1960-02-05

NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 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?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I looked into this matter, and I had a memorandum in some detail respecting it. Unfortunately I do not have it here today, so I will make it available on Monday. I would not want to speak off the cuff on that question, and I know the hon. gentleman will understand.



DUNDURN, SASKATCHEWAN    INQUIRY AS TO CLOSING OF CAMP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It has been brought to my attention that the military camp at Dundurn, Saskatchewan, may be closed. Is the minister in a position to tell me whether there is any foundation to this statement?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware it is the intention of the army to carry out the same training and other activities at Dundurn this year as were carried out last year, but I shall communicate with the western command in an effort to check and see whether or not there is any foundation for the statement made by the hon. member.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if the Prime Minister would have anything
to add to his comment at the time of the C.L.C. presentation and his comment later in the house as to racial discrimination in South Africa, particularly in view of the very forthright statement made by Prime Minister Macmillan in opposition to racial discrimination.
Righf Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): It was a very forthright statement representing, in so far as the question of discrimination is concerned, the views of many people throughout the world. Certainly, in so far as I am personally concerned, I have at all times strongly pressed for the need of action being taken to the end that discrimination based on colour, creed or other reasons should be abandoned everywhere in the world.
However, I do underline the fact that the representation of the C.L.C. was for action leading to the expulsion of South Africa from the commonwealth, and I made it clear that I would not take any part in bringing in a motion for action in that regard, to exclude South Africa from the commonwealth. It is clear that in the statement made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom no approbation was given to such a course as that suggested in the brief presented.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. As the Prime Minister cared to answer something else, I should like to get him back on the track. Will the government reconsider its present attitude with regard to supporting resolutions at the United Nations condemning racial discrimination? The reason I ask that question is this. I think it is necessary that the government take a consistent stand.


Hon. Howard C. Gresn (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The government will deal with resolutions when they come up in the United Nations, and as they come up.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have not dealt with them; you have ducked them.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Prime Minister Macmillan discussed the question of apartheid quite freely and openly in South Africa, does the Prime Minister not feel that as the prime minister of one of the commonwealth countries he should not hesitate likewise to express his views in the general terms in which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed his?
S'/c0

Railways and Canals Committee


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no observation to make on that suggestion. However, if hon. gentlemen opposite would look back they would find that apartheid has existed through the years; and I know of no Canadian prime minister who in the past brought that subject before the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. Nor do I seem to recall any instance when the former government at the United Nations voted condemnation of South Africa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a question arising out of the observation made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that the Canadian government will vote on matters as they arise at the United Nations. Would he explain his statement of the day before yesterday that they have now decided to vote for a particular candidate for president of the assembly six months at least before the assembly can be called together?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that issue happens to have arisen already.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I heartily support the government's decision, although I think it is a little premature.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL    REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF TOLL COLLECTION OPERATIONS

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to motions and move as I did yesterday:
That the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be empowered to consider the toll collection operations on the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal, Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the motion is put, has the minister unanimous consent of the house to proceed with the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been put; I shall dispense with reading it again.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at this motion which, as the house knows, would empower the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to consider the toll collection operations at Jacques Cartier bridge. I would like to say, before I move an amendment, that I think the resolution as moved by the minister is

very anaemic. It is anaemic in this sense, that during the course of the investigation into toll operations at the Jacques Cartier bridge it was stated that a number of irregularities had taken place. That is why I say this resolution is anaemic.
If one considers the statements made by the minister, which appeared in the press at the time one can come to no other conclusion than that this is simply going to be a consideration of toll collection operations. If the statements made, as we read them in the press, are accurate, and the comments made by the minister are equally accurate, then it strikes me that the only way in which to consider this matter is by a judicial committee. Unfortunately I am not permitted by the rules of the house to move an amendment for the establishment of a judicial committee, because of certain rules which are well known to hon. members.
What I fear, and what we on this side of the house fear in connection with this investigation, if such it is going to be, is that we will again have a political consideration of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Hon. members may laugh, but the house and the country are quite familiar with the investigation which took place in the public accounts committee. They know full well how witnesses were browbeaten-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -and how the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member whether it is proper to reflect on actions taken by committees of the house. If any impropriety existed it should have been corrected at the time. I just raise the question whether it is not a breach of the privileges of the house to assume that committees of the house empowered to deal with these matters are going to misconduct themselves.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a perfect right to ask whether or not this investigation will be the same kind of investigation as that which took place in another committee, and that is exactly what I was asking. Because if that is the intention, then I submit with deference that what we should do is appoint a judicial committee to deal with the matter. Is there anything the minister has to say, or even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), in connection with a matter such as this where certain charges have been directed against operators? If that be the case-


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker-

Railways and Canals Committee Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member for Stor- hon. member may have some authority which mont (Mr. Campbell) rising on a point of says the contrary, but that is the principle order?	of debate as I see it.


Grant Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would, with all deference, ask that the statement of the hon. member for Laurier be withdrawn. I believe it is completely out of order, in that it contravenes citation 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, and more particularly subsection (mm), because it reflects on hon. members of this honourable house. I ask that the particular statement the hon. member has made about browbeaten witnesses be withdrawn forthwith.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the statement I made reflected on the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell).


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: If it did-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Stormont has raised a point of order and we should deal with it. It really is a question of privilege, I suppose.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be heard on the point of order? I repeat what I said earlier on the point of order. I was asking whether or not this investigation was to be similar to that which took place in another committee, with regard to which I made the statement that it was conducted in an irregular way.


Grant Campbell: That is a reflection on the members of this house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the point which has to be dealt with, whether the hon. member who is taking part in this debate on this motion is out of order in his reference to the conduct of a committee of this house. The reference which has been given in Beau-chesne by the hon. member for Stormont has to do with questions raised at question time on routine proceedings, and indicates that it is improper for a member to put a question which reflects on the character or conduct of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, members of either house of parliament or judges of the high court. That can only be dealt with on a substantive motion.
Perhaps some hon. member may be able to help me with this matter, but it seems to me that is the rule of debate here. If any member wishes to impute conduct which is improper, then it should be done by raising the question as a question in itself, on a motion. Otherwise one must concede to all members of the house that in the discussion of matters that arise, their conduct is in accordance with their responsibilities. The


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend is trying to do is make a request for a stricter kind of investigation than that which might be provided-


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps you could silence some of those lawyers to my left and across the way. Surely in making an appeal for this stricter judicial kind of inquiry the hon. member for Laurier is in order if he compares this kind of inquiry with that which has taken place in the past in a committee of this house, where the procedure was of a different kind than if there had been a judicial type of inquiry.


George Harris Hees: I am surprised at the perturbation of the hon. member for Laurier at the very idea that operations which were carried out during a period of 22 years under the government of which he was a member are going to be investigated by a committee of this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the minister would allow me to dispose of the point of order. I see the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) wishes to speak.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: In connection with the point of order I should like to refer to citation 149, page 127, which states:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 35: it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
- (k) reflect upon the past acts and proceedings of the house.
I submit that the reference made by the hon. member for Laurier was a reflection upon past acts and proceedings of the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingafe):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a statement on the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). This citation has reference to past acts and proceedings of the house. It does not have reference to the general conduct of proceedings in a committee. I would agree at once that it would apply if my friend the hon. member for Laurier had made any reflection on an individual member of that committee; but to suggest that freedom of speech is to be so abridged in this house and

Railways and Canals Committee that hon. gentlemen opposite have such thin skins that we cannot talk about the general conduct of a committee, which has always been done in the past in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is too bad that some of these freshmen had not been here some years ago. My friend the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) were here in the parliament of 1935. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Green) will remember this well. There was a certain inquiry instituted into the Bren gun contract and there was a debate in this house that went on for a very considerable time, in which a great deal was said about the way in which that committee had been carried out; and no one in the house was so thin skinned at that time as to raise trifling points of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the house does not want in any way to limit the freedom of speech in accordance with our procedure. I believe, however, it is well established that reflections on the conduct of an hon. member, whether in the house or in a committee of the house, would be out of order. If the matter of conduct arises it should be dealt with specifically as a matter in itself.
There is no reason why the hon. member for Laurier should not argue his point that the procedure proposed is ineffective. The only limitation I would ask him to observe is that he should not impute, by inference or directly, any impropriety to hon. members in their conduct in doing their duty as members.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, when they came in with the report of that committee they never asked the concurrence of the house, so we could not at the time discuss the matter. I think we should have the right to come back to it, because they did not give us a chance at the time to discuss the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to follow your ruling and shall continue with the amendment which I intend to move.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Stormont is rising again.


Mr. Campbell (Stormoni):: Mr. Speaker, with all deference the word used by the hon. member for Laurier was "browbeating". I believe this is a reflection upon the hon. members of last year's committee. I would ask, sir, with due deference, that this specific objectionable word be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall ask the hon. member for Laurier whether or not he feels he wants to modify his statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to continue my remarks if I may, Mr. Speaker, because if I understood-


Mr. Grafftey:: Be a man.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: I am just asking now if there is not a great deal of browbeating going on at this moment. I have been interrupted now about ten times.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier has the floor. I do not feel I should go farther than I have gone in view of what has been said so far; and as the hon. member has indicated the direction in which he is prepared to go I think he should proceed.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, sir, dealing with the amendment which I should like to move at this stage, there are one or two observations I should like to make. First, this is an exceptional motion in that the regular 48 hours' notice has not been given. Because of that fact it seems to me there should be greater scope given to the inquiry than that contained in the motion made by the minister. If there is reason to investigate the toll collection operations at Jacques Cartier bridge, it seems to me there is also reason to consider the toll collection operations at nearby Victoria bridge. After all, if there are reasons which exist in the one case those reasons exist in the other as well. If we do not consider the other case, then we will only be dealing with half the problem; and if there is anything to be investigated we on this side of the house feel that the whole problem should be considered at this time.
That is why I believe the scope of the investigation should be broad enough to contain a reference which would cover the operations of the other bridge. I know that when the matter is considered in the committee there are bound to be some hon. members who will rise and want to know what the position is with respect to the other bridge. They will want to know the methods by which tolls are collected on the other bridge. The chairman of the committee will be bound to say that the powers of reference of the committee do not include Victoria bridge and have reference only to Jacques Cartier bridge. Therefore it seems to me that the committee should be empowered to go further and consider the whole problem of the toll collection operations of these two bridges.
I said earlier that this is not the kind of investigation that we think the house should make, because such an investigation is bound to be an anaemic one. It seems to me that a judicial inquiry into a matter of

this kind should have been entered upon. I am precluded by the rules from moving an amendment to that effect, but I am going to move an amendment which will cover not only the toll collection operations on the Jacques Cartier bridge but that with respect to the Victoria bridge where the operations, as the house knows, are also carried on by Canadian National Railways, an emanation of the crown which reports to the house through the Minister of Transport. Therefore it would strike me that there should be no objection to the amendment.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill):
That the period be struck out and that a semicolon be substituted therefor, with the following added thereto:
"and at the Victoria bridge, Montreal, Quebec."


Mr. Speaker:: I have considerable doubt about the acceptability of the amendment, and the hon. member who has moved it has already indicated that he recognizes the limitations on amendments to motions of this kind. If I may refer the house to the citation that seems to be relevant, perhaps I might have some assistance in dealing with the amendment which has been moved. Citation 291 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, reads as follows:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given-
I interpolate that I think the principle would be the same because this motion is treated as though notice had been given, the house having given unanimous consent that it be proceeded with. I continue with the citation:
-for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
Then there are some examples, and at the foot of the page the following:
The Speaker ruled both amendments out of order on the ground that they raised new questions not contemplated in the notice of motion and proposed to extend the committee's powers far beyond those set down in the notice, and also that the necessity of giving notice will be nullified if such notice is not used as a guidance for the decision of the house.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to speak to his amendment from that point of view. The initial motion refers only to one bridge toll operation. It is true that his amendment deals with toll operations, but he seeks to add a reference to entirely different operations at another bridge.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to speak to the point of order, if I may. In answer to the query which Your Honour has raised in connection with citation 291, I would say that the amendment does not raise new questions.
Railways and Canals Committee The amendment deals with the same subject matter, namely consideration of the operation of toll collection on another bridge. The amendment is not in the nature of the two amendments referred to in citation 291. In the example given a motion was made that a committee be appointed to study the redistribution of electoral districts, and a member moved in amendment thereto that the methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise be investigated. Another amendment was moved covering the investigation of amounts of contributions over $100. These amendments were not germane to the matter before the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think I can shorten this whole discussion, if I may. The government is perfectly willing to accept this amendment. Provided the rules of the house are waived by unanimous consent to allow this amendment to be made, the government has no objection at all to having toll collection operations on the Victoria bridge investigated at the same time.
As hon. members know, the reason this motion is being put forward is that after automatic toll collection on Jacques Cartier bridge commenced there were considerable differences between the collections made by means of the automatic toll collection machinery and those that had been made manually. When the question was raised by a member of the house last fall and I was asked by the press whether, since the question had been raised by a member of the house, I was willing to have the matter go before a committee, I said immediately that I would be delighted to bring it before a committee at the first possible opportunity. I think hon. members will agree that this is the very first possible opportunity, and I took steps to see that it was done. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the way the matter stands.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier, I might add that I am very surprised to see how obviously worried he is-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order. I was dealing with a point of order and my hon. friend rose to interrupt me. He has no right to raise a point of order when one is under consideration. Therefore he is out of order. I have no objection to allowing the floor provided he abides by the rules of the house, but he has not been doing that.


An hon. Member:: What about you?

Railways and Canals Committee


Lionel Chevrier: If Your Honour wishes to hear me in connection with the point of order, I have come armed with precedents-


George Harris Hees: I will accept them.


Lionel Chevrier: *-but in view of the offer the minister has made to accept the amendment I assume you will be ready to dispense with my submission of these precedents.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a solution which commends itself to the Speaker, at least. If the house is prepared to accept the amendment, and apparently it is, then the question will stand with the amendment; and as the point of order is disposed of, the matter is open to debate. Does the minister wish to take part?


Mr. Fisher:: Does it have to be accepted unanimously?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; the motion would be amended by consent to incorporate the amendment of the hon. member for Laurier. I gather that the mover is prepared to accept that amendment to his motion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to express a point of view, since I was the one who made the original request. I see no reason at all for dragging the Victoria bridge into this, because we have the Canadian National officials before us every year and we can examine it then. Why we should confuse one situation with another situation is beyond me. As the person who asked for the original inquiry, I think the minister will confirm this, I think this will only confuse the issue.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On that point I want to say a few words. There is one special reason why the other bridge should be brought before us and that is that the same tickets were used at the two bridges, and the matter would be even more confused if the two were not studied at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to accept the motion with the amendment if the mover and seconder will incorporate those words in the motion. Then we are not accepting an amendment but we are accepting a motion which has incorporated what was proposed in the amendment, and the matter is open for discussion unless the house is ready for the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the question is put I should like to ask the minister concerned one question. Why is he so worried about accepting a stricter judicial inquiry into this matter?


George Harris Hees: I am not worried about anything. The one who is worried is the hon. member for Laurier.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apprehend that if the minister speaks to the motion now before the house he will close the debate. I should like to make a brief observation, so I think the minister should wait until others have spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: I should have warned the house that if the minister spoke he would close the debate. Does any other hon. member wish to speak?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I regret very much that this whole tone has been developed here today toward this committee, because I am the one-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will tell the hon. member why. I think committees of this house should try to do a good, fair job, and I am not going to start in a committee on the assumption that my colleagues on the committee are a bunch of hatchetmen. I will find that out when I get there, but I do not want to start out with that assumption.


Mr. Cresiohl:: A babe in the woods.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to say that I have been on several committees, and I have not been particularly impressed with the attitude of the people on the committee. It seems to me that to make a blanket condemnation of your colleagues with whom you are working on committees is prejudicing the work of the committees right from the start.
I certainly feel, from my experience on this particular committee, that we can do a job in this particular case, and I hope it is a quick job, a smart job and an honest job. I hope we clear up the whole thing. Hon. members of the official opposition are already creating an atmosphere which, in my opinion, is going to limit the possibility of the committee doing a good job.
When I asked for the inquiry I did not have it in mind that the previous Liberal administration had been at fault. All I am concerned with is whether or not there is an operation of the federal government about which there is some question. If there is, let us look into it and find out why it is not operating properly. Why we should have a judicial committee and remove another matter from investigation by members of parliament is beyond me. Our whole scope and authority is always being limited by royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry. If you cannot trust yourself and your own institutions, I think you might as well give up the institutions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad indeed that I yielded the floor to the hon. member for Port Arthur. I should like to address myself precisely to the points he has made, which were points that I intended to make in any case. I have some concern, myself, about supporting this motion for one reason, and one reason only. It is this. From what I have read in public print, and I know nothing else whatever about this matter, there seems to be an imputation that there was some wrongdoing of a criminal character in this matter. If there was wrongdoing of a criminal character, or even if there was a prima facie case, it was the duty of the Minister of Transport or his officials to take action in the law courts.
Now, this house is not a criminal court, nor is any committee of this house a criminal court, and they should not be substituted for the criminal courts. I think it would be very wrong for us to do that. If the Minister of Transport can get up when he closes the debate and assure us that to the best of his knowledge-and that is all we can ask of him-he has no reason to feel that any criminal charges whatever should have been laid, then I shall vote for this motion. If the minister has any doubts in his mind on that point it does seem to me that those doubts should be resolved first before this house is asked to enter upon an inquiry which may prejudice the fair trial of people who may be subsequently charged in a criminal court action. I can imagine no one who would agree with this argument more than the right hon. gentleman who is at the present time the head of the government of our country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George Harris Hees: I should like to assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I made a very clear statement, both to the press and over television, last fall when I was asked about this; that the special team of investigators used from time to time by the harbours board to look over toll collection operations on Jacques Cartier bridge, and also the R.C.M.P., had reported to the harbours board that nothing upon which criminal charges could be laid was evident. I made that very clear. I requested that this matter be brought before a committee of this house so this whole matter could be aired, brought into the open and into the light. That is the sole purpose of calling this committee and putting this matter before it for study.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member for Laurier should be
Railways and Canals Committee obviously worried about this committee examining this particular matter. Perhaps it might be that the operations of this bridge were for 22 years under a government of which he was a member. In his remarks he referred to the fact that this committee might not operate properly, and referred to the investigation that was made-a very thorough investigation-into the printing bureau. Perhaps this remark reflects the feeling of the former government that there might be some pain, some upset because a great many things that were done under their government were brought to light by the investigation of that committee. I want to assure him that we on this side of the house have faith in the members of this house and the fact that we can carry out committee operations successfully, objectively and well.


Lionel Chevrier: We will see.


George Harris Hees: I do not blame him-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Answer the question.


George Harris Hees: I do not blame him for feeling that perhaps committee operations do not always work well, since he was a member of a government under which they did not, because of the kind of thing he has imputed to this government in the operation of committees and which certainly did happen when his government was in power. Of course his memory goes back to those days.


Lionel Chevrier: Just ask the Prime Minister what he thinks of that committee.


George Harris Hees: I can tell him that this government believes in the members of this house and in their ability to operate well and objectively in carrying out their duties on committees. I assure him that under this government, different from the government of which he was a member, the only objective in calling the committee together and having the matter investigated is to get all the possible information laid before the public and the members of this house so they can be properly enlightened as to exactly what did occur.
That is the objective and the only objective of calling this committee to examine this matter and any other matter that is ever brought before any committee which is called together by this Conservative government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I am seeking to ask
the minister a question before the minister takes his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
76G

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like, out of the
mass of verbiage, to ask him whether I was right in understanding him to say that he has found no ground whatsoever for any criminal charge.


George Harris Hees: I have not said that, and the
hon. member knows it. I have said that the two groups that investigated the toll collection operation on this bridge-the special team of which the hon. member for Laurier is familiar, he having been minister of transport, and the R.C.M.P.-have reported to the national harbours board that in their investigations, in their opinion, there was no evidence that would support criminal charges. In this committee hearing, if anything is brought to light by any means whatsoever that would indicate that criminal charges should be laid, I can assure the hon. member and members of this house that I will see to it that those criminal charges are laid.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit
one more question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will he also give the assurance that the moment any prima facie evidence is found against any person by that committee, if it does, the investigation of that part of the case will be concluded and the charges will be laid so the case will not be prejudged in advance?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am glad
to be able to give that assurance. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has assured me, that is something that has often happened in the past with parliamentary committees.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Labour whether he could now give me the latest figures he has of the number of unplaced applicants, people looking for jobs, in addition to the 755,000 now looking for work?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: have this information available but I am sorry to say, I did not bring it with me into the house. I will give it to the hon. member on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister not give it to us in the committee this afternoon when the supplementary estimate comes up for consideration?


Michael Starr: If questions are asked in committee on a matter over which my department has jurisdiction, I am always ready and available to answer any questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a supplementary question. As the orders of the day are just now starting, could the Minister of Labour signify to his staff in the gallery that they get this figure, which must be on his desk, so the house and the country may have it as quickly as possible?


Michael Starr: I could signify, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know whether the signal would be caught.
[Later:1


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, over half an hour has elapsed since I put my question to the minister. Is he now in a position to give me the latest figures with respect to unplaced applicants for jobs?


Michael Starr: I have not yet received the information, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order, with due deference to the great experience of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I bow to the hon. member's great experience, but I bow to no one in my regard for the rules of this house. I believe the hon. gentleman's question is completely out of order under the terms of citation 171, paragraph (ff) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which provides as follows:
A question oral or written must not (ff) seek information set forth in documents equally accessible to questioner, as statutes, published reports, etc.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order. The information that I have asked the Minister of Labour to give for the fourth time and on the fourth consecutive day is not available to hon. members of this house. The information for which I have asked is available only to the unemployment insurance commission and the Minister of Labour. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) takes the position he does, coming from Cornwall, a city where there is much unemployment. I am sure he views this situation with as much alarm as do other hon. gentlemen in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could tell me what document provides the information which the minister is asked to supply.


Michael Starr: This, Mr. Speaker, is operational information put out by the unemployment

insurance commission. I have gone to great lengths to obtain the information which hon. gentlemen have asked for in this regard. The only point now raised by the hon. member for Essex East is that he has asked for this operational information for the week ending January 21. I explained to him earlier today that I have that information in my office but unfortunately I did not bring it with me into the house.


Mr. Speaker:: As the point of order has been raised and the hon. member is entitled to have it dealt with, can the minister tell me if the information is contained in a public document which is available to all hon. members?


Michael Starr: It is a confidential document, sir.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a most important matter, Mr. Speaker. The minister say he has the information available but he has not yet been able to bring it into the house in spite of the fact that I asked for it over a half hour ago. Will the minister undertake to give that information to the house before the adjournment at six o'clock tonight?


Michael Starr: The same answer applies that I gave to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when he asked a similar question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister, what was the answer to that question?


Michael Starr: It is on the record.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Why don't you pay attention?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question affecting the privileges of this house. The Minister of Finance, by the way, ought to show more interest in this problem than he does.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure why the hon. member is on his feet. The point of order has been disposed of and I should like to get on with orders of the day, unless there is some further question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this matter lies in the fact that shortly we will be asked to discuss supplementary estimates covering the Department of Labour and the winter works program. That is why it is important. We should have the latest information before we begin that examination.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not questioning its importance. Was there any ambiguity in the answer that requires further explanation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was certainly ambiguity. I asked a question and the
Inquiries of the Ministry minister gave an answer which I am sure even Your Honour could not possibly have understood. I asked the minister half an hour ago if he would give us certain figures which he said he had at his disposal. Over half an hour has elapsed and the minister has not brought them forward. I suggest to you that when an hon. member asks a minister of the crown for information which he says he is willing to give, the hon. gentleman is not within the rules of the house in making the kind of reply that he has just given to another hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East knows very well that the rules do not entitle members to disagree with or disapprove of answers which are given in response to their questions. As a matter of fact the practice is that the minister is not obliged to answer at all. If he wishes to take the question as notice and answer later he may do so, but in fact he is not obliged to give any answer at all. Nor is it within the competence of members to comment on the absence of an answer, according to the practice set out in Beauchesne. The hon. member will find that stated there. The minister did give an answer to the last question, and unless there is a supplementary question-


Paul Joseph James Martin: With all due respect, he did not. I asked him if he would produce the figures before six o'clock. The hon. gentleman made some reply, but he did not address himself to that particular question.


Mr. Fulton:: He does not have to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will these figures be produced before six o'clock?


Michael Starr: I gave an answer to a similar question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was willing enough to understand because he did not ask a supplementary question and accepted my answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are afraid to produce them.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East has just said-this is a question of privilege-that I am afraid to produce this figure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Michael Starr: I am not. When the hon. member sat on this side of the house these figures were not produced when questions were asked seeking such information, because this is a confidential document. I have gone far this session, without any fear of any of the frontbenchers on the other side, to produce these

Inquiries of the Ministry figures. I have done this as a matter of cooperation. The hon. member is taking advantage of this situation. I want to point out to the hon. member that I need no direction from him regarding the administration of either the Department of Labour or the unemployment insurance commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, since you have allowed the Minister of Labour to make some comment I should like to have the same privilege, with your permission.


Mr. Churchill:: It was a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Labour rose on a question of privilege and the hon. member for Essex East can speak to that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Labour that when I suggested that he was afraid to produce these figures I was influenced only by his own attitude. If the minister has these figures, as he says he has, will he not undertake to produce them to the house before six o'clock tonight; or is he so concerned about the rising unemployment figure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A shocking abuse of the rules of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say at this point, and I hope the question of privilege is disposed of, that this periodic inquiry for figures from the Department of Labour is of course a proper inquiry to be made, but if hon. members will put the matter in perspective I think they will appreciate that it is consuming a great deal of the time of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the fault of the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The fault of your intelligence.


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member for Essex East presses for the production of the figures at this particular moment and the minister indicates that he will produce them on Monday, then it seems to me there is not sufficient justification for the time spent on this matter this morning.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND NONOPERATING EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Did the minister receive a request from the chairman of the joint negotiating committee of the non-operating railway unions for the


appointment of a conciliation board to deal with the wage dispute between themselves and the railways? Can the minister tell the house at this time who the members of the board will be?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received a request from the committee representing the nonoperating employees, requesting the appointment of a conciliation board. I am not as yet in a position to give to the house the personnel of that board. A period of seven days is allowed in which to grant that request.


Lionel Chevrier: May I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether, in view of that dispute, he will lift the freeze on railway freight rates which was announced in the house some time ago?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, any matter of government policy will be announced in the usual way and not in response to questions such as this.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY GRANTS    REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Earlier this week I asked the Prime Minister whether he would be good enough to table the correspondence with the premiers of the provinces in connection with university grants. He said that he would see whether consent had been obtained and would reply the next day. Is the Prime Minister able to tell us now?


John George Diefenbaker: I said that I would give an answer the next day. All the provinces have not yet replied to the original letter containing the government proposal. Furthermore, while the request was sent to the provinces asking whether the premiers had any objection to the correspondence being tabled, several provinces have not yet answered stating that they have no objections.



NATIONAL GALLERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I apologize for not having given her notice, but my question is prompted by certain telephone calls which

I received just before I came into the house. It is not concerned with robbery but with snobbery.
In view of the widespread dissatisfaction felt with the present arrangements for the opening of the national gallery, can the minister inform the house whether the trustees of the national gallery have recognized this widespread dissatisfaction and made other arrangements which will make it possible for hundreds who have been invited, and who are not able to attend under the present arrangements, to attend.
I hope the minister will elucidate to a greater extent that she did the last time she answered the question.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I can understand the great interest there is in the opening of the gallery, and I must say it pleases the government to know that there is such interest; but I suggest to the hon. member that the walls are not made of elastic. All hon. members who wish to view the gallery are at liberty to do so at any time from the opening onward, but the actual arrangements, as I said the other day, are in the hands of the trustees. I understand that some of the arrangements were dictated by the limitation of the physical facilities of the gallery and the fact that there is not unlimited space.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Is this a new form of means test?



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the controversy created by the proposal of a New Brunswick coal operator to introduce a strip mining operation in the Cape Breton area, has the minister instructed the dominion coal board to study the effect such an operation may have on the employment conditions of coal miners in the area concerned?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I did not make this request to the dominion coal board. I must say that I have not been informed about such representations. I am sure however, that anybody who will ask Mr. Justice Rand to be heard, will be heard, at such a date, such a time and such a place as may be convenient. Mr. Justice Rand has a free hand in conducting his investigation or inquiry. If he sees fit to obtain information or representations from the dominion coal board 79951-0-49
Inquiries of the Ministry he has full authority to do so, and to get evidence from any civil servant or any agency. I shall be happy to co-operate in that way to the fullest possible extent.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked me a question with respect to the audience research survey which had been instituted by the C.B.C. I am advised that the results of that survey will be made available this coming Monday.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question on the matter of the report of the audience research group. Will the minister inform us, when that report is ready, as to whether there is any difference between this particular report and the report made at Winnipeg by Mrs. Aitkens?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not in a position to answer that question.



STATEMENT ON INQUIRY AS TO SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) asked me on Wednesday with respect to a simultaneous translation system which might be instituted for roundtable panel discussions. I am advised that no final decision has been taken with respect to the use of simultaneous translation on panel or discussion programs on the French network of the C.B.C., where one or more of the participants may speak or understand English only. The matter is under close study, but before a final decision can be reached experimental work on a closed circuit will be necessary. There is no indication as to when a final decision may be arrived at.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to press reports it is obvious that the post offices are regularly robbed not only from outside but from inside as well. Can the minister inform the house whether he
770	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry intends to implement immediate and new security measures in order to protect public money and property?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I seem to find a note of familiarity in that question. Is it not precisely the same question the hon. member has asked three times this session?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, robberies have taken place in the last week and it seems that nothing has been done yet. I am afraid that no new security measure has been taken by the Postmaster General-maybe he could change his mind-according to what we read in the newspaper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order raised by Your Honour may I say this. I perhaps should remind you that it is precisely the question that was asked in a previous parliament by the hon. gentleman who is now the Postmaster General.


An hon. Member:: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that your point is that continuous rep-ition of a question is not of great value to this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was also done by the hon. gentleman.


William McLean Hamilton: think it is fair to point out in that connection -because the point has been made previously that "we are merely following tradition"- at the time these previous questions were being asked by me on the orders of the day, in four years I referred to only three robberies. In one case it required four questions on four successive days before the minister would produce an answer. In the succeeding year there were two robbery questions in different months, for a total of three robberies. There were many robberies, of course, but these were the only specific instances in which information was requested on orders of the day. To date the hon. member for St. Denis is now on his ninth separate and distinct robbery question in two years.
I think this situation points out how valid is your point of view, Mr. Speaker, that this question is being asked day after day on minor cases of robbery and thus wasting unnecessarily the time of the house.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I agree with the Postmaster General that this is what was done before, but this happened last weekend. I think it is a question of urgency and that something should be done. This delay on the part of the Postmaster General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No one wants to prevent the amiable hon. member for St. Denis from pursuing his public duties, but it seems to me he has sufficiently impressed his point on the Postmaster General and he might now give him the chance to deal with the matter and reserve his further discussion for the estimates, when the matter can be fully debated.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform us whether he believes that postal robbers have entered into a conspiracy against him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the questioner is probably not expecting a serious answer.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the uncertain and discouraging situation confronting the uranium industry, and the announcement recently made that perhaps more than 2,000 people will be laid off their jobs at Elliot lake shortly, will the minister not reconsider even now the establishment of the nuclear research centre in that district?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition keeps raising this question as a suggested solution to a problem which has arisen in the uranium industry. I do not think it is a solution at all. I think the Leader of the Opposition, representing that constituency, should come forward with a much better suggestion. He is not unfamiliar with the area, and he is not unfamiliar with the people at the head of the uranium industry operating there. I think there is considerable responsibility on the uranium industry itself to provide for people who might be temporarily displaced from their positions. We have not yet had a report as to the changes which will take place in the mines within that area, and until we get the full information it is quite useless to suggest that some sudden change in plans with regard to nuclear research should take place to affect Elliot lake. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition might activate himself a little bit with regard to his own constituency.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is not the minister aware of the fact that the responsibility for the situation at Elliot lake, and at other centres of the uranium industry, is squarely on the



I960

[Stage Direction]
doorstep of the government, which made no serious effort to get the United States to take up their options?
Gordon Minto Churchill: The responsibility for the overdevelopment of the uranium industry in Canada rests squarely on my hon. friends opposite. They were-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry you will not let me finish, Mr. Speaker, because-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the questions and answers are taking on all the characteristics of a debate, and it might well be left at that point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister report to the house on the statement of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested that the subject matter was taking the character of a debate and might be dropped.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Leader of the Opposition, under the guise of asking a question, undertook to unburden himself of two statements, and both those statements-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am speaking to a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am hearing the minister on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Both those statements are utterly untrue and completely without fact or foundation. Mr. Speaker, in view of that fact, and in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition broke the rules of the house by making statements, which were misstatements, under the guise of asking a question, I submit with respect that my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce ought to be permitted to reply and complete the answer he was giving in order to straighten out the record and put the truth on the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I asked the minister a question regarding the site of a nuclear research establishment. I asked whether, in view of the situation of the uranium industry, that decision could not be reconsidered. That is all I asked him, as Hansard will show. Then the minister got up and started to make some political observations as to the responsibility for the situation in the uranium industry, and he suggested that we were responsible. Surely when he made that observation in reply to a 79951-0-49J
Inquiries of the Ministry straight question I was entitled, notwithstanding the irascible remarks of the Minister of Finance, to put the position as I saw it, I put that position on the basis of facts not on the basis of untrue statements such as we have just heard from the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is some merit in both the observations regarding the point of order. That was the reason I suggested that the matter had assumed the character of a debate. I am not going to pursue it by indicating who started it or who finished it. There has been some argument on both sides, and I suggest that the matter be closed.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the deep concern of my people, and the people of Manitoba in general, created by the repeated efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to steal our nuclear research centre, I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce can assure us that it will be located at White-shell in Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the last part of the question. The first part seemed to be a little irrelevant and certainly contrary to the rules.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce can assure us that the nuclear research centre will be located at Whiteshell, Manitoba?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that is a fair question. The first part certainly indicates the unpopularity of the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba. I think the answer to the question is yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind this trivial observation on the part of the minister, but perhaps the rules should be observed by the front bench of the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I bring_____


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Springfield initiated, or reinitiated, the controversial motif of this question. I hope he will not do it again.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to your attention the ruling you handed down a few days ago, which is to be found at page 611 of Hansard and which members of the treasury benches have clearly ignored this morning on several occasions.


An hon. Member:: How about you?


Lionel Chevrier: I follow the rules.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The ones you make yourself.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that there have been infractions of the rule against introducing argumentative matter, and I hope hon. members will take correction in good part.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I trust I may be in order; I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. You ruled a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Osias.-J. Godin: -the uranium situation in my constituency should not be discussed in further questions. As a representative from northern Ontario I have noticed that during the question period hon. members have been trying to obtain information on matters which interest them in various areas. For example, the coal problem has been discussed recently day after day, and so has the grain problem-


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a question to ask?


Osias.-J. Godin: I was trying to get information through you, Mr. Speaker, on whether I might ask the question which a moment ago you stated would not be permitted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member needs no permission if he is asking a proper question.


Osias.-J. Godin: The question is, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the light of his answer yesterday that if he was given grounds he would take into consideration the news of the lay-off of the 2,000 men, explain to hon. members of this house how his government and party could consider the Liberal government in the past-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member surely does not expect an answer to the second part of the question. Perhaps he may not be familiar enough with the rules to appreciate that this is not the type of question to be asked. As to the first part, if the minister wishes to deal with it I would have no objection.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is difficult to deal with a question like that which covers so much territory and makes certain insinuations which are contrary to the facts. But let me say that I have every sympathy, and that the government has every sympathy, with those concerned with the situation at Elliot lake, and that steps are being taken to make sure that the people there will not suffer unduly from the changes that are taking place in the uranium industry, changes for which we are not responsible.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW TRANSATLANTIC ORGANIZATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is based on a statement made in Paris by the under secretary of state for the United States, Mr. Douglas Dillon, to the effect that the United States would look with favour on proposals for a new trans-Atlantic organization in which Canada would have full membership. Can the minister inform the house whether any negotiations are now in progress toward the establishment of such an organization?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there are general discussions under way, but I cannot give any report about definite negotiations on such a subject.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I regret that I was unable to send him notice of the question, but possibly he will take this as notice. Could the minister inform the house the reason for the delay in commencing the low rental housing project in Brantford, Ontario?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any delay, and I believe the hon. member must be mistaken.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REPORTED STATEMENT BY ONTARIO PREMIER RESPECTING FEDERAL GRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to answer a question. Has his attention been directed to a statement by the premier of Ontario, who apparently is not satisfied with the arrangements of the minister's study group or with the proposed federal-provincial conference? Has the minister any comment to make on Premier Frost's statement that he still feels that Ontario, to be equitably treated by the federal government, will require an additional amount of $100 million each year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to the first question is no. Accordingly the second question does not follow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister not think the premier of Ontario has a strong claim in view of the promises made by the Prime Minister at the beginning-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Essex East, whose experience no one can contradict, not getting intcf an argumentative topic when he asks such a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. gentlemen opposite would give the opposition the opportunity of putting questions so that Your Honour could hear what was being said, there would be no difficulty. I asked the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with the statement of the premier of his own province that Ontario is entitled, as the result of statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada, to another $100 million each year from the federal treasury.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that whatever claims the premier of the province of Ontario thinks are justified can best be handled, and the federal government's position in this matter can best be put forward, without the assistance of these trumped-up matinee performances put on by the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask the
trumped-up Minister of Finance whether he intends to accept the proposal made by the premier of Ontario? This is a serious matter; or does the minister regard it as a matter which is not to be taken seriously?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I only regard my
dear friend, the hon. member for Essex East, as someone who should not be taken seriously.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I
suggest to you that the Minister of Finance ought to be asked to withdraw that remark at once.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a question of
privilege, but certainly it was not a factual statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of
privilege, with great respect I insist that the hon. member for Essex East is a very dear friend.


Peter Francis Martin: I should like
to press this matter. I cannot accept that there is an established basis of friendship in the replies the minister has given me this morning. May I ask him whether he will take this matter seriously and tell the house
Inquiries of the Ministry whether or not he proposes to take steps to provide this additional money to the province of Ontario, in accordance with promises made by the present right hon. Prime Minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The promises made by the Prime Minister have been carried out most scrupulously in every respect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but I was just going to ask the Prime Minister whether, talking of promises, he was going to introduce the abolition of closure.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister):	I think the suggestion certainly
has merit, having regard to what has happened here this morning and the attitude of the opposition in asking frivolous questions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister indicate when he will move to set up the special committee on defence expenditures?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, at the rate we have been proceeding this morning I must say I cannot give any anticipated date. Certainly if we get on with the business of the house, instead of wasting the time of the house as we have been this morning, then the government will be in a position to bring about those things that are necessary for the welfare of the country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the committee will be established in sufficient time to allow ample and full discussion of defence expenditures and policy before the government comes to the house to ask for interim supply for next year's expenditures?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is one portion of that question which I must immediately answer. This committee is not to be set up to consider policy. Its function will be to consider expenditures. We will be able to announce the setting up of this committee as soon as the matters now being considered, and those that have yet to be considered by parliament, have received attention. Again I point out, sir, that over an hour and a half

Inquiries of the Ministry has been taken up this morning in questions, many of which were as frivolous as they were unnecessary and unjustified.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the proposed committee be refused the right to inquire into policy matters arising out of expenditures?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the committee will deal with expenditures in the manner and along the line of committees set up by the previous government. I have already pointed out that Mr. St. Laurent, the then prime minister, indicated the limitations that must necessarily be maintained under our constitutional system of government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister give this matter the same urgent attention as that which was given to the committee which has already been established, which was referred to and which took up so much time of the house earlier in the day?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Tuesday of this week I asked whether action would be taken along the lines requested by Larry Sefton, director of district 6 of the united steelworkers of America, asking that severance pay for unemployed workers be not considered as regular income in the provision of unemployment insurance, and a further request for assistance with respect to family transportation for persons out of work. The Prime Minister said he would take the question as notice and provide an answer next day. I suggest to the Prime Minister that this is an urgent matter. I hope it has already been given consideration and that action will be forthcoming. I would ask him if he is in a position to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the question could be most effectively answered by the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia I might say that I received a similar telegram from Mr. Sefton, and I have now replied to him on these matters. The gist of my reply was that the unemployment insurance commission had advised me that severance pay is governed by the regulations

now in effect, Nos. 172 and 173. As long as these regulations are in effect nothing can be done to implement his suggestion. I pointed out to him that these regulations are being submitted to the unemployment insurance advisory committee for consideration.
The unemployment insurance commission also advised me that they are providing a special service to facilitate taking in claims and applications for employment. The national employment service people are watching the situation very closely and when circumstances warrant, are prepared to*provide family transportation to new employment under their direction. They are intensifying their efforts to locate job openings for mining personnel elsewhere in Canada, and these efforts will continue.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is important that discussion of this discrimination in the unemployment insurance provisions in relation to severance pay should be acted upon immediately. Can the minister say when a decision about the rescinding of these regulations is likely to be made?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have impressed upon the unemployment insurance commission the necessity and the urgency of calling this committee together as quickly as possible. As to their findings in respect of these two regulations, it will remain for the members of the committee to reach a decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say when the committee will be called together?


Michael Starr: The unemployment insurance commission has advised me that it is endeavouring to do that as quickly as possible. It is communicating with the chairman so that he may call the committee together. I made a point last week of stressing the importance of this matter.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Health of animals division-
611. Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $830,000.
Mr. Nesbitl:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this item of the supplementary estimates concerning the health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture and compensation for animals slaughtered.
At this point I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture for what he has done in this regard. When the brucellosis control program was introduced in the province of

Ontario in 1958 the compensation for animals slaughtered under the regulations was quite inadequate and out of date. In July of 1958 the house passed legislation recommended by the minister which increased the compensation paid for animals slaughtered. At the same time it made the compensation retroactive to April 1, 1958. This was a splendid move by the minister, I might say, and was greatly appreciated by all concerned.
However, one rather unfortunate thing took place which I should like to bring to the minister's attention again at this time. The brucellosis control program was introduced in the province of Ontario in 1958, as I have already mentioned, and the control was designed to be province-wide. The first two counties where the program was started were the counties of Oxford and Prince Edward.
During the month of March, 1958 veterinarians of the federal Department of Agriculture went around examining animals in these two counties, and a number of animals in both counties were found to be reactors and were ordered to be slaughtered. A number of farmers in both counties, anxious to cooperate with the government's program in this respect, complied immediately with the request of the veterinarians and sent the animals to be slaughtered. As a result, 48 farmers in the county of Oxford and 16 in the county of Prince Edward sent their animals to be slaughtered prior to March 31 of that year. As a result those farmers did not receive the increased rate of compensation that the rest of the farmers in their own counties received, and indeed that the rest of the farmers in the province of Ontario received.
I realize that the minister has considerable difficulty in this regard, because he was good enough to recommend legislation to make these payments retroactive and which, included the counties which entered this program at an early stage. I have already thanked the minister for that because it was a good piece of legislation. I realize also that by making this legislation for increased payments retroactive to April the minister took it back to the beginning of the fiscal year. I realize that is something that probably had to be done. However, it seems to me rather unfair, on the face of it, that a few farmers in these two counties, chiefly because they chose to cooperate with the program with great alacrity, should be penalized.
That is in effect what has happened. Those farmers whose animals were condemned in March, 1958 and who, for one reason or another, did not send the animals in to be
Supply-Agriculture
slaughtered until April, received the compensation. Those who sent their animals in right away did not get the increased compensation. It does seem to me rather unfair to these people in these two counties. I think you have to look at this question as a facet of the larger picture. The plan in Ontario was to make the whole province free of brucellosis. The fact that each county decided to carry out this program at a different time I think is an inmportant aspect of the whole picture. A few farmers, for the reasons I have stated, missed out on the increased compensation.
I believe this fact could be considered, and I hope the minister will give further consideration to it. I believe the estimated cost is approximately $3,800 in the county of Oxford and approximately $1,600 in the county of Prince Edward. I am fully aware of the argument the minister has advanced, and I can see the logic of it. It is that since the brucellosis control program had been under way in isolated areas in other parts of the country, some in Prince Edward Island and some out west, in 1956 and 1957, if these payments were made retroactive to a greater degree those areas would have to be taken into consideration as well.
I do not believe I can agree with that, in view of the fact that these were isolated instances and there was not a province-wide program. In the instances to which I refer in Ontario they were part of a program for the entire province. It has been suggested to me that perhaps other hon. members representing other parts of the country might object if these payments were made to these few farmers in Prince Edward and Oxford counties. I feel that any fair-minded person from any other part of the country would not object to these payments being made, in view of the circumstances, and would not insist that the government make this compensation retroactive to 1956. In view of the fact all parts of the country are represented in this house-I do not want to sound like the minister at a wedding-I would say that if any of them have any objections to these payments they should speak now, otherwise their silence could be taken as assent.
I realize it would be awkward for the minister to recommend further legislation in connection with this matter, but I do not believe that would be necessary. Perhaps the minister can correct me on that. In view of the fact that this increased compensation has been authorized by statute I believe the payments could be made by means of a supplementary estimate. I just put this to the minister in the hope that he will give it further consideration.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Harkness:: The difficulties in connection with this matter, Mr. Chairman, are the same difficulties which exist when any cut-off date is put into legislation for any purpose. There are always some people who are just beyond the cut-off date, in some cases by a day, in some cases by a week, and in some cases by a month. The people who have failed to secure the extra compensation as a result of having their cattle slaughtered a few days before the increased rate of compensation became effective naturally feel they should be entitled to as much as the people whose cattle were slaughtered after that date. Of course the same thing applies in any sort of program under which public funds are being paid out and in which a cut-off date exists.
These particular cattle in Oxford county cannot be considered by themselves. They in fact would not be the only ones affected by setting back the date. There would be cattle in several provinces in Canada that would be affected by this action. The date after which the increased amount of compensation for animals slaughtered was to be effective was contained in legislation put through this house in June or July. We set the date back at that time to the beginning of the financial year. I do not believe we can go any farther than that. It would be completely unfair to make a special payment to the farmers in Oxford county, whom the hon. member is representing, and not make it to farmers in other provinces across Canada who had cattle slaughtered in that same period.
If we set the date back one week or two weeks, whatever the case might be, there would immediately be a demand, and a justified demand, that we should set it back another two weeks or two months. I believe once you have set a date in a matter of this kind it is not good policy, and is not fair to everybody concerned across the country, to set it back another week at a subsequent time in order to take in a few persons who feel that they were just cut out by the date set at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understood the hon. member for Oxford to say that this was confined to the county of Oxford, or to areas immediately adjacent to that county.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Prince Edward county as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says it applies in many places and counties. I wonder what the facts are, those stated by the Minister of Agriculture or by the hon. member for Oxford.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Oxford was talking about the brucellosis eradication program in the province of Ontario, but this

brucellosis eradication program has been going on since April of 1957. He mentioned that one of the first places to go into the complete eradication program was Prince Edward Island. There would, as a result, be a considerable number of people who had cattle slaughtered as part of the brucellosis testing program prior to this date. In addition, animals slaughtered for any purpose would have to be considered. It would not be fair to say those people who had cattle slaughtered as part of the brucellosis program will be paid, but their neighbours who had cattle slaughtered as part of the tuberculosis program will not be paid. You would have to make it applicable to animals that were slaughtered for any purpose under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
I should like to make a brief statement in connection with the reasons for the increased amount of money needed under this vote at this particular time. The expenditures for the brucellosis eradication program have increased very materially during the past several months. As I stated a month ago, the program was started in April of 1957, but during the past eight or nine months particularly the demand on the part of various counties and municipalities for the program to be put into effect has increased greatly as the realization grew throughout the country of the necessity for and the value of this eradication program. As a result we have carried on a great deal more testing than the experience up to the past several months would indicate would have been the case. As a result of the great increase in the amount of testing there is the necessity for this increased vote.
Of course the faster this is done, the better for the cattle industry and for the human population of this country, and actually the cheaper in the long run the whole program will be to accomplish. Also part of the increase is due to the fact that we were obliged to put into effect a new scrapie control program in August, I believe it was, of this year-it was either August or September, but I believe it was in August-in view of the fact that several of the American states had placed embargoes on Canadian sheep and lamb going into those areas on the basis that our scrapie program in Canada was not as stringent as that in the United States. In order to ensure that those markets were reopened and would remain open to our sheep and lamb people, we were obliged to increase the stringency of our scrapie regulation, a matter which involved considerably increased numbers of sheep and lambs being slaughtered.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say a few words on this particular item. As the committee may know, we have had in Timiska-ming a serious outbreak of rabies which has involved some rethinking, I believe, in connection with our rabies control program. I do not know how many cases there were last year in the southern ridings, particularly in Grey, Bruce and Wellington, but I understand that serious outbreaks have taken place in that area. In my opinion they do not get enough publicity and are not discussed widely enough so that the general public is given enough information to enable them to protect themselves.
As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, this fall a child in the Port Credit area died from being bitten or scratched by a skunk; and because the parents did not know that this skunk could be rabid or was rabid, they did not take the precaution of seeing that the child had the inoculations which are necessary in such a case and of course the child died.
Many people do not realize that if you are bitten by a rabid animal of any kind, or if you come in contact with a cow that has been bitten and is rabid, you are in danger. If you come in contact with the saliva of that cow and it enters into a cut or an abrasion, unless you are given needles you will die, so I am told, one of the most horrible deaths possible. I am told that the disease affects your brain and your muscular system, and that death from this cause is probably as painful as any of which we know.
I spoke to a gentleman in my area who had a cow die. He informed me that just shortly before she died

and one of the problems is that we have to let them die in order to be sure they have rabies-she tore the stanchion out of the cement floor, broke the chain on that stanchion, took one of her horns and put a half-inch gouge in the cement floor, and finally lifted up four or five inches of concrete when she came to a place where there was a crack in the floor. After having seen what happened and having been exposed himself he said there was no question on his part, or on the part of the members of his family who had been in contact with this animal, with respect to going to the doctor and getting the 14 needles in the stomach muscles that are necessary to prevent any chance of them getting rabies themselves.
I think this matter must be discussed. I believe it should be given more public attention because of the danger from the disease. In this recent outbreak in Timisk-aming I found that many farmers were willing 79951-0-50
Supply-Agriculture
to cover up the fact that one of their animals had been bitten and exposed to the disease for the simple reason that they did not understand what the Department of Agriculture is doing in this field; they did not understand the length of quarantine that would take place.
Then there is the question of cost. Everybody who was exposed to the disease had to take these needles and considerable cost resulted. While the governments, provincial and federal, provide free serum for the inoculations, I am told by the doctors in my area that the cost of each needle is $2. It is necessary to take at least 14 needles and in some cases up to 21. If there are four or five members of the family the expense involved amounts to well over $200. Having regard to the fact that in some of the communities in my area the people are 150 miles away from the doctor, if they must be brought out to the doctor every day this situation could be a calamity for many who might be affected.
It would appear that in Timiskaming this outbreak was not a reinfection caused by the moving north, as was asserted, of a number of people from the southern area. It appears that there was very little of the disease in the area when the outbreak took place in Timiskaming; there was no case known, according to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I asked the hon. member for Nipissing. He did not know of any case in Nipissing. I discussed the matter with a number of veterinarians, and learned that there have been very few cases since 1955 in the area between the counties of Bruce, Grey and others and Timiskaming. It would therefore appear that a great deal more work has to be done in our particular area on this subject by the department so this disease may be controlled in other ways than those by which we have been controlling it.
To anybody who came to the conclusion that it was not spread from one area to another it would be obvious that it must be maintained in any area by a carrier agent. It has been suggested in countries like Germany that this carrier agent can be an animal or even a bird, and that while these agents do not themselves develop the disease and may not even be susceptible to it, they may act as a carrier and infect other animals.


Jacques Flynn: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Agriculture AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the noon recess I mentioned one particular case I knew of where the cow had had rabies and had torn a stanchion out of a cement floor, and some of the Conservative members doubted this would be possible. I can only say that I have repeated the story as I heard it from the farmer, and I might also point out that the cows in northern Ontario could be tougher than those in other places. This will sometimes be borne out when we buy some meat from the local dairy herds; some of these cows are pretty tough.
In this matter of rabies which we were discussing, the problem has been with us in Canada for some time, and according to the best information we have received from the local vets and the department of veterinarians, they are of the opinion that this will be a continuing problem in our area. Therefore we are very concerned about it.
I have tried to point out some of the problems which have been raised in connection with this matter from the point of view of the disease itself, and I do so because I think there has not been enough consideration given to that aspect of the question. However, I would say that the department veterinary in North Bay and that area, has when requested to do so, attended a number of meetings and given information to the general public which I think has been advantageous to them.
One of the problems I have mentioned is the fact that many of the farmers do not like to report an animal being bitten by a fox. One of the reasons I think is because they have been told they will probably be under quarantine. Because nothing was said about the quarantine factor, some of them thought that if their animals were quarantined because two or three sheep in the pen had been bitten, nothing on the farm should be sold. I have been told that this is not true and that they would be given a permit under the contagious diseases act which would allow them to sell the animals not exposed to the disease, and even those which had been exposed to it after a period of incubation or quarantine.
The department has in the last two or three weeks agreed to inoculate dogs in that area, and they have been assisted by many municipal councils-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member to confine himself to the subject matter under discussion. As I understand it, this item deals only with payment of compensation for animals slaughtered.
[The Chairman.]
I do not think this item suggests a discussion of the whole problem which the hon. member is raising.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this whole problem is of concern and relates to the matter of payment. I would point out that in Timiskaming today, with this current outbreak, only one payment has been made. I think we have to understand why this is so and what the situation is concerning the operation of this plan.
In Timiskaming we have had a large number of cases-I consider them to be a large number of cases- mostly carried by the wild life of the district. The fox population is quite high and they are spreading this disease, and have spread it particularly to cattle out in the fields, and since that time to young cattle in sheds which are open. This also applies to sheep.
When we passed this bill, or extended it to cover rabies, a year or so ago, the treasury limit only applied to organized counties. Northern Ontario is a problem in this regard because we have no such thing as a county in our area. Our area is divided into districts, and the districts are broken down into townships. Many of the townships in the district of Timiskaming are not organized, and because they are not organized the treasury limit has not covered the situation there. The treasury limit was broken down in this way. The county council would pay 20 per cent of the compensation for this disease; the provincial government would pay 40 per cent; the federal government would pay 40 per cent. It was also stipulated that the inspections of the animals being slaughtered or which had died from this disease would be made by the county inspector, and that he would settle any valuation on those animals.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have not interrupted the hon. member before but, as you pointed out to him a short time ago, the matter he is now discussing is completely apart from the present vote before the house. The vote before the house has nothing to do with rabies at all. None of the money being asked for in the vote will be devoted to rabies and the particular matter which the hon. member is discussing, payment of compensation for cattle, sheep and hogs which died as a result of rabies, is not under this vote at all; it was a separate item in the estimates which provided for making a payment, along with the province and the municipality, for animals which were slaughtered as a result of that program. It has nothing to do with this vote. I think that we should keep our attention directed toward this vote.

Actually, Mr. Chairman, strictly speaking, in view of the fact that this vote does not cover rabies in any way, all of the discussion on rabies should really not have taken place. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member, but now that he has gone on to this other vote entirely, 1 think he should devote his remarks to the vote we have under consideration.


Jacques Flynn: I would ask the hon. member again to co-operate with the Chair. For his guidance, I would like to quote from "May's Parliamentary Practice", 14th edition, page 701, the paragraph entitled "Supplementary and excess grants":
Debate on supplementary and excess grants is restricted to the particulars contained in the estimates on which those grants are sought, and to the application of the items which compose those grants; and the debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained-
I assume the hon. member will try to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to discuss this matter if there is another opportunity to do so. I think the matter is quite urgent in my area, and I assumed the heading was large enough to cover it. It is the health of animals division and the compensation provided for animals slaughtered under that division. It does not differentiate brucellosis, or anything else. If the minister gives me an assurance that this does not cover that particular aspect and that there is opportunity to discuss it later, then I will agree to that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would just like to say on the general subject that rabies is a contagious disease and therefore I did not interrupt the hon. member until he got on to the special item which went into the estimates last year to cover compensation for rabies.
The department is, of course, well aware of the seriousness of rabies and has devoted a great deal of attention to the problem of controlling the disease and preventing its spread. In the hon. member's constituency we are starting a rabies inoculation or vaccination clinic for dogs and cats in Timis-kaming on February 8. The chief means of control of this disease is by preventing it from spreading; as hon. members may know, it is spread almost entirely by the biting animals. As regards domestic animals, most of the attention centres on dogs and cats, and this program of vaccination is carried on in order to prevent the spreading of the disease.
As far as the outbreak in Timiskaming is concerned, the total number of cases from 79951-0-50J
Supply-Agriculture
April 1, 1959 until February 5-today- amounted to 12 cattle and eight sheep. That is the total number of cases of rabies in domestic animals in that area in a period not far short of a year. In addition there were 34 foxes killed; 34 which were found to have rabies. This disease is established among the wildlife of our country over which, of course, the department has really no means of control. It is endemic in our wildlife, and from time to time there seems to be an upsurge for reasons not generally known. Then foxes, particularly, begin to bite domestic animals and in this way the disease spreads. The domestic animals can be treated but, as I say, we have really no means of controlling the wildlife.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: On this item, may I ask the minister what precautions are taken against the spread of brucellosis through the movement of cattle and whether these precautions interfere seriously with the normal cattle trade? Last fall Alberta tried to establish a brucellosis free area. There was great misunderstanding about it which seems to lead to confusion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As part of the control of
brucellosis and in order to protect the work which has been done in areas which have been inspected and declared to be free of brucellosis we have to take precautions to see that cattle can only move into a brucellosis control area from another area of equal health status if they have, in accordance with the regulations, passed a negative brucellosis blood test. Calves under eight months of age, steers, spayed heifers and official vaccinated cattle up to 36 months of age are not required to be blood tested.
Where class A and B fairs request the department provides supervision of all cattle entries, blood testing them when necessary to assure brucellosis freedom. The majority of class A and B fairs operate under this scheme. A brucellosis certification and blood testing service where necessary is also provided to recognized breed sales.
With respect to interference with normal trade, it is of course impossible to control disease on any basis without some trade restrictions. However, the regulations are enforced to cause a minimum of inconvenience. As an example, auction markets and stockyards within brucellosis control areas have been exempted from the regulations where the volume justifies it. This means that such market places are open to all cattle and only those cattle bought by owners living within control areas require to be certified in accordance with the brucellosis control regulations. In addition, in order to avoid the holding of

Supply-Agriculture
cattle pending blood test results, purchasers are allowed to move cattle to destination and have them dealt with at home.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant Products Division-
612. Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $3,500,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make a brief statement in connection with item 612. Expenditures for this purpose-freight assistance to move western feed grains to eastern Canada and British Columbia-amounted in 1958-59 to $20 million. The same amount was provided in the main estimates for 1959-60. This, of course, is really what one might call a statutory item. Under provisions already made we subsidize this transportation of feed grain and the amount we have to pay depends, naturally, on the amount moved. An additional $1 million was provided in the first supplementary estimates for this fiscal year. That was to take care of what was estimated to be the extra amount needed because of the increase in freight rates which took place. In addition, purchases of western feed grain by eastern poultry producers have been much heavier than they were a year ago, and an additional $3J million will be required.
In other words, this extra requirement is due to the fact that a considerably increased amount of grain will have been moved by the end of the fiscal year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there any change in the formula of payment? The minister is asking us now for $3,500,000 extra. Is there any change in the bassic formula?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There was a change made as a result of the increase in the freight rates. I explained that in the house last year-early last summer-pointing out that when that change took place it threw out of balance the assistance provided in different parts of the country. The rates were therefore adjusted so that the cost to farmers of one hundred pounds of feed would be more or less the same in all areas rather than increased in some places and decreased in others because of the change in freight rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the $20 million item which the house provided to reduce freight rates following the last increase have any effect on the moneys provided for assistance with regard to grain being shipped to eastern Canada and British Columbia under this item? In other words, does the $20 million provided for a general revision of freight rates have any effect on this subsidy, or are the two things entirely separate?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has an effect because if that $20 million subsidy had not been made

and the freight rate had not been reduced the amount required under this subsidy would be greater than it is.
When the freight rates did go up we put an item in the estimates for an extra million dollars beyond the $20 million expended last year. The only way in which we can really estimate this is on the basis of the experience in the past year, and as $20 million had been used last year we put $20 million in this year's estimate. Then when the freight rates were increased we put in a supplementary estimate for an extra million. Now we find, however, that the amount of grain which has been shipped has been much greater than last year and we therefore require this extra sum of $3,500,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: That makes a total of $24,500,000?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in the C.C.F. party have always supported this item and we shall do so once again. We have opposed any move made in the past to reduce the basis for this payment. In other words, we have been opposed to successive increases in freight rates removing part of the advantage that has accrued from this item of expenditure.
This sum totalling $24,500,000 in the present fiscal year is paid for the movement of feed grains that are produced on the prairies to markets, feeders and farmers in central Canada, the maritimes and British Columbia. This is an important part of agricultural policy today. I think it is an essential one in the interests of agricultural producers outside the prairie provinces.
I want to make it clear that this is a substantial item which no doubt will receive the unanimous support of all hon. members. But this is an item that is not being paid to the prairie grain producers. The main advantage certainly does not accrue to them. This is an agricultural or freight subsidy, if you like, which is of substantial advantage to farmers outside the prairie provinces.
Coming as I do from Saskatchewan it is my pleasure to support this item as one that is a national advantage, the bulk of the advantage accruing to producers, feeders and farmers outside the prairie provinces.
In my opinion the government should consider the whole question of freight on agricultural products. This item is of advantage to producers outside the prairies and is paid by the national treasury. The producers on the prairies have to contend with a wide spread between the prices they receive for their livestock and poultry products and the prices paid to producers, for example, in the province of Ontario. The government should consider an extension of freight assistance

in order to narrow the spread on such commodities as cattle and eggs as between those paid on the prairies and in Ontario.
This item is directed to providing feed grains to farmers in central Canada and elsewhere in the nation at prices more comparable to those received and paid on the prairies. It is a good principle and I believe that the prairie producers are fully justified in asking the government to take steps to reduce the outrageous spread between the prices paid to producers on the prairies and those paid in other parts of Canada by the consumer.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that this is no criticism of the level of prices that obtain elsewhere in Canada. I am not suggesting that they may be too high in parts of Canada outside the prairies. As a matter of fact, with the government's recent policy the prices paid to producers across Canada on many products have been substantially lowered.
Measures such as those envisaged in this item represent the kind of instrument the government can use to eliminate the wide spread between prices received by western producers of such commodities as cattle, hogs, eggs and poultry and the prices received by other Canadian farmers.
This is a substantial item of great benefit to producers across Canada. We are happy to support it but we think the government should take similar action to reduce the spread in price for other agricultural commodities in an effort to meet the price now being paid for those commodities outside the prairie provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
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.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, it might be of assistance to hon. members if I were to make a statement at the beginning of the discussion on this vote. Therefore, I will outline what has happened as far as this matter is concerned.
This vote provides for the contribution to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba of one half of the payments made by those provinces to farmers on account of unharvested crops. The programs under which these payments are made are provincial
Supply-Agriculture
programs and are administered by the provinces. I should like to emphasize that fact. They are provincial programs, differing in each province and are administered by the provinces in each case. The dominion government, however, stipulated certain basic provisions which would be a condition of federal assistance.
Those conditions were that only farmers who had harvested less than 50 per cent of their crops were to be eligible for assistance with the maximum unharvested acreage of cereals on which payment could be made being 200 acres. The maximum payment would be $3 per acre for cereals and $600 per farm for specialty crops. Within these broad limitations the provinces were free to develop their own specific programs. This is what they did, of course, and in each province the program is somewhat different. I think perhaps I should outline what the program is in each province so that hon. members may be aware of these differences.
The program in Manitoba is as follows:
1.	There are two rates of payment based on the amount of crop a farmer has harvested.
2.	For wheat, oats, barley, flax, soybeans, navy beans, peas and rape the payments are $3 or $2 per unharvested acre, to a maximum of 200 acres.
If the amount of wheat harvested averages 5 bushels or less for each acre seeded, the payment is $3 per acre. If it is between 5 and 8 bushels the payment is $2 per acre. There is no payment if a farmer has harvested more than 8 bushels per seeded acre unless the grade is below No. 5 northern. If it is below that grade, the $2 per acre payment applies on yields up to 12 bushels per seeded acre. For other crops the yields are adjusted to a wheat equivalent.
3.	For potatoes, sugar beets and vegetables, the payment is $30 per unharvested acre to a maximum of 20 acres if less than 30 per cent of the acreage has been harvested. If between 30 per cent and 50 per cent has been harvested, the payment is $20 per acre.
In Saskatchewan, if a farmer has harvested 5| bushels of wheat or less for each acre seeded the basic payment is $3 per acre of unharvested crop. If the farmer has harvested between 5.6 and 10 bushels for each acre seeded the basic payment is $2 per acre.
There is no payment if the farmer has harvested more than 10 bushels per seeded acre. The basic payments apply only to farmers who have threshed not more than 110 acres. They are reduced progressively if more than 110 acres have been threshed. I have a table showing how much is paid for each bracket, from 111 to 120, 121 to 130 and so on. Generally speaking it can be summed

Supply-Agriculture
up in this way, that up to 5.5 bushels harvested per seeded acre the payments run from $3 down to 30 cents an acre and for a return of 5.6 to 10 bushels harvested per seeded acre the payments run from a maximum of $2 down to 20 cents an acre. I would ask permission, Mr. Chairman, to have this table put on Hansard, if I may.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the committee give unanimous consent to this table being put on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's Note: The table referred to is as follows):
Payments Per Unthreshed Acre
Up to 5.5 bushels 5.5 to 10 bushels
	harvested per	harvested per
Acres Threshed	seeded acre	seeded acre
	$	$
Up to 110	3.00	2.00111 - 120	2.70	1.80121 - 130	2.40	1.60131 - 140	2.10	1.40141 - 150	1.80	1.20151 - 160	1.50	1.00161 - 170	1.20	.80171 - 180	.90	.60181 - 190	.60	.40191 - 200	.30	.20


Douglas Scott Harkness: The same rates of payment apply to oats, barley, spring rye, flax, rape and seeds of red, alsike and white clover, sweet clover and alfalfa with yields per acre adjusted to a wheat equivalent. Saskatchewan will also make payments on vetgetable crops, including potatoes, where the acreage is not less than 10 acres.
In Alberta the scheme is as follows-


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of oats and alfalfa is there any limitation on the payments at all?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. With respect to oats or barley the equivalent of 10 bushels of wheat or five bushels of wheat, whichever happens to apply, is taken. I have not the figures here as to what these equivalents are but there would be roughly twice as many bushels of oats and one and a half times as many bushels of barley or something along that line.


Mr. Benidickson:: Are the formulas more or less the same in each of the provinces?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, they are. The provinces are all using the same formula for the equivalent number of bushels of barley, oats, etc. This is the scheme for Alberta. The payments apply to acreage seeded to wheat, oats, barley, rye, rapeseed and flax. When a farmer has harvested five bushels or less of

wheat for each acre seeded, the payment is $3 per unharvested acre to a maximum of 200 acres.


William Moore Benidickson: That is the same as Manitoba.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. If the amount harvested is between five and 10 bushels of wheat per seeded acre, the payment is $2 per acre. There is no payment if the amount harvested exceeds 10 bushels of wheat per seeded acre. For other crops the yields are converted to a wheat equivalent.
I think it can be seen from this that the systems in effect in Manitoba and Alberta are fairly similar. The system in Saskatchewan varies quite a bit from the ones in effect in Manitoba and Alberta, but the Alberta and Manitoba schemes are not exactly the same. The Manitoba scheme has a provision for vegetables and things of that sort while the Alberta scheme has not, and also for those grades of wheat below No. 5, which the Alberta scheme does not include.


William Moore Benidickson: On that point, I do not think the minister indicated whether Saskatchewan also has any reference to the grades.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


William Moore Benidickson: At the cut-off point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. That outline gives some idea of the systems followed in the three provinces and the differences between them. The procedure followed by the three provinces in administering the programs also varies. In Alberta and Saskatchewan the applications from farmers for payments are dealt with first by the municipal councils, which may recommend approval or rejection. There is provision also for the councils to engage inspectors to inspect the farms of the applicants where they consider it advisable. The applications, with the recommendations of the municipal councils, then go to the provincial government for final decision and payment. The province, if it wishes, may arrange also for an inspection of any applications.
In Manitoba the applications are received at municipal offices. The municipalities, however, make no appraisal of the applications. They merely forward them to the province for handling.
I should add in this connection that the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is making available to the provinces the details of all inspections which its inspectors have made on farms from which applications for the acreage payments are received. In other words, the records we have as a result of inspections made under P.F.A.A. are made

available to the provinces so that they know what the bushel return for these farmers is. Of course, that would make it unnecessary for them to re-inspect. The processing of applications for acreage payments is now well under way.
As at February 1 Saskatchewan had approved 14,103 applications representing payment of $4,354,000. About 12,000 cheques had been issued as of that date. The province estimates that the total number of claims will be in the order of 16,000. The closing date for applications was January 30.
The Alberta government has now received close to 5,000 applications which have had preliminary processing by the municipalities. The first payment cheques will probably go out next week. Alberta expects to make a total of 10,000 payments. The closing date for applications is February 29.
In Manitoba applications for acreage payments had to be received by January 23. There are approximately 4,000 applications which are now being processed and inspections carried out. My latest information from Manitoba is that the first payment cheques will be issued by the end of this week. That, Mr. Chairman, is an outline of the scheme as it is being applied in the three provinces and a short outline of the methods being used to make the payments, in other words, the administration of the scheme.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question before the minister resumes his seat? He gave an estimated cost of some $4,354,000 for Saskatchewan. I believe that was related to the applications in process to date. Does he have comparable figures for Manitoba and Alberta?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman, and that was not an estimate. That was the actual amount of the payments which had been approved as of February 1. The last report we had from Saskatchewan was that they had approved the payment of $4,354,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of which you will pay half.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of which we will pay half after this vote has been passed by the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have no estimate for Manitoba or Alberta?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the detailed information provided by the minister with respect to this special emergency provision to help to relieve some of the hardship encountered on the prairies as a result of early snowfall preventing the threshing of the normal amount of grain in that section of the country. The committee will realize, of course, that we felt that the
Supply-Agriculture
proper time to provide this information was more than two weeks ago when the house was asked to consider other legislation closely related to this provision and having to do entirely with the same emergency situation. The government did not see fit to provide the information at that time. We regretted that because we thought that this was probably the basic item of legislation of the three forms of relief in which it is proposed that the federal parliament should participate. We know that the situation results from an emergency that developed last fall because of early snowfall.
One cannot but be disappointed that there has been such confusion as to result in payments only going out in one province to date, and they have not been completed in that province, and in the other two provinces the best the minister can report is that cheques in the one province will go out this week and in Manitoba at a subsequent date. We find also that there is a considerable variation in the formulae. We wanted to find that out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did the hon. member say Manitoba at a subsequent date? What I said was Manitoba this week.


William Moore Benidickson: I thought you said Alberta this week and Manitoba next week.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Alberta next week.


William Moore Benidickson: We also heard some reference from the minister as to the matter of the relationship with the P.F.A.A. administration. This was another question that was raised previously, and I do not believe the minister has yet given the committee enough information on this tie-in with P.F.A.A. on the matter of inspection. I have heard a statement attributed to the minister of agriculture of Alberta to the effect that after an application is filed with the municipal secretary, the prairie farm assistance inspector will then check on the eligibility of the applicant. I should like the minister to indicate in which province, if any, there would be a possibility of an applicant, having received some benefit from P.F.A.A. receiving in addition some benefit under the emergency provisions we now have under discussion.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the hon. member like me to answer that right now?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This statement, to which the hon. member has just referred, was put out in error. The P.F.A.A. organization has not done and is not doing any inspections in any of the three prairie provinces. What we are doing, as I indicated, is that we make the

Supp ly-A griculture
information we have available from the inspections we have conducted to the provinces for any farm for which they request it and for which we have records available. There may be some confusion also as a result of the fact that in Manitoba the province itself has been hiring the part-time inspectors, whom we have trained in years previous to do P.F.A.A. inspections, and these people are carrying out provincial inspections as temporary employees of the provincial government but not as employees of P.F.A.A.


William Moore Benidickson: We are glad to get that information. There is a second point in connection with P.F.A.A., and here again we have had to depend entirely on what we read in the press on these matters. There has been some doubt as to whether or not a payment under P.F.A.A. would make an applicant under this legislation ineligible to receive any benefit. When the Prime Minister was questioned on this point, shortly after he indicated what his proposals would be, by Mr. Moon, a representative of the Regina Leader-Post, he is quoted as saying that this would be subject to determination. Then I find that a statement was made in Manitoba that anyone who received P.F.A.A. benefits would not be eligible for anything under this formula. I believe that is the type of thing the minister should clarify.
The same situation applies with respect to growers of special crops. I believe that some additional information is desirable. I should like to see if I understand the information we have from the minister now. If I understand it correctly, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan there is some form of assistance provided with respect to vegetable crops. In Alberta, there is nothing provided for the growers of vegetable crops.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not as far as I know.


William Moore Benidickson: Not so far as the minister knows. Then, the minister will be well aware that when the proposal was advanced there were requests from several sources to the Prime Minister when he visited his own province over the Christmas season that perhaps the deadline date for estimating the percentage of damage was not satisfactory. I wonder if there has been any adjustment in that respect? I understand the Prime Minister indicated he would consider some flexibility in that respect, too.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the minister replies-


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I may just reply to these two questions; I am not quite clear as to

what the last question was. The hon. member said the Prime Minister indicated there would be some flexibility, and I was not sure what was meant.


William Moore Benidickson: The date on which an estimate would be made as to whether or not the unthreshed grain was under or over the 50 per cent formula.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with that latter point, Mr. Chairman, there were requests made by some farmers, some municipalities and I think some farm union locals, that the date be set back to November 1. I believe it is that to which the hon. member is referring. The date of December 15 was set as a result of consultation between myself and the three ministers of agriculture of the prairie provinces. There was no argument over the date. It was mutually acceptable. It was set as December 15 because it was apparent that determination of what should be paid could not be made before December 15. If you attempted to set a date such as November 1, it would be absolutely impossible to determine how much threshing each farmer had done and in many cases the farmer himself would not be sure. It was expected, and it actually happened, that there would be a good deal of threshing done after November 1.
It was thought the fairest thing to do would be to set the date at December 15, after which time it was practically certain very little threshing, if any, would be done. This was the reason for the date of December 15. The reason the proposal to make it November 1 was not, I think, considered seriously by the provinces was the real impossibility of determining how much threshing had been done at that time when you are trying to determine it six weeks or two months later.
In so far as the other question is concerned, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked as to whether the receipt of prairie farm assistance payments would make an applicant ineligible to receive payments under this scheme. This is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the provinces. We have laid down no provision along that line. The provinces were, I know, talking about doing it, but whether or not they finally did I do not know. As far as we were concerned, there was no provision made along that line.


Hazen Robert Argue: This item is in the estimates because of the very severe weather conditions last fall, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of acres of grain were covered by snow to the point where harvesting became impossible. As I understand the

position taken by the three prairie governments, and the Minister of Agriculture will correct me if I am wrong, they made a united submission requesting the federal government to consider this national emergency and asking the federal government to bear the whole of the cost. In addition to making that general proposition, the government was asked to make prairie farm assistance available on an individual basis and to consider unharvested crops as being no yield for the purpose of prairie farm assistance which would make many more farmers eligible for prairie farm assistance.
If this suggestion had been followed it would have meant, of course, that the government would have considered this to be essentially a national emergency, that the federal government itself would be dealing with it and would be paying the moneys from the national treasury in order to meet this national emergency.
I think there is a growing feeling in all of the provinces in Canada that the provision of matching grants from the federal government for a huge variety of projects, if extended almost beyond limit, removes the control of provincial revenues from the hands of the provinces. Before any joint scheme is entered into I think there should be the greatest amount of consultation and agreement with the provinces. As I understand this particular item, there was consultation and there was discussion but the announcement was made by the federal government and the provinces then could take it or leave it or could enter into negotiations to vary the method by which it was applied.
Prairie farm assistance is not a charge on the provincial treasury of any province. The minister has not been able to give us today sufficient information to enable us to determine how the cost of this scheme will be apportioned amongst the three prairie provinces. He did not have sufficient information. But we know the general division of agriculture in the three prairie provinces. The chances are that Saskatchewan will be paying the largest amount, followed by Alberta, followed by Manitoba with a much smaller amount. Saskatchewan being the main agricultural province in the sense that it has a larger agricultural acreage than either Alberta or Manitoba, it follows that in any scheme of matching grants it will bear an undue share of the burden.
These are some of the reasons why I feel as I do about a scheme which says to the provinces, "If your people are going to qualify for payment, then you must put
Supply-Agriculture
up half of the cost". I think the government's federal-provincial relations have not always been good. As far as this question is concerned, there was some prior consultation but this was following a very bitter experience, as far as the provinces are concerned, with the government's attitude toward crop insurance in that the government merely made the announcement saying that the federal government would pay 20 per cent of the cash premium cost and the provinces would be responsible, along with the producers in the province for the other 80 per cent. These kinds of projects, if carried on at great length, will disrupt federal-provincial relations in this country because such action will make it impossible for provincial governments to have sufficient revenue to carry on the projects under their jurisdiction and which they feel should be done for the people of that province.
The Saskatchewan government, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have always been most co-operative with the present administration and with the former administration. I think that is a laudable position for the Saskatchewan government to take. I am certain that this government has found-as the former administration at times said it found-Saskatchewan very easy to deal with in these joint projects. However, that consideration does not detract from the statement I made that legislation such as this dealing with a national emergency should, in my opinion, be legislation that is primarily federal in character, where the federal government bears the largest proportion of the cost if not all of it.
Farmers are not going to receive huge sums of money. When we were in a debate on another subject on another occasion, Mr. Chairman, when an amount of a dollar an acre was involved up to $200, I called it peanuts. I think it was peanuts as far as the individual producer was concerned and that it was peanuts in relation to the cost of farming and in relation to the need farmers have for a larger income. The total that can be involved in this estimate for any one farmer is $600. The sum of $600 payable to a producer will be of some definite advantage, without question.
Certainly one of the important reasons that weather conditions brought about this emergency on the prairies is the extremely difficult income position in which prairie producers find themselves. This extremely difficult income position which requires action along these lines has resulted from the government's failure to solve the farmers' basic economic problem and the price-cost squeeze. As far as the farmers are concerned, this government seems to take a differing attitude,

Supply-*Agriculture
.depending upon the item under discussion. When it comes to acreage payments, the government is very much in favour of the little person, the small operator. But the .other day, in the operation of another agri-,cultural policy, we found that as far as the small business operator is concerned, the government could not care less whether he [DOT]went out of business. The minister was not interested in co-operating so that deficiency payments would be made in the case of hogs that were slaughtered and the small butcher [DOT]could remain in business. But even for a large producer, the payments that are provided under this item will be welcome.
Some people feel that the farmers in western Canada are making very large sums of money, and that on a relatively small investment they can make a good living. I think it was the hon. member for Jasper-Edson who last year in this house made his famous statement in which he said he was opposed to deficiency payments because it would merely mean that a farmer who was driving a Cadillac would then be able to drive only a Buick. I think it was one of the most regrettable statements that has ever been made by a western member. I think the hon. member for Jasper-Edson might take a leaf out of the book of the hon. member :for Rosthern who made such a thoughtful .and constructive speech in this house the other day-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -in which he so ably and so diligently exposed the government's agricultural policy for just what it is.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I understand the chairman is saying order. I think it is a rather touchy subject with people other than the chairman. Therefore, they are bringing it to the attention of the chairman.
I was talking about the price-cost squeeze and the very difficult income position in western Canada which turns the bad weather conditions into what is in fact, that is, a grave emergency. The interprovincial farm unions council made a submission on November 23 to the federal-provincial agriculture conference, and I think they pointed out very well the difficult position in which farmers on the prairie now find themselves. They pointed out that in a given farm management survey, the group of farms which was investigated had an average capital investment of $55,000; that after having set aside $3,000 as an appropriate amount for farm labour and income for the farmer and his family, the net return on the capital investment was 1.2 per cent. A $55,000 investment would suggest to me a

relatively good sized farm, a relatively efficient farm; and on a farm such as this, after a moderate amount has been retained for family labour income of just $250 a month, the net return on the investment was 1.2 per cent. In other words, from the standpoint of business accounting, western agriculture is in an exceedingly difficult position and, from a cost accounting standpoint at any rate, would be considered near bankruptcy. With a situation like that, even amongst the relatively well-to-do farmers this action now being taken, this minimal action, is very much in order.
I think there are other things the government should be doing to supplement this item, and I had thought that perhaps an announcement would be made in this house by this time about the interim payment on wheat, oats and barley. The Minister of Trade and Commerce on Monday, January 18, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Melville, said that an announcement would be made, I believe he said within a week, but certainly by the end of the month, and that this was earlier action than had been taken by the former administration. I think it is high time that the Minister of Trade and Commerce together with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, saw to it that these payments were made and put in the hands of the producers, because they would be of some advantage to producers who are in a difficult position owing to harvesting conditions on the prairies.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing the cash advance legislation and the guaranteed bank loans legislation the other day, there was another field of appropriate action that the government should follow which would help relieve the financial situation that is covered by this estimate. I refer to the whole question of deficiency payments and the necessity for the government to make a decision on this matter and to inform the house of just what the decision is. We would be in a much better position today to discuss the financial need of the prairie producers if we knew whether or not the government would pay the producers money as a result of other requests that have been made. The farmers' agricultural position is worsening, and-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to raise a point of order, but the hon. member is making a general agricultural speech. He is well aware of the fact that the estimates for this year have now been tabled in the house, and that discussion of these estimates, including those of agriculture, will be coming on, and that is the time to make a general agricultural speech. This particular item provides

the dominion government's share of a form of relief assistance which has been given to a limited number of farmers in western Canada, and I submit it is not in order for the hon. member, as he has been doing, to make a general speech on agriculture dealing with all branches of agriculture. If he does so, there is no reason why every other hon. member of this house should not make a similar type of speech. When we are dealing with the regular estimates for agriculture, you, sir, and all hon. members of this house are aware of the fact that the general discussion of agriculture always goes on for several days. Sometimes it has gone on for two weeks, but it always goes on for several days. When we are dealing with the dominion government's share of payments, really of a relief nature, to a limited number of farmers in western Canada, I do not think it is appropriate or in order to make general speeches on agriculture.
I would appeal to the hon. member to recognize the fairness and rightness of the points I have just made, because I certainly think it would be quite wrong for us to go on here for several days with a general discussion on agriculture, and that is what the type of speech the hon. member is making will inevitably lead to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on this point of order. I was listening most attentively to the hon. member for Athabasca, and he-


An hon. Member:: Not attentively enough, It seems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mean Assiniboia; I
apologize for the confusion in my mind. However, I have no confusion in my mind about the point I wish to make. The hon. member for Assiniboia was saying that if we knew what the government was going to do about something else, we would be able to make a better judgment as to whether we should spend the taxpayers' money on this. If this committee is to be so restricted that we cannot say what kind of information we think we ought to have before we vote the taxpayers' money, I can see no purpose in having a committee of supply at all. Surely that is the most fundamental function which this parliament has. What the minister is suggesting is, of course, just what the attitude of the government has been over the whole question, that they should do what they like and treat us as a rubber stamp.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order which has been raised, Mr. Chairman, on reflection I think you will agree with me that I am very much in order. I have been talking about the income position of the farmers on the
Supply-Agriculture
prairies related to the income position of the very farmers that are affected by this legislation. We are being asked to vote a sum of $6 million for a specific purpose, and I am suggesting that, under the set of agricultural conditions which now exist, in order to deal with this emergency this amount of money should be much higher. In order to make any fair' assessment of whether or not it is adequate, we require the type of information I have requested, and I think this is very much to the point.
I do not know why the Minister of Agriculture is so sensitive. I do not know why he is trying to enforce a closure on discussion of this item. I do not know why he wants to restrict unduly the debate on this item. If I had been talking about conditions all across Canada, I think I would be out of order; but I was talking about the economic conditions of the very producers that this item covers, and whether or not this item, in light of those economic conditions, is adequate, and I contend I am very much in order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think you will realize that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, and in the latter part of his remarks the hon. member for Assiniboia, were not directing themselves to the point of order I raised at all. They were both making purely political speeches designed to create an incorrect impression, particularly outside this chamber. There has been no effort whatever to try to curtail discussion which is relevant to the matter which is under consideration. The point I have in mind, and with which neither of these hon. members dealt, is that this is an item for a specific purpose and that a general discussion on agriculture, agricultural income conditions, deficiency payments and so forth, which is proper when the first item of the general estimates for the year is discussed, is not proper and in order at this point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can understand the difficulty in which the Minister of Agriculture finds himself. However, I think that if he were to have posed for himself this question: would the farmers of western Canada- the three provinces concerned-have needed this particular assistance if the government had acted favourably on the request made by the farmers-


Charles Edward Rea: I must ask the hon. member for Essex East to stick to the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am trying to do so.


An hon. Member:: You are not.

Supply-Agriculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. gentleman had asked himself that question-I did not ask it-and if he could have said "if we had met that particular demand it would not have been necessary to bring in this particular legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Certainly it would.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hen. members say "certainly", but that is not the point.


An hon. Member:: It is the same point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members are not going to facilitate debates by this continuous obstruction. I simply suggest that if that is the answer to the question, surely it is in order for an hon. member to point out the inadequacy of this measure and to urge the government to give recognition to the other particular request.
I submit that in this measure before us we cannot be limited in this way if we are to have a fair exposition of this problem. We are not discussing the whole question of agriculture. We are ascertaining whether or not this is adequate to meet the plight of the western farmers in these provinces, and the hon. member for Assiniboia has simply pointed out that if consideration had been given to the other matter it would not perhaps be necessary to do as much as is now being done or, in the contrary case, that it might be necessary to do more. I am submitting that the hon. member for Assiniboia was not launching on a widespread and disorderly discussion, and I think that to preclude him now from continuing would be to restrict the opposition in giving proper scrutiny to this measure.


Charles Edward Rea: I thank the hon. member for his observations. I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member for Assiniboia and there were times when I think he was trying to make a basis of comparison; but I do think he strayed considerably from this item and I would ask him to return to it and try to follow it more closely.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I was speaking very much on this item and that the remarks I was trying to make were very pertinent to this question. I was about to point out that one of the reasons why an item like this is necessary is because of the worsening agricultural picture for the farmers who are involved. I do not have to quote anyone other than the Minister of Agriculture himself who has pointed out that the index of prices of goods and services which are used by these farmers showed an increase in 1959 of 3.1 per cent as compared with the previous year. This is one of the factors which contribute 
toward making this item necessary. This has nothing to do with weather conditions as such. If the farmers were getting the kind of agricultural deal they should be getting from this government, the emergency which followed from weather conditions would be relatively light compared with the emergency which results from the general agricultural picture.
I understand that one of the leading farm spokesmen made a statement the other day that conditions are so bad now in parts of northern Alberta that farmers are taking wheat 150 miles to a grist mill to have it milled into flour because they are so short of cash.


Charles Edward Rea: I am not sure how the hon. member can relate those remarks to this item. As I understand this item it is to pay for wheat lost because of the snow.


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not know that it is lost.


Charles Edward Rea: We do not know it is lost, but that is the assumption. This item is not designed to aid farmers all over the country. Those whose crops were not snowed under will not participate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely, the economic picture of the producers involved has something to do with this amount and I contend that if farmers are so destitute financially that in order to get enough flour for the winter they have to take their grain 150 miles to have it ground into flour, then this item is far too low.


An hon. Member:: This is unthreshed grain. Stick to the point.


Hazen Robert Argue: I notice that whenever one is advocating something in this house that is very much needed and necessary to the welfare of the people we represent, and if there should be any suggestion or criticism of the government, then we hear great rumblings from the government seats. I think hon. gentlemen opposite should have the patience to hear one of us who is speaking without these frequent interruptions. The Prime Minister lectured parliament this morning about waste and frivolity. I think he might have turned around and lectured some of the people who sit behind him.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member is out of order in making those remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: As much as the Prime Minister was out of order at the time he spoke.


Charles Edward Rea: That was a matter to be decided at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I was saying, the general economic conditions on the prairies makes

this item far too small to relieve the financial position of the farmers who are experiencing difficulty because their crops are under snow. They came to this government in time of emergency. They asked the government to act, and the government has acted by asking the provinces to bear half the cost and by including this item in the estimates allowing payments up to a maximum of $3 an acre. One of the leading spokesmen for the western farmers made a statement the other day, I understand, and I am quite sure that this legislation is one of the reasons why he made the statement. He said there is more irritation on the prairies with this government today than with any other government at any time since the hungry thirties.


Mr. Hodgson:: The C.C.F. would like to have that said, but it is not so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not suppose it is out of order to say that this legislation is so inadequate that it is adding to the irritation felt among the people of western Canada. But if one should suggest that what is being done today brings irritation to the producers of western Canada then, of course, there are frequent interruptions and cries of "order".


Mr. Speakman:: Will the hon. member permit a question? The hon. gentleman made the statement that the crop is not lost yet under the snow. Would the hon. member care to repeat his statement and confirm it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Will I what?


James Stanley Speakman: The hon. gentleman said the crop is not lost. Would he care to repeat and confirm that statement?


Hazen Robert Argue: I said it is not certain that the crop is lost.


James Stanley Speakman: The hon. gentleman said it is not lost.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said is it not certain that it is lost. The Hansard record will speak for itself. I did not make the statement that was made in this house last year by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who said he was not interested in deficiency payments because he was sent here to support the government along with the 47 other members from the prairies. What a laudable position for him to take. If he were making the same interjection today the hon. member might have to reduce the number to 46 after the very pertinent speech made in this chamber a few days ago by the hon. member for Rosthern.
This legislation has resulted in irritation and coupled with the government's other policies it has put this government in a lower position on the prairies than that of any
Supply-Agriculture
political party since the early thirties. As I judge political conditions on the prairies to which this item no doubt has contributed I would suspect that if an election were called the Prime Minister's fellow Canadians in the rural ridings would defeat every single Conservative candidate.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I would urge the hon. member to address himself to the item before the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: One should never refer to one's fellow Canadians because that appropriate phrase has been adopted by the Prime Minister and is for his exclusive use.
Before being interrupted I was saying that my fellow Canadians and the Prime Minister's on the prairies are fed up with this government and with the kind of treatment they have received.


James Stanley Speakman: They are fed up with you. Who told you about it?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been listening to the farm representatives. The Prime Minister has not been listening to his fellow Canadians. They have been trying to get a decision from the government on important agricultural questions but the Prime Minister delays, postpones and procrastinates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Assiniboia but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order to which I started to speak, surely when the committee is discussing an item of this nature we do not have to listen to a political tirade of five minutes' duration that has no relevance whatever to this item.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and further to the insulting remark of the minister, I know that the hon. gentleman is very sensitive to any criticism of the government and the Prime Minister, but I would suggest to him through you, sir, that you are quite capable of rising as you did on occasion if you consider me out of order in the remarks I am making. I do not think we have to listen to a lecture from the Minister of Agriculture after my time has expired.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a few brief remarks on this item and I can assure you that they will be relevant. First of all I should like to refer to the remarks I made on a previous occasion when we were discussing aid to western farmers

Supply-Agriculture
as those remarks appear at page 175 of Hansard of January 21, 1960:
-I would like to say that in my opinion it would have been better had the joint assistance between the provinces and the federal government been paid on all unharvested acreage to the maximum of 200 acres.
I should like to ask the minister if he would tell us on what basis the decision was made to pay on unharvested acreage under 50 per cent. In 1959 western Canada experienced three and one half months of extremely wet weather. Many farmers made an effort between storms and at every opportunity to harvest the crops which they did resulting in a good many cases, particularly with respect to small farmers, in their completing the harvesting of over 50 per cent of their grain. This grain is difficult to store and handle for feed and is extremely restricted as to movement because of the limited facilities for drying the grain.
The small farmer with 49 per cent of his grain harvested is left without assistance. He suffers undue hardship because no assistance is available to him until the spring when he can harvest the balance of his crop and thus perhaps qualify for prairie farm assistance if his yield is low. I should like to have the minister tell us on what basis the decision was made to pay assistance on unharvested grain under 50 pear cent?
Before I resume my seat I should like to say to the hon. member for Essex East that I would be pleased to have him spend the period of the next recess in my constituency so that he could learn something about western agriculture at close and first hand.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with keen interest to what the hon. member for Assiniboia had to say as he unveiled what I thought at first must be the new agricultural platform of the new party with its distinguishing characteristic of the promise of milk and honey. It seems however to bear all the characteristics of the same old tattered, torn and unsupportable planks we have heard before. I think the best way to describe it is in words Sir Winston Churchill once used: "A sheep in sheep's clothing."
I want to commend in the highest possible terms the principle inherent in this estimate which the committee is now considering. I do so not only because I realize it will be of great benefit to many farmers in western Canada where I have seen it in operation but, taking it in reverse, I saw at first hand what could happen-and I think this is most important

when this type of assistance is rejected.
In 1957 in my constituency of Peace River there was a disaster of far greater magni-

tude than that experienced by western Canada last year. In 1957 I believe approximately 70 per cent of the crops in that great country were lost by reason of weather conditions including rain, snow, frost and all the vicissitudes that can be experienced. As a result the farmers, municipal groups and farm organizations combined and sent a committee to Edmonton to attempt to communicate with the provincial and federal governments.
I remember that well because one of the leaders of that delegation who was a Liberal at the time came to me afterwards and said they had sent a wire to the present federal Minister of Agriculture and he was amazed at receiving a reply within two hours. He said that this was the first time he realized there had been a change in government. They had requested some assistance for the people affected by this disaster which was of such magnitude. The federal government took the position that constitutionally it was essential that the provincial government should first declare that there was a disaster before the federal government could help with the situation and contribute financially.
Unfortunately at that time the Alberta government was engaged in the very interesting pastime of paying out some $12 million in what they called oil royalty dividends. They have been called other names but that was the description. They were thus in the embarrassing position of finding it utterly impossible to say that they did not have the financial ability to deal with the situation and consequently could not ask the federal government to intervene. In the result, so far as my part of the country is concerned, we lost approximately 70 per cent of the crop, and the people of that area are only just recovering from that disaster.
The federal government stood prepared then, as it does now, to come to the assistance of our people. It is only through the fault and neglect of the provincial government of Alberta that that was not done then.


Mr. Howard:: Where are all these points of order experts now?


Gerald William Baldwin: As a matter of fact, I have some press clippings here indicating that the Alberta government persisted in its attitude. I have one here from the Regina Leader-Post of December 2, 1959, headed, "Alberta Says No". The Alberta government had indicated at that time its refusal to accept the offer of the federal government, an offer which is being implemented by legislation we have already passed and through this item.

We find that after December 3 the provincial governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan indicated that, with some modifications, they would accept the proposal which apparently had been advanced by the federal government. Consequently, in due course the Alberta government was driven into acceptance of the proposal, and in my opinion that is the only reason why they have accepted the offer and why this item now applies to them.
I think that is sufficient to indicate the importance of passing this estimate. Without it we would find that many farmers throughout western Canada would be in very unfortunate circumstances. I commend the immediate rapid passage of the estimate for the payment of these funds and suggest that they will serve a very useful purpose.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I shall be quite brief and in order. I rise first of all to express my support for this item and to say that we are very pleased to know that the prairie grain producers who require this money are getting even this measure of assistance. But I also rose to ask the minister a simple question, although I see he is behind the curtain at the moment. I was really waiting for him. In my constituency and in other parts of British Columbia the cherry growers lost 50 per cent of their crop on account of the weather and the peach growers also lost 50 per cent of their crop on account of the weather.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think the hon. member is in order. We are only discussing the question of wheat.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: That is my view and I would ask the hon. member to stick to the item under discussion. In committee it is the rule that we have to be strictly relevant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was just about to ask my question.


Jacques Flynn: If the question had followed the preliminary remarks of the hon. member it certainly would not be in order.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, you, Mr. Chairman, did not rise when the hon. member for Peace River was talking, not about anything within the jurisdiction of this house but about the action of the Alberta government having to do with oil royalties. The hon. member obviously was out of order in talking about legislation concerning only that province but there was no point of order raised when he made that statement. If the hon. member for Kootenay West had been allowed
Supply-*Agriculture
to conclude with his one sentence I imagine that he was about to say that this type of legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: should be made more universal, and I think that such a statement is wholly in order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just say that I am sure that the Chairman, in giving attention to the problem as he is, is doing it with a desire to see that the rules are properly observed. But surely the observation just made by the hon. member for Assini-boia has validity when one realizes that this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss this measure in terms of a specific item before us. Normally if this measure had not been introduced by way of an estimate it would have been introduced by way of a bill. Under the rules of the house we would then have been permitted wide latitude on the first clause of the bill, a latitude that certainly would go way beyond a mere suggestion that this kind of measure might very well be adapted to meet similar situations involving disasters with regard to other crops. It is only because of my confidence in the Chairman who has occupied this position for the first time in recent days that I suggest that too strict an interpretation will preclude debate in the manner now suggested which I think is in the interests of this particular legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was simply going to ask the minister, after bringing to his attention the difficulties of some of my producers, what is behind the government's thinking that provides for assistance, which we support, for a certain group of farmers in Canada in a certain area because they have suffered losses on account of the weather and does not provide assistance for farmers in other areas who have suffered losses on account of the weather? This is an intriguing moral and ethical problem and I should like the minister to inform the house what is behind the government's thinking in this piecemeal approach to farmers' problems in Canada.


Jacques Flynn: When the relevant bills were discussed in committee I ruled that we could not discuss other disasters or other losses than the one to which this item has reference. I may be wrong. It may be that this is one of the first times I have occupied the chair, but that is the way I interpret the rules and that is the way I think they should apply in order to protect the rights of parliament and every individual member.


Joseph Slogan: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with item 613 which has to do with contributions to the provincial governments of the prairie

Supply-Agriculture
provinces of one half the amounts paid by those governments to farmers in respect of unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm, as well as contributions with respect to the administrative costs incurred by the provinces in making such payments to farmers, may I say that I should like to commend the government for introducing this item so early in the session. The amount of $6 million, together with the $6 million which will be paid by the provinces, will not alleviate all of the distress on the farms but it certainly will be a step in the right direction, in conjunction with the other agricultural measures we have taken.
I can understand the difficulty of the C.C.F. in speaking to this item because they have only one representative from the prairies. I can understand the even greater difficulty of the Liberals who have no representatives from the prairies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would Your Honour indicate what this has to do with the item before us?


Jacques Flynn: I think the point of order is well taken and I would ask the hon. member to stick to the discussion of the item. I do not think his remarks are relevant at this time.


Joseph Slogan: In my remarks today I want to say a few words regarding the extent of the crops lying under snow east of the Red river and particularly in my riding of Springfield. I have before me a map compiled by the prairie farm assistance officials which sets forth the results of their inspection east of the Red river. I think the figures that I am about to give will be ample proof to demonstrate to hon. members the situation on the prairies as a whole, and in my own area in particular, and that the situation can be called disastrous.
The extent of the losses is probably one reason why these payments are being called disaster payments. There are approximately 160 townships east of the Red river which may be called agricultural. Approximately one half, or 80 of them, are in my constituency of Springfield. Of the 80 agricultural townships in my constituency approximately 60, or 75 per cent, were eligible for P.F.A.A. payments. In other words, 75 per cent of the total agricultural area had a yield of fewer than eight bushels per acre. A further breakdown of those figures shows that approximately 20 of those 60 eligible townships had a yield of zero to three bushels per acre. This represents 25 per cent of the agricultural area. Approximately ten townships had a yield of three to five bushels per acre. Thirty townships, or 50 per cent of the area, had a yield of

five to eight bushels per acre. This is an area where the average yield is around 30 bushels of wheat to the acre ordinarily.
Early in December last year the Minister of Agriculture agreed that the whole area east of the Red river should be considered as an area in which all the crops unharvested as of that date would be considered a total loss. This made it possible for the prairie farm assistance inspectors to get out into the field early and make their assessments. I should like to state that to date in my constituency over $186,000 has been paid out in prairie farm assistance payments, and by February 15 the amount will be $326,200.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I cannot relate the comments of the hon. member to the subject matter. It seems to me that the item under discussion refers only to grain unharvested because of the early snowfalls. I fail to see how the remarks of the hon. member cover the item under discussion.


Joseph Slogan: I would like to explain to you, sir, that in Manitoba, under the regulations having to do with these payments, people who receive prairie farm assistance payments are not eligible for those disaster payments and, therefore, I think it has a direct bearing on the question.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member thinks that they should come under this item. Is that the argument he wants to make?


Joseph Slogan: There has been considerable opposition in the legislature of Manitoba from the opposition regarding the fact that in Manitoba, under this disaster program, prairie farm assistance payments are not included, as they are in some of the other provinces, and I was trying to show the extent to which payments are being made in Manitoba. Also, Mr. Chairman, these are the only figures that we have available to demonstrate the extent of the crops lying under the snow in Manitoba.
As the Minister of Agriculture has already pointed out, a lot of the data which has been garnered by the inspectors of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been turned over to the provincial authorities who are using that material in their payments under the disaster payment program. Therefore, I feel it has a direct bearing. However, I am coming to the conclusion of these remarks. What I wish to say is that the amount of money which the province of Manitoba had available was such that it deemed it necessary to preclude those who have already received assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from receiving disaster payments. They felt that the money they had available would be best directed to those who could not be eligible

for any other type of assistance. In this respect I think it has already been brought out by the Minister of Agriculture that in Manitoba we are providing under this disaster payments program assistance to vegetable growers and growers of specialty crops in Manitoba.
In Manitoba it has been possible-perhaps because they did not extend the payments to those receiving prairie farm assistance-to give a more equitable payment to those who suffered losses of vegetables on which the costs incurred per acre are far greater than they are in the growing of wheat. The Minister of Agriculture has already brought out the fact that payments in Manitoba for potatoes, for instance, are $30 per acre, which is roughly the equivalent of the payment on ten acres of wheat.
In my own area we have a great number of small mixed farmers who grow wheat and vegetables as well. It has been possible under this conversion formula for them to become eligible for payments which they would not have been eligible for if the formula had been worked out strictly on an acreage basis. Most of them managed to harvest some of their crops, very early grain crops; whereas potato crops usually come in later and in this instance were lying unharvested.
In my own constituency of Springfield approximately 40 per cent of all farmers received prairie farm assistance payments with an average of $170. When we consider the amount paid last year, which was around $20,000, and compare it with $326,000 paid this year, I think the extent of the hardship of the farmers can well be imagined.
During this session we have already passed two bills which will be a measure of assistance to the farmers. I refer to the cash advances on unthreshed grain and the guaranteed farm loans. But because of the large amount of grain lying under the snow in Manitoba, particularly in eastern Manitoba, and because of the fact that the land was so wet, it is very unlikely that any of this grain will be harvested, and it is very unlikely that many of the farmers in my area will be able to take advantage of this recent cash advance legislation, when we consider that the crops have already been declared a total loss.
In concluding I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Essex East to the effect that if we had accepted deficiency payments this item would not be necessary. I would merely like to point out that if the Liberal government had accepted crop insurance 20 years ago this item also would not have been necessary. While on that subject, Mr. Chairman, I should
Supply-Agriculture
like to say that in the province of Manitoba, we are in the process of adopting a crop insurance scheme. I hope that in future years various phases for working out an extension of it to all farmers will be gone into so that never again will we have to bring in legislation such as this.


William Moore Benidickson: I simply rise to ask the minister a question that I think is germane at this point, before we proceed further with the debate. Item 613 refers to terms and conditions of an order in council. I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the committee what orders in council have been passed in connection with this item, and perhaps he would produce a copy of the order in council.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the orders in council have been filed in the normal way for publication in the Canada Gazette. I have not brought copies of them with me. I can see if I can get copies of the orders in council, or a copy of it brought in, if the hon. member wishes. As I say, I have not it with me at the moment.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the minister recall the date of the order in council?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not mentioned here? No, I do not recall the date.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps, while the debate proceeds, one of the minister's staff would try to obtain it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Is the hon. member rising to put a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I was rising because I thought perhaps you would hear a member of the opposition, having heard two or three members on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, if the Chair wishes to recognize someone else I will not contest the matter.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Even though the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River did not speak for long, I thought he was expressing the views of the opposition. I recognize the hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not intend to speak on this item because I am in agreement with it. But after listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia carry on in his speech, one which consisted of nothing but political blabbering and made not for the benefit of this house but for his constituents and those in Saskatchewan who follow him-

Supply-Agriculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to being passed over in favour of the hon. gentleman if he is going to speak on the item before the committee. But if the hon. gentleman is going to take advantage of the situation in order to abuse some other hon. member, I think he should be called to order.


Jacques Flynn: I was going to give the hon. member for Acadia a chance to make his introductory remarks and I was sure that he was coming to the point.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thank the Chair very much. These were my introductory remarks. I did intend to speak quite clearly and quite to the point on item 613. As I said, the hon. member for Assiniboia was doing nothing but making political blabbering for the benefit of those followers of his in Saskatchewan, not for the benefit of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was trying to help the farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member
interrupts. He does not like it. His skin is thin. He went on to point out that we were objecting to his speech when at one time all that one hon. member said was "that is not so", or something to that effect. Then he paused. He had a word or two to say about interruptions. He wondered who was making the rumblings. He wanted it down in print so that it would look good, so that it would appear that this house is trying to quelch the remarks he was trying to make. He spoke for half an hour and took up probably three quarters of an hour with interruptions, all a bunch of political blabberings the like of which I have never heard before.
Then the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on to speak about three relief measures. Three relief measures were not brought in. The first two measures had nothing to do with relief. They dealt with cash advances and farm loans which have to be paid back by the farmers and they certainly cannot be termed relief measures. Let us just clear that matter up.
Then some remark was made by the same hon. member about the P.F.A.A. payments and he wondered whether there would be overlapping. In the northern part of the province the crops are not even off in one area. Maybe less than 10 per cent of the acreage is off. How can P.F.A.A. payments be made on those crops until spring? They cannot be made until that crop is harvested. Therefore there may well be overlapping. I cannot see how there cannot be because this payment was going to be to those whose crops are more than 50 per cent still out and the P.F.A.A. surveys cannot be made

until the crop is harvested. Apparently there seems to be a great lack of understanding on the opposite side of the house.
Then the hon. member for Assiniboia went on at great length and tried to compare this measure with deficiency payments and to say that if deficiency payments had been paid, this measure would not be necessary. Let me tell hon. members of this house that in many of the circumstances this benefit will go out to the northern part of the province and deficiency payments would have had little effect in the northern part of the province on the financial wealth of those farmers. Let us just clear up that matter.
Then I should like to point out that the hon. member for Assiniboia went on to speak as though this $2 million or $3 million that was coming out of the Saskatchewan government was coming out of his own pocket. He seemed to be quite worried about it. May I say this to him? If this federal government had not gone ahead with this item 613, the provincial governments, including his own in Saskatchewan, would have given the farmers not a ruddy penny. This government is bringing in a measure to pay the farmers $6 million and the provinces are going to pay another $6 million so that, under a true evaluation of the benefit of this act, the farmers of western Canada are going to gain $12 million, as a result mainly of action by this government. Speaking as a farmer in western Canada, I do not particularly care which government it comes out of, as long as it comes into the farmer's pockets. I am not too worried about the Alberta government running out of money and I am not too worried about the provincial government of the hon. member's province, namely Saskatchewan, running out of money. However, I am worried about the farmers in those provinces running out of money, and that is my biggest concern.
The hon. member went on to say that he listened to the farm representatives. Yet when the last farm representative was speaking, he was not listening to him at all. He was carrying on a private caucus over in that far corner of the chamber. He was not listening to the hon. member who was speaking. Yet he says, "I listened to the farm representatives."


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened to the important
ones.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member interrupts me. Let him go ahead and do so. He does not like what I am saying. He has a tendency to listen to those farm representatives to whom he wants to listen, and that is all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one point made by the hon. gentleman

who has just taken his seat with which I am forced to agree. When he said there was a lack of understanding of this measure, I think he did not exaggerate the situation. To find the reason for that lack of understanding one does not have to seek far. Lest you think I am not going to talk about the item, I intend to read it. It reads as follows:
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-
If that language means anything, it means that certain orders in council have been passed by a government headed by a gentleman who denounced government by order in council in season and out of season from the time he came into this parliament in 1940 until the day he began to occupy a treasury bench. But when my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River rises in his place and asks the minister if he will read the order in council which prescribes the terms on which this money belonging to the taxpayers of Canada is to be paid out, the minister says, "Oh, that was published in the Canada Gazette but I have not a copy of it here. I do not see any particular reason why parliament should have it but I will send for it if the hon. member wants it".


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Brunsden:: You are against the western farmers.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. and distinguished member from northern Alberta who has just been expressing himself with such great courtesy has concluded, I will continue, Mr. Chairman.
What I was saying was that from the beginning to the end of this operation, so far as this parliament is concerned, that is the attitude this government has taken. In the speech from the throne we were told that certain legislation was to be brought in to deal with an emergency which we and the hon. gentlemen who sit in the corner of the chamber there both recognized was an emergency and with which we both agreed without any hesitation the government should have priority to deal before the continuation of the speech from the throne.
Supply-Agriculture
We both expected and had every right to expect from the language used in the speech from the throne that legislation would be brought in first about the main thing and then about the subsidiary things. No legislation was forthcoming. During the debate on those subsidiary measures an effort was made to make it as difficult as possible for us to get any information about what the government was doing. Then we were told that money was actually being spent out of the treasury of one of the provinces that we were later going to be asked to vote money to recoup.
I say that that is no way for any government to treat a free parliament. That is no way to treat a free parliament, to bring in an estimate worded in this fashion without any details of how the money is being spent. We are expected to swallow this this language which gives no description whatsoever.
Now, not only that, but the house has been misled, or certainly I have been misled-


Mr. Bigg:: That is easy enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member says, I am very easily misled because I have been in the habit in the past of taking the word of ministers of the crown at its face value. Yet we were told in this house by the Prime Minister, in response to a question I asked, that no agreement had been made with any of the provincial governments, though we were told by the Minister of Agriculture that assurances had been given to them, albeit we have never been told what they were. We are expected to take that on faith.
I have in my hand a copy of the debates of the Manitoba legislature for Thursday, January 28, and I would like to read this short extract which deals precisely with this measure now before us.


Mr.  N. Shoemaker@Gladstone: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I would like permission to direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Did the Manitoba government receive a commitment, verbal or written, that the federal government will pay half of the cost of the Emergency Assistance Program?


Mr.   Hutton@: -
That is the minister of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure as to what the hon. member from Gladstone means, but at the present time we have a verbal agreement with Ottawa that the program which has been approved of by the government of Manitoba will be met on a 50-50 basis, provincial and federal.


Mr.  N. Shoemaker@Gladstone: A subsequent question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given. I wonder if the hon. the minister, Mr. Speaker, could explain why the Prime Minister of Canada in the House of Commons yesterday indicated in reply to a question that no such commitment has yet been given?


Mr.   Hutton@: I wouldn't have the slightest idea of why the Prime Minister of Canada would make that remark-

Supply-Agriculture
I happened to be in the gallery of the Manitoba legislature that day and heard this exchange take place. I was astonished, because there we had the minister of agriculture, a minister of the crown in the province, saying there is a verbal agreement with this government, and I had understood the Prime Minister to have said in this house the day before in response to my question that there was no commitment of any kind. Whether "agreement" or "commitment" are different things in the language of this government, they were not different things in the language of the last government or any other government in the history of this country.
Then what do we get from the Prime Minister? We get from the Prime Minister, when I asked him on Monday last, this interesting statement. I do not want to go over all this stuff, but on page 546 of Hansard for February 1 he said:
Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman that it is difficult to understand a question such as that.
That is the question I asked.
He has been given the answer that no agreement was entered into with any of the provinces.
The minister of agriculture in Manitoba, who is a young man and struck me, from looking at him, as being a very sincere, simple, straightforward fellow-


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Capable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 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. That is the only possible inference that anyone can draw from what happened in this house last Monday.


Mr. Pallelt:: You did not pay very close attention to the Prime Minister's words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read his words, but I am prepared to read them again for the benefit of the hon. member.


John Cameron Pallett: You are putting a different interpretation on them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member also has his interpretation of commitments and agreements, as some of us well remember.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What difference does it make?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Somebody says, what difference does it make? What difference does it make, I ask, whether a government's word 
can be accepted or whether a government's word means anything? What difference does it make whether agreements mean anything, whether the word of the government of Canada means anything at all. That is a matter of no importance to parliament whatsoever. That is what the hon. member over there is saying.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are putting words in my mouth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if the hon. member waits and speaks in his own time he will not have words put in his mouth. For the benefit of the hon. member for Peel, I will read again what the Prime Minister said:
He-
That is myself.
-has been given the answer that no agreement was entered into with any of the provinces.
Here are the words of the minister of agriculture of Manitoba:
-we have a verbal agreement with Ottawa-
If you can reconcile those two statements, Mr. Chairman, you are a better casuist than I am, because it seems to me one is in direct contradiction to the other.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member has given the answer completely out of context. Read the entire answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right. I will read the entire answer if the hon. member thinks it will improve the situation any. I will read it gladly but I assure him it will not improve the situation, and he probably will not receive much thanks for his intervention when he is spoken to later on behind the curtain.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Are you talking the bill out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In committee we can speak for as long as we like, as we were taught by hon. members who used to sit over here not so very long ago, and who will be sitting over here before very long. I will read my first question, as reported at page 546 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given any other assurances-
In using the word "assurances", I was referring to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that assurances had been given to the prairie governments, and those assurances were-if the minister thinks I am being unfair he can correct me instantly- that this matter would be brought before this parliament. The question I asked was:
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.
Mr. Chairman, since I have been asked to read the rest of the answer, I also intend to comment upon it, and I intend to make a comment in my own time and in my own way, after which I will listen to the hon. member for Peel who keeps trying to interrupt.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Chairman, on a point of [DOT]order, the hon. member undertook to read the complete series of questions and answers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a point of order.


Azellus Denis: Study the rules and regulations [DOT]of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read what I went on to say. I might say that this was the end of the question, because a question of privilege followed, and I would be glad to repeat my question of privilege, because I think it was very well taken the first time, and I do not mind advertising it more because it is a very fine example of the kind of answers and evasions we get from the Prime Minister in this house whenever we try to find out information relating to public business. I said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member of this house. The Minister of Agriculture in answer to a question said that the government had given an assurance to the government of Manitoba. . . What is the house to believe when the statement by one minister is immediately contradicted by the Prime Minister in express terms?
I ask again: what is the house to believe?
Mr. Pallet!: Go on and read the Prime Minister's answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to read on, if the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience. I suppose that being an interrupter is about the only means he has of getting his name on Hansard. To continue:


John George Diefenbaker: The interest of the hon. gentleman in the field of legal semantics has been so recent-
This was very clever, I thought. The highest form of wit.
-that apparently he does not understand the difference between an agreement and an assurance.
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I hope I never become so accomplished in legal semantics as to emulate some of the performances of the Prime Minister inside and, even more, outside this house.
At this point the Speaker intervened to say:
I think this argument over the construction of what has been done is a matter of opinion.
So do I.
It seems to me that if hon. members want to ask as to questions of fact and get information they are entitled to do so, but having got it there is no rule or practice of the house that permits argument over the interpretation of it.
There was an intervention at this point by the Leader of the Opposition and if the hon. member for Peel wants me to read that too, I will read it.


John Cameron Pallett: Read whatever you like.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it will add anything more. The Leader of the Opposition simply underlined what had already been said.
I say that this performance by the Prime Minister denying a statement made by the minister of agriculture in Manitoba and made, I am sure, in good faith, would never have happened had it not been for the contempt with which this parliament has been treated by the government. If on Tuesday, January 19 this government had had the decency and respect for parliament to bring in a bill preceded by a resolution in the proper form, and if at that time the Minister of Agriculture had given us the information we were entitled to receive I venture to say that this whole matter would have been disposed of before six o'clock on January 19. I have yet to hear one single member who has objected at all to the substance of what is being done.
But, far from this, the minister has still not shown us the correspondence with the provinces which by an order of this house made last Wednesday we are entitled to have, presumably because he has not had time in his excursions around the country to get it together. As I say, I have yet to hear one member of this house object to the substance of what is being done in so far as we are allowed to know what that substance is. But four fifths or at least three quarters of the members of this house, all of whom have an equal responsibility for the voting of the people's money, have a duty too, and that duty is to scrutinize the expenditure of public money and to understand how it is being spent before voting it. In order to understand we should be given the requisite information and not have to extract it in the painful way in which we

Supply-Agriculture
have been trying to extract it up until now without very much success. We are entitled to have that information and have it on the record.
The idea is that some sort of an assurance which the Prime Minister says is not an agreement has been given to the prairie governments. We have not been told, yet, what these assurances are. We are not allowed to see the correspondence. The order in council is not before us. All we have is a vague generality expressed in this estimate and we are being asked to vote $6 million of the taxpayers' money on that basis. It is small wonder that there is a great deal of criticism of the financial irresponsibility of the present government, but this financial responsibility is no more serious, it seems to me, than its irresponsibility in ignoring the proper forms, the proper procedures and the proper conduct of parliamentary government.
If, however, we cannot get things done properly I am not going to vote against this measure and see the western farmer go without this money.


An hon. Member:: But you would like to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither will anybody else on this side. But I am going to insist on my right as a member of parliament to discuss this matter and I am not going to be the least intimidated or concerned by a certain number of young and inexperienced members of this house, many of whom were not even born when I lived on a farm in western Canada in the very area to which this measure applies. I may say that if hon. gentlemen opposite from the prairies had shown the same concern about the disaster that I brought to the attention of the house a year ago, when the fishermen of my constituency had an even more serious problem to face, it would have been appreciated in that fishing area as I hope the willingness of all members of this house from all parts of Canada to support action on behalf of these farmers will be appreciated in western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has been engaging in an exercise in dialectics. That is exactly what it amounted to. I expected him at almost any moment to get into the ancient medieval argument about how many angels can stand on the point of a needle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was speaking of government by order in council.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The type of argument the hon. gentleman was conducting was very much along that line. He made a statement about ignoring proper parliamentary forms and procedures. There has been absolutely

no ignoring of proper forms or procedures. He contended that a bill should have been brought in rather than an estimate. This was merely a repetition of an argument which was brought up some two weeks ago; one to which I gave a complete answer at that time, though the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and others have completely ignored it since.
The situation is, in fact, very simple. What has been done conforms with what has been done in this situation on every occasion in the past that I know of when similar circumstances have arisen. I pointed this out when the measure providing for cash advances on unthreshed grain was before the house and when this particular matter was brought up although, of course, it was out of order at that time. I stated then that in all cases in which the dominion government had shared in making a disaster payment, whether for the Winnipeg fire or for the Rimouski fire or the Fraser river floods, it was done by bringing in an estimate, and that is exactly the procedure which we are following in this case. The hon. member cannot point to any case on record in which the dominion government shared part of the cost of relieving the effects of a disaster by means of a bill. It has always been done by means of an estimate, and that is how we dealt with it. All the hon. member has been doing throughout as far as this matter is concerned has been to put up a strawman and then knock the stuffing out of it. His statements have borne no relationship to what the procedure in this house has been, as far as I have been able to determine, at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? He has asked me if I can point to any case of the contrary. If he will look at the legislation with respect to the disasters in the prairies in the years immediately before the war he will find they were always relieved by legislation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is trying to twist a completely different matter into an analogy to fit the present situation. As a matter of fact, in the prairie provinces and throughout Canada during certain difficult periods there were general relief measures including unemployment relief.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister does not want to misrepresent what I said. I was referring to relief from the dust storms.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: These matters, of course, were dealt with in some cases by particular bills but in any case in which the dominion government has shared with the provinces in a relief measure to relieve a certain specific disaster which took place, such as crops under the snow this year in western Canada, the Fraser river floods, and so forth, it has been dealt with in exactly the way the present situation has been dealt with and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not happen to be correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -there is no argument about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and other hon. members have attempted to say that we are following a wrong procedure but we are following exactly the procedure followed by hon. gentlemen opposite in years past when they met similar disasters during the time they were in office. I think this is the only practical way of dealing with the situation.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate and other hon. members in the Liberal party have been making a great fuss over the fact that this assistance was being given, or at least over the fact that assurances were being given to the western farmers, without the matter first having been brought up in parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. That is a complete misrepresentation of my position as the hon. member knows perfectly well. I said we had no objection to assurances but they should have been brought to parliament at the first opportunity and not a month later.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think that this is a question of privilege. I remind the hon. member that he will have occasion when the minister is through to correct any statements the minister makes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, that is the usual sort of comment which hon. members opposite call questions of privilege or points of order. Instead, these comments are straight arguments.
However, as I say, the situation in regard to this is quite clear. What we did was the only thing that could have been done if any assistance was to be given to the farmers whose crops were under the snow. If hon. members do not want that assistance to be given they are at liberty to vote against this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying has nothing to do with the case at all.
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: The actual situation is this. Hon. gentlemen opposite apparently do not like the measure and they claim we have mishandled it. They do not like the idea, apparently, of money being paid out to the farmers of western Canada. Probably the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is especially concerned about it because on every issue he tries to bring in the question of fishermen and maintain that they should have the same treatment whenever any measure of this kind is introduced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why should they not be treated like other Canadians?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is irrelevant. Not having the courage to oppose the measure directly, hon. gentlemen opposite oppose it indirectly by saying it is being done in the wrong way.
While I am on my feet I should perhaps answer some of the other arguments that have been advanced. A question was asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River about the order in council covering this measure. I must apologize to him and to the committee for having made an incorrect statement in this regard. No order in council in connection with this matter has been passed and none will be passed until the vote has been put through the committee. I did have an order in council drafted and it is ready to be signed but, as I say, it has not been signed as yet and will not be until the money has been voted. I apologize to the hon. member for giving the impression that the order in council had actually been passed which is not the case.


William Moore Benidickson: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I draw the minister's attention to the past tense used in the language of the item. It is not "to be prescribed" but "prescribed."


Douglas Scott Harkness: It may be that the tense used is not correct and I would not argue that matter but I did not want to have persist any longer than possible the false impression that the order in council had been passed. I was eager to clear up that matter.
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 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

Private Bills
and the provinces. They are primarily responsible for the assistance which is necessary in situations if of this nature.
The hon. member for Kootenay West wanted to know why we did not make payments of this same nature to farmers of every kind throughout all of Canada who may have lost their crops from any cause whatever. The answer to that is this. Where the loss of crop has taken place or a disaster has occurred in a small area it is the responsibility of the municipality and the province to relieve the distress which may result therefrom and if the relief of that distress is beyond the capability of those two bodies the province is free to apply to the dominion government for assistance in relieving the distress. That is what happened in the case of the Winnipeg flood, the Fraser river floods and in the case of the snow covered crops in western Canada on this occasion. The provinces have asked the federal government to assist. As a matter of fact, initially they asked the government to pay the whole cost of this assistance.
After discussing the matter with them we said we were agreeable to the proposition that the federal government should share in the cost of that assistance. I should like to point out that the payment of $3 an acre which is being made is an assistance payment. It is not designed, as many seem to think, to compensate farmers for the loss of their crop. It is designed to give the farmers some assistance, a small measure of compensation for the amount of loss which they will inevitably suffer as a result of the crop being under the snow during the winter.
When a crop is under the snow there is always some loss from mice and deterioration due to weather, and so forth. The $3 payment is designed to provide some measure of compensation for the inevitable loss on crops which are under the snow.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it being 5 o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5 o'clock and there being no business under the heading of private bills, the house will now proceed to the consideration of public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
[Mr. Harkness.l



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (application to civil service).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move second reading of this bill perhaps I should outline again, even though I did so at the introductory stage, the purpose of this measure. Basically it is to provide that the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, with one or two slight exceptions, shall be applicable to the crown and to the employees of the crown, that is, to the government and to the civil service. The process of certification would apply if the bill should be passed. The provisions relating to negotiations with the civil servants and requiring the government to sit down and bargain with them if they receive certification would also apply.
The conciliation services now provided by the act to employees of private employers who come within the jurisdiction of the legislation would be available with respect to negotiations conducted between civil servants and the government except that the conciliation board proceedings would in effect be a board of arbitration. The decision of the board of arbitration, if it should be established pursuant to the bill being passed and taking its place in the statute books, would be binding upon the government and upon the employees in the public service. Those provisions of the act which the bill does not intend to make applicable to employee-employer relationships of the civil servants and the government are those sections that relate to strikes and lockouts.
Perhaps I might deal first with one argument that has been used pretty extensively, not only on previous occasions in the House of Commons when the subject matter of this bill was raised although not in bill form but also in my own home province of British Columbia where the provincial government employees have been campaigning for collective bargaining rights for quite a number of years. The answer that has been given here and in other legislative bodies from time to time when the question of granting collective bargaining rights to civil servants by making the same law applicable to them as is applicable to other employees and employers has been raised is that we would in effect be giving away what is a parliamentary right to determine what the wage or salary structure will be. It has been said that that is

not in keeping with the practice of government or the operation of parliament. Even the question of constitutionality has been dragged in as an argument to oppose this idea. It has been said that it would not be in keeping with the supremacy of parliament to deal with wage rates, wage increases, working conditions and other benefits relating to civil servants and that in effect that is what a bill such as this would do. It has been said that parliament would be giving to an outside body, a conciliation board, the right to determine and decide what salary rates would be.
From time to time over the years parliament has undertaken to relieve itself of some of its functions and obligations, some of its authority and power. I will mention only a few examples of situations where parliament thought it wise to divest itself of its tight control and authority over certain matters. For instance, the Expropriation Act passed by the Canadian parliament provides that a body outside parliament will have the right to decide what price will be paid for land expropriated by the crown if there is a difference of opinion as to what the actual value of the land is. In this instance parliament divested itself of that authority and control.
The Civil Service Act itself and the establishment of the civil service commission are another example where parliament has divested itself of certain authority and control over the employment of people in the public service. Neither parliament nor the government has any authority or control, and I do not think they should have, over the establishment of qualifications, hiring procedures or employment practices with respect to people entering the civil service. The Crown Liability Act is another statute under which the crown has given up certain rights, power and authority that it had at one time. Crown corporations, -all of which were established by acts of parliament, are covered by the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. In fact, at the present time one crown corporation is engaged in negotiations with the unions in that particular field, and I refer to the railway industry. The provisions of the act apply there.
I think the time is long past when parliament and the government should have divested themselves of their tight control over the wages paid to civil servants and not have continued what is in effect rank discrimination against a group of employees in this nation. To continue the law as it stands now and in effect to treat civil servants as if they were second class citizens 79951-0-51
Industrial Relations Act because they happen to work for the government makes somewhat of a mockery of the bill of rights which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been talking about for so long. If there are rights and principles to be established so that justice will be equitably applied, these rights and principles should apply across the board to all employees whether they work for the Department of Labour under the direction of the Minister of Labour or whether they work for Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines or any of the other crown corporations. I do not know of any reason in the world why the 120,000 or more employees of a particular employer, the government of Canada, should be treated with the scorn and disdain with which they have been treated for many years and which is getting worse.
There is no reason why the government should persist in denying to its employees the same rights it has guaranteed to employees of private employers and employees of crown corporations. During election campaigns practically all the cabinet ministers like to gloat over these hollow cliches about fairness and equality and yet refuse to put these same principles of equality, fairness and justice into effect for employees working for the government.
For a number of years I was an officer of a union which was certified under British Columbia law and dealt with employers in industry. During that period of time we ran into a number of employers whose attitude and feelings in the labour-management field were excellent. They treated their employees with complete justice, complete fairness and complete equity. The employers would approach the bargaining table with an uncomplicated desire to reach collective agreement and to see that the best possible conditions and wages, and so on, were forthcoming to employees working for them.
During the course of the activities in that same field we ran into employers who were cheap and chiselling in their activities toward the employees. This government in its dealings with its employees, is just about as cheap and chiselling as any private industry I have run into, if one can judge by what has happened to the civil service recently. If the attitude that this government showed toward its employees in the public service had occurred in private industry by a private employer it would have had a strike the next morning without any question at all. The government should be thankful that it has not forced its own employees into that sort of action. It should be thankful for the loyalty that exists among the civil servants,
802	HOUSE OF
Industrial Relations Act a loyalty to the crown and to the operation of government services. But it is a bit of administrative immorality to exploit that loyalty for political or other reasons, and that is precisely what this government has been doing and what they intend to continue to do, apparently.
We have heard quite a bit of discussion recently about the possibility of an election next year. One of the reasons why we may expect to have an election next year is that the Prime Minister does not want to injure himself in his own province by participating in, or being accused of participating in, a scheme that will reduce the representation from Saskatchewan. But if there is an election next year it will be seen that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and his colleagues in the government have changed their attitude in their dealings with the civil service and that a wage increase will be forthcoming. It will probably be coincidental and come at the same time as an election, but there is ample precedent for it. This government likes to fall back on precedents established over the last 22 years.
Whenever we raise some question as to the propriety of government taking certain action they drag out the dusty old Hansards when the Liberals were in office and say, "This is what they did, and this is what we should do, also." I am sure they are going to follow precisely the same line in so far as the civil servant's salaries are concerned and use them as a political gimmick and hope to buy some sort of favour at election time. But this is apart from the thoughts contained in the bill itself.
I am very much afraid that with the growing insistence from employees in the public service, the growing insistence for equity, fairness, justice and good treatment, if this government does not agree with the need to apply equitably our laws to all people, whether they work in the civil service or not, this parliament and government will be participating in the destruction of that loyalty which does exist in the public service of Canada. It would be extremely unfortunate if we were to do that sort of thing.
The bill refers to certain, specific things, but apparently it does not meet with the complete approval of everyone in the civil service. Of course, it would be a strange state of affairs if it did, if 120,000 people were to say, "Yes, we agree explicitly with the ideas contained in the bill," but I think it is generally supported. However, there is one place, or there is one prominent individual in the civil service in British Columbia with whom this sort of proposal does not find favour. I do not like at any time to use my


privileged position in this bouse to make reference to or comments on someone outside the house. Perhaps I can say in this instance, as should be stated in all instances, that where it is necessary-and I intend to do this-to mention the name of an individual who is not in the house and has not the same protection that members of the house have, I am quite prepared to make the same comments outside the house, if that is the desire of the individual to whom I intend to make reference.
In this regard I will read from an article in "DVA Crew's Aider", a mimeographed publication of the Department of Veterans Affairs employees, dated January, 1960. On page 2 of this issue there is a reference by a gentleman in British Columbia about myself and about this particular bill. If the house will grant me the indulgence of a minute or two I shall read a paragraph and make reference to it. I read:
Stan Stonier, chairman of the joint action committee for B.C., said that Mr. Frank Howard, C.C.F., M.P. for Skeena, has presented a bill to repeal section 55 of the labour act and thus permit civil servants to engage in collective bargaining. "I am afraid this action will do more harm than good," said Mr. Stonier, "as the government does not take kindly to legislation proposed by members of other parties."
Mr. Stonier must be under the impression that we in fact do have a one-party state. I disagree with him in this respect. I am sure everyone will disagree with the implication in that regard. I continue with the quotation:
In my opinion Mr. Howard's action may delay collective bargaining as much as five years.
I think Mr. Stonier is doing more damage to the desires and hopes of his own organization than he realizes when he makes statements and comments such as these. We all know that in some instances this government does look kindly on legislation proposed by private members. We do not, of course, think that they look as kindly as they should on everything we propose, but in some instances this government has followed the lead suggested by private members in this house. Private members in the opposition have sometimes introduced legislation that has later become law. I can do no better than point to legislation that I proposed since I came here, namely the granting of the right to vote in federal elections to our native Indian population. We find that this government has introduced some bills along that line this year and they will be debated sometime during this session. I think Mr. Stonier should have a better understanding of this kind of thing and of the way this government operates. I do not know what his political persuasion is. If he is under the erroneous impression that

the government does not take kindly to legislation proposed by members of other parties, then he should pay a bit more attention to the manner in which parliament functions and the fact that private members and opposition members have won support for certain things over the years.
I am sure that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) would not agree, even in their wildest moments, that because a proposal is made by an opposition party, or by an opposition member, it will thereby be delayed for another four or five years, as Mr. Stonier suggested. In fact I think the duty falls upon the Minister of Labour, whose responsibility it is to administer the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to write a letter to Mr. Stonier and straighten him out on his misunderstanding. I know the Minister of Labour is a very kind and genial man and likes to have everything in its proper place and to see fairness applied. I am sure he would not wish to have Mr. Stonier labouring under the misunderstanding that this government does not take kindly to legislation proposed by members of other parties. Incidentally, I would greatly appreciate it if the minister, when he writes this letter, would send me a copy of it so that I may put it in my files for future reference in case the question is raised again by Mr. Stonier.
We hear all sorts of references, Mr. Speaker, to activities in other nations, about how we decry them when we hear that forms of discrimination are taking place in other nations. We look very unkindly-although we may not say so officially as a nation-at the apartheid action in South Africa. Certainly society in Canada looks unkindly on it. We look with extreme distaste upon the discrimination that took place in Little Rock, Arkansas a little while ago in connection with education. We should look with equal distaste and scorn upon our own activities in discriminating against the civil servants of this nation by continuing to bind them to a sort of cap-in-hand attitude any time they want an adjustment in their salary structures. We should not at least be proud of the fact that this parliament, by its inaction over the years, has placed the civil servants in the position of being almost beggars, coming and pleading with their employer for an adjustment in their salary structure, even though those adjustments may be recommended by the civil service commission and even though the Minister of Finance may hide the documents because they are embarrassing to him in that they contain references to certain suggested wage increases which I understand are in the neighbourhood of a 10 per cent across the board adjustment.
79951-0-514
Industrial Relations Act
We should not be proud of the fact that we do things of this sort, that we treat 120,000 of our employees in such a distasteful manner, thinking that the civil servants-and this is what we are doing-should live in a period of 150 years ago when the relationship between an employee and an employer was one of master and servant, with the servant having no rights at all. We have advanced a bit beyond that stage, apparently because the civil service employees have some rights. One of them is to say, "Please may we have an adjustment in our wages". Another one is to take their caps off and say, "I hope, Mr. Employer, that you will be kind enough to do this". We say they have that sort of right but we will not go all the way and make this principle of collective bargaining rights universally applicable to employees of the federal government as well as to employees all across Canada who come under the jurisdiction of this particular parliament.
I do not intend to say too much more, Mr. Speaker, except that I am quite sure that there is no possibility, at least on this particular day, of our engaging in a vote on this particular bill although I should certainly like to see one. If I may expand on that thought a bit, I should like to say again, as I have said on other occasions, that bills of this type, bills that are in the hands of a private member, are the ones that parliament and the government should consider above everything else by allowing them to come to an individual free vote, even though we may be obliged to sit a few extra days in the session in order to achieve that purpose. Ideas of this sort proposed by private members, whether they come from one side of the house or the other, should all be allowed to come to a free vote in order to determine the wishes of parliament in a free and democratic manner and what it desires to do on a particular idea propounded by a particular private member.


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion during the session on which I have had an opportunity to rise in my place and to extend to you publicly my congratulations on your being appointed Deputy Speaker, to congratulate the mover (Mr. Morissette) and the seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to congratulate the newly appointed Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) and the various parliamentary secretaries who now have taken on higher responsibilities.
We are dealing here with an area of humanity for whom we have the highest regard. They are people who have displayed over the years a distinction in the service
804	HOUSE OF
Industrial Relations Act of their country which is unequalled anywhere in the world and whom we all as members of the House of Commons hold in the highest respect and regard. Hence when I hear the sponsor, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), using the language he used in trying to establish his point of view with regard to our dealings as a government with the public service in Canada, I can hardly countenance any support for a bill proposed in the manner in which he proposed it.
It was early in December, I think, that we members in the city of Winnipeg had the opportunity of going into this matter with the civil servants in the greater Winnipeg area and from other parts of the province of Manitoba. At the outset I can say that they ran probably one of the most efficient meetings held anywhere under the auspices of the joint action committee of the civil servants throughout the entire country. Their attitude and their courtesy and the hearing we received were typical of the general stability in the general labour market of the greater Winnipeg area, something for which we have been noted for many years.
Like other hon. members, on that occasion we did not have before us the recommendations of the pay research bureau nor did we know what were the contents of the properly confidential report of the civil service commission. We were obliged to hear out the arguments of the able representatives of the service in that area and to speak to them without any factual knowledge of just exactly how they stood up having regard to a comparison with the wages paid to employees in the civil and provincial services, for example, in the area and paid by general employers of labour in the industry and commerce of our city. As I pointed out, they carried on the meeting with respect and distinction not notable elsewhere in Canada, and generally speaking we were well satisfied with the hearing.
We should remember, of course, that the employees of the civil service are not our employees, as was implied in the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena, but are the employees of the citizens of Canada; that the citizens of Canada are the people who direct us in what they feel their requirements are; and that we, in simple words, are their servants. Hence, when we deal with their requests, as they have been ably dealt with by the executive council, I am sure we must bear in mind the general concensus of our masters, the people of Canada.
During the early hearings of this important issue on the merits as to whether or not our service was entitled to a raise, the general
[Mr. Chown.l

concensus of opinion of the people in my constituency was that the decision of our cabinet was correct. These are the people whom I serve, and all my hon. colleagues do likewise. This was the task they reposed on us, and whether the case for an increase in pay on the part of civil servants has merit or not, we must act in accordance with their instructions.
However, I did say at the meeting in Winnipeg that I favoured the principle of collective bargaining. I said this because for some three years I negotiated the contract with the civic employees of Winnipeg on behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg. In those negotiations we always felt that we arrived at a scale of pay in all classifications commensurate with the service rendered by the man concerned, as compared with the general rate of pay for the same classification for like employees in the greater Winnipeg area, and indeed in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which we used as our yardstick as well. With one exception, I think the relations between the corporation of the city of Winnipeg and its employees have been extremely smooth, because our side brings a sense of responsibility to the bargaining table which represents the point of view on labour's side, as much of the taxpayers, as it does on the side of the members of the city council who were carrying on the negotiations.
What comes to mind when I read the contents of this bill is the fact that it seems to be in conflict with the Civil Service Act itself. It is not untypical of the C.C.F. to be striking at the supremacy of parliament and suggesting that we shed ourselves of our responsibility to the people of Canada by simply throwing out to some independent agency the responsibility of spending millions and millions of dollars, giving them carte blanche to go ahead and do as they please with the people who are serving the citizens of Canada. One does not have to think too hard about what the reaction across the nation would be if we did so shed ourselves of this tremendous responsibility.
With regard to the point of conflict at law to which I referred, if you read the Civil Service Act, being chapter 48, volume 2, of the revised statutes of Canada, 1952, subsection 11(1) reads:
The commission shall, from time to time, as may be necessary, recommend rates of compensation for any new classes that may be established hereunder, and may propose changes in the rates of compensation for existing classes.
Subsection (2) provides, in short, that there shall be a minimum and a maximum in each classification, and that the responsibility for any increments given as authorized on four occasions during the year would

be the responsibility of the deputy minister. Then subsection (3) reads:
Proposed rates of compensation shall become operative only upon their approval by the governor in council, and, where any increased expenditure will result therefrom, when parliament has provided the money required for such increased expenditure.
So it comes back to us, likewise servants of the citizens of Canada, and quite rightly so, to make the ultimate decision about any changes in classification or pay rates which may occur in our service. I think this is a conflict of law which would make the bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena ultra vires of this parliament. Certainly, as I see it, we would be called to task by the people of Canada if we ever allowed such a bill to pass.
One of the things that we should remember, out of respect for the loyalty of our public servants, is that you can be sure that the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), has given every opportunity for a hearing on any occasion on which it was sought, that he has been courteous, understanding, sympathetic, and has done all in his power to reconcile the needs of the civil service paywise with the responsibility he has for the fiscal and monetary policies of our government. This is not to suggest that the contents of the confidential report of the civil service commission necessarily recommended an increase, or perhaps recommended increases, in certain classifications. But it does suggest to me, knowing the hon. minister as I do, as well as his colleagues, that the door was always open until the final conclusion was reached, and even today remains open to the agents of the civil service on any occasion they wish to see him to bring up any particular grievance they have in connection with pay rates.
However, notwithstanding the decision of the executive council made a short time ago, increases have been allowed, as indicated in the statement of the minister, where he said that in certain cases where a classification was suffering in comparison with a similar classification in other areas of employment an increase would be granted. This was the case with the nursing sisters, and the amount of the increase was sufficient to bring the federal government back into the recruiting field for that particular classification, which was undoubtedly the objective, and the reason why they were not able to retain their nursing staffs. This to me indicated that they were having with other classifications no difficulty in recruiting.
Before I went to the meeting in the civic auditorium of the city of Winnipeg, I learned from the local commissioner that, by and
Industrial Relations Act large, there was no problem in recruiting. Then apart from the other features of our service, the fringe benefits, the recent addition of medical health insurance, and the fact that even at their present rates of pay, in certain regions of our country that rate of pay, being equalized as it is across the nation, is deemed probably by civil servants to be adequate. I think that civil servants who are employed in Newfoundland and the maritimes would feel that they were being reasonably well cared for. In other areas, heavy industrial areas, there is probably some hardship. But we have confidence that the government in course of time will meet any real grievance, and meet it adequately.
Just for a moment I should like to dwell on the entire problem of giving to the civil service bargaining rights. As I said before, I subscribe to this in principle; it is just a matter of how it is to be executed without this conflict of law to which I referred. Ultimately, if there is going to be what the hon. member improperly called a conciliation board-it should be called an arbitration board-if there is going to be arbitration, that arbitration must be by the executive council. That is one vital point with regard to which I must disagree with the hon. member because of the explanation which I gave earlier. I do not think it is unreasonable that a committee of cabinet could act as arbitrators if the civil service were given bargaining rights, but I believe this is something which would have to be done by way of amendment to the Civil Service Act, perhaps in conjunction with an amendment to the industrial disputes investigation act. This is something which should be looked into with the greatest of care and it could perhaps be tied in with the terms of reference to be given to the Hoover style of commission which is to be set up in accordance with the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
For the moment I think this bill is one which, on legal grounds, none of us could support. Moreover, none of us could fail to recognize that it goes to the core of the sovereignty of the parliament in which we sit, and none of us could fail to feel some disappointment with the manner of the presentation of the bill by the hon. member concerned, couched as it was in the language he used. I think if he expects to gain support, as I would expect to gain support from him, he must on no occasion run down the dignity and responsibility of the executive council and speak of it as cheap and chiselling or politically immoral, or speak of it as treating our public servants with scorn and disdain-words from the back alleys which

Industrial Relations Act have no application when we are speaking of the type of people who are involved in a bill of this nature.
I will close my remarks by saying I support the principle of collective bargaining in this connection and feel that after intelligent examination a bill or bills could be brought in which would preserve the rights of parliament yet give to the civil service the right to bargain at a round table which they have been seeking for so many years.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words, and a few words only, because I do not want to be accused of killing this bill by speaking until six o'clock. Right at the start, I want to point out to the house, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown), that the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) were not always accurate, particularly when he maintained that, for the past 22 years, federal civil servants had been treated in a distasteful manner. This is an inaccuracy he should not have committed.
I even recall that, during the period from 1930 to 1935, it was necessary, because of certain circumstances, to reduce the salaries of federal civil servants by 10 per cent, but it cannot be said that they were ill-treated, for living costs had gone down to such an extent that, even after the reduction, federal government employees enjoyed a very privileged position compared with that of other workers.
Besides, civil servants have had at least six salary increases since the end of the war. It is only in the last two years, or just about, that this difficulty has cropped up. I don't want to accuse anyone, but the trouble is there just the same. As a result of the increase in the cost of living, civil servants have asked for salary increases, and submitted requests to the government to that effect.
Last year, following the recommendation of the civil service commission, which did not approve the desired increase, their request was turned down. This year again, their request was turned down, in spite of a secret report which probably does approve the increases requested by civil servants.
We are dealing with human beings who have certain rights, even though they are government employees. Civil servants have a right to state their case, because it is an

inalienable right, a natural right that we
have and one that overrides all other rights that may be granted by man. A man has a right to defend his way of life. The working conditions and salaries of federal civil servants must be settled, if possible, on a friendly basis, but in any event they must be settled in some way by the employer.
As I have indicated in another debate, there are civil servants who are in straitened circumstances.
A few days ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) answered one of my questions, and we now know that 37,439 civil servants earn less than $3,000, and that 53,840 civil servants earn less than $4,000 a year.
This means that a considerable number of civil servants are forced to hold the line, while employees of private enterprise across the country are able to get increases to match the cost of living.
For that reason, can we fully accept the proposition of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)? I am not sure, but I know that something must be done. It must be recognized that civil servants have a right to be heard so that they might know just why the government chaoses to grant or deny their request.
I realize that they have enjoyed statutory increases fairly regularly. But can we settle that question on our own without first consulting civil servants? We submit that they should be heard by the government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if parliament wants to go into the problem of civil employees we should at least give them a chance to make their representations.
For my part, regardless of whether we are in favour or not of granting civil servants bargaining rights, I believe the matter should be submitted to the industrial relations committee. The committee could consider requests made by federal civil servants' organizations. Those organizations could clarify the situation and tell us whether they really want bargaining rights.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South pointed out, it is perhaps a constitutional matter, one that we cannot settle. I know that in England civil servants have bargaining and arbitration rights and that the arbitration committee submits a report to parlia-

ment, which, ultimately, takes a decision. That is the practice over there, because parliament must be, after all, the supreme authority to decide on matters involving public expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, there might be another way of reaching the same objective, though it is not provided in the bill before us. I am convinced that if the civil service organizations were allowed two representatives within the civil service commission, to deal with questions of salaries or working conditions, federal employees would be able to state their case. Thus, in similar circumstances, there would no longer be any allegedly secret report, which the government does not want to disclose to the Canadian public. I think this might be the best way to settle the question, because the final decision would be parliament's.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to labour the point but I know that in certain quarters it is claimed that civil servants are well paid. However, they have not been granted an increase since 1957, though the living cost index, which was then 121.6, had risen to 127.9 in December 1959.
This means there is a gap between the income level of those employees and the cost of living, or what they have to spend to support their families. And if the government is unable to settle the matter as was the practice in the past, something has to be done. We should either pass this bill, or refer it to the industrial relations committee where representatives of civil servant organizations may state their case.
However, I insist that something be done, and as soon as possible, because civil servants cannot put up indefinitely with the conditions being forced upon them by government.
(Text):


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, as I have only a couple of minutes at my disposal I shall have to confine myself to one or two extremely important points. There is one point that has not as yet been raised in this debate. I was surprised and somewhat shocked to see a bill of this type in the form in which it is drafted brought in by a supporter of the C.C.F. party. The bill proposes to make certain amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It may be an oversight but it is certainly surprising to me that the sponsor of the bill neglected to make any reference to section 28. If we were to pass this bill it would mean that disputes between the federal government and the civil service of Canada would be determined finally and without any further recourse by a three-man conciliation board.
Industrial Relations Act
The act provides-and there has been no effort made to amend it-that each party to the dispute, which in this case would be the government and the civil service association, must appoint one man each to the three-man board, the third member being nominated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). Consequently we have a bill sponsored by a member of the C.C.F. group requesting this government to make it law that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will appoint one member of the board, the civil service association will appoint a second member and the Minister of Labour will appoint the third and final member. Surely that is not what we would want to see in this country. That section would have to be amended before I could support the bill.
Another point which I consider of some significance is that the civil service commission in its annual report makes reference to the fact that in normal times adjustments in salary should be on a class by class basis rather than general across the board increases. That statement in the report is qualified when we have inflation or outstanding increases in the industrial wage of the country, but in normal times the commission has recommended class by class increases.
We have in Canada at the present time approximately 1,900 classes of employees in the federal service. The act in question which is to be amended makes it mandatory for this three-man board, constituted as I suggested, to bring in a report to the Minister of Labour within a period of 14 days after its appointment. I can see a conciliation board in 14 days, and during a longer period of time if agreed to by the parties, bringing in a report dealing with employees in the automobile industry, or a report concerning coal miners or steel workers where most of the people concerned have uniform skills and an equal right, but with 1,900 various classifications it would be impossible for a three-man board appointed on the spur of the moment to do justice to such a problem.
As it is nearly six o'clock I shall make just one more point before resuming my seat. I am definitely in favour of some form of collective bargaining for the civil servants of this country. I am not, however, in favour of the approach adopted today in the hon. member's bill. I feel quite confident that we are near the period in the history of this country when our civil servants will achieve something in the nature of collective bargaining. It is now appreciated by management and accepted by labour not only in the great industries of Canada but also in the crown corporations for which the government is responsible.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could ask the business of the house for Monday?


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Speaker, would the
minister tell us what the business will be for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The order of business for next week will run this way. Monday is private members' day. On Tuesday we will take the supplementary estimates and the legislation that is on the order paper as I announced last night. As already arranged and agreed to by the house, we will have an external affairs debate on Wednesday and Thursday and on Friday we will take government business.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a reserve fund against unpaid loans?
2. If so, what is the source of this reserve?
3. What has been the level of this reserve on January 1, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960?
Questions
4.	On these dates what were the total liabilities vis-a-vis these reserves?
5.	How many claims were made against this reserve in 1959, and to what total value?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
(1)	Yes. As prescribed by the National Housing Act, 1954, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation maintains a mortgage insurance fund and home improvement loan insurance fund.
(2)	Fees received from borrowers and income from investment of fees.
(3)	and (4) Details in schedule below:
January 1, 1957 January 1, 1958 January 1, 1959 January 1, 1960
Mortgage insurance fund	Contingent insurance liability on Home insured loans and improvement loan sect. 40 loans insurance fund	Contingent insurance liability on home improvement loans$	$	1	$22,146,000	1,083,000,000	570,000	2,815,00030,365,000	1,425,000,000	863,000	4,306,00045,681,000	2,100,000,000	1,236,000	6,216,00061,082,000	2,757,000,000	1,610,000	8,026,000
(5) There were 32 claims made against the mortgage insurance fund in 1959 amounting to $335,744.43. A further four claims were filed late in December, the amount of which has not been established.
There were 123 claims made against the home improvement loan insurance fund amounting to $79,909.19.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Production and Marketing Branch Health of animals division-
611. Compensation for animals	slaughtered- further amount required, $830,000.
Plant Products Division-
612.	Freight assistance on western feed grains -further amount required, $3,500,000.
-52
[Stage Direction]


Monday, February 8, 1960