recall that approximately 18 months ago-
Eighteen months ago was August 4, 1958, if I do my arithmetic correctly. We had been told at other times, of course, that the recession was inherited from us, but this was a year after we were out of office. In any event, this is what the minister said:
You will recall that approximately 18 months ago, when recession was setting in, your government announced bold and progressive policies to combat that recession and to provide jobs for Canadians.
Supply-Labour
What did happen, not precisely on August 4 but on August 16 here in this chamber? I will remind you what happened. It was a Saturday afternoon and the minister will not forget it. I appealed to the minister to hold up one item of his estimates so that we could have the winter work program brought before us. I made an appeal to the minister three times. My friend the hon. member for Laurier then appealed to the then leader of the house who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
During the course of that afternoon the Prime Minister came into the house. The hon. member for Laurier appealed to the Prime Minister to hold up this item and bring on the government's winter work program so that parliament, the elected representatives of the people, would know what the government was going to do about this problem at the very time the minister now tells us the recession was setting in, and we were refused. It was not until late in September on the eve of his world tour that the Prime Minister went to Regina to attend-if my memory serves me correctly-a provincial Tory convention and there announced the winter work program that parliament was not considered fit to hear. That was what was done on that occasion. At least this time an item is brought before us but again we are denied any information at all.


William Heward Grafftey: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can read Hansard for August 16 for himself.
The minister then went on to attempt to show that this seasonal unemployment was something that was characteristic of Canada, that there was nothing new about it. While I should like to deal with that part of his speech I agree that it would perhaps not be strictly relevant to this debate for me to do so. I did notice that in the minister's efforts to minimize the situation we are now faced with and to make it appear that it is just the same sort of thing that existed ever since the war he gave a number of figures which, from my point of view did not prove that at all.
What I do think is very relevant to the situation now and very serious as well is that according to the base the minister was using-and that is the dominion bureau of statistics base-the unemployment in this country was 10 per cent of the labour force in March of 1958. Last year it was 8.6 per cent and according to the minister's own figures it was 5.9 per cent in December of last year.
I draw to your attention, sir, the fact that 5.9 per cent on the dominion bureau of statistics base, which we do not consider to

Supply-Labour
be an adequate measure, was the figure applicable in December of last year and in March of 1957. In March of 1957, when hon. members opposite are fond of saying a depression was taking place, the figure was 5.9 per cent and in December of 1959 when the minister was telling the people of Canada the recession was over it was the same figure. That figure is very much higher today and unhappily it is still going up.
If the recession is over, and I am not questioning that in the ordinary sense of the term it is, it has left a residue of a high level of unemployment which is not going to be dealt with adequately by a puny measure of this sort.


William Heward Grafftey: A puny measure of this sort?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, a puny measure of this sort. When three quarters of a million of our fellow citizens are applying at the minister's offices for jobs, a puny measure of this sort is not going to deal adequately with the problem.


William Heward Grafftey: Tell that to the people of Brome-Missisquoi.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can go down along the coasts to the places from which I get letters every day from people with families asking for jobs, people who have no unemployment insurance, people who have been forced on relief, and tell them there is no unemployment problem in this country. We who come from these areas know that there is this condition, and we do not think it should be a matter of jest.


An hon. Member:: That is not what Joey said in New York.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say again that with three quarters of a million of our fellow citizens applying for jobs in the minister's own offices, this is not an adequate measure.
I say it is not an adequate measure for another reason. I know that one of my colleagues is going to ask the minister, before this item passes, to put on the record the details of where these projects are. I know, too, if it is anything like the pattern of the last two years we will find, as we do tend to find with all these 50-50 sharing programs, that they are strictly programs that illustrate the truth of the statement that to him that hath shall be given. These municipalities that are comparatively wealthy, with a comparatively large tax base, are able to take advantage of this offer and get on with needed and useful works. No one is sorry to see that happen. However, in those areas where unemployment is greatest the capacity of the municipalities to embark on these works, 
because of their own narrow tax base, is the least. A 50-50 basis is not a satisfactory basis at all for a program of this sort.
It does seem to me it should not be beyond the ingenuity of this government and this house to find a formula which would, as between provinces and even perhaps areas within provinces, relate the principles of division somewhat to the level of unemployment. Then in those areas of heavy unemployment, for example in Cape Breton, in Newfoundland and in the county of Pictou where conditions are very serious at the present time, and indeed all through the Atlantic region and in the eastern part of Quebec where the level of unemployment is a great deal higher than it is in the rest of the country and where the local capacity to deal with it is a great deal lower, there would be a better formula for this kind of program. If there were there is no question but that many of these municipalities, if they only had to pay 25 per cent instead of 50 per cent of the cost, might be able to carry on these programs. However, they cannot, and the program is really ineffective in precisely those areas where it is most important that it should be effective.
It does not seem to me, that this is the right way to deal with this problem. This is one element, I grant the minister that it is one element. However, my hon. friend from Trinity made a very moving speech in this house a year ago, a very thoughtful speech, about the changing character of our labour force. I think you will find this is directly related to the problem here. The fact is that more and more skills are required in order to get employment in this modern world. It does seem to me that the government and the minister received that speech very well, but with words. I do wish those words were being followed by deeds.


Michael Starr: They are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All over this country and particularly in the eastern part, the need for such training of adult workers in order to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities for employment is very pressing indeed. A lot of this human waste of unemployment could be remedied. There are still a good many areas in which there is a scarcity of labour. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told us the other day she is still lending money for assisted passages for people coming to Canada to take jobs. I have here an advertisement which gives a whole list of occupations in Canada for which people in the United Kingdom can get a loan to come to Canada to take work. They are all skills. I wish the minister would give

us a list, while this debate is on, of those skills in which there are job opportunities in this country at the present time.
I wish more advertising would be done in that connection and an effort made to train the people in this country who are unemployed, and not just seasonally unemployed unhappily, to take advantage of the opportunities offered in certain fields. Unless these people do get some skills a good many of them will never be employed again, except on very rare occasions. It seems to me if we are going to take this problem seriously, tackle it seriously, it is in that direction and not just in palliatives, however desirable they may be, that the solution will be found.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member referred to the training of the unemployed in Canada. Would he perhaps use his influence with the premier of Newfoundland to carry out a training scheme on Bell island that has been offered by the Minister of Labour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to use my influence with anybody anywhere in this country if my influence would extend anywhere to see that any of the unemployed in this country who need training got training.


James Aloysius McGrath: There are 600 Bell islanders waiting for that.


Frank Howard: Before I proceed to discuss the item under consideration, may I say that I tried to copy down some figures which the minister related to the committee during his opening remarks. If I may make a brief reference to them perhaps the minister would indicate whether or not I have copied them down correctly. I understood the minister to say that the winter works program or the municipal winter works program for this current winter season has, at the present time, $10 million committed by the federal government, with projects valued at $84 million under consideration, about to start or under construction. I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether or not those figures are correct?
There is one phase of this problem in which I have a special interest and that is the relationship of this winter works program to Indian bands and projects on Indian reserves. However, I feel it is rather unfortunate that the minister did not have available a detailed explanation of the relationship between the Indian bands which will be interested in participating in this program and the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The minister did say
Supply

Labour
the bands themselves would be required, so far as he knows, to supply the money for their part of the project. If this is so, it is an extremely unwise and unfair policy to follow.
It may be beneficial to those few Indian bands who because of geographic or other conditions have been able to accumulate some money in their band funds and thus are able to participate financially in this type of project but it is extremely unfair and discriminatory in the case of those Indian bands which may not have any money in their band fund accounts or only a few dollars. I know that there are quite a few bands throughout the country that have no band fund account because of the economy of the reserve and things of that nature. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would take up the matter with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so that he will be able to give us a clearer understanding of this matter because if the minister is correct in saying that the band itself from its own band fund account must find the money for the project then it is an extremely unfair, unwise and discriminatory action to take against bands that do not have any money in their band fund accounts.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the action was not instituted by the government. The Indian bands themselves requested that they be allowed to participate under this plan since they were prepared to put up their money.


Frank Howard: That is precisely what I am getting at. What you are doing is confining participation in this project to those bands that have sufficient money in their band fund accounts to be able to afford to do this.


Michael Starr: It was their proposition.


Frank Howard: You are a party to it.


Michael Starr: We acquiesced in it.


Frank Howard: Why do you not make it uniformly applicable to all Indian bands in the country instead of confining it to those few bands that may have enough money to participate in some sort of program? It is extremely unfair, unwise and discriminatory in the case of those bands which unfortunately, for one reason or another, have no money in their band fund accounts. Even though the minister has said that the government did not initiate this, I think he would be well advised to consult his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and attempt to work out a policy whereby the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will provide the money for those bands which do not have the money in their band fund accounts. That

Supply-Labour
is what I am saying is unfair, and I would certainly appreciate it if the minister would undertake to press for the inclusion of these other Indian bands in this type of program even though their share may have to be paid out of the funds of the Indian affairs branch.
Apart from the application to Indian bands, which is a specific phase of the matter, in presenting this program the minister lauded it and the government's initiation of it. He also made reference to a few conferences that were held and the program that arose out of them. But it is very unfortunate that this municipal works program, no matter how he attempts to varnish it, is being used to cover up the failure of the government to meet its commitments at election time.
No matter how much the minister tries to talk about the number of people who will be employed under the program and the number of people who will be employed under the housing program, in no way can that do away with the damage that was done to the nation by the Tory party through its irrational and phony promises about full employment. They went all over the country telling the people how they were going to bring about full employment-


Lionel Chevrier: And did nothing about it, absolutely nothing.


Frank Howard: -but as soon as they got into office they decided that the promises that they made to the nation were not the ones that should be kept, that they should only keep promises made to parliament, as the Minister of National Revenue later said. On one occasion the Prime Minister, almost with tears in his voice, said, "Not one person will sufEer from unemployment". But what are we getting? A program of this nature, this substitute for the carrying out of the agreement they made with the Canadian people on March 31, 1958, this substitute for the contract they entered into to provide full employment so that not one person would sufEer. This is the way their contract has been carried out even though the general public carried out their part of the bargain and elected them to office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Deficit or no deficit.


Frank Howard: That is a minor detail. The hon. gentleman who handles the purse strings and most other strings in the cabinet is in his seat tonight and appears to nod acceptance of my statement, I see. This type of program was probably born one day when the Prime Minister rose from his bed and got the bright idea of sending a telegram to the various provinces indicating that they were willing to put up a certain amount

of money. This has become a year-to-year policy because of this idea the Prime Minister had and because the government has failed or has been unable to carry out any planned, co-ordinated program to deal with unemployment. This represents nothing more than another exemplification of the haphazard, step-by-step, year-by-year efforts that the government is making in a faltering way to attempt to deal with a problem that it has not got the foggiest idea how to cope with.


Mr. Henderson:: It is too bad you are not dealing with it.


Frank Howard: Normal, seasonal, recurring unemployment is what it is now. It is not a national problem as it was during the election year. If it is a normal, recurring, seasonal unemployment situation, that is, during spring, summer, fall and winter; if it is that sort of thing then there is all the more reason that the government should draft legislation to provide a planned, coordinated long range program to deal with it on a seasonal basis instead of bringing forward a supplementary estimate once a year and saying that they need a few more million dollars because they did not quite cope with the problem last year and they find they are going to have to deal with it again.
Not only that, but the program is far too restrictive in its application. The initial plan that was given to the nation when the Prime Minister sent his telegram was that 50 per cent of the responsibility was going to be carried by the federal government. That was the impression that the government tried to leave with the nation. This big hearted, generous Minister of Finance, who has had a relapse since those days, was going to pay 50 per cent of the cost of such municipal projects. But what do we find now? We find that the amount is closer to 10 to 12 per cent than 50 per cent because of the restrictions in the program itself. In the meantime, as my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out-


An hon. Member:: Your friend?


Frank Howard: If I can call the Conservatives in this house my friends they will not object to my calling the Liberals my friends.


Walter Clarence Henderson: We are a little fussy.


Frank Howard: My friend says that he is a little fussy. He should consider those he has for friends who sit on the front benches. Some people should be a little upset to have to call people like that their friends. You may be fussy as to your friends. I will withdraw what I said, Mr. Chairman, as I know

I should under the rules. I will withdraw every reference I have made in the house to any Conservative member being a friend of mine. I will use the proper parliamentary designation and call them hon. members, and even that is stretching it.
1 am sure there are three quarters of a million people in this country knocking on the door of the Minister of Labour who do not care whether the people in this house are friends or not or what we call each other. They are concerned about getting employment and they are not going to be put off with any two-bit, peanut type program that the minister took from a brainwave that the Prime Minister had which resulted in his sending out a telegram and saying that this was going to be it forever and ever, amen. They are not going to be satisfied with that sort of thing and they are not going to be satisfied with the two major parties, the official opposition and the government, having an annual game of debating which set of statistics applies to these people.
The minister would have done well to take the advice I gave him a couple of years ago when I said he should stand in the breadlines with some of these people and find out how they feel. Then he would realize that this is not a normal recurring seasonal unemployment problem. He would realize that these three quarters of a million people are not just figures in a set of books but that they represent people, families including children, that have the same needs and desires as has the minister and everybody in this house. That is what we should be concerned with rather than concerning ourselves with the actual statistics and the relationship that the winter works program might have to that over-all unemployment picture which exists in this country today, which existed last year and the year before that, and which existed whenever this government or its predecessor were in office because neither one of them know how to cope with the economic problems that are confronting the nation and are getting worse every day.
We have had references to an increase in production and to an expansion in the economy of the nation. It is said that 1960 is going to be a boom year. It is said that we are not going to overcome the recession but that we have overcome it already. With three quarters of a million people knocking on the minister's back door looking for some sort of employment, it is said that we have overcome the recession. If these things are true, and there is every indication that they are true in so far as projecting this current year is concerned, that things started to
Supply-Labour
pick up in the last quarter of the last year, that there is an increase in the economy, an increase in the productivity figures or an increase in the national production of the country, it is also shown that along with this increase in productivity and increase in economic expansion there has not been the concomitant or relative increase in the employment picture of the nation, that the number of employed have not kept up with the increase in the productivity itself and that it far outstrips this increase. Although we may have greater productivity, may have increased production, may have a greater volume of goods being produced in the nation, we have not been able to get that increase reflected in an increase in the number of people employed in the nation at productive work for if we had we would not have three quarters of a million people now unemployed and seeking work in this nation.
I am sure one can be harsh with this government for having made an election pledge and having promptly forgotten it. We could lay all the blame on the government. This is playing a little bit of politics, I expect. We could-and probably this will happen in this debate later on-make fairly heated arguments about this sort of thing. Even though there is a tremendous responsibility on and a tremendous fault resting with the government because it has not the courage to plan accordingly to meet these recurring problems and the new problems which will arise because of the economic change in the country, because of the growth of industry or from expansion or from consolidation, I think we also must look at the economy itself and wonder what we can do to ensure that these ups and downs, booms and busts, "recurring seasonal unemployments" or whatever phrase the Prime Minister used to make reference to three quarters of a million people being out of work, do not occur. We must look at economic conditions and say, how can we cope with this particular sort of thing?
I know that there are in the government services economists who are wondering along these very same lines, who are wondering about how we can arrange to conduct our business affairs in this nation so that we shall be able to compete with other nations on the trade question. I appreciate that this is going a bit beyond the scope of the winter works program but I think it is connected because if we had a decently run economy I do not think we would be in the difficulty we are now in and we would not have this thing before us. But these economists are groping around, silently mostly, because no one on the government benches has asked them to sit down and attempt to deal with this

Supply-Labour
particular question and to come up with some long range recommendations as to what the government can do to overcome it on a planned long term basis, not to overcome it from day to day or from year to year as the minister is asking us to do at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Frank Howard: My friend over there may want to call it ten o'clock but from where we sit there are still two or three minutes to go.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate made some reference to this government's having adopted a philosophy that it is all right to have a great number of people unemployed either at certain times during the year or throughout the year itself. I suggest that unfortunately this philosophy, if this present Tory government has it, is one which they inherited from their predecessors the Liberals when they were in office because they had precisely the same sort of idea, that it is all right to have employment once in a while, that it is necessary, that it is an integral part of our economy and that there is no sense in worrying too much about it; that we will just give out a few unemployment cheques once in a while as a palliative, as the hon. member called it, as some sort of dole or relief to the poor unemployed person who happens to be unemployed but we will not tackle the over-all basic question of dealing with unemployment itself.
This is where the Liberals failed when they were in office and this is where the present Tory government is failing, because it is unable or unwilling to cope with this broad over-all question. I wish the Minister of
Labour himself and his colleague in the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Finance, depending on who the principal powerful person is in the cabinet at any one particular time, would issue some definite instructions to the economists in the government service for study and investigation in order to attempt to come up with some sort of program that will deal with this question effectively and adequately on a long range planned basis instead of the very ineffective method that is being used or is shown as being used not only in this particular vote but in many others that come before the house from time to time.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might at this stage call it ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I take it that tomorrow and Thursday we will deal with the debate on foreign affairs, as agreed. I wonder whether the minister will tell us what we shall be doing on Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Wednesday and Thursday, as mentioned, the debate on foreign affairs as the house agreed the other day; on Friday a continuation of consideration of the supplementary estimates. If those are completed, we shall take the government business that is on the order paper and I will announce the specific items on Thursday.


Lionel Chevrier: Might I go a step further and ask the leader of the house what we may expect on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think perhaps I will announce that on Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing orders.