1960-07-11

PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is based on a message I have just received from the Arctic, and I am very annoyed. It concerns a message sent by army signals, Toronto, on July 5, 1960, to the armed forces of Canada, which read in part as follows:
Ottawa. Question about an American reconnaissance plane missing in the Barents sea, north of the Soviet union, was raised in the House of Commons yesterday by H. W. Herridge, the ex-C.C.F. member for Kootenay West.
This misinformation has caused serious concern among some of my constituents and C.C.F. party supporters in the armed forces, who naturally wondered what had happened. This report is completely without foundation and is false. In order to establish the truth and to reassure C.C.F. supporters in the armed forces that the C.C.F. group in the House of Commons is a united platoon of men under the officer commanding, the hon. member for Assiniboia, I ask the minister to have an immediate correction sent to the troops by army signals, Toronto.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I had better do it immediately, because it might just be justifiable anticipation.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of
State) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to consolidate the Canada Elections Act, chapter 23 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952; and to amend the said act by incorporating therein the amendments recommended by the standing committee on privileges and elections in the third report of the said committee presented to the House of Commons on the 13th June, 1960, more particularly with respect to advance polls and generally for the purpose of facilitating the administration of the act; and further by including provision for payment out of unappropriated moneys of a salary for the chief electoral officer and other expenses.
Motion agreed to.
79951-0-380


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Garland:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since March 1, 1960 between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and any person, association or corporation, regarding the direct loan lending policy of the corporation.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Stand.
Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nipis-sing not being here, if there is a request for the motion to stand I think it cannot be proceeded with.
Motion stands.



COLUMBIA RIVER HYDRO DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 124-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all correspondence, resolutions, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any member of the government or any official of any department thereof, and any corporation, organization or individual, in British Columbia, since January 1, 1959, in connection with various proposals for the development of the hydro resources of the Columbia river.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this motion be allowed to stand until I have an opportunity to speak to the hon. member about it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



GREAT SLAVE LAKE


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Mcllraith:
For a copy of the report of the commission on the railway route to Great Slave lake.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this motion stand. Apparently the report is not yet translated into French, but it will be translated in a day or two.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-Mr. Bourgel:
For a copy of all instructions, directives or orders issued by the postmaster general, his office or his department, regarding political activities of casual, part-time, permanent employees, and all mail carrying contractors.
Motion agreed to.
6016	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE desire for an opportunity for the widest
possible discussion of these matters at this inquiry as to agenda for July meeting particular time.
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government is sufficiently advanced with its preparations for the federal-provincial conference which is to open two weeks from today to indicate to the house the lines of the proposals it intends to make?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I think the hon. member may have somewhat misapprehended the purpose and function of the forthcoming conference. As I indicated on previous occasions, it is not expected that at this particular conference final decisions will be arrived at. This conference will be followed by at least one other conference, it is expected, later in the year. Five years ago when a similar situation existed, as the period covered by the previous legislation was about 18 months from its conclusion, a series of conferences was held beginning in the late spring of the year 1955. I should think that in the ordinary course we might expect this conference to afford occasion for the widest possible exchange of views on the part of the 11 governments concerned as to all the problems that today enter into the field of dominion-provincial financial relations.
There will be at least one other conference later in the year, or whatever conferences may be required in order that the government may be in a position at the 1961 session of parliament to submit for enactment whatever legislation may be required for the period following March 31, 1962.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the hon. minister a supplementary question. Having noticed what the minister said about the second conference, will the minister say whether or not at the first meeting this month the government does intend to present new proposals; and in that event is the house going to be given an opportunity of knowing what those proposals are before they are submitted to the provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be in keeping with the purpose or spirit of this conference for the federal government to be submitting firm and definite proposals to it. Naturally we would wish to know the views of the provinces on many aspects of federal-provincial financial relations for the period following March 31, 1962. I think the hon. member will realize on reflection that there is need and
[Mr. Bourget.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the minister a further supplementary question. Could the minister assure the house that the Liberal policy of equalization and stabilization will not be abandoned by the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked before. The house will have ample opportunity of reviewing proposals before any legislation is enacted. This matter is not going to be determined overnight. It is not going to be determined in one day's meeting. It is not likely to be determined at one conference. There are likely to be at least two conferences. Perhaps it might even be the case that there will be three conferences; there were three in 1955. The matter must come before parliament for Whatever legislation may be required to provide on the federal side the legislative basis for the fiscal relations between the dominion and the provinces after March 31, 1962. The full rights of the house will of course be respected, and the house will have ample opportunity to deal with this subject at the appropriate time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Am I correct in interpreting the minister's answer as saying that the government intends to follow scrupulously the precedents of 1955 and 1956?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there are some aspects of the way similar situations were handled in 1955 and 1956 by the former government which I can assure the house will not be followed this time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the continuing deterioration in relations between Cuba and the United States, and the danger to world peace as a result of threatening statements made by both the United States and the U.S.S.R., with hints of armed intervention and armed retaliation. Could the minister say, since this situation affects Canada so closely, what channels Canada is using to keep our government informed, and whether Canada has made any positive suggestions which might lead to a reduction of tension in this area?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we have an ambassador in Cuba, so we are being kept informed of the situation. There have been no representations made by the Canadian government with regard to the situation which has arisen within the last day or two, particularly arising from the threat by Premier Khrushchev.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question.
Has Canada given any consideration-and if the answer is no, will consideration be given by the government-to raising this question and advancing positive proposals at the Canada-United States ministerial committee which is meeting on July 12 and 13?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Canada is of course very much concerned about the situation, and the discussions in the Canada-United States defence committee will probably cover world affairs generally. But I am not in a position to say at the moment just what particular subjects will be raised at that meeting.


INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF 1959 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Pursuant to a question put to him on Friday last by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has tabled the report of the Department of External Affairs for 1959?


Howard Charles Green: I had intended to deal with this question before the orders of the day were concluded. I find that I gave the wrong information on Friday. The report had not been tabled. We tabled it in multigraph form on Friday afternoon. There are copies of the same type available to hon. members who are interested. It was tabled in both the English and French languages. The report has not yet been printed. The hon. member for Essex East will realize that the report of the Department of External Affairs covers the calendar year, whereas the reports of most departments cover the fiscal year. There is a little difference in time, for that reason, when the report is tabled. Actually it should have been tabled some weeks ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I address a question to the hon. gentleman now in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in tabling the report of that department for 1959, has violated the 79951-0-380J
Inquiries of the Ministry act of the Department of External Affairs, the sixth section of which provides that the minister shall annually lay before parliament within 10 days after the meeting thereof a report of the proceedings and transactions of the affairs of the department during the year then next preceding. The minister has now informed us that the report was tabled on Friday, when it should have been tabled 10 days after parliament was convened.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Prime Minister I shall be glad to reprimand the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However,
I believe if the hon. member will check back into those dear dead days gone beyond recall when he was on this side of the house, he will find that in most years the report was not tabled within 10 days after the house met. This would be quite impossible if the house met in January, because the material cannot be ready for printing within that length of time. I think perhaps the act might be read as meaning the report should be tabled within 10 days after the house meets in 1961.
I am not pressing that point. I did explain a while ago that the reports of other departments cover the fiscal year, so a report for the year ending March, 1959 is not ordinarily tabled until after the house meets in 1960. I checked up the other day on the dates when reports had been tabled, and I believe there were very few if any instances when they had been tabled within 10 days of the time when parliament commenced its sittings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will have to reprimand your leader.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell us of any instance when the report of the department for the preceding year was not tabled in time for it to be available for the work of the committee on external affairs?


Howard Charles Green: I have not in my memory when these reports were tabled. Last year, for example, I think it was tabled on July 10, or a day or so after it was tabled this year.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The previous government had a better record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is absent, and that the Minister of Justice himself had much to do with the introduction of the bill of rights, would he look at the situation that has just now been revealed to
6018	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the house, particularly at the obligations imposed on the minister under section 6 of the act, and take whatever steps he believes should be taken to conform with the law? I am sure the Acting Prime Minister today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into that, but inasmuch as the Acting Prime Minister has undertaken to reprimand the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the present situation, perhaps my hon. friend can undertake to give a reprimand to his leader, the former secretary, for the past situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question has been carried far enough.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege; my name has been brought into this question, therefore surely I have the right to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any instances of delayed tabling of the reports to the extent which would warrant reprimands of past or present governments?


Howard Charles Green: I would have to check up on the dates when the reports were tabled in other years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with a constructive approach. If it is found physically impossible, because of their length and other circumstances, to table some of these reports in accordance with the law, will the minister give consideration to recommending an amendment of the law so that we can avoid these bad precedents?


Howard Charles Green: I presume that originally, as a convenience for hon. members, the external affairs report was drawn up to cover the calendar year. I think it is a very good thing to have. When the act was passed the practice was to have reports cover the preceding fiscal year. There is that discrepancy. I do not know how many of the departments now publish their reports on a calendar year basis; probably it would be beneficial if they all did that, because parliament would certainly get the reports at an earlier date than it gets them under the present conditions, when in an ordinary year parliament meets in early January.


ACTION TO PROTECT OR EVACUATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External


Affairs. Can he inform the house as to the situation in the Congo at the present time, and especially what plans are being made, or what action is being taken, either for the protection or the evacuation of Canadians resident there?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian representative in the Congo is our trade commissioner, Mr. R. A. Bull, a son of Mr. W. F. Bull, our ambassador in Japan. He sent a message on July 8 and again on July 9 from the Canadian office in Leopoldville. I believe that most of the Canadians in Leopoldville have been able to get across the river to Brazzaville, in what was formerly the French Congo.
The situation in Leopoldville itself was reported in the message of July 9 as being under control and business going on as usual. Communications with other parts of the Congo are not, however, operating normally and we are not in a position to give a report as to the situation generally in the outer areas in so far as Canadian residents are concerned.
Our representatives in the Congo are coordinating their operations with those of their colleagues from the United Kingdom. Some time ago instructions had been given to the Canadians who had registered with our office in Leopoldville that in the event of trouble in their respective areas they were to try to make their way independently to the nearest British territory. We have not yet had any further details or reports as to what has happened outside of Leopoldville in so far as Canadian residents are concerned.


Erhart Regier: Is the United Kingdom government or the Canadian government making any moves toward evacuation of either United Kingdom or Canadian residents or citizens, or both?


Howard Charles Green: So far as I know no actual British planes are being flown into the area to remove British subjects. We are in contact with London in regard to this question, and whatever we can do will certainly be done.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. Is he able to assure this house and the country that he will not hesitate to use the facilities at his command in order to ensure the safety and the survival of Canadian residents in the Congo?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, we will naturally do everything possible in accordance with general policy to assist any Canadian residents there may be in the Congo.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the government has yet received any official communication from the government of British Columbia containing an offer or request for Garibaldi to be made into a national park.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Up to 10.55
this morning no such request had been received.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: On Friday last the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired regarding the contract for runway construction at the Vancouver airport. This contract has been awarded to the third lowest tender, which was submitted by the firms of Henry J. Kaiser Limited, Montreal, Tallman Construction Company, Winnipeg, and Gilpin Construction Company, Vancouver, at a price of $1,761,325, on the basis of the lowest satisfactory bid meeting departmental requirements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether this company is a subsidiary of a United States company, whereas the second and first tenderers are British Columbia companies?


George Harris Hees: As I outlined, the contract was awarded to three companies, all of which were, as I understand it, incorporated in Canada.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to an article appearing in this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette which reported alleged brutality in the method used by the Hong Kong police who are in Canada investigating irregularities in Chinese immigration?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, my attention has been drawn to the article in question, and I should like to point out that again this is a general allegation without identification of the person who is said to have been improperly treated.
I think, therefore, that I can only repeat, and that I should repeat, what I have said on earlier occasions, namely that I have been concerned that in the handling of this investigation there should be no improper methods used by any of the police who are conducting it. I have therefore carefully investigated every complaint of this sort, at least in every case where there were any particulars which made it possible to identify the circumstances and conduct an investigation, and in every such case the allegation of improper conduct, except in one case of a questionnaire in Prince Rupert, has been found to be completely unfounded. I should like to emphasize that, and say the investigations which I have made satisfy me that the Hong Kong police as well as the R.C.M.P. are conducting their part of the inquiry in a proper manner, and that in no case have they abused their authority or treated persons other than strictly and properly in accordance with what is established by law.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Last Thursday questions were addressed to me by the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Essex East concerning regulations relating to civil defence exercises. There are no federal regulations or orders to compel participation in a civil defence exercise. Parliament has passed no legislation under which, in peacetime, such orders could be issued.
Civil defence exercises of the kind referred to are conducted by municipal or provincial authorities. Whether it would be within the power of the municipality by by-law or of a provincial government by regulation to make compulsory orders is a legal question on which it would be out of place to express an opinion here. Some provinces have civil defence legislation; Ontario does not.
The federal government as a matter of policy encourages provinces and municipalities to conduct realistic civil defence exercises. I think it is well to encourage public participation in such exercises as soon as those directing the exercises are ready to conduct them on this basis.
6020	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
I was asked to what minister a question on a matter such as this should be addressed, if not to myself. My department deals only with those civil defence matters which are clearly within the fields of health or welfare services. The subject of this question is of a more general character, and consequently such a question is more properly addressed to the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence, who acts on behalf of the Prime Minister in dealing with general questions of emergency measures and civil defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence then, in the absence of the Prime Minister, whether pursuant to observations made by a civil defence chief in Toronto it is the intention of the federal government to exercise compulsion with regard to civil defence workers in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, there is no intention on the part of the federal government at the present time to exercise any compulsion in connection with participation by civilians in civil defence exercises of any kind.



INQUIRY AS TO REASON FOR PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he tell the house whether the difficulties between the United States and Cuba account for the increase in the price of sugar in Canada? There was an increase of 30 cents per hundred pounds last week.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I had some difficulty in catching the hon. member's question, but he seems to refer to an increase in the price of sugar and seeks to ascertain whether or not that is related to the Cuban difficulties?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will have the matter investigated.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he any comment to make on the charge out of Port Weller that the government has treated the lake pilots with bad faith through causing them to work too long hours?


George Harris Hees: I have not seen such a report.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of a news report on Friday in which it was stated that the new public works minister in the province of Quebec, Hon. Rene Levesque, said he believed the present interprovincial bridge is so bad that it should be repaired or a new bridge undertaken right away, without any further delay. Is it the intention of the minister to take advantage of this situation to start work on a new bridge right away?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my hon. friend means for me to take advantage of the situation expressed by the new and ambitious member of the new government of the old province of Quebec, or whether I am to take advantage of the newspaper article. In any event, the committee that is dealing with this bridge has all these matters under consideration, and when further information is forthcoming another meeting of that committee of which I am the chairman will be called. We look forward to meeting the new minister from the province of Quebec.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that in the city of Detroit it is proposed to impose a municipal income tax which will apply to several thousand Canadian citizens who reside in Windsor and district and work in Detroit? In view of the reciprocal tax arrangement between Canada and the United States, does the minister not believe that such action by any level of government in either country would contravene the spirit if not the letter of our intergovernmental tax arrangement, which is designed to avoid the inequalities of double taxation? Would the minister consider this situation with a view to making representations to his opposite number in the United States?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, what relationship this proposed municipal tax in Detroit may have

to the existing tax convention between Canada and the United States I would not attempt to say offhand. We are in the course of negotiations with the United States authorities with a view to renewal of the convention with such changes as may be considered appropriate. As to any question having to do with the enforcement or interpretation of the existing convention, that would be a question which should more properly be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance of this matter to the area from which I come, will the Minister of National Revenue note the observation made by the Minister of Finance?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I will do that, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED CANADIAN DECISION NOT TO JOIN REGIONAL CUSTOMS UNIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of July 4, to the effect that the Canadian government has decided it only wants to trade and not join with any regional customs union in the world. Has the government made this kind of decision as stated by the Canadian Press and, if so, can the minister inform the house as to the details of the decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In effect the hon. member is asking for verification of a press report. If the hon. member has a legitimate question about announced policy he may put it, but not in that form.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I was laying a basis for the question to make it apparent that I was not pulling it out of the air. Has the Canadian government come to a recent decision that Canada is not interested in joining any of the regional customs unions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The practice of the house that has prevailed over the years is that if there is to be an announcement of government policy it will be made in the house. At the present time Canada is carrying on under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and is trading on a world-wide basis.
1L 1960
Public Service Superannuation Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



ANNOUNCEMENT OF ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR TODAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the attention of the house the order of business for today. The items were announced last week, but by arrangement this will be the order today. We will first deal with the Public Service Superannuation Act, then the act respecting the department of forestry, then the trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.S.R. and then the amendments to the Criminal Code. If these are completed we will then deal with the estimates of the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors which were before the house last week. In the event that we finish these estimates we will then commence discussion of the resolution concerning the Canada Elections Act, with the intention of continuing that discussion on Tuesday.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: +hat the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-76, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-"Force".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say very briefly that the special committee appointed for the purpose of reviewing the clauses of this bill has made its unanimous report, and I respectfully express my commendation of the committee for the harmony and identity of purpose that prevailed in its meetings in seeking to provide as good a bill as possible to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and bring the benefits of the bill into effect as soon as possible.
Three amendments were introduced in the special committee, and as this is a bill that was preceded by a money resolution perhaps I might say for the record that these three amendments were introduced at my request. They come, of course, within the scope of the resolution that the house adopted prior to the introduction of the bill, and as we reach the clauses which are affected by the three amendments I shall ask one of my colleagues to move the amendment recommended in each case by the special committee.

Public Service Superannuation Act


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, as one of the members of the special committee I wish to say how pleased we were with the presentations made by the several groups that appeared before the committee. As a result of many meetings in a very short time, the committee presented a unanimous report with some amendments as suggested by the Minister of Finance, which are all to the good.
However, I wish to point out at this time that because of the fact that the bill is not retroactive, and the fact that the minister could not accept the suggestion that it should be at least retroactive to the date of its introduction in the house, it was not possible to consider in detail the many very valuable suggestions made by different groups which appeared before the committee. As one who is deeply interested in seeing the bill passed I would not want to be accused of causing any delay, and along with other members of the committee did not press at this time for a delay to consider any further amendments, which no doubt would have required considerable thought and time.
Nevertheless, I think the minister will agree with me and the other members of the committee that in view of the fair representations made in the many briefs from responsible organizations, which open up quite a field of study, it would be most desirable if the government would undertake to provide an opportunity at the next session of parliament for a similar committee to meet. I think it should be said that this was a very good committee, whose members worked together, and it probably presents a good case for having smaller committees. Those committees of which I have been a member whose numbers were limited to 10 or 12 members have always been the best type of committee and have done the best job. With a smaller committee it is easier for members to present their views and reach an understanding.
With that reservation in mind, namely that there are many aspects of the superannuation act requiring study which have nothing to do with the benefits granted by these amendments, I hope the government will agree that there are other very good amendments that need to be made to the act, and that as early as possible at the next session it will establish a small committee to study the suggestions which were made in the briefs and any further suggestions which may be brought forward.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, if, this morning, we take time to consider certain amendments to the bill to amend the civil service super-


annuation act, I hope this will not be construed as a wish unduly to delay a bill which is of great interest to civil servants who will reach the age of retirement in the near future.
I fully approve the suggestion just made by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) that the committee be reconvened next session, so as to give it an opportunity of introducing improvements as the need occurs and of making other suggestions to the government. After all, the representations made by the various spokesmen of the public service organizations contain a good many very interesting suggestions, which are worth considering. However, as it is important that this bill be passed immediately, we are unable at this advanced stage of the session, to study all those excellent suggestions in detail.
I know that the minister wants everything connected with the civil service superannuation act to be as up to date as possible. I believe that it would be an excellent thing to appoint a committee each year to study the suggestions that come up from time to time, for some of them could easily be acted upon, while others might not be readily acceptable.
For instance, there is a suggestion concerning women civil servants with dependents. I realize that a revision in this regard would have required so much work that the passing of the bill would have been delayed, and that the civil servants would not have been able immediately to benefit from the legislation. The proposal of granting to a married woman who is sole support of her husband and children, particularly when the husband is disabled, has much value. She is indeed in the same position as a husband who supports his family.
There are some other suggestions which might be considered but would be more difficult to accept. For instance, a widow on pension allowance who remarries should not be deprived of her pension. Some people say that the moral factor should be considered in the administration of this act. Anyway, the proposal has some value.
There are two other suggestions that are not quite clear in this bill. For instance, the loss of superannuation rights in the case of a person found guilty of an indictable offence. The legislation on this point should be clarified.
Some lawyers, including in particular, the chairman of the committee, told me that this was implied in the law. Someone with legal

training can easily read between the lines, but for a poor layman like myself, it is important that this chapter be made clearer, especially in the case of dismissal for cause. It should be understood that it applies to misbehaviour committed within the department and not outside. This is a most important point at present.
May I add that it would be very important to consider all proposals submitted, because they are all somewhat similar.
The main points are the same, and it can be seen, therefore, that the said bill still leaves room for improvement.
Therefore, if the committee were resumed to go into the bill more thoroughly and advise the minister, we might within a few years have an act second to none in the world, both with respect to clarity and to the possibilities it would offer.
The point I want to emphasize this year is that the bill should be made retroactive to June 20.
I know, as the minister has indicated, that if we make it retroactive to any particular date, there will always be someone who will be dissatisfied. I agree. One sure thing, however, is that it was on June 20 that civil servants were made aware of the government's positive intention to introduce those changes during this session.
The bill was introduced on June 20. Therefore, those who are on pension since June 20 have been much more hopeful than those who were to be pensioned off before June 20, because they now know about the benefits provided for in the bill.
I am sure that making the bill retroactive would not involve any considerable change from an actuarial point of view.
I think the mere fact of proclaiming this bill as retroactive to June 20 would satisfy those who have had to retire since that date.
Like the hon. member for Ottawa East, I therefore insist that consideration be given to those two demands: first, that the bill be retroactive to the date it was originally introduced in the house; second, that the committee be resumed next year to consider the other suggestions submitted by the various civil service organizations.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: I noticed, Mr. Chairman, what the previous speaker had to say concerning making the bill retroactive in its effect. However, I was not a member of the special committee which dealt with this bill, and I should
11, 1960
Public Service Superannuation Act like to ask the minister what consideration has been given by either the government or the committee to making the bill retroactive in effect in order to provide an adequate level of superannuation to all retired civil servants.
I feel that these people have been done a great wrong over a number of years now. They offered their services to the public, and they received a wage while they were employed. However, they now have to live on a standard that is not in line with the standard that will pertain to those now serving the public and who will retire in the years ahead. I should like to have a report from the minister as to what consideration was given, either by the committee but more particularly by the government, to restoring to the retired civil servants the standard of living they so rightfully deserve.


Mr. MacLellan:: I should like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to express my thanks to the committee for the excellent work they did in connection with this Public Service Superannuation Act. In the first place, there was an excellent attendance and a keen interest shown by all members of the committee in the work that was being undertaken. In addition, the members of the committee made some special sacrifices in order to speed the passage of this bill. For example on Friday, when it was evident that if we were to have this bill ready for the house today extra hours of sitting would be necessary, the members of the committee agreed to push ahead even through the lunch hour.
The presentations made by the different staff associations were excellent. Among the representations that were made there were sincere compliments to the government and the Minister of Finance upon the improvement this act would bring about in the position of retired civil servants. For example, in the brief of the civil service association of Canada, Mr. Best said:
Speaking generally. I can say without reservation that we strongly support the principle of the proposed amendments and we would like to commend the government for introducing them. Those improvements that will provide more adequate pensions for those who will retire after these amendments come into force are welcomed.
In the excellent brief that was presented by the professional institute of the public service of Canada, paragraph 1, Mr. Marshall the president commented:
The institute is gratified that progress is being made toward improving the superannuation act and implementing some of the institute's recommendations. The six-year average, the removal of the $15,000 salary ceiling, and the provision for rectifying administrative errors are commendable.
Then, in the brief that was presented by the Canadian Legion there was a comment about
6024	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act the warm reception the bill was receiving among veterans who are public servants. Mr. Burgess, president of the dominion command, in his brief said:
Veterans who are public servants will be very happy with the proposed change which will enable superannuation payments to be based on six years rather than ten.
Though the present proposal is for six years rather than five, as requested by the Legion a few years ago, we feel sure that it will be warmly received.
The committee was glad to note that there was a general acceptance of the principle of the amendments. While, as has been stated by other hon. members, there was not an opportunity, if this bill was to be put through as quickly as we wished it to be put through, to deal with all the matters that were raised; and while under the terms of reference of the committee it was not possible to deal with many of the extremely good suggestions made, all of the committee hope that the department will seriously consider some of these good recommendations in planning for future amendments to the act. I am sure that I speak also for the committee when I say that we were grateful to the Minister of Finance and his officials for the time they gave to the committee and the excellent work they performed for it, in our effort to put this bill through as quickly as possible.


Mr. Regnier:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister certain matters in connection with the question of election under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act effective September 1, 1952. I should like to read a letter dated March 9, 1954 written by Mr. Jean Lesage and addressed to Hon. D. C. Abbott, then minister of finance. It is as follows:
My dear colleague:
We have a case In the department that I would be pleased if you would look into and see if anything might be done. Mr. George H. Foures, a senior engineer with the department, was appointed to the permanent staff on the 1st September, 1952. This engineer had several years of temporary service prior to that date and was most desirous of paying superannuation arrears for the total period.
In the year following his permanent appointment Mr. Foures spent a considerable amount of his time on inspectional trips throughout Canada and, in fact, was on one of these inspection trips at the time his year to elect for past service expired. His election forms were subsequently forwarded to the superannuation branch but unfortunately were not accepted.
While I realize Mr. Foures will have a further opportunity to pay superannuation arrears for the period involved under the terms of the new Public Service Superannuation Act, such election must necessarily be on a penalty basis and would be most costly in his case.
I would be pleased if you could arrange the acceptance by the superannuation branch of Mr. Foures' election forms previously submitted.
[Mr. MacLellanJ

Then there is a letter from Hon. D. C. Abbott to Hon. Jean Lesage dated March 31, 1954, which reads as follows:
My dear colleague:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 9, relating to Mr. George H. Foures, a senior engineer with your department.
The superannuation branch of my department informs me that Mr. Foures became a contributor under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act effective September 1, 1952. Under the provisions of the act in force at that time, Mr. Foures had the opportunity to elect for his prior non-contributory service within one year from September 16, 1952. An election was not received until November 6, 1953 which was not within the prescribed time for making such election.
This case has received thorough and sympathetic consideration from the officers of the superannuation branch: however, in view of relevant law I regret to have to inform you that it is not possible to implement Mr. Foures' election.
I understand that this person was ill at the time his application was being rejected. This would mean that instead of paying back the sum of about $1,200, this person through missing his election is now paying back $3,500. I understand there are about half a dozen similar cases that require adjustment. I should like the minister, if he can do so, to look into those cases.


Mr. Tardif:: I want to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa East and the hon. member for Hull in connection with the desire of some members of the committee to make this bill effective as of June 20. I know there was not a great deal of time for any more thorough or more complete study of this bill because, as the chairman of the committee has said, we were anxious to have it before the house today, but this matter probably could be rectified if it were possible for this committee to sit next year. Conditions in connection with superannuation change constantly. While this is not now a permanent committee, I think it might be a good idea if it became a permanent committee.
Among the studies this committee could make next year would be a study of the readjustment of or reconsideration of the pensions that are paid to civil servants who have retired. Because the cost of living has increased considerably, the pensions that are paid to retired civil servants are no longer adequate. I think that would be a question that would deserve study if the committee sat next year.
While this is an improvement on the previous bill, the only thing we could see that would make it better would have been the decision that it become effective on June 20, and that this study of pensions already

paid to retired civil servants should have been or be part of the study that was made before this bill was presented.
I am sure the minister will consider the appointment of this committee next year. It would be an improvement to the act if these matters were studied and included in the next bill presented to the house.


George James McIlraith: I welcome the fact that this bill is coming before the committee of the whole today so it can be considered and, after it is finally dealt with by this chamber, can be sent to the other place for their consideration with a view to having the bill enacted into law at the earliest practicable date.
As I understand the minister's remarks in presenting the bill to this committee for its consideration, his reference to the amendments which we made in our committee proceedings had to do with procedural matters only arising out of the fact that this bill, being a money bill, is preceded by a resolution, and therefore it is the better legal opinion that the amendments made in the special committee dealing with this bill require to be moved in committee of the whole by a minister of the crown. I take it that is the point to which he had reference there.
The bill really deals with one major point, namely changing the basis for computing superannuation by taking the base period as six years of employment rather than the former provision for ten years. That is the chief provision of the bill, and it is a desirable change. Many of the associations have recommended a change to a five-year period. The change to a six-year period comes very close to it, and it is a most desirable change. I think there is the desire to have that principle adopted as quickly as possible.
A great many other points were raised in the briefs of the associations. Some of them were extremely important points and some of them were smaller points. However, since each of those points affects some one person or other, I think we may correctly assume that each point is important.
The special committee gave each point such consideration as it was able, but because of the point we have reached in the session it became necessary to deal with the bill a little more quickly than might ordinarily have been the case, in order to assure that it would be back in the house to be dealt with today rather than risk delay that might put the whole matter of approval over until another session of parliament. I do hope that if that should be necessary the minister and the officials concerned with the administration of this act will continue to examine in a thorough
Public Service Superannuation Act way each of the points which were raised, because it seems to me each one by its own particular nature requires detailed consideration.
It is quite true that many of these points, while they appear simple, are not in fact simple at all, and that all factors involved in computing the superannuation dependent upon a particular recommendation involve quite a procedure and some of them do affect the actuarial soundness of the fund, which is something to be watched and guarded at all times.
Then there is the question of those civil servants who are already superannuated, and who because of special circumstances arising from when they were superannuated and the rates of pay they were drawing over the period for which their superannuation was computed, have suffered considerable hardship. I would very much like to discuss that whole matter, Mr. Chairman, but I take it the question cannot be discussed now since it was the subject matter of an act of parliament; therefore it would not be proper to deal with in on this bill, much as I would like to do so.
There is another matter of general application which causes me much concern. When you take a cut-off date for any changes in this legislation it always raises a problem, because there are some who retire immediately before that date and are therefore not entitled to the enlarged benefits of the new legislation, and consequently are in an unfortunate position. Therefore the matter of the date of the bill becoming effective as an act is of very real and special importance. I notice that this bill is to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; I picked up the wrong bill. I picked up the one which was presented in the first instance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This bill will come into effect on the day it receives royal assent, in the ordinary way.


George James McIlraith: I picked up the bill presented for first reading, which contained the other provision. I have now in my hand the bill which received first reading on June 20, 1960. This one here contains clause 85. In any event I recognize that the bill is different from what it was in committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member must have a different bill; there is no clause 85 in this one.


George James McIlraith: No. I recognize that I picked up the wrong bill in error, and I hope the

Public Service Superannuation Act committee will be forbearing, because I am completely wrong. In any event, the point is that the bill comes into operation on receiving royal assent, and there are those who thought that because the first reading of the bill was on June 20, that date should have been the cut-off date and that the bill should have become operative then. That question was raised in the special committee and the point was specifically dealt with by the committee members. The minister and the government took the position that the bill ought not properly to come into operation until the date it received royal assent.
Mr. Chairman, I merely content myself on this point with asking the minister if he will again consider that question of changing the date to the earlier date. There is a great deal of argument to be made both ways, and perhaps there is no reason for me to dwell on the subject.
I am also particularly concerned that the minister make it very clear that the increased contributions by male contributors are required for the increased benefits under the act. That point was raised in the special committee and the minister indicated, I think on two different occasions, that he thought the increased contribution was required to meet the benefits set out in the act, and that it was to take care of the actuarial deficiency in the fund.
I would hope that the minister at an appropriate time in the committee stage would make that point very clear, because in general this legislation over the years has been very good legislation. I think it is quite important that no point such as that should be let go, where there is doubt in the minds of the persons coming under the act, so that those coming under the act will continue to have the high confidence they now have in this act and the benefits it confers upon them. Therefore I hope the minister will take a moment of his time just to make that point very clear, as I think he sought to do in the committee on two or three occasions.


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question before he resumes his seat. I would like to ask him why he apparently does not endorse the idea that the blessings of this amendment to the act ought to be made retroactive to apply to all retired civil servants, regardless of the date of their retirement.


George James McIlraith: I think the point there is this. That question ought properly to be dealt with by other legislation. That is the whole problem with regard to civil servants who are already superannuated. I do not know


whether the records of the department are sufficiently complete that it would now be possible to do that.
That is the answer to the question. I would like to see it done; that is elementary, but I do not know whether it is physically possible to do it with the records now available. Take the case of a civil servant who was superannuated 25 years ago, and try to compute it on the new basis under this act. I do not know whether the records are available to the government, and this is really something which should be asked the government. It is a question which ought properly to be addressed to the minister. However I was asked the question; I am very much interested in the subject, and happy to disclose my position on it.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point or two on behalf of a few retired civil servants who retired on the basis of disability; in other words, civil servants who were forced because of ill health to retire on disability pensions. Some of them are very disabled. There are others who may be able to earn small sums during the working year, but for the most part they are disabled persons who must depend for their daily bread on the disability pension they receive.
Some hardship is being suffered by these people, and I should like to call the situation to the minister's attention in order that consideration may be given to relieving these cases. The amounts they receive are usually extremely small, because those concerned have had to retire early, let us say in their early fifties. They would probably not be receiving more than $3,000, and it is difficult for a family to meet all the bills which disability entails on so small an amount.
There is precedent for taking action. Since I became interested in this matter I have looked up the record in the United States, and I find that there a disabled civil servant has an income tax exemption to the extent of $1,200. In this country I believe there is complete exemption with regard to a former member of the armed forces. It may be that such a rule could be followed in the case of civil servants who have retired on disability pensions. The amount of tax money involved is so small that it would mean very little to the national revenue, but it would mean a tremendous amount to those who received the concession. It does not seem right to me that these people who find themselves in a difficult situation after having given the best part of their lives to the service of the government and the country should be taxed beyond their capacity to pay.
Whatever decision is made, I believe special consideration should be given to those who

have been disabled. Those of us who are able to work, or even in reasonably good health do not deserve too much consideration. However, I believe those who are unable to work should be properly taken care of under the superannuation act and I do not think that is the case at present. At least that is the information I have, on the basis of which I bring this matter to the minister's attention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: First, let me say
in general terms that I think all the points which have been raised in the course of the discussion, or which were raised in the four briefs which were presented by various associations and groups to the committee, were given careful consideration by the committee. I do not recall any point raised at the time which was not considered in the committee before it reached its conclusions and submitted its report to the house. I would not wish the impression to be left that there had been undue haste in the work performed by the committee. The committee worked very assiduously and diligently, and I think it carried out its task very thoroughly.
To dispose of one or two points before touching on what might be regarded as the principle point raised in the discussion this morning, perhaps I should refer first of all to the question of the position of dependents of married women who are civil servants. Let me dispose of this at once, because there was a very serious misapprehension in the first of the four briefs which were presented to the committee last week. It was in the brief submitted by the professional institute of the public service of Canada. The impression which underlay that submission was that children of married women employed in the public service had no pension status. That, of course, is entirely wrong, and I took the opportunity of pointing that out to the members of the committee. Section 13, subsection 6 of the act states in the clearest terms:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires, "widow" includes "widower", but no person is entitled to an allowance under this act by virtue of his being the widower of the contributor.
For the purposes of this act and pension status under this act, the children of a married woman who is in the public service are in precisely the same position as the children of a man who is in the public service. The only difference is in relation to the husband of a woman who is in the public service. Her husband has not the status that the wife of a male civil servant has, or his widow on his decease. It has not commended itself to parliament at any time to make provision for the husband of a married woman who is employed in the public service,
Public Service Superannuation Act but as far as dependent children are concerned they are in precisely the same position whether it is their father or their mother who is employed in the public service.
The hon. member for St. Boniface raised questions about a particular case. I do not recall that he has brought that particular case to my attention, but if he does I will be glad to look into it. My impression from what I heard this morning would lead me to believe that the individual in question failed to make the election prescribed by law in the year 1953. Later another option was open to him, after the new legislation came into effect on January 1, 1954, which would have affected the basis of his payments. The law was there but evidently, as I understand the case, the man failed to comply with the law in the making of his election However, if the hon. member will bring the circumstances of the case to my attention I shall be glad to look into the matter thoroughly and appraise the status of the former civil servant concerned.
The next point which was raised concerns persons who are not now members of the civil service but who have been heretofore superannuated. The present measure has no application whatever to any persons who have been superannuated prior to the present day. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam completely overlooked the provision which parliament made for them in 1958 and 1959. I put before the house in 1958 an item in the estimates to meet the exigencies of persons in this group, and that was adopted. Then in the 1959 session parliament enacted a statute to deal with the cases of such persons. That is the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act, and there was no criticism of that measure when it was introduced in 1959, nor was there criticism of the corresponding provision in the estimates introduced in 1958. I think I told the committee that a good many retired civil servants who received benefits under these provisions wrote in to express their satisfaction. I have heard very, very little criticism of that measure. It was one which was widely appreciated and which, I think, has served a useful purpose.
The final question concerns the date as of which the benefits provided by this bill are to take effect. The ordinary rule of this house is that statutes have effect from the day on which they receive royal assent. That is the standard rule if there is no provision in a measure to the contrary. We are dealing in this bill with a pension which is contributory. It is a benefit which is open to those who come within the definition of the public

Public Service Superannuation Act service in the measure and who contribute half the current contributions to the provision of the benefits. It is perfectly obvious that if the scale or the basis upon which the benefit is to be calculated is increased to the advantage of those to whom it applies, the date on which it becomes effective is a matter of concern to all persons who may be on the point of retirement. This subject was very carefully considered by the government and by the committee. I explained to the committee on two occasions the various stages of consideration through which this matter passed.
Obviously, if you attempt to date back the effect of the benefits of the bill to some earlier date than is normal, you are still going to find some persons who retired just before the date you choose and who will feel a sense of regret, disappointment and perhaps even discrimination. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, if you date back the benefits of this bill to a date before the increase in the payments provided by this bill, or the contributions in respect of male employees, then you are departing to that extent from the contributory principle.
It is true that this measure received its first reading in this house on June 20, but it was announced in the throne speech in January that amendments would be introduced to the Public Service Superannuation Act at the present session. And having regard to the fact that the basis on which the benefits are calculated has been a matter of discussion in this house over the years-I think I can recall discussions of a good many years; I believe the hon. member for Ottawa West will bear me out in that-I do not think there were very many civil servants who had not concluded that there would be a change in the basis of calculation, and that the effect of this would be to increase the benefits of those who would retire thereafter.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is in fact no reason for selecting June 20, or even any other earlier date, in preference to some other than the usual date. The fact is that if you chose June 20 as the effective date you would disappoint those who had retired on June 19, June 18, or June 17, and so on. If you choose any date at all, Mr. Chairman, you cannot escape the fact that you are going to disappoint some whose retirement occurred prior to the date selected. Therefore there is no escape whatever from that fact. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, it seemed to us that the only proper course to follow, the only fair course, on ultimate consideration is the normal course; that the measure shall come into effect on the date on which it receives royal assent.


The increased scale of contributions in the case of male contributors will become effective as soon as the regulations required under the act for the purpose can be promulgated. We may regret and express regret that it is not possible to extend this measure so far that no persons who retired just before the date that might be chosen would be disappointed, but we had to come back to this hard fact; that whatever date you chose there are persons who are going to be disappointed because they retired prior to that date. There is simply no escape from this problem, and it will always be so, Mr. Chairman, in connection with any legislation which increases the benefits for particular groups of persons.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the committee of the whole is well aware that this matter was very carefully considered and did receive careful analysis in the committee. As to those persons who had retired previously, the other legislation to which I have referred makes provision for their cases.


Erhart Regier: I realize what the minister contends, namely that the public service has been-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit me? A point was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West which I had intended to deal with but did not. He raised the question whether the increase proposed by the bill in the contributions by male employees of the public service exceeds in amount the cost of the benefits under the bill. The committee is aware of the fact that under the present legislation the contribution deducted from female employees is 5 per cent and that deducted from male employees is 6 per cent, and the government matches those contributions; so that the total contribution to the fund for every female employee today is 10 per cent of current salary and in the case of every male employee 12 per cent. The committee is aware of the report of the actuary, who reported that in his appraisal of the fund last summer he concluded that the cost to the fund of providing the existing benefits for female employees is 9.7 per cent, and the cost to the fund for providing the current benefits to male employees is 12.4 per cent. Therefore under the present scale there is an inadequacy in respect of male contributions. There is a slight difference between the contributions in respect of female employees and the benefits they receive, where the difference is between a total of 9.7 per cent in cost and 10 per cent in contribution.
We have here a bill which provides increased benefits, and the question raised by

the hon. member for Ottawa West in the committee and again in the house was whether the proposed increase in the case of male contributors is really needed for the purpose of providing benefits, or would there be some portion of it left over and above the cost of the increased benefits that might be used by the government for the purpose of reducing the existing actuarial deficiency in the fund.
This point was also raised in the submission made to the committee on behalf of the professional institute of the public service of Canada. Mr. Fletcher in his testimony undertook to challenge the calculations that had been made in the statement presented on behalf of the government. The following day the committee called Mr. E. E. Clarke, the actuary concerned. He is a senior actuary of the department of insurance. Mr. Clarke's testimony in this respect, I think, completely demolished the point that had been raised in the submission of Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Clarke was able to point out that Mr. Fletcher had not considered certain factors. His study of the problem and his calculations consequently were not complete. Mr. Clarke went further and indicated that on the basis of the experience of recent years it is likely that the cost of providing benefits on the increased scale, so far as male employees of the public service are concerned, may run up to something like 13.3 per cent.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it correct to say in conclusion that the committee was given chapter and verse to justify completely the statement that this increase in the contribution by male contributors is required to provide the cost of the increased benefits for male persons in the public service. The bill does not contemplate any increase whatever in the contributions in respect of female employees. They will receive the increased benefits on the basis of their present contributions because, as I have indicated, their present contributions proved on analysis to be slightly greater than the cost of the benefits provided under the legislation in effect up until this time.
The increase in the case of male contributors is from 6 per cent to 6J per cent, which will be matched by the government. Accordingly the total contribution in respect of male employees now becomes 13 per cent.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of debate as to the effective date of the bill. I have no particular argument to present in that respect. I do not believe it matters very much whether the bill is made effective as of June 1, June 20, July 1 or even July 20. In my opinion that is a minor matter of detail. However, I think we have ignored one major
n, I960
Public Service Superannuation Act detail, the question of who will be eligible to receive the increased benefits being granted under the bill. The bill makes it very clear that the increased blessings will accrue only to those who are superannuated after the legislation becomes effective. I believe that the provisions of the bill, other legislation notwithstanding, should apply to all those on pension as a result of having been employed in the civil service. I see no reason why a letter carrier pensioned 20 years ago and living today should receive a smaller pension than a letter carrier who will retire later this year.
I know that even if what I now advocate, that the beneficial effects of the bill should apply to civil servants who retire in the future as well as those who have retired in the past, were given effect to, additional legislation would be necessary in order to restore equity. The minister referred in his remarks to additional and other legislation. However, I think, the bill now before us might help to a considerable extent in providing equitable treatment for retired civil servants.
I am concerned, as was the hon. member for Ottawa West, with the actuarial soundness of the public service superannuation fund, but I am even more concerned with the principle of equity. I can remember when a teachers' superannuation act was originally established in the province of Saskatchewan. Each employee agreed to the inclusion in the legislation of a provision providing for an additional levy upon himself in order that those members of the profession already retired would receive the same blessings and benefits as those then engaged in teaching hoped to receive at the time of their retirement. The same method was adopted in British Columbia when the first teachers' superannuation act was introduced; an additional assessment was assumed by members of the profession in order to provide adequately for those who had retired in the past.
I think there is much to be said for that, because our society is based more on moral values than actuarial statistics. Any society hoping to make progress must in the first place recognize its moral responsibility to those persons who have contributed to the public welfare in the years gone by. I hate to think of the fact that even at the time legislation was introduced in the house to provide pensions for members of parliament, members at that time were so selfish as to ignore those who had so faithfully served the people of Canada in the house in the past and were at that time no longer members of the house. I know a number of former members who have had to eke out a most meagre existence, while at the same time there are a number of young men no longer members of the house

Public Service Superannuation Act who are in receipt of retiring allowance benefits to the tune of $250 a month. One has only to compare the relatively young Ross Thatcher with the elderly William Irvine, the former member for Wetaskiwin-


An hon. Member:: And Mr. Nicholson.


Erhart Regier: You may include Mr. Nicholson if you like. Members of that parliament adopted exactly the same attitude that is now being shown with respect to the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act now under consideration. We conveniently ignore those who have already retired; then at some later date we decide that through additional legislation we will give them a little hand-out. In my opinion this is completely inadequate. Some measure of equity might have been restored if the bill now before us had included a provision that the additional benefits of this legislation would apply to those civil servants who will retire in the years to come and also to those who retired prior to this legislation taking effect.
It might well be that such a provision would require that the public treasury pay a supplementary amount of money into the superannuation fund. However, I feel there is a certain degree of immorality involved when we are willing to do something for civil servants who will retire in the years to come, and at the same time will not admit our obligations to those who have retired in the past.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I have a special case to put before the minister. The person in question has been forced to retire because of the diminution of work in the branch where she was employed, and up to now she has not been able to get any other position in the civil service in line with her qualifications. She has to take a pension of $84.22 at an early age. If she had been able to work until the age of 60 her pension would have been $130.38. The situation has not arisen through any fault of hers.
I can give the minister more details. This person was employed in the office of the custodian of enemy property. The work has diminished considerably and it has been necessary to let some personnel go. When she came into the service the branch did not come under the civil service. She was under the old contract; now she goes to the civil service commission, but there is no opening for her at the present time. She has applied for a position as verificator, grade 1, and an examination is to be held later. However, it may happen that she will not be successful and will have to go on pension. But if she succeeds in getting back into the civil service later will she be able to continue paying toward her pension until she is 60, and receive


the full pension at that time? This is one case but there may be many others of the same kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in the case to which the hon. member for Hull has referred, I might say there are some cases where positions are closed by reason of not being required any longer, and ordinarily-I should say always-every effort is made to accommodate such persons elsewhere in the civil service. If it be that there are no positions in which his or her qualifications may fit, then the case is dealt with in the manner prescribed by the act and the regulations at the present time. The benefit in that case becomes immediately payable. It is not necessary for that person to wait until age 60 if she has not yet reached that age. The pension that would be payable at age 60 is subject to actuarial equivalent deductions which are prescribed in the regulations. If the hon. member has this printed booklet he will find these actuarial equivalents calculated on page 83.
I have only one comment to make on the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. He has completely ignored the contributory principle from start to finish.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I pursue the matter for the purpose of clarification? Suppose the civil service has nothing to offer now and the woman has to accept her pension. Later on she comes back to the civil service. Will there be an adjustment at age 60 when she does retire regularly on pension?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be more satisfactory if the hon. member would give me the particular circumstances of the case. I shall be glad to look into it and give him as good an answer as there may be. There are some such cases as he has mentioned, but to give him a satisfactory answer one would have to know all the circumstances.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, the case is this-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member send the particulars to me, and I will look into them. I would not wish to give snap answers in committee.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will send the minister the details today.


Erhart Regier: The minister has just made a claim which is in line with many of the other wild claims he makes from time to time. The minister made the claim that I completely ignored the contributory principle behind this bill. I believe the minister ought to remember that I admitted there was need for actuarial soundness in the fund but that equity was

even more vital, and in order to have equity as well as actuarial soundness this might involve the consolidated revenue fund compensating the superannuation fund by whatever amount was necessary in order that equity might be restored.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would mean doing away with the contributory principle.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The minister made a reference to the brief presented by the professional institute. I think, in fairness to those who presented the brief, it should be stated that the professional institute did request that women should be able to elect to have the same benefits as men. As the minister said, this was the point the professional institute had in mind, and they wanted the same benefits for widowers. There are a great number of married women in the civil service whose husbands become dependents as a result of illness or for some other reason. I believe that was the point. The only reason I am bringing this to the attention of the committee is that it was made clear in the discussion this was what the professional institute had in mind.
The minister made another remark, which I am sure he did not intend, when he said someone had demolished the argument after a challenge had been made. I am sure that is the type of language the minister reserves for the more serious occasions in this house when he is dealing with the opposition. It is perhaps difficult for him to break this habit. What really happened was that the professional institute had made their calculations in the one manner, and when Mr. Clarke explained the proper basis for the calculations it was made clear that the institute's calculations were not the proper ones. I only bring this to the attention of the committee in order to make it clear that the minister did not really mean he was demolishing their arguments.
There has been a reference to giving these benefits to other superannuated civil servants. We have all presented this argument for many years, and I think we all repeat it. It is true that some benefits were granted these superannuated civil servants under the legislation passed in 1958 and 1959. We should like to see increased benefits granted to them, but that cannot be done under this bill. We are most anxious to see this bill go through with the benefits it contains. I should like to hear the minister say a word of hope with reference to the other part of my statement, to the effect that a committee may meet again next year to consider some of the suggestions for improvements that were made in the various briefs.
1L 1960
Public Service Superannuation Act


Mr. Hicks:: There is one point that has been left out of the discussion this morning, and that is the death benefit. Is it not correct that the death benefit is paid by the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the new paid up benefit that is provided by this bill is $500 in every case, and that is provided exclusively at the cost of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an amendment to this clause. These amendments were printed in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, July 8, and are to be found at page 746. I mentioned earlier that these amendments had been proposed by the committee at my request, so there is no problem raised with regard to the royal initiative in relation to these amendments. I ask my colleague, the minister of northern affairs, if he would be good enough to move the amendment to clause 3.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I move:
That all the words in line 17, page 4 of the bill, be deleted and the following words substituted therefor:
"forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada or as a special constable of the force who ceased to be a special constable of the force on or after the first day of March, 1949.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Voluntary retirement of contributor.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Here again there is an amendment which is printed at page 746 of Votes and Proceedings, and I would ask my colleague if he would move it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


The Chairman:: The amendment reads:
Amend line 2 on page 10 of the bill to read as follows: "the following subsections:"
Shall the amendment carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a further amendment. The purpose is to add a new subclause 5.


Jacques Flynn: The amendment reads:
(1)	Amend line 2 on page 10 of the bill to read as follows: "the following subsections:''
(2)	Insert immediately following line 8, page 10 of the bill, the following new subclause:
"(5) For the purpose of subsection (4), in calculating the period during which a contributor

Public Service Superannuation Act has been employed in the public service, any period of service of the contributor as a member of the regular forces or as a member of the force shall be included."
Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11.
Mr. Broome:: I have a word to say on this clause, since we are fairly well along. In my riding I have an organization of superannuated civil servants who have for several years fought to have these regulations changed. I wish to thank the minister for the changes he has made. For the benefit of the house may I say that this matter affects temporary help, such as former civil servants who help out at Christmas time in the post office. That is the outstanding example. Formerly, if they worked and the pay they received plus their pension was in excess of the amount they received for their last month's employment with the government before retirement, they were obliged to return to the government the excess over what the last month's pay might be.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, may we call it one o'clock?


Ernest James Broome: I will be only a minute or two, if I may be permitted to carry on.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The fact is that there might be some other clauses on which a little discussion might be desired, and that might bring us up to 1.20 p.m. We must be back at two o'clock. I think we might call it one o'clock and then start again at two o'clock, when the hon. member can say whatever he wishes to say. We want to deal with the matter as quickly as possible, anyway.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I was explaining my interpretation of clause 11 and the effect it would have on superannuated civil servants who accepted temporary employment, for instance at Christmas time in the post office. I know I have written several letters on this matter to the Postmaster General and then, on his reference, to the Minister of Finance. I have had meetings with organizations in Vancouver who were adversely affected by the previous ruling that the pensions of these civil servants were affected by the earnings
[The Chairman.]
they made by temporary work. I must say that when the minister wrote and told me that this would have his earnest consideration I was not so sanguine as to expect an immediate revision of these unjust regulations.
On behalf of postmasters in every major city in Canada, on behalf of practically all superannuated civil servants who do take such temporary work, and on my own behalf I do want to thank the minister for having made corrections to the regulations which will remove this anomaly from the act.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not want to delay matters, but I brought this matter up before; it concerns the case of a person re-employed in the public service. If a person comes back to the civil service and starts to contribute again, would she be allowed to continue until age 60 and then enjoy a pension according to the amount she has contributed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the case put by the hon. member for Hull, if the person in question who is superannuated for a time again becomes a contributor by reason of being re-employed, her whole pension is recalculated. This particular clause hardly touches that, because here we are dealing with short periods and a superannuated person coming back. This deals with the case of employment and the basis of calculation of salary without diminution for periods up to three months.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is there anything in the superannuation act which says that if a person comes back and starts to contribute again she will be reinstated?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member will turn to section 16(b) of the act he will find the case dealt with fully. Section 16 deals generally with the cases of persons re-employed, and clause (b) I think is the one which governs the case he has in mind.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know under what clause I should bring this matter up, but I wish to bring attention to the case of Mrs. Catherine Ann Meredith, who is being arbitrarily dismissed after 15 years' service. She has been given one month's retirement allowance, and I am wondering under what clause I could bring this up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would not have any relationship to this bill at all. That is a matter which comes under the Civil Service Act, and is presumably one which should be taken up with the commission. Certainly it has nothing to do with the Public Service Superannuation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.

On clause 13-Payments to dependants of recipients.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I know the minister gave some information on this clause when he spoke at first, but this is the reason we asked that the committee should be reconvened next session so we could study the cases of women having the responsibility of husbands who are physically incapacitated. This is not dealt with in the bill. If, as the actuary said the other day, they were all under the same provisions, all those married with responsibilities, then it would not change any of the figures they produced. This is one of the reasons we asked if we could reconvene next year to restudy those clauses, and maybe at that time the minister would consider making a few small amendments to the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I explained this morning that under the act a husband does not qualify as the dependant of a married female employed in the public service, and that always has been the policy of parliament hitherto. The present clause 13 simply makes a change in wording to bring the present provisions of section 19 of the act into line with changes which were made last year in the other two superannuation acts, namely the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I admit that this has never been in the act, but because it has not been covered in the past or at the present is no reason why it could not be covered in the future. This is why I ask if we could study some of the suggestions made at the next session, not today, so that we might bring something forward to amend the present act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A change of that kind is a question of policy, and it would require extensive study as to the effect it would have on the whole basis of female contributions under the act. The hon. member must appreciate that this is not the simple matter he has suggested.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I admit that it is a question of policy, and I will confine my remarks to asking the minister if there would be a possibility of changing that policy.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 20-Paragraph repealed.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On clause 20, there is an amendment which is set forth on page 746 of Friday's Votes and Proceedings. I must point out, however, that in the committee's
Public Service Superannuation Act report there is an error in the way the amendment is set up. The opening words are not accurate, nor are the opening words of subclause 2. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, may I tender the amendment as it was introduced in the committee. Then I will point out the precise terms, which are not correctly printed on page 746. I will ask my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he will be good enough to move this amendment to Clause 20.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I move:
" (4) Section 30 of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(7) The governor in council may make regulations prescribing, in the case of a contributor who in the opinion of the minister was one of a class of persons who, pursuant to erroneous advice received by one or more persons of that class, from a person in the public service whose ordinary duties included the giving of advice as to the counting of service under this act or the superannuation act, that a period of service of such a person before the time he became a contributor thereunder could not be counted by him under the said act, failed to elect under the said act within the time prescribed therefor to pay for that service, the circumstances under which and the manner and time in which the contributor may elect to pay for that service, and the circumstances under which and the terms and conditions (including conditions as to interest) upon which any such election made by him to pay for that service, or any election made by him under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 5 to pay for that service as a period of service described in clause (F) of subparagraph (iii) of that paragraph, shall be deemed to have been made by him under this act or the superannuation act, as the case may be, within the time prescribed therefor by the said act."


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not believe you need read all of that, Mr. Chairman. It has been set out correctly in Votes and Proceedings. It is the opening words which were not correctly transposed in the report of the committee.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 30-Addition of schedule.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Before we leave the bill I wish to reiterate that we would have liked very much to have these provisions made retroactive to June 20, because all those who were pensioned from that date onward were expecting a lot from this bill and they will now be extremely disappointed, even more than those whose pensions dated from the 17th, 18th, 19th or even the 16th. I really believe this would be a very small change to make, and it would help a lot of people who went on pension on that date.

Forestry Department


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of Bill No. C-82 respecting the department of forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to move second reading of the bill setting up the new department of forestry in the federal government. When the Prime Minister introduced the resolution he gave some of the outstanding economic reasons why the forest industry warranted the support of a full-time minister of the crown. If I may quote the words of the Prime Minister, he said there seemed to be good prospects for the Canadian paper industry to more than double its present production in 15 years.
This is a statement which should attract the attention of every Canadian interested in the growth and development of this country. It should attract the attention of every person in public life who wants to help provide new jobs for an expanding labour force. It should attract the attention of the agricultural industry because already there is a growing percentage of pulp provided by farmers from their farm wood lots.
If I may I should like to add a few figures to those provided by the Prime Minister, in order to impress on the house the significance to Canada of doubling exports from this, our most important export commodity. If I may have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to table for the use of the Hansard reporters a series of charts which I think can be reproduced in connection with my remarks today, and which would make the figures I am now about to give to the house a little more intelligible to people who read the report in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister suggest that they should be printed in Hansard at this point, or as an appendix?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That they
should be printed in Hansard at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have these documents printed at this point in our proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could the hon. gentleman
identify the source of the information contained in these charts?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They have all been prepared by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources based on statistics supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics, the Department of Trade and Commerce and such sources.
[Editor's note: For the charts referred to above, see appendix.]
In 1957 the net value of the products of the forest amounted to $2.2 billion. Exports were valued at $1.4 billion, representing about 65 per cent of the value of the total production. Our exports of paper and wood products account for 30 per cent of the value of all domestic exports. To double our present exports in 15 years will be a major achievement for Canadian workers, management and government. This will be one of the greatest economic challenges we will face in the next decade or so.
At the present time 350,000 Canadians are employed in our forests and in our pulp and paper industry. The industry also provides a rising market for pulp to an increasing number of farmers. Therefore to double the efforts in this industry would result in a large increase in the amount of work available for our citizens.
The importance of the forest industry to the transportation workers cannot be underestimated. In 1958 carloadings of forest products amounted to 648,000, which is approximately 17 per cent of the total for the country. It can be seen, therefore, that the beneficial effect from an expansion of this industry can and do spread through all segments of our economy.
In 1957 the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects published a report entitled "The Outlook for the Canadian Forest Industry". In chapter 7 it points out that the expected demand by 1980 for logs and sawn lumber would increase by more than 50 per cent and for pulpwood, using my calculations, which I think are reasonably accurate, by 92 per cent. The figures quoted by the Prime Minister on June 28, when he introduced the resolution, were taken from the food and agriculture organization estimates made last fall in Rome. These figures show that the world demand for paper and paper products from 1955 to 1975 will increase from 56 million metric tons to 134 million metric tons. This is an increase of 140 per cent, as compared with the estimate made just a few years ago by the Gordon commission.
As the Prime Minister indicated to the house, at the present time we provide 16 per cent of the world demand. If we meet this

challenge by maintaining our present percentage of exports, then we shall have to more than double our exports in the next 15 years. To hold our present percentage of world exports will mean facing tremendous competition from other countries. If we are to meet this challenge, then there must be co-operation of the highest order among governments, industry and workers.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I notice in a recent article in the Montreal Gazette of June 27, 1960 entitled "Newsprint Mills Seek Continuous Operation" that the two lead paragraphs bear directly on this problem of co-operation. I read:
Canadian International Paper, in the negotiations concluded earlier this year secured the unions' acceptance of Sunday operation of newsprint mills after May 1, 1961, and the eastern Canada newsprint group which bargains for several mills in Ontario and Quebec, has secured the unions' acceptance of it in principle. The other mills in eastern Canada are also working toward continuous operation and should have no difficulty in securing the unions' agreement to it. All that remains to be done is to secure the approval of provincial and church authorities.
Then the next paragraph goes on and discusses the general economy of the pulp and paper industry in so far as operations are concerned. I am again quoting from the article in the Montreal Gazette:
Continuous operation will permit valuable production economies and is justified on that score alone. Canadian operations are increasingly feeling the pinch of rising production costs and intensifying price competition from abroad. Production economies, however, are secondary in this instance to the urgent need for more production capacity. The latter has been achieved in recent years by accelerating production but the potential here, for the present, has largely been exhausted. The alternative to continuous operation is an increase in the number of mills and the expansion of existing mills.
This quotation from the article in the Montreal Gazette indicates the co-operation that is building up between management and the workers, and if the management and workers are prepared to work out ways and means to meet the competition in this very lucrative market of the future, then I say that governments can do no less.
Under this bill it will be seen that the federal government's contribution is chiefly in the form of research. The chief reason for federal support of expansion in research in forestry and forest products lies in the fact that the federal government has for many years accepted the responsibility for leadership in this field. It has done the same thing, I think, in the fields of agriculture, mining and fishing; consequently at the present time the federal government is the only agency which has research organizations capable of reasonably rapid expansion.
Forestry Department
A second reason why the government's contribution is in the form of research is that the federal government is in a preferred position to maintain satisfactory liaison with the forestry and forest products research in foreign countries. A third reason is that the federal government can best arrange for nation-wide distribution of research findings. Fourth, the range of subject matter and scientific disciplines involved in progressive forestry and forest products research is so great that no agency in Canada except the federal government could maintain a comprehensive and well-balanced program.
Forests are the responsibility of the ten provinces, and I hope some day in the not too distant future of the new provinces of the north as well. In six of the ten provinces the expenditures on forestry, forest management and protection are greater than the revenues those provinces receive from the forest resources.
Three provinces now maintain forest research divisions. British Columbia has 19 officers; Ontario has 15 officers and Saskatchewan has 3 officers. In the case of British Columbia and Ontario those field officers for the most part work singly out in the field in close relationship with the administration of the forests in those respective fields. Therefore they cannot, regardless of how valuable those contributions are, build up the type of organization that lends itself to the development of the type of comprehensive program of forest research that we need in Canada.
We have the four university forestry schools. None of those schools is in a position to maintain full-time research officers. Some of the professors do carry out useful research projects during the summer, and some support has been given to post-graduate research. The universities are in a position to make very valuable contributions to the form of basic knowledge that we need in Canada, but they are quite unable to accept responsibility for comprehensive research programs, the like of which I think we have to do, in forestry and forest products in Canada.
Then you may ask what about the lumber industry itself. The lumber industry is composed of more than 6,500 lumber mills-that is the ones, at least, that report to the dominion bureau of statistics-and of those only about 200 can be considered as large. Many of the remainder are quite small. In addition there are about 4,000 wood-using plants; nearly all of those are quite small. There is no truly national association that represents all these lumber mills and woodusing organizations.

Forestry Department
There are at least seven lumbermen's associations, and those are mainly regional. The Canadian lumbermen's association, which represents the lumber industry in Ontario and Quebec, does have a few members in the maritimes, but that is the extent of its jurisdiction. It does have about 250 saw mill members, along with lumber wholesalers and retailers. It is apparent, therefore, that this particular industry is not organized in such a fashion as to conduct a significant program of forestry or forest products research.
The pulp and paper industry, by contrast, does maintain the pulp and paper research institute of Canada, and individual companies carry on research for their own benefit. It is estimated that these companies spend about $5 million a year on research. Under the pulp and paper research institute there is a small woodland operation, and plans are under consideration for its expansion. It should be noted, however, that the pulp and paper industry of Canada has expanded rapidly since world war II, and much of this expansion has been carried out by finances derived from within the industry.
I feel that if Canada is to meet her share of the demand forecast by the Fowler committee in Rome the industry will have to make very heavy investments in the very near future. It seems, too, that the cost of adapting our basic research and putting it into operational research techniques will fall mainly on the large producers in the pulp and paper industry, and this is a very expensive undertaking. We hope the pulp and paper industry will expand its research facilities, but we realize that with the heavy commitments of physical expansion and adapting our forest research techniques to practical operating conditions, there will be a very heavy financial strain on these companies.
If I have described the situation accurately, it is obvious that we can draw a certain conclusion from what I have described as the present situation in Canada. This conclusion is that there is no agency or organization, other than the forest research agencies of the federal government, which could be expanded rapidly to meet the increasing needs for more research in forestry and forest products. Attempts by individual provinces or by industrial associations to establish organizations capable of carrying out comprehensive programs in these fields would result in wasteful duplication and would, I think, impose an impossible strain on them and also place a terrible strain on the limited research talent we have available in Canada. Therefore in the last analysis the choice lies

between accelerating the program now conducted by the forestry agencies of the federal government and a decision to forgo acceleration of forestry and forest products research in Canada.
Last year the government decided to double forestry and forest products research, both basic and applied. Working completely independently, the standing committee on mines, forests and waters recommended a program of more effective research efforts by the federal government. It recommended, for example, that the forest biology section of the Department of Agriculture dealing with insects and forest diseases should be amalgamated with the forestry branch of the present Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Both the government and the standing committee received representations from the pulp and paper organization and from numerous other organizations in the lumber industry.
The decision of the government to double the research effort in the next five years, and the recommendation of the standing committee that the status of the forestry branch be raised to the level of a department are complementary. The recommendation of the standing committee was unanimous, and I trust that the house will give the same unanimous treatment to this effort of the federal government to do its utmost in the field of research.
The hon. member for Laurier, speaking for the official opposition, expressed the belief that it was not necessary to set up a new department to achieve these ends. He said that the forest biology division of the Department of Agriculture was very small, and that the forestry branch of my department was also small. He suggested that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys could add forestry to his present duties. I believe the hon. member has ignored the representations and the evidence placed before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. It is not by the size of a departmental expenditure or the number of personnel in a department that you judge the importance of a minister's work. I think it is by the effect of his operations on the well-being of the Canadian people.
Is it the view of the official opposition that we should have Canada's largest industry, producing more dollars toward a favourable balance of trade than all other groups of commodities combined, an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of men, an industry which gives promise of increased revenues to agriculture, relegated to a position as branch of a department; or are they going to accept the unanimous view of the

standing committee on mines, forests and waters, which I should like to read at the present time to emphasize its importance? It is found in the third report of the committee, paragraph 57, on page 1175 of the minutes of proceedings, and reads as follows:
Your committee strongly recommends consideration of steps which would widen the scope of the forestry branch, increasing its status in such a way that a deputy minister would be in direct charge. The fact that such a status, comparable to that of a department, does not exist now reflects a lack of appreciation of the importance of the forest industries to Canada in the past, now, and in the future.
I hope that the opposition, through reconsideration of the debate at the resolution stage and as a result of the debate on second reading, will accept the representations and the evidence put before the standing committee and will find its way clear to rally behind the government in setting up a new department of forestry. To help them make that decision, I am going to remind them of a speech delivered some years ago in the house by Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, then prime minister of Canada, in which he moved second reading of the bill setting up the new Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In his presentation he was moved by the situation to utter the following words, as found on page 698 of Hansard for December 8, 1953:
But there has not been for a long time any special occasion offered to discuss these vast areas of Canada which compose the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. It has been said that Great Britain acquired her empire in a state of absence of mind. Apparently we have administered these vast territories of the north in an almost continuing state of absence of mind.
I would not want it said, Mr. Speaker, that this government ever relegated our most important export industry to a position where it was dealt with in a continuing state of absence of mind. One of the main reasons for setting up a new department is that the new minister will be able to devote his full time to Canada's forest industry. At his level he will be able to deal with the ministers of the provincial governments. Since the provinces have complete constitutional rights in the management of their forest resources, to make the research efforts of the federal government fully effective there must be the highest degree of friendly co-operation between the two levels of government.
At the present time, there is a high degree of collaboration in the fields of agriculture, mining and fishing at the ministerial level, between the federal government and the provincial governments. The feeling of this government is that the forest industry, in the interests of the Canadian people, deserves the same attention. One of the principal
Forestry Department
responsibilities of the new department will be in the field of extension services. It is almost an elementary fact of life that a minister of the crown carries more weight in getting across the message of the importance of research than anyone at the official level.
If one examines the history of the setting up of new departments in Canada the truth of this argument can be demonstrated. The old department of mines and resources of a generation ago had the administration of mines, immigration, mapping and surveys, Indian affairs, national parks, forest resources, water resources, and so on. As Mr. St. Laurent said in the same speech to which I referred before, at page 696, it was not possible that very much of the attention of the department could be given specifically to northern affairs.
This same argument applies to forestry. After 1945 the department of mines and resources was replaced by, first, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as that warranted the attention of a full time minister; the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, as that warranted the attention of a full time minister; and the department of resources and development. Then a little later, in 1953, the department of resources and development evolved into the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This latter change was made, as Mr. St. Laurent said, because it was obvious that northern affairs could only get a part, and perhaps a very small part, of the attention of the minister of the department.
One of the many responsibilities of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is the forestry branch. It is the opinion of the government, and I submit the opinion of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, that this evolution I have just described should continue; that is, that another segment of the once all-embracing functions of the department of mines and resources should be set up as a special department.
Another matter raised by the hon. member for Laurier was the suggestion that the forest products division of the Department of Trade and Commerce should be put into the new departments of forestry. He asked whether any thought had been given to bringing this division into the new department. I can say now that the answer to that question is in the affirmative. I should like to refer the house once more to the section of the standing committee report quoted by the Prime Minister, page 1177, the latter half of the paragraph, which says:

Forestry Department
A marketing section should be created within the proposed department of forestry to aid the Department of Trade and Commerce in the merchandising of our woods products.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the words "aid the Department ol Trade and Commerce" are the key words. This is the correct approach. We have at the present time under the Department of Trade and Commerce 63 offices of trade commissioners located in 49 different countries. These provide the channels through which Canadian foreign trade promotion is conducted. The men in these offices are skilled and experienced in marketing procedures. They handle all phases of Canada's export trade.
The forest products division of the Department of Trade and Commerce is just like the engineering and equipment division, the minerals and metals division, and the agriculture and fisheries branches of that department. Each of these divisions and branches serves the purpose of guiding the work of the trade commissioners in the field. The Department of Trade and Commerce has close liaison with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. It will also maintain close and continual liaison with the new department of forestry, as it does with every department.
The new department of forestry obviously will be interested in marketing. It will provide the forest products division of the Department of Trade and Commerce with the advice it gets from industry. It will also channel advice from the forest products division of trade and commerce back to industry. The new department, I think, will provide the missing link in the flow of information on trade matters between the industry in Canada and its customers abroad. The officials of the new forestry department will be in constant touch with all branches of the industry, and now there will be a direct channel of communication both ways between industry and markets. Undoubtedly there has been this flow of information in the past, but now I believe that forestry, just like other departments, can have direct access to industry on a much wider scale. To transfer the forest products division of trade and commerce to the new department would mean losing a direct link with all the machinery of trade and commerce established all over the world.
I should like to say a word or two about fire protection. The provinces have done a great job in building up equipment and knowhow in fighting fires, but there is still much to be done. Since 1929 the millions of acres of forest land burned in Canada have been significantly reduced year by year. Since 1948 this reduction in fire loss has levelled off, but

damage each year is still high both in the number of fires and in acreage destroyed. In 1958, a very bad year, nearly 5 million acres were burned. I should like to take the time of the house for a moment to read, in percentage form, the listed causes of these fires: smokers, 19.6 per cent; lightning, 19.1 per cent; camp fires, 15.7 per cent; railways 12.7 per cent; settlers, 10.2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, not much can be done to stop lightning, but a great deal can be done to reduce the human element as a cause of fires. There is need of a positive program even more vigorous than those we have in effect today. The principle of this bill does allow for such a program. Also, there must be a searching re-examination of the techniques used in fighting fires.
I could suggest that one of the methods by which we could reduce fire losses would be to face up to the economic fact that each province establishes fire fighting machinery and administration that is able to cope with the average fires in an average year. As everyone knows, every six or seven years we have a disaster year. It seems only logical that there should be pools or reserves of forest fire fighting equipment and men stationed at strategic places across Canada who could be called upon by the provinces during one of these emergencies. There has been a good deal of thinking done on this subject, and I feel that a minister, with only forestry to look after, could take the time to work out the multitude of details that a co-operative scheme covering the ten provinces and the two territories would entail. It would require diplomacy; it would require great patience to work out these difficulties and bring forward a plan that would allow for the differences in provincial fire fighting organizations and yet have the asset of having trained reserves ready and available to go to work any time there was a fire emergency in any part of Canada. If fire losses were reduced by half, I think it would pay for such an operation. Certainly for such demand for wood products as we foresee in the future we will need to drastically reduce losses due to fire.
Mr. Speaker, I am not fully competent to deal in detail with the work of the forest biology division or section of the Department of Agriculture. The scientific research organizations of the Department of Agriculture are renowned not only in this country but in a much wider sphere. By bringing them into closer co-operation with the forestry branch of my department I think the scientific disciplines in the Department of Agriculture can be brought to bear more directly on the problems of forest diseases and pests. At the same time it will be very important for them

to keep their contacts with the main scientific institutes of the Department of Agriculture. I believe this can be achieved.
Those in the house who know a great deal about forest losses from fires, insects and diseases I think will readily recognize that the losses from forest diseases and pests are much greater than they are from fire. Hence the work of this division of the new department will be extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, I have given to the house the economic reasons for setting up the new department, and have discussed some of the principles behind the bill. I have referred to some of the criticisms made by the official opposition in the hope that by looking at this bill as a new step forward by the government, we can draw support from every part of the house with enthusiasm for the good it can do for Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of what the minister has said in his interesting statement on this bill there will be no disagreement whatever. There can be no question in the mind of any hon. member about the importance to this country of forestry and the forest industries, or indeed of the desirability of the government doing everything it can to support and strengthen this industry.
I happen to come from a constituency where the importance of forestry and forest industries with regard to employment and income is as obvious as it is great. It is also quite true that in the immediate future there undoubtedly will be a new and great challenge facing that industry, both in respect of the management of our forest resources in co-operation with provincial governments, in the search for new markets to meet the competition which is bound to develop, and indeed in the supplying of these new markets if and when they are found.
In the debate on the resolution on which this bill before us is based my friend the hon. member for Laurier, who of course did not have the bill before him any more than did other hon. members, stated that we supported the consolidation in the resolution. I quote from his statement as found at page 5489 of Hansard:
We also support the idea of giving to forestry and forest products more prominence in the federal set-up in order to attract more attention to the forest industries which are so vital to Canadian prosperity and development.
He was concerned at that time, in the absence of detailed information as to what the bill contained, to point out that perhaps the purpose could be achieved through, if you like, a new department but a new department 79951-0-381
Forestry Department
without a separate minister. He was also concerned to ascertain, as he was able to do, that in the bill to be introduced later there would be nothing which would interfere with the legitimate jurisdictional rights of the prov-vinces over forestry matters.
My friend the hon. member for Laurier went on to define our general attitude on this matter based on the resolution, and then he added that the views of the opposition would be made known upon second reading of the bill when we had had an opportunity to consider it. We have had an opportunity now to consider the bill in the terms which are before us. I am happy to be able to state on behalf of the opposition, and I know the minister will be happy to hear me state it, that we support the second reading of this bill. In view of what he said and in view of the situation which confronts us in this industry, we believe that the time has come to establish a special department of forestry although we still have some reservations, and I shall mention them later, as to whether it is necessary to have a separate minister in addition to a separate department of government.
The main justification for this departure, if any justification is needed, has been pointed out by the minister this afternoon as it was pointed out by the Prime Minister the other day, namely the growing importance of our forest industries, the need for better integration of the existing federal services dealing with forestry and forest products, and the desirability of strengthening co-operation in every way between the industry and the federal government and between the provincial governments and the federal government in this field.
We all know, and the minister has underlined it this afternoon, the extremely important place the forest industry has in our economy, and I think we are becoming more aware of the prospects ahead for this industry. The Gordon commission-I think these figures have already been put on record

in its report of a few years ago forecast that the output of Canadian forest industries measured in constant dollars might well reach $4 billion by 1980. That is about 120 per cent above the 1955 level, on which that calculation was based. According to the same forecast, after allowing for a substantial increase in labour productivity, employment in these industries might rise, according to this calculation, by about one third, which I think would mean some 375,000 workers. That certainly gives the house a graphic indication of the present importance and the even greater potential importance of this industry in terms

Forestry Department
of employment, something which is, of course, very much in all our minds at this time.
Finally, this report stated that during that same period up to 1980, exports of forest products might well approximately double. That would bring them to a valuation of about $3 billion per year. In other words, of the total annual production estimated in that period to 1980 of $4 billion, $3 billion of that $4 billion might be production for export. That shows the importance of this possible development not only in terms of employment but in terms of export and national income.
These figures may seem somewhat optimistic. I hope they are not. However, some justification has been given for that optimism by a report which has already been referred to by the minister and by the Prime Minister, namely the report of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations on future world demand for pulp and paper and newsprint. That report, to which the minister has referred and which have studied, I must say gives some basis for optimism as to the future development in this industry in Canada, and also some basis for legitimate concern that the industry should be in a position to take advantage of this development.
The figures given in this report of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, some or which the minister quoted this afternoon, are indeed very impressive. We all know that our forests constitute renewable resources. We all know also-and we can benefit by the study of some of the reports made on this matter in the United States, particularly the Paley report of some years ago-that they can be rapidly depleted without an adequate program of research and sound management. Private industry has made great progress in these matters and has already implemented long term programs designed to achieve the maximum utilization of these resources.
However, it remains true that this cannot be done by the industry alone, and that the help and assistance of the government is needed in order to carry out these programs effectively. That is one reason we support the establishment of a new department of government which will increase and extend co-operation with industry and between the federal and provincial authorities concerned in this matter, a co-operation which of course need not and is not intended to affect in any way, shape or form the jurisdictional rights of the provinces over forestry.
Another reason that could be advanced for collecting our federal forestry activities under one agency, however it may be established, is the obvious need which the minister has
tMr. Pearson.]
pointed out this afternoon for greater coordination and perhaps more efficient integration of existing federal services in the field of forestry; and this bill, I gather, seeks to do just that. It provides for the integration of the forestry branch of the department of northern affairs and of certain divisions of the Department of Agriculture into a new department of government, a department of forestry.
The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he stated that the forest biology division of the Department of Agriculture will also be transferred to the new department. I also hope that consideration will be given to the transfer of the entomology and plant pathology research activities of that department, as I believe was proposed last year by the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. We feel that now we are setting up a new department by this bill as many as possible of the existing services in this field of forestry and forest products should be put into this new department, and that as many as possible of the services now being extended by the federal government should be integrated and co-ordinated in this one department, because after all that is the reason for setting up a new department of government.
Notwithstanding what the minister said, although I recognize the argument he advanced and its validity from his point of view, I still think that there is a good deal to be said for extending the work of this proposed new department to include the marketing of forest products. I think I am right in saying that the standing committee last year, the report of which the minister has referred to more than once, did recommend that a marketing section should be added to the new department of forestry "to aid the Department of Trade and Commerce in the merchandising of our wood products".
I know there exists, as the minister has pointed out, a special service of the Department of Trade and Commerce which deals with this matter, and I know that division of the Department of Trade and Commerce gives the same effective service in the marketing of forest products that the department gives in the marketing of other Canadian products abroad. Perhaps there is a precedent, however, in the Department of Agriculture, for the establishment of a separate marketing service, because there are special agricultural trade commissioners serving abroad, as well as commissioners of the Department of Trade and Commerce who deal with agricultural products where there is no such agricultural trade commissioner. Therefore I think that as we are setting up

a separate department of government, presumably under a separate minister, consideration should be given to the transfer to this department and to the establishment within it, of a marketing service.
This is all the more important because it is quite clear that while the markets for forestry products are going to grow in the world, if these reports which I have mentioned are any indication, the competition for these increased markets is going to be greater and greater. We have already had some indication in the last year or two of how that competition is increasing from the Soviet union, which has begun to make its impression in world markets in forest products as it did in the early thirties. Competition is increasing from the Scandinavian countries and from Finland, and it may not be long before we have new sources of competition. It certainly will not be long before Australia and New Zealand are self-sufficient in the production of most forest products which they need.
As the minister pointed out, the main function of the new department will be research. That is of course a very important function, and no one would desire to diminish its importance in any way. Research into such things as the uses of wood in home construction, the uses of wood residue, the uses of wood for containers and matters like new techniques for the manufacture of plywood; all these things require research, and the importance of that does not have to be elaborated. But while research in this field as in other fields is of extreme importance, it does not in itself imply heavy and complicated responsibilites with respect to administration and policy.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we on this side felt when we were discussing this matter at the resolution stage that while a case can easily be made out for a separate department of government, perhaps it is not so necessary to have a separate minister, with all the expense which goes with a separate minister and his establishment, heading that department as his sole administrative responsibility. I still think perhaps that is not necessary. The standing committee on mines, forests and waters in its report last year recommended that a deputy minister "be in direct charge of the new department", but it did not suggest that a minister should preside over that department as his sole and exclusive responsibility.
We have in our present governmental setup illustrations of the effectiveness of having two departments of government under the responsibility of one minister. We have the Department of National Health and Welfare with a national health division and a 79951-0-3811
Forestry Department
welfare division. They are separate departments of government under the one minister, both departments being quite as important in their administrative responsibilities-perhaps some might argue more important in the complexity and difficulty of their administration-as this particular department of forestry might be. We also have the same situation in the Department of National Revenue, where we have a taxation division and an excise division.
We have two ministers, then, presiding effectively as far as the administrative setup is concerned over four departments of government. We on this side believe that the same arrangement could be made without any loss of efficiency and without diminishing in any way the importance of the department; in the interests of economy we believe that the new department of forestry with its own separate deputy minister and its own departmental establishment could, without any loss of effectiveness, be brought under the present minister, say, of mines and technical surveys.
That is our attitude toward the second reading of this bill. We shall vote for this bill setting up a separate department of government as a recognition of the importance of this industry to our economy, both its present and its potential importance. There is nothing, however as I understand it, in the bill-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-which would require a separate minister. It would be possible under this bill to establish a new department of government in charge of a member of the government who is also responsible for some other department such as mines and technical surveys. I hope the government will give consideration to this. However, that is a matter of government responsibility, and irrespective of what is done in this regard we are in support of and will vote for its second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is an ancient Arab proverb which says that to survive, all men must hold hands. In the opinion of this group this legislation makes it possible for the federal government, provincial governments, industry and other organizations and individuals across the country to hold hands in order that our forest heritage and industry may survive and grow.
Before proceeding, I may say that I was very pleased with the substance and the tenor of the minister's remarks and particularly with his analysis of the research situation and his recognition of the contribution the pulp and paper industry has made in connection with the research carried on in their branch of forestry, and his hope that

Forestry Department
it will continue to expand. I was also very pleased to hear from him that it was the intention of the government to double the expenditure on research.
Apparently with regard to this bill we are all of one purpose this afternoon, although we may have different ideas as to the details in the administration of this new department. The forestry industry in Canada faces an urgent need for economy allied to efficiency. There is no question about that, in view of increasing world competition and the present situation with respect to our forest resources. I may say before passing on that I was disappointed with the meagre press reports of the previous debate on the resolution which preceded the introduction of this bill. I notice that quite frequently when it comes to the question of conservation or the question of the forest industry or subjects of that kind the press does not seem to use its imagination to the same extent as it does on other questions. There is very little glamour about this subject from the immediate point of view, but I do want to suggest to the press that there is a great wealth of material in connection with the forest industry in Canada, and I believe if they think more seriously about it a great opportunity for colour, too, in the reporting of what happens with respect to the development of our green gold resources.
The authority of the federal government and, therefore, its responsibility in forestry matters is limited, as we all know, to lands under its direct ownership or immediate control. Any other work, whether it is the result of plans to promote forest inventories or fire protection or anything else of that nature, must be the result of co-operation and agreement with the provinces. The provincial administrations, on the other hand have ownership and control of forest lands within their own boundaries, and upon them rests responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of those forests and their administration. Therefore the revenue from such lands goes directly to the treasuries of the provinces.
However, there are some aspects of the forest industry which come under the direct control of the federal government, as do other industries. Revenues to the federal treasury from various sources in this connection have been estimated in recent years, according to a brief presented to the committee on mines, forests and waters, to be in excess of $200 million a year, so we are dealing with a very important subject as far as the Canadian people are concerned.
Since the debate on the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill I have received further evidence of the interest of
IMr. Herridge.]
the forest industries and the Canadian forestry association, the Canadian lumbermen's association, the Canadian tree farmers' association and other groups across Canada in this measure, and all of them wholeheartedly support the principle and purposes of this bill. Of that I think there can be no question. That is shown by the unanimous support being given by all parties to the principle of this bill. I mention again-and I cannot resist this, you know-that this is something which members of this group urged former governments to do year after year.
I now wish to take this opportunity to deal particularly with the recommendations of the Canadian lumbermen's association. I do this because I have a fairly close association with the Canadian lumbermen's association, which represents over 800 sawmill operators in Canada only 200 of whom could be considered large operators. I want to quote very briefly from their brief before passing on. I think it was an excellent brief which they presented to the committee on mines, forests and waters.
This is a brief of June, 1958; the forest products research proposals of the Canadian lumbermen's association. They deal first of all with the revenue collected by the federal government and the amount spent on research in connection with forest resources. Here I would like to mention that when I was speaking during the debate on the resolution I happened to mention that about $1 million was provided for research by the forest products division in this year's estimates. Apparently the minister misunderstood me. In reading the record afterward I saw that he was including the total research expenditures, which was absolutely correct. Anyway, they say in this brief:
It Is apparent that the amount of money spent on forest products research should he increased to bring it more in line with the amount spent on agricultural research. The needs are equally as important and as pressing and, in fact, may he considered in many cases to be more so because a great deal of forest research must necessarily be of a long term nature.
Then they go on to say:
We are in complete agreement with the applied and fundamental research, publication and exhibit work now being carried out by the forest products laboratories of Canada but feel that the present services of the forest products laboratories of Canada would be greatly increased by the implementation of work in three main fields, as listed below, in addition to the extension and implementation of the research projects listed.
Not enough Canadians realize the excellent work which is being done by the forest products laboratories and the excellent staff we have in charge of those laboratories. I refer particularly, also, to the magazines and

pamphlets which have been published throughout the years and which have been of increasing interest and value to the small lumber operators.
These are the fields of research which the association suggests, and I am in hearty agreement with those suggestions: extension work, information service, short term industrial research, expanded and increased studies on logging research, and investigations into the utilization of saw mill residue. I think there is a good deal here which our laboratory has not had the opportunity to go into, on account of lack of funds. The recommendations obviously cover very important fields of research: research on the improved efficiency of saw mill equipment; research on the utilization of wood residues from the secondary wood-using industries; accelerated research on lumber seasoning-that is a very important one as well, Mr. Speaker-research into the dimensional stabilization of wood; research on the use of timber in structures; research on glues; research on paints and coatings. This last one is very important; a great deal of work needs to be done in that field. Therefore they strongly support an increase in the money to be spent upon research by the forest products laboratories.
Then I notice that the forest industry associations of British Columbia support the same point of view. At page 21 of their brief, presented to the committee on May 13, 1959, they say in connection with forest products research:
In emphasizing the importance the lumber industry attaches to the forest products research currently being undertaken by the forest products laboratories in Canada, it is hard to avoid citing the analogy that exists between the lumber and agricultural industries. No one farmer has the resources to spend millions on developing a new rust-resistant wheat for example. Similarly no one lumber manufacturer, especially when operating at today's low margins-
I can support that remark with great fervour.
-has the resources to undertake the applied research which is immediately needed if the decline in lumber usage is to be halted.
They go on then to give further details. However, I mention the recommendations made by the Canadian lumbermen's association and various industries in British Columbia to indicate how important they consider the work of the forest products laboratories and the need at the present time for its considerable expansion.
Forestry and all aspects of natural growth which are of primary importance must be viewed as a long term undertaking. For the most part the expenditures and activities of today will benefit future generations. I wish to emphasize this so that we get a proper
Forestry Department
balance as between forestry research and research in so far as utilization is concerned. There is no question about the need for this work and its expansion, but the immediate urgency does not reside primarily within this field, although it should be expanded, but rather in the varied and complex fields of utilization.
I think it is the primary view that the federal government should concern itself with this field in the immediate future, in addition to carrying on its present policy of research and its expansion at appropriate levels and at the tempo that is necessary in order to avoid waste and increase production from the present yield of raw materials from the lands that are now being harvested.
I can speak from some personal experience, and no doubt other members can speak with even greater experience than I have had. One of the problems we have to solve is the utilization of the waste which now occurs in the woods and in the manufacture of lumber and lumber products in the lumber industry in Canada. The report of the committee on mines, forests and waters indicates this. A perusal of the committee's report clearly indicates the concern and emphasis of the forest industry's representations to the various parliamentary committees, some of which I have mentioned. They emphasize both the economic impact and the national importance of the forest industry and the necessity for research along these lines.
Repeatedly, in the committee and in previous representations, in previous years in this house and on recent occasions, we have emphasized that these industries are vital to our national well being, both to supply home needs and to provide export credits. We must not forget that the forest industry plays a very great role in the field of providing export credits for Canada.
From a purely national point of view the impact of the forest industries cannot be overemphasized. It is felt in nearly every hamlet, village and town across Canada. They supply revenues at the federal, provincial and local levels and to business and to many individuals. They form an important and integral part of our agricultural operations in a good many sections of Canada, and that part in relation to agriculture is increasing daily. These industries, and there are thousands of them, are generally small units, very often family units. Few are large enough to maintain research facilities. They must remain dependent on government efforts and help in those fields. That is why this branch of our research is so important.
It is worthy of note that while these industries have, no doubt, been the largest

Forestry Department
contributors to our national growth and development, they have received no direct financial help at any time in their history, and the amount of research help today is very far below the minimum level which, if for no other reason, is near mandatory from the point of view of our national economy. This is particularly true with respect to the small operators in the lumber industry itself.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish particularly to mention the Canadian tree farmers' association, a non-profit organization which was incorporated in May, 1955, and which I am particularly interested in because of the great work that is being done by this type of organization in the United States. The president of the association is Mr. F. Howard Wilson; vice president, Mr. I.	Rene Pare; secretary treasurer, Mr. J. A. MacDonald. The purpose of this organization is to promote the establishment of tree farms and good forestry practices, and its slogan is "Valuable crops from woodlots". I mention them particularly because I was very pleased when this organization was formed. I was very glad to learn of the success it is having to date, and I hope this movement spreads all across Canada as it has in the United States.
I should like to take more time to deal with some of the work that is being undertaken by this organization, but I do bring to the attention of the minister and of hon. members who are not acquainted with this organization the good work which it is doing, which is not only economic. There are many other things which flow from its activities which are very valuable so far as the young people of this country are concerned.
The experience of other countries clearly indicates the great value of these small tree farms. For instance, in the United States this type of organization was commenced in 1941. The United States tree farm movement is now active in 47 of the 50 states. Each year about 3 million acres are added to the area under tree farm management. The total area in certified tree farms in the United States was over 51 million acres at the end of 1959.
That shows the possibilities of this movement in Canada, and I would at this time ask all members of this house to take an interest in this organization which provides an opportunity for thousands of small farmers and small woodlot owners to take a part in increasing our capital forest resources throughout the years.
I might say that in the United States more than 1600 technical foresters are employed as inspectors to maintain good standards of forest management on the private lands that
[Mr. Herridge.l
are enrolled as certified tree farms. In view of the development of this movement, and it is going to grow very rapidly, there will be a great need for increased interest in this aspect of forest management in Canada and a great opportunity for the minister and the officials of this new department to serve those who need this type of service most.
I have already spoken of the research carried on by the pulp and paper industry and a few of the very large lumber operators. The majority of the lumber operators of this country and the majority of the tree farmers who are members of this organization have not the financial capacity to undertake the research necessary, and also in many instances lack the experience. I think there is a great opportunity here for the new department and its officials to serve both these important segments of the Canadian forest industry.
Before concluding my remarks on second reading, I wish to make a few proposals. While speaking on the resolution introducing the bill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) carefully stated that there was recognition of the authority of the provinces and that in no way would there be intervention in areas of provincial authority. He said at that time that the new department will in no way infringe or impinge on any of the rights or jurisdictions of the provincial governments.
It must be apparent that such an assurance of non-intervention would not have been necessary had the proposed bill been given a different name. Suppose it had been termed "the forest industries and forest research act", in which case full authority would have rested with the federal jurisdiction. Such a name would not have precluded the giving of voluntary assistance to provincial administrations in forestry matters but would have indicated more clearly, I believe, the intent of the government and the specific responsibilities which it has assumed.
It is worthy of special note that the production of forest products begins with the felling of the trees and that all processes from that point on are in general concept manufacturing processes. Therefore my first proposal is to ask the minister to give consideration, in order to allay any fears of misunderstandings, to naming this department the department of forest industries and forest research. Representations have been made to me in that connection by persons associated with various sections of the industry in Canada. When the minister replies at the conclusion of this debate I should like to have his comments on this suggestion. I do not say this is a matter of serious importance from our point of view but the suggestion is put

forward in the hope that it may be a method of allaying any fears that have been expressed by those who think that provincial jurisdictions are going to be transgressed.
Second, we urge immediate expansion of forest products research, particularly with a view in the first instance to improving the efficiency of the 8,000 small lumber operators in Canada with respect to manufacturing procedures and utilization. I made these notes yesterday before I heard the minister's introductory remarks this afternoon and, as I said before, I must say that we in this group are very pleased to note that the government intends to spend twice as much on research as previously.


Mr, Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I wonder
whether I might ask permission to make a correction in the hon. member's remarks. He has said twice now that we are going to double expenditures on forestry research. I think I was very careful to say that we are going to double our efforts over five years. It is calculated that we can double our efforts by an increase in expenditure of about 44 per cent. Therefore we are not doubling the expenditures but doubling the amount of work which will cost about 44 per cent more.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad the minister has corrected me. I apologize for misquoting him. I thought I heard him say that the government was going to double the expenditures. I am a little disappointed to hear that they are not but in the meantime we have to be satisfied with the government's intention to double the efforts. We in this group still urge a doubling of the expenditures. We are of the opinion that with the establishment of a new department and having in mind the attitude of the industry throughout Canada and, shall I say, a greater realization on the part of the government of what this industry means to Canada, within a year or two we will be doubling the expenditure on research in connection with the forest industry.
My third proposal is an expansion of forest management research with the immediate objective of assisting and guiding the growing number of small tree farmers in Canada. In this connection I am very pleased to note that the government, according to the bill, may enter into agreements with any province or with any person. This indicates clearly to me that there is an opportunity there to assist very small lumber operations on a personal basis or tree farmers under certain circumstances as persons so far as research is concerned. I am quite sure this will be one of the most interesting aspects of the services rendered by the department when it begins to function.
Forestry Department
Fourth, in our opinion the public relations and educational activities must be honed to a keener edge than they have been in the past and must keep in tune with advances in the science of forestry and developing public interest. In our opinion those responsible for public relations must, in the first instance, support and preach principles and, second, present facts, with skill and in an interesting and effective manner. I was very pleased to hear the minister's remarks with respect to the extension services. I was also very pleased to hear him indicate that this is to be one of the particular functions of the minister at the head of the department. I think an imaginative, active minister can do a great deal to inculcate an understanding of the value of the forest industry and the work of this department in his public relations and educational activities. I was very pleased to hear the minister mention that when he was speaking.
Fifth, I suggest it would be most appropriate to include the water resources branch and the wildlife branch in the new department of forestry. I am not suggesting that this be done immediately. There was some criticism from members of the official opposition that it was not necessary to have a separate ministerial head of the department. We take a different view. We believe that we could very easily do away with the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and give his meagre functions-


Hazen Robert Argue: Do away with the portfolio.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, pardon me; I am very sorry, I am not a man of murderous intent. I would not want to do away with the Solicitor General but, more correctly, I think we should do away with the portfolio and transfer the duties to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). It might also be quite possible to provide the Secretary of State with some further responsibilities and activities. In the opinion of this group this industry certainly deserves a full time minister at the head of the department. Having in mind the immense contribution made by the industry to the exchequer of this country and its value to the people as a whole, we are wholeheartedly behind a separate minister in charge of the department. This group does not advocate unnecessary expenditures. We like to scrutinize public expenditure, but in this case we believe it would be a very sound investment.
We believe it would be wise to give consideration to including within the forestry department the water resources branch. If we did that we might get hydro planning with some of human feelings attached to it. We also think the wildlife branch should be

Forestry Department
included. Forests, water resources and wildlife are closely related subjects. We think it would be most appropriate to include the wildlife and water resources branches in the new department of forestry because the work of these branches bears a close relationship to forestry and we think they would help to form a very satisfactory and appropriate administrative trinity.
My sixth suggestion has to do with the appointment of a deputy minister. While the minister in charge of the department will have great responsibility, particularly in relation to educating and developing interest on the part of the public in general and in coordinating the activities of the federal and provincial governments, industry and various other organizations and individuals, the prime research work of the department will be carried on by the forest products laboratory. In making this suggestion I do so at the request of representatives of the Canadian lumber industry and other organizations interested in the establishment of this department. The deputy minister will have a very important part to play. We are very fortunate in having just the man for the job, a man who throughout the years has demonstrated his ability to become the deputy minister of such a department. He has a thorough, sound understanding of all the problems with which the forest industry has been faced, particularly in connection with research. I refer to Colonel John H. Jenkins, chief, forest products laboratories of Canada.
I am going to put something on the record, and this is at the request of a number of my friends in the lumber industry and forest industry. I might say also that the members of this group support this proposal. You know there are a lot of good civil servants in this country who labour for years and years, whose technical skills are of a very high level, but who go almost unrecognized except for those persons who come in contact with them because of being members of parliament or being directly concerned with the forest industry. I shall, therefore, take a little time to put on the record the qualifications and experience of the gentleman. Whenever I think of the work he has undertaken throughout the years, I am always reminded of the lines in Grey's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard": "Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air". I am going to see that he does no longer blush unseen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; if this is done, it must be by leave of the house because it is not conceivable that the personnel of the department to be established is relevant to the principle of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I discuss it in relation to the services performed by one of the leaders in this forestry branch throughout the years?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe the house will take exeception, but I just point out by way of caution to hon. members who think this may be a precedent that I do not approve.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am always running into barriers. This information was handed to me by a well-known gentleman in the lumber industry, and is taken from "Who's Who" in Canada; it does not come from any member of the government service. I believe in giving credit where it is due and I am glad I have the opportunity to do so.
John Henry Jenkins was born September 25, 1898 at Malvern, England. In 1913 he accompanied his parents to Shuswap lake in British Columbia; 1916-19, sapper in Canadian engineers, serving overseas in France, Belgium and Germany; 1919, obtained science matriculation at khaki university of Canada; 1919-23, in first class, two members, of forestry engineering at University of British Columbia. By gad, Mr. Speaker, they have sent some wonderful people from British Columbia to this end of the world. In 1923-24 he was in the British Columbia forest service as assistant district forester, Prince George district; 1924-39, Vancouver laboratory, forest products laboratories of Canada, in charge of utilization research, carrying out studies in kiln drying, saw mill and logging waste utilization. He worked closely with British Columbia industry initiating many co-operative studies. He was active in the Canadian militia, Royal Canadian Engineers, from 1927 to 1939; 1939-46 on leave to Canadian army; 1939-40 staff officer in charge of military training MDXI (B.C.); 1940-42 general staff, national defence headquarters; 1942-46 colonel, director of military planning.
The awards he has received are as follows: Officer, Order of British Empire; efficiency decoration; officer, Legion of Merit (U.S.A.); Order of Leopold (Belgium); Haakon VI Cross of Liberation (Norway); Order of the White Lion (Czechoslovakia). He was assist-tant superintendent, Ottawa laboratory, forest products laboratories of Canada, 1946-49; 1950, chief, forest products laboratories of Canada; author of many publications and active speaker; active in national and international organizations and concerned with standards and standardization in the forest products field. He was chairman of various national standards committees and director of Canadian standards association. Most recent activity in this connection is as chairman Canadian

lumber standards committee-I might say the gentleman who handed me this said that they appreciated very much what Colonel Jenkins had done in this direction-and as such representing the Canadian lumber industry in grade-marking negotiations in Washington with the United States federal housing administration.
You have no idea what a fright those regulations and standards cause the lumber industry in British Columbia. He was the head of the Canadian delegation to the British commonwealth forestry conference, Australia-New Zealand, 1S57; the government representative on Canadian lumber industry delegation visiting the U.S.S.R. In attending international conferences, he has travelled extensively, visiting research institutes and forest industries in the United States, Finland, Scandinavia, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Japan and the U.S.S.R. This gentleman who handed me the information goes on to say that he has supplied, in some detail, this information which he wishes brought to the attention of the house.
I have taken more time than usual, in a matter of this sort, Mr. Speaker. I believe, however, the time comes when we should recognize what has been done by senior civil servants in the forest branch of the department. I have said it before. I have had representatives of other countries, Great Britain, the United States and other countries repeatedly mention the devotion to duty, skill and ability of many senior civil servants in Canada.
Before concluding I want to say that I think it is most appropriate that the fifth world forestry conference is to be held in Seattle, Washington, from August 29 to September 10. I suppose the minister and some of his officials will be going to that conference. I should like to have the opportunity to go myself, and I intend to do so, but certain very important events are happening within the movement of which I am a member which possibly will prevent me from attending. However, I wish the Canadian delegation every success. I should like to say also that we trust, as a result of the passage of this legislation and the work of the resources for tomorrow conference in 1961, to which I am looking forward, that we will all soon be able to say with some measure of confidence, the tree farm age has arrived in Canada. (Translation):


Mr. Alfred Belzile (Maiapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, most hon. members who spoke before me in the debate on Bill C-82 have stressed the importance of forestry in relation to the Canadian economy, and have shown the need for setting up a forestry department 79951-0-382
Forestry Department
in the federal government. I, too should like to point out a few facts to show the urgent need for such a department.
At the very outset of my remarks, I should like to stress the constitutionality of a forestry department at the national level. It is true that under the British North America Act, crown timber lands belonging to the provinces comes under provincial jurisdiction. In that connection, I should like to quote section 92, subsection 5:
The management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon;
It is also true, however, that in the same act, section 91, subsection 2, the constitution makes trade and commerce a responsibility of the federal government, and I quote:
The regulation of trade and commerce;
It therefore follows that once the timber from the crown lands of the various provinces has been acquired by private companies and cutting rights have been paid to the provinces, the same timber comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, which is responsible for putting it on the market, including all the forecasting needed to provide for Canada's economic welfare.
In Canada, forestry exports are so important that we have to legislate to protect our markets for wood products. As legislators we have a duty to provide for the proper management of this trade. For instance, we must see that companies affected by the prices set for various types of paper make a profit commensurate with their investment and get a fair return, without usury, on their capital investments in that industry, so as to prevent the normal expansion of the Canadian markets from being jeopardized by uncompetitive prices.
Mr. Speaker, let me give a concrete illustration of this statement. In 1951 and 1952, the Canadian government authorized newsprint manufacturers to raise their prices by $10 a ton twice in succession. As a result of the increased price of newsprint, Canada lost such customers as Great Britain, which turned to the Scandinavian and northern countries for part of its supply, to such an extent that in 1959, for the first time in its history with respect to this product, Great Britain bought more paper from Scandinavian countries than from Canada. Moreover, I can say that those price increases caused Canadian export firms to invest in the development of paper mills in the southern United States, capital which

Forestry Department
had been built up in the Canadian paper industry, and that the new mills have become the most dangerous competitors in our own markets. A case in point is the International Paper, which built mills in Arkansas and Oklahoma, where production this year is in excess of 300,000 tons; which means that much less for our own markets.
A department of forestry like the one suggested in Bill C-82 is just what is required to control Canada's forest management, as provided in section 6 (1) (a) of Bill C-82, and I quote:
(1) The Minister
(a) shall provide for the conduct of research relating to the protection, management and utilization of the forest resources of Canada and the better utilization of forest products, and may establish and maintain laboratories and other necessary facilities for such purposes;
Section 6, subsection (b) paragraph (1) of Bill C-82 mentions that the new department,
-may undertake, promote or recommend measures for the encouragement of public co-operation in the protection and wise use of the forest resources of Canada;
I shall single out only two words in that paragraph, and explain their significance; they are: "protection" and "wise use".
Protection consists in safeguarding our national wealth. Canadian forests have been transmitted to us in a natural or wild state and, in order to protect them against destructive agents, they must be treated according to the standards established by science, by good forest management which in practice, means systematic exploitation and, while improving productivity, proper thinning. Systematic thinning alone will guarantee the perpetuation of that natural wealth. The woodsman and the logging operator must help nature in its protective activity.
The only way to protect the forests against intense droughts is to cut timber systematically so as to leave a cover density of 75 to 90 per cent.
To protect forests against too prolonged dampness, the only efficient way is to cut clearings where the combined action of sun and wind will draw out the excess humidity from the soil.
With regard to the rapid transformation of forest residues into humus to promote bacterial action in the soil, the only way of obtaining the ideal site favouring such chemical transformation of the various soil elements is to resort to scientific cutting.
To avoid an over abundance of stump shoots or the growth of seedlings in a surface unit,
[Mr. Belzile.l
only scientific cutting and clearing can control the agents needed for such growth. Even from an entomological point of view, a great many losses could be avoided by applying such a system.
As a matter of fact, this will at the same time eliminate losses due to the rotting of the red heart of the fir or, for instance, to the diebark of leaf trees that would otherwise be too suddenly exposed to different sunlight conditions. Finally, how many insect breeding grounds would be destroyed right at the root through the effect of scientific cutting on atmospheric agents for the purpose of silvics, not to mention the greater resistance of the various species of trees through a rejuvenation of residual stands.
I need not point out that under such advanced dampness control by systematic forest development, the dangers of fire causes would be restricted to a minimum. Therefore the word "protection", in Bill C-82, would alone justify the need and opportunity for such a department.
Bill C-82 also contains the phrase "wise use" of Canadian forest resources. This is no less important. For when carrying out systematic timber cutting, the cuttings must also be mixed (more particularly for us in eastern Canada with our comparatively smaller sized trees) that is, cutting down of sawing timber and pulp wood should take place at the same time, marking logs of diameter of more than eight inches at the small end for use as lumber and logs with a smaller cross cut for use as pulp wood.
Economic surveys have shown that the depression in the small saw milling industry (in the province of Quebec alone, in the last 16 years, about 700 small saw mills went bankrupt) is due to the fact that saw mill operators have used logs of smaller dimensions than the ones just mentioned. Not only were they marketing lumber of lower quality, at consequently much lower prices, but the sawing cost of which was prohibitively high as the diameter of the logs was smaller.
If we now relate those practical findings to the results of research obtained by the Forest Product Laboratories of Canada, we find the same cause of bankruptcy in that industry, i.e. the prohibitive cost of sawing. In the review Canada Lumberman of April 1960, page 46, the Forest Products Laboratories of Canada published a diagram showing the

various costs of sawing in relation to the diameter of logs. Just a few figures drawn from that diagram will suffice to show the importance of that factor. On a basis of 100 per cent as the cost of sawing logs eight inches in diameter, the diagram shows that the cost reaches 117 per cent for seven inch logs, 152 per cent for six inch logs, and 230 per cent for five inch logs.
The new department, suggested by the bill, could transpose in practice, through special regulations, the application of the concrete results obtained in the various specialized laboratories.
Mr. Speaker, in closing these few remarks in favour of Bill C-82, I must again emphasize the urgent necessity of such a measure, without taking into account all the economic losses we could have avoided if we had had such a department before. Among those losses, were the many woodlots that have been so inopportunely ruined, causing the abandonment of so many farms and ultimately the desertion of budding settlements. In fact, the more sawing there was of small logs, the greater was the deficit, and all the more rapidly were we destroying that natural wealth located in the most accessible places.
I also wish that this department may soon promote economic ways of quick processing of wood products from farmers' private lands. There again, the too small revenue now obtained by our farmers for their wood products has greatly handicapped the sustained development of our rural economy.
In the light of my experience in woodlot operations, the advice I have received from technicians and the examples I have seen of scientific cutting, I can assure the house that the new department of forests, in concretely applying scientific data to our forest economy, will demonstrate its necessity by actual results.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay in any way the passage of this measure. However, I feel it is my duty to say a few words about the establishment of this new department that will be called the department of forestry.
The provinces have the exclusive right to administer as they see fit forests located on public property within their boundaries under section 92, subsection 5, of the British North America Act. In relation to this exclusive right of the provinces we have the assurance from the Prime Minister, sponsor of this bill, that 79951-0-3821
Forestry Department
nothing in the present legislation allows the new department to infringe in any way upon the rights and jurisdiction of the provinces.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has clearly stated the Liberal party's position. He made quite clear in his statement that we deem advisable the establishment of such a department.
Now, if the provinces have exclusive rights respecting the administration of their forest lands, nothing prevents them, however, from accepting any assistance offered by the federal government.
Like many others, I feel that the task of developing our forests and of managing forest production comes under the joint responsibility of the federal government, the provincial government and the lumber companies. It is the duty of those three authorities to see that our forests not only are maintained in a state of production, but that production is improved.
When we deal with our forest resources, we must take into account what forests mean to our country. In 1958, our exports of lumber, forest products, pulp and paper reached the amount of $1.4 million. This represents more than 30 per cent of the total value of our exports.
Furthermore, when discussing our forest resources, we must consider this: What would be the effect on our economy should our forestry resources become depleted?
It is said that every day, 3,000 acres of woodlands are used up for fuel wood; that 3,000 acres of woodlands are destroyed by fire, disease and insects; further, that 2,500 acres of woodlands are used to supply our pulp and paper industry; and that finally, another 3,000 acres are used to supply our lumber industry.
Every day, therefore, close to 12,000 acres of woodlands are being practically laid bare. While we do have over a million square miles of forest it can be readily seen that, unless we provide for reforestation and sound management of those wooded areas, this national resource could vanish in a relatively short time. In referring to a relatively short time, I do not mean 25 or 30 years, but something like 100 and 150 years. So unless we insure the renewal of those forest crops, unless we promote the sound management and protection of such lands, we may be letting a most important resource go to waste.

Forestry Department
The main purpose of this bill, entitled department of forestry act, is to unify the research work now being done by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Agriculture in such fields as forest management, forest entomology and pathology, and also with regard to improved uses of wood products and by-products.
I understand, however, that the new department will, in addition, be asking parliament to vote the funds needed for forestry inventories and perhaps for the construction of access roads to our forests, and for assistance in fire protection. As I understand it, all this will be done in co-operation with the provinces because the federal forestry department has no intention to dictate policy to the provinces. That, I think, is a very good point. The department's job will be to carry on or intensify the research work now being done, and to co-operate with the provinces in forest and protection, road construction and forestry inventories.
A few years ago, the federal government passed an act entitled the Canada Forestry Act, designed to help provinces wishing to take advantage of the benefits provided under the act to make an inventory of their resources and to protect their forests. I am told that the forest inventories undertaken under that act have now been completed.
But I hope that the new department will continue to grant subsidies to the provinces to enable them to carry on those inventories, or rather to undertake more detailed inventories.
I think that all the provinces, except Quebec, took advantage of this act. Today, I am convinced that the department of forestry, which is to be established under this bill, will give the province of Quebec the opportunity of undertaking inventories that will be paid for jointly by the province and by the federal government.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) made a few remarks on this new department. He suggested that the new department be named the department of forest industries and forest research, or something like that. I personally heard someone suggest that the new department be called the department of forest products. However, everything considered, I think that the new department should be named simply the department of forestry. That is a fine name

and since the wording of the bill is such that there will be no infringement upon the rights of the provinces, I see no reason why we should complicate matters by choosing another name.
The hon. member for Kootenay West also mentioned the question of a deputy minister. I intend to deal with that point, but not in the same way as the hon. member. I understand that the appointment of a deputy minister is left to the discretion of the Prime Minister. It is his right and I am entirely of that opinion. But I feel that the appointment of a forest engineer to that function would be welcomed.
There are many qualified forest engineers in almost every province.
In the province of Quebec, we have an important group of forest engineers and I am sure that it would be quite easy for the Prime Minister to find in that group of some 400 or 500 forest engineers someone qualified to head that important department. There are also many forest engineers in the neighbouring provinces of Ontario and there are bound to be some among them who have the required qualifications for that post. Therefore, the Prime Minister will have only too many to choose from when he is looking for a competent man among the more than one thousand forest engineers in this country.
1	therefore hope that he will assume the responsibility of carefully selecting someone in this profession, to manage the business of that department.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton! pointed out that at least six provinces in this country were spending more money for the administration of their forests than they were recovering from that industry. That is true. There may be two provinces in Canada which do not spend all the revenue they get from their forest lands: Ontario and Quebec. Those two great provinces have almost unlimited forest resources. They are earning large profits from those resources, but nevertheless, I think that they are now spending more than 50 per cent of that revenue. We must admit that the federal government is spending a very small percentage of the revenue from its lumber industry.
Before the adoption of the forestry act, the federal government was spending barely
2	or 3 per cent of the revenue it derived from that industry. Today, it is spending perhaps 8 or 10 per cent. It should spend more.

The new department will probably have a budget of about $10 million and I presume, according to the figures mentioned by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), that the government intends to increase that budget by 40 to 50 per cent within five years. That is a commendable initiative. So, in five years, the new department will administer a budget of about $15 to $16 million.
Like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), I think that new department could be administered by a minister who already has a portfolio, considering that its budget is not so high, and its administration will not present any difficulties.
Let forestry have its own department, that is my view, like that of the Leader of the Opposition.
Therefore, I am in favour of the setting up of that new department. A forest engineer myself, I know by experience that forests are one of our most important national resources, that bring the federal government substantial revenues.
It is our duty to facilitate their progress, as well as to protect them; and there is no doubt that the provinces themselves will benefit from them.
I shall therefore vote wholeheartedly for the adoption of this bill.
(Text):


Mr. G. M. Stearns (Compton-Fronienac):: In
rising to speak on Bill No. C-82 I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to the government and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in particular for bringing in this measure to establish a much needed department of forestry.
During the war forestry matters all across Canada came under the control of the timber control board and while many lumbermen complained bitterly about the way in which they were obliged to allocate their products here and there, it turned out to be a marvellous thing for the country. The timber control board contained within its group some of the foremost lumbermen and paper manufacturers in Canada, and at the close of the war I think a grand opportunity was lost through failing to expand the timber control board into a department of forestry. However, this was not done and it remained for the present government to take the initiative and set up such a department.
It is my good fortune to have been a member of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters during the three sessions
Forestry Department
I have attended this parliament. I was at the meetings last year when representative organizations from all across Canada appeared before that committee, among them being the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the British Columbia lumber manufacturers' association, the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, the national hardwood lumber association and many others.
As I recall it, all those organizations emphasized the importance to Canada of having a strong and well organized federal authority to deal with forestry matters which come within the scope of the federal government and yet at the same time do not infringe upon the rights of the province. In his remarks the other day the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that that was his intention. I was pleased today to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) speak in favour of this bill. I was pleased last week to hear the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) speak in favour of it to a certain extent, in that he said he was in complete agreement with some of the things which the Prime Minister said, and he wished to reserve his opinion on others until he had seen the bill.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), who has just resumed his seat, speak very highly in favour of this new department. I felt the same way as did the hon. member for Laurier the other day. I did not care to speak during the resolution stage because I had not seen the bill. Since I come from a province which has possibly one of the best managed departments of lands and forests in Canada I wanted to be sure that there was nothing in the bill that could cause any difficulty with the people in that province.
I read the bill over carefully and I am satisfied that it protects the rights of all the provinces. I was fairly sure and confident that it would, because during the annual meeting of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association which was held in Montreal from February 15 to February 17, I think, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) attended a panel discussion with some of the ministers of lands and forests of different provinces in Canada. If I am allowed to I should like to read a short statement published in the Montreal Gazette of February 17:
Mr. Hamilton made the statement in a panel discussion with forestry ministers from Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario at the second day of the convention of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association.
He declared that the present federal forestry research staff would be nearly doubled within the next five years but would not duplicate the present work of provincial forestry research.

Forestry Department
Mr. Hamilton assured the lumbermen gathered at the Queen Elizabeth hotel that the new federal department would not usurp any of the rights and prerogatives of the provincial governments.
The federal minister made this statement after Hon. Jacques Miquelon, Q.C., Quebec minister of lands and forests, declared:
"We have good reasons to fear this federal initiative and would have to oppose it if it constitutes an encroachment on the undisputable and exclusive rights of the province of Quebec on forestry matters."
If I may so, I am very happy that this bill meets with the approval of all parts of this house if for no other reason than it is going to do away with a great deal of confusion which has existed in the minds of many people as to whom to apply in search of forestry information. Up to the present time it might be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or even the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). I have had a little experience myself in that regard in trying to seek out information. It took two or three weeks before I finally got down to the proper place, so to speak. Anyway, when a new forestry department is in operation all of this information will be readily available in one place.
Another very good reason for the establishment of the department of forestry is the fact that the pulp and paper and saw mill industries taken together rank No. 1 in Canada in the selling value of their products; also in salaries and wages paid and in the number of people employed. In the year 1958 the value of their exports equalled 29 per cent-I think someone said 30 per cent, so my figure is not very far out-of all the exports from Canada. Also, at page 607 of the minutes of proceedings of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters of May 18, 1959, Mr. W. A. E. Pepler, manager of the woodlands section of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, said:
Currently the federal government draws tax revenues from the forest industries of the order of $200 million annually."
This is a very good return for the $10 million put out at the present time. I should now like to deal with forestry matters as they concern the province from which I come, and I hope I shall not be called out of order. I have been engaged in the lumber business in the province of Quebec for over 30 years. The small company for which I work has been in operation for 67 years. Since 1920 this company has practised selective cutting, and has been able to maintain and operate on a sustained yield basis.
In 1958 there were some 55 pulp and paper mills in Quebec and about 1,600 saw mills in the province. The saw mills cut 955 million
IMr. Stearns.]
feet that year. A few years ago there were over 2,000 saw mills; I think the present count is 1,613.
In the province of Quebec there are 80,000 square miles of provincial forest land under licence to operators. Ninety per cent of this land is under strict forest management plans. Under these plans the limit holder is obligated to have prepared at his own expense an inventory of his limits and a working plan. He is restricted to cut quantities not exceeding the annual growth, and at the end of each 10-year period he is compelled to have another inventory made to show how well or how badly he has carried out the plan. This is good forest practice because barring losses from fire, disease and insects a limit holder may plan for the future and provide steady employment in the mills and in the woods. This plan also tends to provide abundant water supply in the watersheds.
The measurement of all wood cut on crown lands is done by qualified government scalers who are graduates of a very good practical forest rangers school at Duchesnay. This school is operated by the government, and also instructs in saw milling and forest protection.
The protection of the forests of the province of Quebec against fires is under a government authority established in 1924 as a part of the department of lands and forests. It is undoubtedly one of the best managed in Canada, and the chief of this service has been in charge for more than 35 years. This gentleman has also found the time to help to organize and direct the Quebec forestry association, which association in turn has organized over 400 4-H clubs in the province. The clubs in the province of Quebec operate a little differently from 4-H clubs in other parts of Canada. In Quebec the boys are taught forest conservation principles and encouraged to establish tree farms and in some cases to operate small private nurseries for the production of plants and trees. Every year the limit holder must submit to the province a detailed plan for the protection of his limits. These plans contain maps, lists of equipment, names of fire rangers and their assistants, and their addresses. Failure to do this results in the province taking over the limit for protection purposes and the cost is charged to the limit holder.
I have gone into some detail regarding the management of the forests in Quebec as well as the cutting and measurement of wood and the protection of the forests against fires. All of these things I believe are the sole responsibility of the people of Quebec and outside interference would not be appreciated.

There remain, however, a number of important subjects in which a federal department of forestry will be of great assistance and with regard to which the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce will furnish competent and experienced men to help to staff the new department.
I should like to mention a few subjects as they have occurred to me.
1.	More intense research into the uses of saw mill waste, particularly in so far as small saw mills are concerned.
2.	The establishment of forest nurseries at all federal experimental farms and stations across Canada in order to make available suitable plants and stock to farmers and other people by which to improve their wood lots.
3.	Financial assistance to forestry associations in order that the associations may step up the work of educating the public in forest conservation in all its aspects. At the present time I believe the department makes an annual grant of $20,000 a year to the Canadian Forestry Association. I suggest that when the new department is set up the grant might possibly be trebled.
4.	Assistance to the provinces in the elimination of disease and harmful insects in the forests.
5.	The setting up of an export branch to deal with sales promotion of forest products in other countries. I know that the bill does not necessarily imply that this will be done but I offer this as a sound suggestion not so much for the papermakers as for the lumbermen who have been experiencing a hard time in finding suitable export markets for their lumber in recent years.
6.	The giving of careful study to existing railway rates on forest products and the correcting of the many inequalities that exist today. There are many inequalities. If the hon. member for Villeneuve were here I am sure he could point to certain small saw mills in his constituency that are having a very difficult time in reaching any market in which they can sell their lumber. This is due to high railway freight rates and the inability to compete by truck haul because the distances are too great.
These are just a few of the subjects that come to my mind, and I am sure that other hon. members will introduce a great many valuable suggestions before the debate ends. I am happy to have had the opportunity today to express my views on this important subject, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the house for your kind attention.
Forestry Department


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-Si. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle of the bill and I do so for two particular reasons. The first is that I come from the province of Newfoundland where the newsprint industry is of fundamental importance and also from a constituency where the newsprint industry is of equal importance. My second reason for supporting the measure is that it is my private opinion that if the industry is going to meet the demands which may be made upon it in the next 15, 20 or 25 years it will be in need of research facilities which only the federal government is able to provide.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Stearns) who has just taken his seat. He made some reference to his own province of Quebec. In considering such a measure as is now before us, one which could never hope to do that which it proposes to do without the co-operation of the provinces and the industry in general, I think it may be or should be permissible for one to be able to refer to the industry in the province from which he comes. The remarks which the hon. member made regarding his own province were particularly interesting. I also think that his remarks with reference to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) are substantially correct. When the hon. member spoke on the resolution stage he did not then have the bill before him, but I know that if he were to speak at this stage of the debate he would, having seen the bill, take the same position that I am taking now and support the bill.
I believe that when the bill is implemented it will do a great deal for all branches of the forest industry in all parts of Canada. Nearly all who have spoken on the bill have said a great deal about the importance of the forest industries to Canada. Probably that is one of the real reasons why the bill is presented to parliament now. I think the importance of any industry to Canada should not be rated only on its national importance but should be based upon its importance in the area in which it operates. In the case of the forest industry, whether lumbering or pulp and paper, the industry is not only important to nearly all of the provinces of Canada as provinces but is very important from a national standpoint. In fact, it is one of our basic industries. It is most important h our national economy and in the economy of nearly all our provinces.
This industry has been made possible by the large extent of forests in Canada, exceeded in size only by those of the U.S.S.R. and Brazil. We have in Canada 1.6 million square miles of forest area. One million

Forestry Department
square miles or approximately 60 per cent are capable of producing merchantable timber, and of this area 70 per cent is accessible. I think the importance of a forest area is greatly enhanced by being accessible, either because it is near the area where an industry operates or because it is serviced by roads which permit entry by those who wish to carry on the lumbering industry. Not only, of course, is the forest area made more important because of accessibility, but the means of protecting that area from fire, from insects or from disease is made much easier for those who are concerned with these matters if they are able to get directly to the spot.
These forests of Canada provide the raw material for Canada's largest industry, the pulp and paper industry. It should be of interest to all Canadians that of every $8 earned nationally in Canada, $1 is derived from the pulp and paper industry. It has been the leading industry in Canada for many years, and since the second world war it has kept apace with industrial expansion in this country. The pulp and paper industry is first among all industries in its net value of shipments; it is first in exports; it is first in total wages paid; it is first in total capital investment. It is first as a consumer of electrical energy and is also the largest buyer of goods and services, including transportation. Over 80,000 men are employed permanently, year by year, and nearly a quarter million men are employed on a seasonal basis. The actual wage payments amount to over half a billion dollars per year, with an added $250 million paid to transportation and slightly more for buying transportation and other services.
The total output is valued at $1.4 billion. It exceeds the value of the annual production of wheat and all other grains. It has a value twice as large as the total production of all forms of metal mining and contributes $1 billion a year to our export trade. The expressed intention of the industry to double its output in 15 or 20 years, together with a comparison of the amount of money spent on administration, research and subsidy in the fields of mining and agriculture with the amount spent on forest administration and research by the federal government would indicate that further and more precise attention is needed by our forest industries.
Canada's leadership in the pulp and paper industry is founded on a combination of bountiful forests, water and water power and ready access to the markets of the United States as well as the overseas markets of the world. Great progress has been made in this country since the first newsprint was made in Quebec in 1803. Landmarks toward our present position as a world producer may

be cited as follows: 1841 when groundwood paper was made for the first time in the western hemisphere in Halifax; 1864 when soda pulp was made at Sherbrooke in Quebec; 1866 when the first groundwood pulp-mill was erected at Valley field in the province of Quebec, and also the year 1888 when the first sulphite mill was built at Merritton, Ontario.
In Newfoundland, my own province, the pulp and paper industry has a most interesting history. When the early settlers came to Newfoundland, of course, they came to fish. However, it was not very long before they realized the importance of the forests which surrounded these early settlements in providing wood for boats as well as wood for building the settlements in which they lived. A gradual development from the axe stage to the stage where waterwheels were used for the sawing of timber brought these forest industries, even in those early days, to something of real importance. Even in 1890 and in 1900 Newfoundland had a fair export trade in lumber. The first pulpmill was built in 1897 by Harvey and Company and operated, I think, for about five years in a place known as Black River. It was then known as the Newfoundland Wood Pulp Company Limited.
Then at the turn of the century Lord Northcliffe of England was looking around for a private supply of newsprint for his printing plants. He was directed to Newfoundland, with the result that he came to that province and formed a company on January 7, 1905. The construction of the mill at Grand Falls was begun in July, 1905, and the first real newsprint was produced on December 22, 1909. Today this mill is producing a far greater amount of newsprint than was intended when the mill was originally built, and plays a very important part in the economy of Newfoundland.
Following the first world war economic conditions in Newfoundland were in a very sad state indeed, and the government of the day, seeking employment for its many people, saw the possibilities of another pulp and paper industry. It was at this time that the English government was eager to lend money because it wished to convert some of the engineering possibilities which had been noted during the first world war to a peacetime basis, and so it was that the English government was able to lend Newfoundland a certain amount of money which enabled Newfoundland to build a mill at Corner Brook, in my own riding. At that particular time, in 1925, Corner Brook was a small settlement of four or five families, yet 35

years later it is the second city in Newfoundland with a population of nearly 30,000. It plays a very important part in the economy of Newfoundland and the mill itself, if not the largest, is the second largest integrated newsprint mill in the world.
The newsprint industry is of particular importance to Newfoundland. The total production is somewhere in the vicinity of 600 thousand tons annually. The importance of the industry is not only in its total output, but also as a means of supplementary employment for the fishermen. This has not changed in recent years, and may be even more important now than it was 20 years ago. There are two reasons for this. The fall fishery in Newfoundland is no longer prosecuted to the extent it was years ago.
In addition, the fishing season is so short that those who are engaged in it are no longer able to make sufficient wages to enable them to live, with the result that they supplement their income in some other way. One of the chief reasons why the newsprint industry is important to Newfoundland is that it provides this supplementary income to those who at other times of the year are engaged in the fishing industry. This is particularly well indicated when we note that at any one time of the year only about 4,000 loggers could be accommodated in Newfoundland while actually over the cutting period 17,000 loggers are employed.
I would hope that when this department is set up it will give due consideration to the importance of conservation to the forest industry, not only in terms of preserving our natural timber stands but also in terms of preserving them from fire losses, insects and disease and also in terms of the conservation of soil, water and wildlife. These resources are of particular importance to Canada and I suggest to the house that the time will come when they will be of increasing importance.
I was interested in the minister's remarks when he referred to the losses in Canadian forests due to fire. There is no need here to present again the figures which the minister has presented. 1 am sure these figures should impress not only every member of this house but every Canadian who has any conception of the importance of the forest industries to the economy of this country. I believe that every effort should be made to reduce these fire losses if the forests of Canada are going to provide the raw materials which will keep the forest industries going at the level at which we believe they will operate in the future. Certainly Canadians have a keen conception of what conservation should mean but I believe this new department, along educational lines and in various other ways
Forestry Department
will be able to bring more closely to their attention the need for Canada to preserve or conserve the forests of this country so that raw material will be provided for some time for the newsprint industry, the lumber industry and so forth.
We in Newfoundland are not unmindful of conservation. When John Guy came to Cupids in 1610 he realized the terrible disaster that would befall his settlement if the forests were destroyed by fire and he in fact made the first law in Newfoundland concerning forest fires when he said that no person should set a fire in the woods. Later in 1767 Hugh Palliser, then governor of the island, decided that setting fires to forests would be a crime and that those who did it in any part of Newfoundland should be brought to St. John's for trial. From 1900 to 1934 we can trace the growth of the department of agriculture and mines in Newfoundland and the efforts made to conserve our timber resources. In Newfoundland we have what is known as the Newfoundland forest protection association, a fine group of men who have given yeoman service to the province over the last few years in protecting our forests from the ravages of fire. We can think too of the forest fire act of 1905, the forest patrol act of 1910 and the amendments to those acts in 1933, 1945, 1948 and 1953.
When this new department is set up and consideration is being given to the various provinces with regard to conservation, inventories and other matters, I hope the minister of the department, whoever he may be, will give due consideration to the fact that in the last four or five years when the existing bureaus of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Agriculture gave services to various provinces, Newfoundland was unable to accept those services because of agreements between the provincial government and the paper companies. When consideration is being given to these matters under this new department I hope this fact will not be forgotten.
When this new department is set up, I would recommend for its study five particular topics; and I do not give these topics in the order of merit or the order of importance. First, I would suggest a good deal of time and money be spent on the need for research dealing with present uses of wood and the possibility of new uses; second, on the developing of trade policies which will increase exports of Canadian forestry products to all parts of the world where markets exist. It may be that in the future we shall find that markets for Canadian forestry products may change. For example, we can think of what

Forestry Department
is happening to the newsprint industry with the new uses that are being made of southern pine not only in the country to the south of us but also in France. We would also have to consider what would happen to our forest industry if Russia were to use some of the vast forest resources she has in order to develop a paper and pulp industry.
Third, I would recommend to this department the fostering of co-operation between the industry, provincial governments and the federal government in order to develop a scientific system of forest management. Fourth, I would suggest that a careful study be made of the security of land tenure. Finally, I would hope that it would give some study to the position of the forest industries within the Canadian tax structure.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reaffirm my support for this bill and I express the hope that the time will not be too far away when Canada as a nation and all the provinces will feel the effect of this legislation; and I hope that it will be effective in producing a system of forest management commensurate with the importance of the forest industries to the Canadian economy.


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, as one who comes from a constituency that depends a great deal on the production of the products of the forest it now gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part in the formation of this new department of forestry. This subject has been very well covered by hon. members on both sides of the house. I have greatly enjoyed listening to them. I notice that there have been some changes in opinion. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) now is very much in favour of this measure as are the other members of his party. As a matter of fact, it is now getting so interesting that before the new baby is born they are trying to name the baby and they are also worrying about new ministers to take care of this new baby when it is born. It is a very fine thing and I think this department cannot help but go ahead and be a credit to Canada.
Going back a few years I well remember driving through my constituency with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at which time he paid close attention to the fine timber stands on both sides of the road and asked many questions about the natural resources of the district and about the people who lived there. One wonders whether at that time he had in mind the future introduction of a department of forestry. As we stopped for a few minutes at Chemainus he was interested to hear that the MacMillan & Bloedel Limited saw mill there was one of the largest in the commonwealth, with deep

sea port facilities for large ships, and that Chemainus had produced lumber for the world for over 80 years.
It might be of interest to point out that Chemainus, with all the big boats which come in there which ship lumber, has tried for 40 years to get a stone breakwater because at various times storms come up and the big ships which come in have a hard time to manoeuvre and are actually a menace to the harbour. I hope that now the Department of Public Works will soon put that breakwater in.
The Prime Minister was very interested in the giant pulp mill being completed at Crof-ton between Chemainus and Duncan. This pulp mill cost $46,300,000 and is the district's largest plant. He was also interested to hear about MacMillan & Bloedel's new and up to date pulp mill near Nanaimo, and paid a great deal of attention to the large assembly wharf in Nanaimo where many ships from the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, France, the United States and other countries load pulp and lumber.
I was very sorry that this trip did not take in the Cowichan lake operations as the stands of timber and mills in that area are well worth seeing. Cowichan timber is shipped to all parts of the world and the specimens of the famous Douglas fir in this area are without equal.
One of the province's three seeding nurseries is in Duncan. Its capacity is six million and plantings take place in the spring and fall of the year. Virgin stands will remain for many years the main crop and the day of second growth is well ahead of us. Sustained yield operations are the ideal, however. There are four giant saw mills in the area, one at Chemainus and three around lake Cowichan. Machinery is of the modern type and the mill design is compact.
The greatest development in the industry has been the manufacturing of former waste material into raw pulp. Chipper plants are now added to three of the large installations and mammoth trucks travel around the clock between here and the raw pulp mills at Nanaimo and Crofton. Development of this utilization of waste product, as it is officially known, has not reached its peak and chemical experiments and research are expected to lead to greater activity in this field. More jobs and bigger payrolls are the by-products for the community. Over 40,000 cedar poles in lengths from 20 to 100 feet are annually produced. Fir piling is shipped by rail to eastern North America.
Logging and saw milling have had a romantic history in my constituency. In the early days oxen and horses were used to

draw the logs along skid roads. Then came the steam donkey, the gas donkey, the high-lead system, the multiple machine and skyline, and now mobile spars and loaders with diesel engines. For years steam locomotives pulled the heavy trains of logs out of the woods. Now huge diesel trucks transport logs over good roads to the booming grounds.
We have in my constituency two of the largest pulp mills on the island. There are 18 logging companies and 16 retail lumber outlets. All these allied industries are part of forestry and are high priced items. If one stops to consider, this reaches right across the whole of Canada. Radio equipment is quite a big item in the logging industry as trucks and boats are radio controlled. The tug boat enters into the picture there. Stevedoring is quite a big thing and they have developed the booming tugs which are built in Nanaimo which are of great help in the booming of logs. The operators on the island own their own aircraft which also contributes to the economy of the whole of Canada. There are tools of all kinds to be supplied. There are power saws, caterpillar tractors, road graders, bulldozers, caterpillar earth moving equipment-all high priced, high ticket items. Automobiles are used and also very large logging trucks, some of which are built on the Pacific coast and some in the east. Then there is mill machinery and complete machine shops, which means, as I remarked, that this is a big ticket item for the whole of Canada because it is spread right across the country.
I have a letter here from the Comox Logging and Railway Company to the effect that on this members of parliament tour coming up in September they have arranged a program including falling, yarding, loading, tree topping and other phases of the logging industry. Actually about a five-hour program can be put on although we may have to cut it down due to the time element. Transportation will be by car over 30 miles of hard surfaced road to the actual operations. I hope very much that as many hon. members as possible on both sides of the house will take part in this trip, because if they do they will see some of the new type of equipment which is being used in British Columbia.
One of the newest additions to the family of modern mechanized logging equipment, the pre-load trailer, is used by Comox Logging and Railway Company at their Nanaimo lakes operation. With this new trailer the truck drivers do not have to wait while loading takes place, they drop off the empty trailer and pick up a loaded one. The drop off and pick up takes about ten minutes.
Forestry Department
They also use the new easy way loader assembly and truck, which loads and hauls logs that are too small or short for the big trucks.
Madill towers are a third major addition for Comox. These are huge steel towers mounted on tank retrievers that can be moved from one site to another. These portable spars are replacing spar trees, saving about three days which it would take to rig up a spar tree. Although they are called Madill towers they are built in Nanaimo, and I know that Madill Brothers are making these machines up and it meant a lot of work for people in the community there. Over the years most of the improvements in methods of logging have been the invention of the operators, and the future will no doubt see many more.
It could very well be said that in the future powerful helicopters will play a large part in removing some of the fine timber stands in the draws and plateaux that are hard to reach. The helicopter will perhaps be used to land portable mills and portable choppers on these high locations and then used to fly out the lumber or pulp chips.
This may sound as though it is looking a long way ahead but I have here the annual report of Okanagan Helicopters and on the front of it is shown a helicopter. This helicopter is flying for the Southern Californian Edison Company near Los Angeles. This big bucket is filled with concrete and they fly the concrete in and drop it down into the form. So you can see that it would not be too big a problem in the future for chips to be landed in that same way and logging can be done that way too. They have experimented with it already and I had the pleasure of talking to Mr. McPherson, president of this company, about two months ago and he said it certainly will move into that type of operation.
In Kitimat this same company pioneered helicopter work probably for the whole world and they set up the big high transmission towers for the electrical system of Kitimat. They brought those complete towers in; the bases had been put there and they flew the towers in. They were let down on the table and set in position. So hon. members can well see that it is not a dream to think that in the future helicopters will serve in quite a large way.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. McQuillan) spoke of the large Mars aircraft which are to be used to fight forest fires. Last year I watched one of these aircraft in practice. They fly along the surface of the water, the water is forced up into their tanks, and then they fly over the fires and the water

Forestry Department
is released. According to the tests made so far they are very effective and I understand there will be quite a future for them. I think they have been trying out two of the big Mars flying boats.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said, these large Mars flying boats were purchased by a number of British Columbia logging companies and it is a very expensive experiment. When this new forestry department is set up it will no doubt carry on in the field of research methods of fire fighting, effective reforestation, insect control and assistance to small logging operators. If small operators had been assisted by the federal government some years ago we would have had less unemployment in Canada today.
Some years ago many of these small logging concerns were operating in British Columbia and contributing to the community. Many of the new ideas now being applied in the industry came from these small operators who did not have too much money and consequently had to figure things out carefully and make the best use of the equipment they had. Practically every invention which large companies now employ originated with these small operators. I would imagine that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would be able to give some practical ideas in this connection because he was certainly a logger who understood his business.
One of the main difficulties about operating a small logging business was the difficulty of raising finance. I can recall that in 1937 when I went into the business we had to buy used equipment, and the timber was scattered; about all the timber we got was small timber which the large companies did not feel they could profitably use. But if one went to a bank for a loan it was just about necessary to put gold on the counter as a guarantee against anything one sought to borrow. Yet not everyone was so unfortunate. I can remember that one of the Japanese camps burnt down, and within 20 days, a bank manager I knew told me, they received a cheque from the Japanese government for $80,000 to help them get started again. That is what I mean when I talk about assisting small operators.
I lived for some years in the United States, and to this day in the United States a small operator can raise sufficient money from the banks to purchase a business, providing the business, after investigation by the banks, seems to be a good one, and provided the man is honest and experienced. I have known loans of up to $75,000 being made to a man who knew his business, in this case the hotel business, although he had nothing to offer except his honesty and ability. For years we have had a number of young people in Canada

entitled to similar considerations. The former government did nothing to help them and I think we have lost a great number of good men for this reason. Indeed, our country has been more or less regimented because the small man cannot get the start to which he is entitled.
I have mentioned the small operators. We have a number who are doing very well in the district from which I come. For instance, one man in Nanaimo has done tremendous work in the community and I could go on to speak of other loggers who have done a tremendous job. In the old days one used to see a truck with the words written on the side: "Tom Jones, proprietor" or a store with the name "Bill Thompson" on it. That is no longer the case, and instead one is likely to see on a building or a truck some such words as "Main Office, New York". I think we should get away from this and Canadians should have an opportunity of starting out increasingly in businesses of their own. I think the proposed new department can do a lot towards this end. Certainly that would lead to the improvement of the economy of the country and to greatly increased employment.
The main profits from our rich timber have not always gone to those local people who worked to make them possible. I remember in 1937 I was driving through a residential part of the city of Colebrook. I remarked on some beautiful houses which had been built along the road and my companion said I would be surprised to learn that the houses in that block had all been built by forest products. I do not mean the lumber; the men who built these houses built them from the money they had made by working in the industry on Vancouver island. I imagine that the loggers who worked there at that time did not have anything like the advantage that these operators had.
Again, I express my hearty approval at this action which the Prime Minister has taken, as I know all right-thinking members of this house will do, perhaps with the exception of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I think that as though he certainly will give the measure support, it will not be hearty approval. It was surprising to hear the hon. member for Laurier saying he was not rising either to approve this legislation or oppose it. In other words, he was not here to go forward or backward. I think the hon. member and some of his party were out of gear for many years.
What this new department of forestry can do to build up the economy of Canada is almost unlimited. It should have been done by the former government, but they took

comfort in building up a surplus. If they had kept the country in good repair we would not have nearly as many unemployed today. From what I have heard just one or two men ran the government and many of the Liberal backbenchers had no chance to express their views. ,
The hon. member for Laurier still expects to see the same number of departments in this country and the same number of ministers as there were in the Liberal regime when little was done, despite the fact that the same number of months is required to complete a greater volume of work. He says there are too many ministers. If the hon. gentleman would look around he would find that some of Canada's large stores have more departments than there are in the cabinet. What has happened to this once great Liberal party that has lost faith in Canada? Its supporters sell the Canadian people short; they have no faith in Canadians unless the Liberal party is in power. As compared with many large businesses which operate in Canada, the federal government would seem not to have sufficient departments rather than the contrary. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to some of the firms which are operating in Canada and to the number of directors and officers which they think are required in order to operate successfully:
Directors Officers
Okanagan Helicopters Ltd.	(1959)	10	8Imperial Oil Limited	(1958)	10	8Polymer Corporation Ltd.	(1957)	9	6Eldorado Mining Ltd.	(1959)	7	10Sidney Roofing & Paper Co.	(1957)	8	6T. G. Bright & Co. Ltd. Atkinson Charitable	(1958)	7	5Foundation	(195B)	6	6Trans-Canada Air Lines British Columbia Packers	(1957)	9	8Ltd.	(1958)	20	9Canadian National Railways	(1958)	8	53
Yet in the face of this it is argued that the Dominion of Canada, with all the tremendous amount of business which has to be carried on, has too many ministers. I certainly do not agree with the hon. member for Laurier on that point. I think the Leader of the Opposition has taken a second look at this question, and I am sure he does not agree with it either.
It would seem that the Liberal government did not keep up with the times, that it did not grow with Canada. Much of the unemployment we have today has arisen because the former government did not take action to build up this country. These big department stores, if they find that they have need of extra departments, make arrangements to provide them, and if hon. members will look at the annual reports of these stores they will find they invariably make money as a
Forestry Department
result of such decisions. On the national scale, whenever a new department is set up for the good of the country I do not see where we can lose.
Indeed, I believe we need still another department, and I would suggest that a department of tourism and recreation be set up as soon as possible. It seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that the scope of this debate is already wide enough without trying to establish another ministry. Perhaps the hon. member would stick to the point.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I am sorry. I went too far ahead. I will not speak again on that question.
I noticed in my local paper, the Nanaimo Free Press of July 5, that there is some money to be spent in the constituency of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The reason I refer to this item is because it certainly shows that there are plans to expand. This has to do with newsprint, so I do not think I shall be out of order. This item reads:
This expansion, calling for a capital investment in excess of $24 million, will be completed in 1963.
That is, the additional newsprint machine at the company's plant at Port Alberni. I continue with the quotation:
Mr. Clyne said that the investment demonstrated the continuing faith of the company in the economy of British Columbia.
That is directly forestry, and I assure the house it shows that forestry is a No. 1 industry.
In conclusion may I remind hon. members that the formation of a department of forestry will have a far-reaching effect on the economy of the whole of Canada. The constituency that I have the honour to represent will welcome this step forward by the federal Conservative government.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha baska):: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding Bill C-82 respecting the department of forestry was passed, several hon. members expressed their views about the services society is entitled to receive from that new department.
I do not want, in any way, to repeat the arguments of my fellow members with regard to the importance of the lumber industry in this country.
The creation of a department of forestry is justified because of the importance but more particularly, because of the waste, of forest resources, not only in Canada, but in the whole world, as FAO pointed out during its convention last September.

Forestry Department
According to that organization, three trees out of five are cut down without being replaced. In Canada, we are no less guilty of waste even if the people seem to think that, because of our vast forests, the supply of wood is inexhaustible.
Other factors too help destroy forests; I mean insects and fires. Those are problems of concern to government authorities, both federal and provincial.
It is not too early to give some thought to the conservation of our forest resources, if we want to be in a position to meet the demand for wood products, a demand that will double within 15 years, and also to compete with Russia and other countries, but especially with Russia, which stops at nothing to get hold of our markets in the western world.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing that strikes me, when considering this bill, is the title: "Department of Forestry."
In my opinion, those two words psychologically imply an idea of authority which is causing a certain apprehension in the minds of provincial government leaders.
From a practical point of view, I believe it would have been better to name it the department of forest research, since the part the federal government is playing in the field of forestry does not concern forest management or administration, nor the control of cutting rights, etc.
The part of the federal government is well defined in subsection 5 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to-the management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon.
This means that the part the federal government is called upon to play must be limited to research, preservation and use of forest resources, and not to management or administration.
This bill seems to go much further since paragraph A of section 6 says that the minister may take measures not only for the conduct of research relating to the protection of the forest resources of Canada, which is an excellent thing, but relating also to their management and utilization.
Several newspapers commented on this bill after it was announced by the government.
L'Action Catholique, of January 20, had this to say:
Under the guise of help, study and research, Ottawa is gradually penetrating into all fields.
And Le Droit said:
Will the federal government try to meddle with provincial affairs?

We have the Prime Minister's verbal assurance that this act will not encroach upon provincial rights. But if we can have as much faith in his words as in his election promises, we will be disappointed.
What I want to point out at this stage has to do with the small producers, that is the majority of farmers, woodsmen and people whose living depends on the lumber industry.
In a pamphlet published by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the number of people depending on the lumber industry is estimated at 361,300, not including farmers who have wood lots in addition to their farm proper. There are 35,000 of those producers in the province of Quebec and I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that there must be about 100,000 in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in the legislation and regulations that we will adopt regarding this department, we will have to give special consideration to the claims and requests made in certain circumstances by those workers.
At a time when farm income is steadily dropping it would be appropriate to include in this legislation regulations for the protection of those thousands of farmers whose sale of pulp wood or lumber represents added income, if not their chief income.
Recently, that is to say on June 7, 1960, we received a report on the value of the production of wood products for the year 1958. A study of that report indicates that the estimated value wood products production dropped by $17 million in 1958, as compared to 1957. That is a further reason for setting up this new department, which will be responsible for pushing production and finding new markets for our wood, both within and outside Canada.
Many Canadian farmers cannot make a profit out of their land, either because it is not fit for agriculture, or because they are settlers and their farm is not yet a going concern.
The efforts of the new department will doubtless be directed to the implementation of a research program for the protection, management and use of Canada's forest resources. However, it will have to stress the human and social aspects of the problem, that is to say the protection of the interests of farmers and tree farmers in our rural communities.
There is a need to integrate forestry to agriculture. Such a move would promote the



I960

[Stage Direction]
general welfare of the community. It would strengthen the economy of some areas on a permanent and stable basis, provided that some of the suggestions put forward by farm organizations and by the people concerned are included in the bill now before us.
I can think of no better way to summarize these suggestions than by quoting a statement made by J.-R. Pelletier, a former manager of the Ste Anne de la Pocatiere farm, when submitting a brief to the commission on land uses, on June 2 last. I quote two paragraphs from his statement:
(Text):
In regard to land use, we must consider, necessarily, forestry along with agriculture because both compete for the land, and it is my personal view that the two pillars of our future regional economy are, one 30 feet high, the tree, and the other one 30 centimetres high, the grass. As far as the Canadian forest industry is concerned the province of Quebec alone takes a slice of about 25 per cent.
(Translation):
I have no doubt that this proportion is the same in other provinces, particularly in the maritimes and Ontario.
A little further down, Mr. Pelletier went on to say:
(Text):
Again, I repeat that agriculture and forestry have to co-exist because we have nothing else to draw our subsistence from, and either one alone will be insufficient.
(Translation):
I could perhaps quote other arguments, but I shall refrain from doing so in order not to delay the passage of this bill.
As legislators, it is our urgent duty to pass sound and practical legislation so as to preserve that renewable wealth of our forests and to integrate it to agriculture in certain areas of our country.
Because the farmer has been placed in an untenable situation since the Conservative party came into office, as a result of the failure of its farm policy, we are inclined to think that it is introducing legislation on forest resources to make us forget that decline. However, we trust that this department will be more successful than the Department of Agriculture.
At this time when Canada is going through the worst unemployment crisis in its history, the launching of a reforestation campaign in our rural areas would be warranted as soon as possible.
This work would be a token of security for future generations and a qualifying certificate for legislators of today.
Recalling the final words of Mr. Pelletier in his brief, I say that the success of the task
Forestry Department
we are tackling will be judged by the importance of those taking part in it.
(Text):
Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to commend the government for introducing the bill to set up this new department. I realize there is a possibility of a conflict between this government and the provincial governments but, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) stated in his opening remarks, the purpose of the department will be almost exclusively that of a research department. In examining the bill we find that clause 5 limits the authority of the department to that field over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. Clause 5 reads as follows:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to the forest resources of Canada.
Clause 6 and its various subsections spell out more fully the powers and the duties of the minister. The people of my constituency, and this applies generally to the people of the province of New Brunswick, are vitally interested in the new department and its related subjects. As hon. members know, forestry and the products of the forest are of vital importance to the province of New Brunswick. At one time New Brunswick was primarily an agricultural province but recently there has been a decline in agricultural products and an increase in forest products. For instance, the net value of agricultural products in 1956, the last year for which figures are available, accounted for 11.2 per cent while forest products accounted for 14.3 per cent and fishing 2.6 per cent.
The total land area of my province expressed in square miles is slightly in excess of 27,000. Of this area 23,000 square miles are classed as forest land, of which 22,750 square miles are classed as productive forest land, so 80 per cent of the total area of the province is forest land. In a recent inventory completed by the department of lands and mines of the province of New Brunswick it was established that the forest area is increasing both in area and volume and that under ideal conditions of soil and climate existing in that province the forests showed a remarkable capacity for recovery. The inventory indicated that the total volume of wood in merchantable sizes is 16,900,000 cubic feet or roughtly the equivalent of 179 million cords of wood, of which 70 per cent would be softwood and 30 per cent hardwood trees. The last reported figures indicate that the pulp and paper industry in my province employed nearly 5,000 people with an annual

Forestry Department
payroll of nearly $20 million. One plant alone will spend nearly $8 million in the next two years on further expansion.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) has set out very briefly and very well the historical development of the pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland and I think what he has said applies generally to the pulp and paper industry of New Brunswick. We have large plants at Dal-housie, Bathurst, Saint John and Edmundston. The plant at Dalhousie alone is capable of producing 900 tons of newsprint per day. In addition, and this was referred to by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Stearns), we have a number of saw mills. Although the saw mills have declined in numbers, we have a corresponding increase in the pulp and paper mills. The saw mills employed nearly 3,000 people and, in the last year for which figures are available, paid approximately $5 million in wages. The combined selling value for the products of these two industries, the pulp and paper industry and the saw mill industry, approaches nearly $130 million per annum.
During the past few years, as a result of a change in the provincial regulations and a change in the basis of stumpage rates, the revenues accruing to the province from crown land reserves-I wish to say that the province of New Brunswick holds almost 40 per cent of the total forest area in that province -amounted to slightly in excess of $2 million, or slightly less than 50 per cent of the total revenues of the lands and forests department.
During the past few years great progress has been made in forest fire protection. I should like to compliment the minister on his presentation of this phase of the bill and suggest to him that there are great possibilities for development in the future. It is almost impossible to establish a trend in connection with forest fire losses, but it would seem that in 1959 the average was 17 per cent below that of the peak average of the 10 preceding years. The decrease in the number of fires can be traced directly to a better educational program and the development in the province of a forest ranger school, coupled to some extent with the influence of the forestry department of the University of New Brunswick.
I should like also to bring to the attention of the house the forest insect protection program which has been carried on in my province over the last few years. Since 1952 more than six million acres of forest land have been sprayed one or more times with d.d.t. at a cost of more than $12 million. In 1959 it appeared that this menace was over, but surveys in the fall of that year indicated that in certain sections of the province, there had

been a further outbreak and the spraying was resumed. The high mortality rate amongst the fish population and, to a more limited extent, amongst other species of wildlife as a result of the spraying caused the province of New Brunswick, in co-operation with the federal government, to modify the spray mixture to eliminate this danger while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the spray for the purpose for which it was intended.
It is felt in my province that the establishment of the new department envisaged in the bill now under discussion will lead to a better understanding of the problems and preservation of the forest industry. I should like to point out that the conservation of the forest resources of New Brunswick is of vital importance to that province. I commend the government for bringing this bill forward at the present time to set up this new department.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I welcome this opportunity of
speaking briefly on the bill which is before the house. I should like to say that I support the bill because it gives to the woods industry, I believe, its proper place in the Canadian economy. In my own province of Newfoundland the woods industry is very important, even as it is important to the whole Canadian economy. This statement applies particularly to my district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, for in that district there is not only one of the largest paper mills in the world but also many of the men who do the work which keeps the mills at Grand Falls and the other paper mills in Newfoundland operating reside there.
Perhaps nothing illustrates more graphically the importance of the woods industry in Newfoundland than an enumeration of the towns which depend upon it. First, I might mention Grand Falls itself, where the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company's paper mill was built in 1905. Next to Grand Falls is the town of Windsor; then Bishop's Falls, Glenwood, Badger and Millertown, as well as other places which depend on the industrial side of the manufacturing of pulp and paper. Then there is the port of Botwood, which is an important shipping centre, through which the paper is shipped. There are many other communities which I will not take the time to mention, White Bay and Green Bay, where the people find at least part of their year's employment in the cutting of wood. I think, too, of the new towns such as Springdale, Robert's Arm and King's Point, which have grown up as a result of the pulp and paper industry. This industry, while it does not employ as many people or affect as many people directly as the fisheries in Newfoundland, nevertheless its dollar value is greater

than that of any other industry. It follows, therefore, that this industry is of vital importance to the province of Newfoundland. The creation of the department of forestry is a move which will be welcomed by those who are interested in the development of the woods industry.
Apart from Newfoundland itself, the timber resources of Labrador are practically untouched and are vast. I would hope, in the future, to see the development of these great resources. I might add that we have already two great pulp and paper mills in Newfoundland and if the consistent and energetic efforts of Premier Smallwood bear fruit, we will have a third. Certainly we do have vast timber resources.
I was particularly impressed with the remarks which the minister made in connection with fire fighting. Forest fires have been the historic enemy of the woods industry. From time to time we have had some very serious fires in Newfoundland. Last year there was a bad one in Labrador and other serious fires in the Baie Verte area. Although the provincial department of mines and resources and the companies themselves have made exhaustive efforts to combat the forest fires, they do occur. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) when he mentioned the work that has been done in protecting and conserving the forests. Nevertheless, when it comes to research, only the federal government can do a satisfactory and complete job, even as in fisheries where research and development is done by a federal body.
Not only are the forests of Newfoundland important now but as far as we can see in the future the forests will continue to be important and will be absolutely vital to the economic well-being of Newfoundland and Labrador. If these forests are to continue to provide necessary employment, if they are to continue to be of use to future generations, it is now that conservation measures must be studied; it is now that research must be conducted, and it is now that the work must be done to protect the future of the industry and ensure its progress.
In passing and speaking of work which has already been done I should like to suggest that even at this late date the federal government might consider making payment retroactively for the work which has been done in forestry research and protection in Newfoundland.
I should also like to mention in passing one thing which is related to this matter, namely the port of Botwood which is the shipping port for pulp and paper from central
Forestry Department
Newfoundland. It may very well, as a result of the services provided now by icebreakers, become an all year round shipping port to the great benefit of the people who are living there whereas in the past quite frequently other ports had to be used for the shipping of pulp.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's put forward several suggestions with which I should like to associate myself. One was with regard to research dealing with the present use of wood and the possibility of new uses. I think that matter is particularly important because there is a certain amount of waste. If all the wood could be used industrially that fact in itself would be a kind of conservation, and one which would be profitable.
The hon. member mentioned trading policies. As is well known, Canadian exporters suffer from extremely keen competition. I would say that our exports, although increasing, have not increased as fast as have those of our competitors. I think the new department of forestry should look carefully into the possibility of improving our export position. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's mentioned co-operation between the industry, provincial governments and the federal government with regard to scientific forest development. That suggestion I heartily endorse and I imagine it will follow. He also mentioned security of land tenure and study of the position of the forest industries within the Canadian tax structure. These things which were mentioned by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's I hope will be given serious consideration by the new department.
With respect to the development of the forest resources of Labrador may I say I would hope that these are not overlooked by the new department and also in connection with northern development. There we have great natural resources. They are probably among the greatest untapped resources in the world. The new department will have boundless opportunities of looking into the development of our woods resources and in that endeavour I wish them the very best of success because the woods industry in Canada is one of our top industries, and in our own province of Newfoundland, as I stated previously, it is of terrific value.
To come back again to my own particular part of the province of Newfoundland, namely the district of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, may I say that the woods industry affects so many people in so many ways that it is absolutely essential, first, that it be conserved; second, that it be enlarged; and, third, initiating in Canada as a whole, that the development of these resources be such that

Forestry Department
more and more Newfoundlanders and more and more Canadians in every part of Canada may be able to make a living from our great Canadian forests.


Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate this government upon the proposal to establish a federal department of forestry and on recognizing the importance of the forest industry to the economy and welfare of Canada. In British Columbia the forest industries support approximately 60 per cent of the economy of the province, directly or indirectly. I feel that we have in my own province a very efficient forestry department which is manned by a capable and efficient staff of experienced foresters. I believe this new department can work efficiently and effectively with the provincial departments and do a great service in the fields of research, conservation and reforestation. It should also take on a considerable share of the responsibilities of fire protection and fire Bghting in co-operation with the provincial departments.
I would also hope that this department would take a keen interest in sales promotion of the products of the forest, especially British Columbia lumber and plywood in the United Kingdom market. The per capita consumption of timber in Britain today is one of the lowest among industrial nations. I believe that in co-operation with the British Columbia government, the British Columbia lumber manufacturers association and the export sales organizations, we could promote the use of Canadian standard dressing, making it possible to ship specific parcels as to size, length and grade, thereby reducing considerably the cost of shipping, handling and sorting and putting Canada into a position to compete with Russia and the Baltic states. I also believe that we should promote in Great Britain the use of standard frame construction with brick veneer exteriors, something which would also reduce construction costs and bring back the per capita consumption of timber in the United Kingdom to something like pre-war levels.
We in British Columbia are faced with terrific competition from Russia. I should like to say a few words with regard to that matter and with regard to Russian selling tactics. I do not think anyone can accuse them of outright dumping. Their methods are much more subtle than that. What the Russians do is to incorporate a rebate. For example, they open their 1960 selling campaign in December, 1959 and come out with a price that is at that time just sufficiently under the going market price to assure acceptance. Then on subsequent offerings at
fMr. Granger.]
price reductions, they offer to reduce the price of previous purchases, depending on the amount of new purchasing which the importer does. In other words, no importer can afford not to buy from the Russians because he is being assured of a rebate on his previous purchases.
To me this is a vicious kind of commercial blackmail with which no commercial company can compete. I am sure the people of British Columbia who are interested in the forest industry and those who are working in the mills and in the logging camps would greatly appreciate anything this government can do to bring back the great British market for British Columbia lumber.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are going to be very brief. I wish only to register my own enthusiastic approval of this proposed legislation. I happen to represent a constituency the economy of which depends to a large degree on forests and forest products. The pulp and paper industry is one of the major employers of labour in our district, and therefore I am heartily in favour of this bill and its objectives, including research, good management and utilization and, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the importance of obtaining in co-operation with the provinces a greater measure of fire protection.
The forest industry, which alone of the great national basic industries receives no subsidy and is not seeking any, when compared with annual production from agriculture or mining pays out the most wages, produces a greater total buying power, contributes vastly more to a favourable trade balance, supports the greatest export trade, and produces the largest tax revenue if we combine taxes levied by both the provincial and federal governments.
Our federal government spends approximately each year $6 million on forest administration and research. It spends $25 million on mining administration, research and subsidy. It spends $18 million on agriculture administration research and subsidy. What are the revenues from these basic industries? Federal and provincial governments receive $230 million in revenue annually from agriculture on which they spend $150 million. From the forests these two senior governments

receive $275 million on which they spend a combined total of only $45 million. Mr. Speaker, from these figures it can be seen that we can afford to be a little more generous toward a basic industry for which we should be very thankful.
In our district of Thunder bay we have a great number of small farmers dependent for the most part for their livelihood upon wood losts. I express the hope that this new minister of forestry will take into account the W'elfare of these farmers by rendering some form of assistance in marketing their wood and will also explore the possibilities for improved production, improved management and technique, et cetera. The possibilities of developing local non-farm industry, and by that I mean industry relating to farming and forestry, should be carefully investigated in the interests of bettering rural community life by stabilizing population which an aggressive federal department of forestry may well undertake and bring about a new era for the wood lot farmer of our district and other districts in Canada.
An economic survey of northwestern Ontario issued by the Ontario department of economics contains some very interesting data concerning the income of pulp and paper workers, which is shown as being about $700 above the average industrial worker per year. I am not going to quote statistics; I merely wish to emphasize the importance of this industry and to say how glad I am that this new forestry department is at least being established.
The forests of Thunder bay have built the towns of Red Rock, Terrace Bay, Nipigon, Longlac and Marathon. Incidentally, although I say that, these towns are within the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). There should be no need to stress the importance of the pulp and paper and lumber industry to the well-being of Canada. This is generally recognized. It is there for everyone to see and it is satisfying to know that from Newfoundland to British Columbia this move to establish a new forestry department has been hailed as a progressive step toward a better management of our forests and effective coordination of federal and provincial responsibilities for the advancement of a truly Canadian forest policy. This policy should encourage an expansion in the field of forest products research which we all hope the passing of this bill will provide.
Forestry Department
The unanimity of approval of this bill augurs well for the success of the measure and I congratulate the minister. All that remains now is for the appointment of a minister whose training and temperament I hope may not be too far removed from that of a good woodsman.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, forests and water power are two interdependent and mutually sustaining resources. Our forests are of primary importance in the Canadian economy, since they cover 46 per cent of Canada's territory. They contain 170 different species of trees, 55 of which are of commercial use, 23 of the evergreen or softwood varieties and 32 of the deciduous or hardwood varieties.
Our forests are a substantial source of wealth, giving rise to many primary and secondary industries. They protect our water resources, safeguard the fertility of our soil and help check erosion. They promote our tourist industry and help improve our trade balance.
We must protect our forests, first against fire; second, against indiscriminate lumbering; third, against diseases and insect pests such as the spruce budworm, and I strongly urge the new department to extend research in order, first to control diseases and, second, to discover new uses for waste wood-products.
I strongly urge the government to add to this department a credit fund to enable farmers to improve their wood lots, by means of restocking, etc.
I think that a forest credit such as this would be of tremendous help for all the farmers in this country who have wood lots.
Since forest and soil are interdependent, it would be appropriate to appoint an agronomist as deputy minister.


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part briefly in the debate on the establishment of a federal department of forestry.
The forests of our country and of my province in particular are a very important asset to the general economy. Forests actually cover 40 per cent of Canada and almost 80 per cent of the province of Quebec.
In my own area, commonly referred to as the "blueberry area", forestry is an important source of revenue. It is almost a regional heritage.

Forestry Department
Several companies have mills there, Consolidated Paper, Price Brothers Limited, and the Lake St. John mill, in Dolbeau, in Ro-berval riding.
Forestry therefore, plays a foremost part not only in the economy of my area but in the economy of the province of Quebec in general and of the whole country.
I understand that the province of Quebec owns almost 90 percent of forest lands in that province.
The national forest production reached almost $2 billion in 1959. As for exports, they amounted to nearly $1.5 billion.
The prime minister of Russia realizes to what extent the forest industry is important in this country because, not so long ago, he sent a special mission to Canada to study the manufacture of newsprint. He even went further. He warned Canadians and Americans that, in five or six years from now, he would get into the paper market. If lacking in other qualities, Mr. Khrushchev has at least that of being frank in certain respects, and he advises us in advance of the difficulties we will have to face. So that the outlook for our exports of newsprint is rather dark, unless we take the necessary steps to meet the problem which lies in wait for us.
Nobody can deny it. Our forest resources are a most precious asset in the natural wealth of this country, particularly in the province of Quebec. But are we, in Quebec, and in Canada as a whole, aware of the importance of protecting the asset which the natural wealth of our forests represents?
As far as we, in Quebec, are concerned, we made, in 1950 a very adequate study of the question of the natural wealth we have in our forests. In my province, the forest engineers' association has considered the problem. Forest engineers have examined the question with much devotion and efficiency. They submitted to the government of my province a report which has now become famous, in connection with the forest problem in Quebec. One of the best known papers of Quebec-I have named he Soleil-published a detailed summary of the Quebec forest engineers' report, I shall simply quote two or three excerpts of the very concrete and positive recommendations made therein. The report was published in Le Soleil in November 1957.
Each year, in our province, enormous quantities of timber are taken out of the woods, leaving

in the area nothing but stumps, and as seed bearers only defective trees which, in many cases, become centres of infection and of devastating diseases. Without improved cutting and a better cleaning up of lumbering sites, it will be almost impossible to ensure the survival of healthy growth, and to put back into our forest what was taken out by timber cutting.
And further on, Mr. Speaker, the report says:
In order to remedy that urgent situation, the association of forest engineers advocated the creation of a provincial research organization-
And here, Mr. Speaker, I quote the very words of the report of the Quebec forest engineers' association.
-which alone would be in a position to give guidance in sound forestry practices and to establish our forest policy on solid foundations. Among the most urgent forest studies to be undertaken, it was recommended that consideration be given to an inventory of our wooded areas, so as to establish not only the extent, the composition, the volume, the age and the rate of growth of our forests, but also to foresee, in keeping with our economical and social structure, the role they may play as an industrial or agricultural expansion territory, as a reservoir of raw material or as a protective agent for our animals and water resources.
In that same report, the forest engineers' association outlines its fears. It says that if the matter is not considered more closely, there is danger that our forest industry, in 20 to 60 years, may disappear, unless very energetic steps are taken in this field. As for those energetic steps, two recommendations are mentioned, first the reforestation of developed areas and, second, an increased rate of growth of the forest resources remaining in Quebec.
The report also indicates that one of the most rational solutions to be put into practice in our province is:
To rely upon the data provided by scientific research and forest experiments.
And the report goes on to say:
Of all necessity, the industry, in its own interest, will have to do this as soon as possible, first to maintain itself, and to avoid the possible ruin of one of the major sectors of our economy.
The study of the Quebec forest engineers' association goes on to emphasize scientific organization, without which our forest industry could not maintain itself nor face ouside competition.
I very well remember that it is none other than the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself who pointed out that aspect of the matter when talking about this bill in Montreal a few months ago.

Finally, allow me to quote a few excerpts from the conclusions of the brief:
The state is in duty bound to encourage research by means of substantial financial participation-
And, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize these words:
-by means of substantial financial participation to the work already being carried out in existing institutions, and by the development of higher forestry teaching, whereby the technicians required by industry and the experts who are indispensable to the advancement of science may be trained.
I hope that the officers of those private industries developing our natural forest resources will not be offended if I go as far as to suggest that our forest industries should make their own financial contributions to that research the federal government wants to promote by establishing, at the national level, a department of forestry.
There is nothing surprising in the suggestion if one considers that such a contribution from our industries would be not only for the common good, not only to the benefit of our people, who are in fact the true owners of our natural resources, but also to the benefit of private industry, since it will be able to enjoy much longer the natural resources which it is developing generally in our province and in our country.
As I was saying a moment ago, the province of Quebec owns close to 90 per cent of the natural forestry resources found in the province. The Quebec provincial government has a very heavy responsibility in the conservation and reforestation of that natural resource; it must therefore do its share in co-operation with private industry which, in a sense, holds a lease on this natural wealth, not only for its own benefit but also for the benefit of every Quebec citizen. I know the new Quebec government-and this is in no way intended as petty politics-recognizes the fact that this wealth belongs to the citizens of Quebec. The new government has undertaken to arrange for the citizens of my province to get greater benefits out of this natural wealth, and I hope with all my heart that it will keep its promise.
We have had enough of politicians who travel through Canada's provinces, making promises that they keep in the background once they have got themselves elected. Personally, if the hon. premier of Quebec should some day decide to change his name for that of the Prime Minister of my country, I would not hesitate a single moment to denounce him; however, I know my provincial premier well enough to know he
Forestry Department
would not go that far. It is in his own interest. It is particularly in the interest of the citizens of my province, that he keep his word and honour his solemn pledges to my fellow citizens of Quebec.
That is the reason why most members or candidates who supported Mr. Lesage talked about the natural wealth of my province. They discussed its forestry resources.
There has been much talk about planning. A few years ago, whenever anyone mentioned planning, I was a bit shocked because no one had ever told me what the word meant in the minds of those who used it. However, after giving the matter much thought, I came to the conclusion that the word planning had been quite thoroughly put into practice by the former Liberal administration in Ottawa. The Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent and all the ministers who shared his task of running the country did not just look after present-day needs. They looked to the future of this country. They did not administer in view of 1956 or 1955, but considered the whole twentieth century, and when you look to the future and plan for what is coming, I think that is planning. I also think the government of my province will do some planning in regard to Quebec's natural forestry resources.
The bill placed before us by the federal administration will certainly arouse certain provincial governments. We have had in Quebec-and in this connection I recognize the merits of the former Quebec government -a nucleus of research in the field of forestry. I realize it was not enough, but I must admit the former leaders of Quebec did understand, according to their own lights, the significance of forestry resources for Quebec. They had at least made a start, and for that I must commend them. I hope the new administration will realize to a greater extent what the Quebec forests mean for the people of the province. The Quebec forests, Mr. Speaker, are more or less the backbone of the whole provincial economy. In view of that, I have some misgivings in examining the bill before us, an act respecting the department of forestry.
In fact, referring to subsection 9 on page 3, for instance, there are two paragraphs about which I have certain misgivings as to provincial and federal jurisdictions. Here is what I find:
The governor in council may make regulations for the protection, care and management of forest

Forestry Department
experimental areas, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting
(a) the cutting, removal and disposal of timber, the establishment and use of reservoirs, waterpower sites, power transmission lines, telegraph and telephone lines, and any other use not inconsistent with the purposes of this act, and the granting of leases and permits therefor;
And subsection (e) reads as follows:
the removal and exclusion of trespassers and of persons failing to comply with the regulations; and
(f) the prevention of trespass, mutilation or destruction of trees and destruction or damaging of buildings, materials or notices used in connection with the administration or management of any forest experimental area.
As regard to property, timber cutting permits, exploitation permits, it seems to me that by this legislation the federal government is interfering with the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question for the sake of accuracy.


Augustin Brassard: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was listening very carefully to the hon. member describing the regulations in clause 9. Would he also read clause 7 to the house which has to do with all the following clauses relating to forest experimental areas?
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I understand perfectly well the very timely question asked by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. But why not simply stick to clause 7? Why was it deemed advisable to add clause 9 in this bill? I hope that the minister will give me the answer to that question when he speaks at the end of the debate on this bill. Because that raises questions in my mind as to the constitutionality of clause 9, even though clause 7 indicates clearly, that:
The governor in council may establish as a forest experimental area lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada and may at any time withdraw lands from or add lands to a forest experimental area.
In my opinion, the federal government assumes the right by section 7, to decide that such or such part of that province will come under its own jurisdiction. That is what I am wondering about. Then, if the hon. minister would give us his interpretation of

those two sections, this will be quite useful to me for, if he gives me a satisfying interpretation, I will be satisfied. If, on the other hand, I do not understand it, I will ask further explanations to friends who are more competent than I, but I will be quite glad to accept the explanations that will be given to me.
In the meantime, I wonder if those two sections, and section 9 in particular, are not in flagrant conflict with subsection 5 of subsection 92 of the British North America Act.
So, I will wait quite patiently for the information that the hon. minister who sponsored this bill will give us.
This subsection 5 of section 92 of the British North America Act indicates that the exclusive right to make laws on the management and sale of public lands belonging to the provinces, as well as the forests thereon, is strictly of provincial jurisdiction.
Again, I want to be fair to the minister and I am quite willing to subordinate section 9 to section 7, to which he just referred. But I am anxious to hear his comments on this matter. All I can hope for in the meantime, is that not only the jurisdiction of the provinces will be respected in the wording of the bill, but that the authority of the ten provinces of my country will be respected in fact as well as in practice.
Besides, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources understands the situation, since he took part in a discussion in the province of Quebec-it was in February last, I believe-at the convention of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, a discussion in which representatives of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also participated. And the fear I am expressing today has been expressed by the late Jacques Miquelon-when I say the "late", I mean politically, of course, because he is not dead-and I would like to quote on this matter an article from the Gazette of February 17, 1960, entitled:
(Text):
$10 Million for Federal Forest Research
The new federal department of forestry will spend $10 million a year on basic research, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, federal Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, revealed here yesterday.
Mr. Hamilton made the statement in a panel discussion with forestry ministers from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario at the second day of the convention of the Canadian lumbermen's association.

He declared that the present federal forestry research staff would be nearly doubled within the next five years but would not duplicate the present work of provincial forestry research.
(Translation):
At this point, I would like to point out to the house that I hope the new department of forestry of the federal government will have not only a negative effect, in the sense it will avoid a duplication of research in the provinces, but also a positive effect, that of bringing co-ordination in the field of forestry research in Canada.
(Text):
The federal minister made this statement after Hon. Jacques Miquelon, Q.C., Quebec minister of lands and forests, declared: "We have good reasons to fear this federal initiative and would have to oppose it if it constitutes an encroachment on the undisputable and exclusive rights of the province of Quebec on forestry matters."
(Translation):
I should like to go further than the hon. Jacques Miquelon and not mention only the province of Quebec because, after all, the province of Quebec is not the only province in this country. There are ten provinces in Canada and I hope that the new department will not infringe upon any legislative jurisdiction of the provinces of my country.
In other words I hope the new department will not interfere in any field within the jurisdiction of any province of my country, neither in Quebec nor in the nine other provinces, I hope that the time is past when it was thought that Quebec was the only province in Canada. Quebec is one of the ten provinces of Canada and I hope it will no longer be said that Quebec is the only province forming part of the Canadian confederation.
I am not the only one to express fear as to the federal jurisdiction in the field of forestry.
One has only to read the papers to note this fact, Le Soleil for instance, which for some time can no longer be considered a Liberal paper, reported on January 23, 1960, the reactions of various papers across the country respecting the establishment of a federal department of forestry.
I should like to quote part of this item entitled:
The new federal department
The establishment of a new department to deal with forestry matters which was announced in the speech from the throne, naturally causes particular concern in Ontario and Quebec.
Le Droit had this to say:
Everybody knows that forest development is one of the main industries of those two provinces-
Forestry Department
Will the federal government attempt to interfere in provincial matters It is stated that the new department will concern itself mostly with research: production methods, sales methods, etc. It will co-ordinate the various existing forestry services, will improve them in order to be of greater help to the provinces and industries in increasing production, in finding outlets on foreign markets, etc.
Such must be, in fact, the new department: an organization to give help and co-operation, nothing more. But will it limit itself to that? This is the important question.
Between "co-operation" and "intervention", between "assistance" and "pressure", the margin might be very slim indeed, at times. What is, in the opinion of federal authorities, a simple measure of assistance, might well be infringement in the eye of provincial authorities.
And when I speak about provincial authorities, I wish to point out again that it is not only the province of Quebec which is concerned. The province of Quebec is only one of the ten provinces of my country. And when I speak of interference in provincial legislatures, I mean all ten legislatures in Canada.
If the department which the federal government intends to establish merely co-ordinates research, merely advises and helps the provinces in the field of research, not only do I see no objection, but I welcome the establishment of a department of forestry in Canada.
I think it is in the general interest. I also think that the establishment of such a department will help arouse some provinces which are inactive in that field.
Under those conditions, I shall wholeheartedly support the establishment of such a department. But, on the other hand, I shall be one of its most eager antagonists if, after it is established, there is any attempt of any kind to interfere with the issue of permits which the provinces alone have the right to give.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall become an eager opponent of that department and I hope also that my colleagues from Quebec and from the other provinces, concerned about the rights of the provinces, will not hesitate to support me.
So long as the federal department of forestry is interested only in research, and is content to promote research, so long as it is interested only in providing advice to the provincial legislatures with a view to protecting one of the greatest natural wealth of our country and of my province in particular, then I commend most sincerely the establishment of this new department and I am anxious to see it in operation, to see it achieve useful and even necessary things and obtain concrete results in our country.

Forestry Department
I also hope that the provinces, realizing that the forests which cover 40 per cent of our territory, represent one of the greatest assets in Canada, will understand that we must not only do everything in their power to reforest, but also to obtain that individuals and corporations which have timber permits will themselves contribute to the reforestation.
If the provincial and federal legislatures as well as the private industries of Canada realize the importance of doing that, I am sure that all of us will have been very useful to our country, to Canada.


Mr. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, as I represent people who for the greater part depend for their living on the lumber industry, I would be remiss if I did not rake this opportunity of saying a few words on the legislation now before us and of pointing out, as did other hon. members before me, the importance of that industry, not only for my riding, but for the country as a whole.
Hon. members who preceded me quoted some figures which are, as a matter of fact, most eloquent, and show the vital importance of our forests.
Let us, indeed, consider that our lumber industry comes first in this country in terms of employment, salaries, new investments, and net production value.
In terms of gross national product, it is superior to, and even twice as important, as the production of our operating mines. In the last ten years, forests have produced between 29 and 36 per cent of Canada's exports.
Their importance is all the more evident when we consider that they are a net asset for the country, that is to say that the value of exports exceeds by far the value of imports.
In 1958, for instance, their net assets reached $1,180 million (U.S.).
We may say, therefore, that this industry is probably, if not certainly, our most important source of American currency.
In 1959, 115,000 persons were employed directly in forest operations; and if we consider all the secondary industries deriving from our forests, we realize as the minister indicated, that they represent the most important and substantial sector of our economic life.
In 1959, their total production reached $2,100 million of which $1,400 million worth were exported.
[Mr. Brassard (Lapointe).3
In 1959, total production of dressed lumber amounted to 7.3 billion feet. Dressed lumber exports amounted to $323 million an increase of 10.5 per cent over 1958 which is 57 per cent of the total production. These figures are a very tangible proof of the importance of that industry. The seriousness with which this matter was discussed in the house today and the attention of all the members go to show the importance of the lumber industry.
And what is actually the outlook for that industry? The minister dealt with the subject when he said that the demand for paper products not only in Canada but in the whole world amounted to 56 metric tons in 1955 and that it was expected that that total would reach 86 metric tons in 1965 and 134 metric tons in 1975.
Today, Canada accounts for 16 per cent of the international consumption of paper and paper products. According to the most accurate estimations, an increase of 123 per cent will be apparent in the universal consumption of these products between 1955 and 1975. Canada will therefore have to increase its production accordingly if it wants to retain the same percentage of the world market. Despite the growing needs in the world, due to the industrial development that took place in many countries, our position does certainly not leave the government and the authorities unconcerned. One of the reasons for this concern is the increasingly important part played in this field of world trade by the Soviet union. This part affects our country directly.
Since 1954, despite a growing demand for wood products and by-products, our wood and forest products exports to Great Britain fell by almost 50 per cent. However, there was an increase of 75 per cent in imports from the Soviet union.
Those are upsetting statistics, if we realize that there is growing demand for this kind of product. It is true that Russia has succeeded in increasing its export by commercial practices that might be called disloyal. For instance, that country resorted to what we call the "fall clause", which consists in lowering the price of a product to the lowest level at which another country may supply it.
All of which clearly shows that the government should seriously consider enabling our industry to compete on even terms with the others, and this is precisely the object of

this bill. It aims at promoting research with regard to the protection, management and use of our forest resources. This legislation tends to ensure a wiser use of forest products by establishing research laboratories for instance. Another aspect consists in setting up new techniques in the captivating field of wood chemistry, by which the most extraordinary products like explosives and similar items may be obtained.
The people may also be encouraged to co-operate in the protection and rational use of our forest resources by propagating, for instance, in a scientific manner, the means of preserving our timber resources against the plague of fire, by disseminating information and increasing general awareness among the public with regard to forest conservation.
There is another field which the new department will be called upon to control. I am speaking of the administration of forest domains in the territories which are the responsibility of the federal government.
The new n.inister might also conclude some agreements in respect of research with all provinces that are willing to do so.
And, finally it is intended to merge the forest biology division which is now under the Department of Agriculture with a staff of 405 and the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This latter division has at this time a staff of 426.
Another part, quite important this one, that this department will be able to play will be to supply the smaller forestry enterprises with very accurate data on research in the field of new forestry techniques.
Such Mr. Speaker, is the wide field of action of this new department. It is true that it will absorb certain existing divisions, but others will certainly be created. However what is surely the most important point is that there will be from now on only one agency to manage this immeasurable wealth of our forests.
Contrary to the suggestion made on the other side of the house, I think the appointment of a new minister to run this department is a necessity. If the department is to really carry out its duties, as indicated by the hon. minister who sponsored the bill, it will have to look after many administrative details.
Some members have expressed the fear that the new department will be a threat to provincial rights. Mention has been made of provincial autonomy in the forestry field, 79951-0-383
Forestry Department
and rightly so, because under the constitution, forests located on public lands or crown lands come directly under the provinces. However, there is no intention, in setting up this new department, to encroach on provincial rights. The provinces are being offered-and they are absolutely free to accept or refuse-research services which such a federal department will certainly be in a better position to provide efficiently than ten separate provincial departments. Special arrangements may also be made with the provinces if they wish. And to confirm that, this bill only deals with matters coming under federal jurisdiction, one has only to refer to section 5 of the bill, which reads as follows:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to the forest resources of Canada.
The important words in this section are therefore the following:
... all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to the forest resources of Canada.
The bill is therefore quite clear on that point. It only deals with matters coming under the Canadian parliament. There is no invasion, no encroachment on provincial rights in this field. Section 5, which is a general section, serves as an interpretative clause for some of the other sections which deal with details, such as section 6.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) wondered whether section 9, and particularly subsections (a) and (e) which refer to regulations on woodcutting and other such subjects, might involve an invasion of provincial rights. Well, this section is under part II of the bill, which bears the following heading:
Forest experimental areas.
That part II begins with section 7 which says:
The governor in council may establish as a forest expermiental area lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada-
Therefore, it is laid down there, in so many words, that it is really lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada. Furthermore, the regulations outlined in section 9 obviously concern lands belonging to Her Majesty, where forest experimental areas will have been or will be established.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the bill cannot be clearer on that point. Besides the explanatory note on that part reads as follows:
Part II provides for the establishment of forest experimental areas on lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada and for the making of regulations affecting such areas.

Forestry Department
Therefore, in the bill as it is now worded there is definitely no sign whatever of anything that might lead one to suspect that the government wishes to intervene in a field which, by its very expression, and by the very declaration of the government and of its ministers, belongs entirely to the provinces. It is merely a question of helping those who are in need, in providing them with services which, we submit, only the federal government is in a position to provide in a fully adequate way.
Mr. Speaker, our forest operation methods have changed substantially over the last few years. Forest industry, as many others, is now in the era of automation, of mechanization and of specialized tools. It was the old-fashioned lumberjacks who opened up this country, and when I say this country, I mean my own part of the country. It is very dear to my heart indeed this Ottawa valley district, whose development is certainly due, in great part, to those pioneers who went up the majestic waters of the Ottawa and its tributaries, the Gatineau, the Coulonge, the Lievre, the Du Moine. Pages full of heroic episodes have been written about those people who certainly knew what hard work meant. They also knew very deep joys and sorrows.
Today, they are not called woodsmen or lumberjacks any more but forest workers. They are equipped with mechanical chains, mechanical saws and preceded by heavy machinery, bulldozers which clear the way for them. They live in conditions of luxury which our forerunners, the pioneers of this valley certainly never imagined. All that is progress, and it is the hallmark of our time. But, when leaving an era which is now gone forever, we cannot but think with some nostalgic feeling of all the great deeds which have been recorded and which are an essential part of our folklore.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the start, our forest industry, with all its by-products, has become the most significant in our country. Throughout the world it occupies a more and more important place. That is why the government is creating a new department, which is a tangible proof of its wish to safeguard that prime wealth of our country not only for the remote future, but even for the generations yet unborn.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the result of all this research, these studies of development techniques, will be that the forests, the whole field of the lumber industry will be considered somehow like tilled ground carrying renewable crops, and we will thus

have a permanent wealth in timber, and an everlasting productivity.
With all the care the government is bringing and that the average citizen should bring to the question, we will preserve for a long time splendid resources which the forest industry is able to offer, and that green curtain which is our very symbol and which every right-thinking Canadian should love. The forest, as I say, is not only a source of wealth, it is a place for recreation.
I believe that it is a very important part of the forest and that it should be kept up by setting up, together with the provinces, rules and regulations for its conservation and preservation against fire.
We will reach that double aim if we endeavour on the one hand to conserve our resources, and on the other hand, to offer all Canadians unequalled opportunities for recreation.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: During the resolution stage I expressed our approval of the bill and what it set out to do. I sometimes think we are so partisan in the house that we forget to compliment people who have been instrumental in introducing legislation that we do like, and for that reason I wish to say to the minister that I appreciate the fact that he and at least one or two other members of the cabinet were able to crystallize the recommendations of the House of Commons committee into something which was even a little more than some of us had expected we would get.
It has often been a rather fond House of Commons view that committee work in the House of Commons turns out to be inconsequential because recommendations are not given much effect. It seems to me that in this case we can thank the minister and others for making a move in a direction of which the committee approves and, generally, carrying out the sense of the committee's wishes.
The department may, of course, be weak or strong. Much depends on the personalities concerned and on what the government is prepared to do. I would suggest to the minister that forestry is a most important aspect of the Canadian economy. I remember that when I said that before in the house several years ago there were some objections but I think the ramifications of the industry and what it means in terms of employment are better known now than they were two years ago.

The new department will remove from the present minister some of his many duties, and in that sense it may not only lead to the betterment of forestry but it may do something for northern affairs and national resources. Incidentally, I am interested in whether we are to see a shortening of the minister's present title. It is a small point, but it seems to me that the hon. gentleman or anyone in charge of that department might become better known if the name were shortened. I know that "northern affairs" is not an apt description of the work of the department as long as it is responsible for museums, national parks and certain other branches which now come under its jurisdiction. However, I certainly feel that the present title is too long. When the new department is set up, I hope it will not have a cumbersome title, such as the department of forestry and regeneration services, or department of forestry and forest products research, or anything such as that.
The bill is a simple one and there is nothing extraordinary in what it sets out as far as the scope of the new department is concerned. In fact, it is really only a bringing together of the forestry activities of the government under one heading. The essence, I suppose, is the opportunity for united leadership and we are looking forward to that.
One of the points I want to talk about is this. When you look at this department you see that it is going to have two natural divisions: one on the forestry side and the other on the forest products side. I wanted to concentrate upon the forestry aspect, the whole business of silviculture, regeneration, forest access roads and especially the role of the professional forester in this matter.
In Canada today we have only four professional foresters for every 4,000 square miles of merchantable timber which is not very many. I cannot think of any professional group which has less influence in relation to the economic milieu in which they work, namely that of forestry. They have been very slow at reaching the top of the business side of their work, and there tends to be quite a split between the government foresters and the industrial foresters.
Hon. members may wonder why I would go as far as to make that statement. I live in an area and have worked at a job that brought me in touch with foresters, and we have a very large number of them relatively in our area although, compared with an area of some 140,000 square miles the figure is not so large.
There is quite a suspicion amongst foresters, especially the industrial foresters who tend 79951-0-383J
Forestry Department
to look upon the government forester as an idealistic chap who has not much sense of economics. He tends to feel that since he is the man who marks out the wood and gets it to the mill he is doing a very important job. On the other hand, the government foresters, who are almost equal in number to the industrial foresters in Canada, have a suspicion of the industrial foresters and feel that the attitudes of the companies that cut our wood are linked up more with the quarterly dividends and the annual reports than they are with the long term view that is needed in forestry matters.
This rivalry is always evident at most get-togethers where the professional foresters consort to talk about their problems. I have been to a number of their meetings which have usually wound up in a bit of a blow-up and hard feelings, and so on all around. Most of this took place between provincial and industrial foresters, since that is where the nexus is so hard, because along with every province in Canada the provincial foresters are the ones who regulate and carry out the statutes of the provinces, in so far as cutting, scaling, regeneration practices and the direct forestry approach are concerned, and naturally as the supervisors with punitive powers the industrial foresters tend to look askance at them. Many times the federal department of forestry has never had the stature, in my view, to act in the role that I think it might do and take some of the heat off provincial foresters and industrial foresters themselves and act more as co-ordinating foresters in getting an over-all pattern, an advisory pattern, in developing really good forestry management policies.
A good friend of mine, a professional forester, last year gave a speech that I think made this point quite well, and I want to read an excerpt from it. It appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 17, and was delivered in Sudbury. It reads in part as follows:
A four-point program to cover the lack of an official Canadian forest management policy to insure perpetuation of the country's forests and maintenance of its competitive position in world forest products was outlined here today by K. W. Hearnden, Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited divisional forester at Port Arthur.
Addressing the annual meeting of the Ontario professional foresters association, he said the program should include: establishment of silvicultural standards by the profession; a professional campaign for forest management legislation; public education in forestry and the profession's problems, and professional authority to create and maintain forest management policies.
"This deficiency is apparent in the legislation of most provinces where regulations are made to insure the orderly liquidation of virgin stands, and to provide for the levying of stumpage assessments, taxes, rentals and penalties," he said.

Forestry Department
The forester in industry derives little or no support from either the public's general attitude to the forests or from existing legislation, Mr. Hearn-den contended.
The industrial forester is not only unable to practice his profession, but does not feel free to express his views on it and seldom does, the speaker said.
"This is equally true of foresters in government employ" Mr. Hearnden said. "This accounts for the efforts of most foresters, particularly in junior positions, to avoid the limelight... he steers clear of the unpopular and resigns himself to the support of policies of expediencies."
Mr. Hearnden listed several other factors as "deterrents to forest management and the discharge of professional duties in industry."
These included steadily mounting labour costs in timber production; lack of a long term objective in forest management; lack of authority by most professional foresters in industry to manage the forest "in any real sense;" a strong, psychological influence against the practice of forestry in Ontario; slow development of access roads into forest areas, and a shortage of professional foresters and forest technicians in Canada.
This is not a particularly attractive picture that has been painted by one of the keenest professional foresters, and yet I think it is a good summary of the situation. The professional forester tends to feel that he has an analysis of the forest that can bring the best to the country not only in economic returns but also in social returns in the use of the forest for camping, fishing and wildlife and those sorts of matters; but he really has not today either the reputation or the feeling of a very wide kind. I have always felt that one of the main reasons for this has been the very close connection between the awarding of timber limits and the opportunity to make money. When you have that cash consideration or the opportunity of making money tied in with the resources of the crown that are disposed of in the hands of politicians, provincial politicians-I do not say "politicians" in any bad way-it is very hard to get an over-all management problem approach that is very sound. The foresters in the main tended to bog down in the middle echelon of industrial organization.
I know of very few who have attained great stature. I suppose Mr. MacMillan of MacMillan and Bloedel Limited is the most outstanding example. He was one of the first foresters in the federal service. I remember reading a report in 1908 on forest surveys, a statistical report on the depletion of the white pine, and that was created by Mr. MacMillan, but he is almost an isolated example of a forester rising to a high and effective managerial post in industry. They tend to bog down lower down.
The professional education of foresters is concentrated in the four universities in Canada, and from my knowledge of the position of the faculties in forestry on the various

campuses, they are not considered to be extremely important segments, perhaps with the exception of New Brunswick where the forestry faculty has more stature perhaps than does the faculty in Toronto. The foresters have to contend with, work for or work with one of the 11 government agencies that exist in Canada, and this bill points out the difficulty in that. If you have 11 different standards of forest management and 11 different ways of getting money for the crown from the forest plan, you have a very wide differentiation, as we have in Canada, between the kind of foresters we have. It is little wonder that it has been very hard to get an over-all forestry policy.
A further difficulty of the forester has been that there has been a tremendous increase in specialization in the industry. Some of the men who have gone ahead the fastest have not been those who have anything to do with silvicultural programs but those in the field of photogrammetry or forest economics or who go into the logging side of the picture. As a consequence, year by year even within the foresters that we do have there is an erosion in the role they can play as foresters, and it seems to me this thinning out has done a lot of harm to the profession in terms of the impact it makes.
There has been a tremendous change too in the way we use wood. There is a contention among some people in the forest industry that it really does not matter what kind of species you grow or where you grow them as long as you get a cellulose return on acres somewhere after you have a cut-over. There is another argument so far as our forests are concerned which was very well put by a University of Toronto professor of economics who tended to argue that those who worry too much about the future conservation of the forests are missing the tremendous changes that are taking place in our techniques. He has argued that too much concern for 50, 60 or 70 years from now with relation to our forests may be completely useless because by that time technical improvisation will have ended the need for the forests as we look at them today.
These are all factors that tend to disturb and undermine the position of the professional forester and his belief, which is usually very strongly held, that by proper forest management you can have the right tree on the right site in the right place for its economic use and that you can have things on a sustained yield basis. One of the truisms or cliches that has come to be accepted in forestry in Canada has to do with the matter of sustained yield. Almost any provincial minister of forestry or minister in charge of

lands and forests will sound off at least once a year to the effect that the provincial forests are on a sustained yield basis, but the question always seems to remain, sustained yield in relation to what?
One thing that we in the Port Arthur region know is that we still have a tremendous amount of both conifers and hardwoods but we are not using hardwoods nearly as much as conifers. Each year means going a little bit farther from the mills for the wood and because of the large scale capital expenditure in the mills the result is that wood is getting more and more expensive and the sites closer to the mills are becoming more and more attractive. Yet it is pretty hard to argue that some of our cut-overs that are within easy trucking distance of the mills are on any kind of sustained yield basis or that regeneration standards are high enough.
It is a very moot question whether there should be more planning done and whether scarification should be required on all cutover sites. There is even an argument that the pulp and paper industry should get away more from clear cutting and get into sheltered cutting or strip cutting or various devices like that which will allow some kind of seeding-in process and at the same time will not lead to too many blow-downs or the death of trees by sun scalding.
All these factors make it very hard to appreciate the true sustained yield picture. It is very easy to take Ontario and get some idea after a large scale survey as to merchantable timber and to figure out rough increments by year for the various species and to say, "Well, we are cutting so many cords and so many cords are growing so we are away." But I insist that you should consider sustained yield in relation to the unit that is using the particular area of the forest, and from that point of view there are very many parts of Canada in which the forests are being exploited and are not on a sustained yield basis.
One of the commentaries on this is the fact that we have not been able to get capital to go in and establish pulp mills in many places where we have virgin forests. I can think of northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba. Western Ontario also has sufficient forest land to support at least one or perhaps two more mills. I have noted that Crown Zellerbach decided not to go ahead in Newfoundland not too long ago despite the fact that there are adequate supplies there of standing and potential timber. This indicates to me that our idea of Canadian forests being on a sound sustained yield management basis is rather incorrect and is all the more reason
Forestry Department
why we should have a vigorous co-ordination of management projection and the ideal kind of forest management on the part of the federal forestry department.
The fact that we are getting into a tougher and tougher competitive situation at least in the short run so far as our forest products are concerned is also very serious. I think that here again the situation is tougher in the short run and will be harder in the long run.
On the lumber side of things, especially in eastern Canada, it seems to me that the new department has to do even more than the forest products section has done in implementing standards. On the lumbering side I think one of the things we are going to have to have in eastern Canada is the kind of marketing set-up that the western lumber producers have been able to organize such as Seaboard Lumber Sales. There are so many producers of lumber in the eastern woods who have not got a common set of standards. I am not denegating the attempts they are making to get these standards but they still have not got them.
Much Canadian lumber has very great difficulty moving in export markets just because there are very great doubts, particularly in the European market, about the standards of some of our lumber, especially in the spruce field. I understand this does not apply to the products turned out in British Columbia but it certainly does to those of eastern Canada.
It seems to me there will have to be a great deal of effort by the new department to get better operating methods in the woods for small lumber producers and a common marketing agency that will set standards and will also have available export credits and the ability to sell lumber. The Department of Trade and Commerce through its trade commissioner service does this now to a degree but I would imagine they would welcome efforts toward a co-ordination on the part of the eastern Canadian lumber industry and the new department in order to place more of our eastern Canadian lumber in the European market and also the United States market.
It seems to me that in the short run the prospect for the pulp and paper industry is not as bad as on the lumber side. In the long run I think its prospects are excellent just in terms of the growth of the use of newsprint and of various papers for packaging. But there is no question at the present time that Canada in the main has about the highest pulp cost of any part of the world that is in direct competition. I understand that people in the pulp and paper industry say that at the present time the Swedes can


Mr. Chambers:: Woodsman, spare that tree.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did I hear someone mention the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer)? In any case, this kind of speculation does not get us very far. I hope the person appointed will be an active minister with lots of drive. We certainly look forward with much pleasure to voting for the bill, and I believe that this
Forestry Department
is one of the few good measures this government has introduced in this particular session.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill setting up the department of forestry is of major importance to Canada as a whole and of paramount importance to British Columbia. The minister, in introducing the bill this afternoon, gave a few figures and stated that in 1957 the value of forest products was $2.2 billion; the value of exports that year of forest products was $1.4 billion or 65 per cent of the total production. In British Columbia I believe we export about 80 per cent of our production. The economy of British Columbia is directly geared to the prosperity of our forest industries, so thal as they go so goes the rest of the province. Ir this regard the long range forecast, of course, is good.
As has been pointed out, the anticipated growth by 1980 is at least 50 per cent in sawn timber and 90 per cent in pulp and paper, according to the figures given by the minister, and one source has the consumption of pulp and paper up to 140 per cent increase by 1975. The problem of course we are faced with is not only the utilization of our resources but the utilization of those resources at costs which will allow us to compete in the world market. In that regard I should like to quote from the 1958 standing committee on mines, forests and waters. Mr. Ian S. Mahood, an outstanding forester from British Columbia, in testimony at that time stated as follows as found at page 355 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee:
It should be clearly appreciated that B.C. faces a unique and unusual circumstance in its position with respect to export markets. In almost all our traditional market areas, with particular emphasis on the United States southern pine region,- Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Britain, a high standard of forest cultivation is being achieved. There are dynamc increases in the domestic supplies in these regions. In some cases the trees being grown are B.C. Douglas fir, spruce and hemlock, transplanted, harvested and converted into commercial products at lower cost than we in B.C. can harvest, process and deliver the like to distant markets.
Much has been said of the large forest areas that we have. I believe it was mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) that our forest areas represent 40 per cent of the land area of the provinces as compared with 10 per cent devoted to agriculture. However, these areas are not all economical to work at the present time. They may be of value at some time in the future but at the present time the cost of transportation of forest products to the processing

Forestry Department
plants and to the mills is of paramount importance and it is necessary to have a strong program of regeneration, of forest planting, of forest management, of tree farming, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said, in order to have a sustained yield-again in this matter I differ with my friend the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)-in those areas which are close enough to the mills to be economic.
In tree farming there is a great deal that we must do and that we must learn. It is in this area that I believe this new department will have its greatest effect. As the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 5486 of Hansard:
The conduct of forest and forest products research has been for many years a function of the dominion government, which now has unusually well developed research facilities in this field, toy a wide margin the strongest of those facilities.
That is in comparison with the provinces. It is in that area this department can have the greatest effect. Mr. Mahood in his testimony pointed out that 30 years ago in the southern pine region of the United States forest production was grinding to a halt, but that by careful treatment, by the scientific application of good forestry methods to this area, it has now become one of the major forest products areas of the United States.
If in the field of agriculture, we had stayed with Indian maize and had not had any hybridization or development of hard wheat or wheat which would mature quickly in the far north, wheat which would withstand drought, we would not have much of a wheat crop. The same thing has been done with regard to food animals, fruits, vegetables and flowers. But today all we do is that we use the same tree which has been the same for thousands of years, we replant that tree or let it naturally repeat itself and that tree is the crop for tomorrow. We do this instead of looking out and trying to develop hybrid trees which would perhaps have fire resistant bark, trees which will mature much more quickly than our natural growth trees, trees which will have the proper chemical composition, the proper characteristics for the purposes for which they are to be used. It is in this area that this department can be of inestimable value to economy of my province.
I do not want to take much of the time of the committee but for the sake of the record I suggest that the question of access roads, the question of training fire fighters, the question perhaps of the use of airplanes in fighting fires can be given consideration. I know that planes are now being used in British Columbia in order to scoop up water 
and take it to the site of fires. It is not perfectly successful as yet but the development of the use of planes in fire fighting may be in the way of making a water fog, as was suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. McQuillan) who is certainly an expert on forestry methods and knows as much about forestry as does anybody in this house. There is a great deal of room for the work of this department in order to make a major contribution to the economy of this country and a contribution to the industry which has perhaps the greatest growth factor of any of our industries.
I am indeed pleased that this government has gone ahead with this proposal. In conclusion I should like to say this. It also seems to me to be a justification, if that is needed, or perhaps an example of the wisdom of our Prime Minister when he got so many committees working and when he threw so many problems to the committee to thresh out. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is a direct result of the recommendations made by the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. It is an indication of what can be done. It is an indication of what can be done with a good committee when it is given the time in which to study a job and the authority to go into it in detail.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: If I rise to speak on second reading of this Bill No. C-82, to establish the new ministry of forestry it is not that I consider myself to be a specialist in the matter but rather that I realize the importance of the studies we are now making and of the functions of the new ministry, inasmuch as it concerns one of the greatest assets of Canada and possibly also because in my riding, namely the riding of Nickel Belt, the forestry industry is one of the major ones. We in the Nickel Belt area have often talked about secondary industries and wished for them. I may say that we should consider forestry as a major industry secondary to mining.
The major companies operating in northern Ontario take much of their raw materials from the area which I represent, namely the K.V.P. Company and the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company. Also there are major producers operating in my area such as the Plaunt family, the Merwin family and the Poupore family. This industry employs thousands of people yearly. Unfortunately, this year as last year, a reduction has been felt in the operations of the forest industry in northern Ontario. It is for these people that I have a thought when we are discussing the establishment of a new ministry which undoubtedly can bring about a change and

possibly they recognize that at this time the formation of a centralizing body covering the status and possibly the promotion of the industry in Canada will be certainly worthwhile. Many efforts have been made in the past, and we see them in various departments. It has been mentioned in this house that the Department of Trade and Commerce has a branch pertaining to wood products and the northern affairs department also has various research laboratories. There are other departments which carry out functions which in the past have been beneficial to some degree as far as the forestry industry of Canada is concerned.
There are problems in Canada, and the speakers who have preceded me have indicated that studies have been made, but certainly much is to be done. I was reading some of the reports brought to the committee to which I belong, and in one of them it stated that contrary to other branches of our assets in Canada, forestry has not been studied in our universities to the same extent as other subjects. If I recall the exact figures there were only three faculties in Canada which came close to 50 years of existence, and that indicates that for one reason or another the Canadian public has not paid all the attention possible to this subject.
As I read those reports I wondered why it was that Canadians as a whole did not take an interest in this great asset of ours, because the forests of Canada are of great value. However, I read a speech presented by one of the great foresters of Canada, Mr. R. H. MacMillan, when he delivered an address on the fiftieth anniversary of the faculty of forestry at the University of Toronto, and I found the reason why during the last 50 years Canadians have been slow in realizing the efforts which have been made to retain this industry. I should like to quote a paragraph from this speech, and I think hon. members will realize one of the major reasons why the Canadian people as a whole have not paid all the attention possible. Mr. MacMillan said:
Canadians suffer from fixations about their forests. In pioneer days the forest was an obstacle to settlement, to be destroyed at great cost and even hardship; this background may yet be influencing the public attitude against sufficient investment in future forests. The forest is still believed to be inexhaustible and self-perpetuating; it is expected to continue automatically to perform its role as inevitably, cheaply and dependably as the tides. Canadians do not yet fully recognize that the forest, as a crop, is continuously most productive only if there is investment in silvicultural management suited to species and site.
From the numerous literature we have received and the studies we have made all
Forestry Department
hon. members will realize that this trend is disappearing and that industry, as well as government agencies and the public, are much more interested in this last decade or so in this problem than they were previously. In an address which he made I believe last October, Mr. McKee of British Columbia had this to say which I think will be inspiring to the government as well as to the industry of forestry. He said:
To the old-timers in the service it has been a long, uphill fight. To quote our revered old friend, Charlie Holmes, "We have seen public attitude change from hostility to tolerance to co-operation in one short generation." Thus, you will understand why forest service members are pleased to take part in anything which indicates public interest in one of their toughest problems.
If the Canadian public is prepared to accept advance work in this field it is certain that the department which we are just about to create will greatly assist these endeavours.
To indicate to the house the significance of this type of work, as I perceive it not being a specialist, I read a report furnished to me by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association dated October 1959. In this report I read these striking statistics relating to the use of our forest assets in Canada. The statistics pertain to logs and bolts which take up 42.4 per cent of our forest production per year. By the way, these statistics are based on a 10-year average. Pulp and paper, which is the more prevalent industry in my area, takes up 31.3 per cent. Then I was surprised to learn that fire accounts for 7.5 per cent of our yearly crop yield as our forests are being depleted. I think in this field the new department will be called upon to promote studies and accumulate data relating to our forests.
In this report appears this paragraph which I would like to quote to the house because it indicates that close to 20 per cent of our forest consumption per year is due to destruction by insects and others:
Actually, the percentage of wood consumed by industry is considerably smaller than the foregoing figures indicate for there is also a tremendous annual consumption of wood by diseases, insects, and natural mortality. Although no estimates are yet available, these losses are, at a very maximum, two or three times as great as the average annual loss by fire.
The figure I quoted for fire was 7.5 per cent, so we all realize the loss the Canadian forests sustain from natural causes or diseases. I hope this department will make a great study of the problem and possibly bring about the required changes to save at least half of the loss indicated by this report.
It has been said by previous speakers that Canada has a great role to play in exports of wood products. I have heard that said many

Forestry Department
times, but I was surprised to read in Mr. MacMillan's address that the Marquis of Lansdowne, a former governor general of Canada, as far back as 1885 had some remarks to make on that score on the occasion I believe of the opening of the trans-Canada railway. These words are quoted by Mr. MacMillan in his work, "Fifty years' history of forestry in Canada" and the passage is as follows:
-"very considerable and alarming shrinkage in the timber supply of the world" and went on to say that "the timber-supplying countries of the old world are quite unable to meet the demand made upon them. The forest regions of the great republic which adjoins us have ... been depleted to such an extent that the visible supply will not last for more than a very limited number of years."
As I say, those remarks were made in 1885 and surely if it was visibly true then it is Visibly more true today.
Because of the importance of this industry in Canada, which I consider in northern Ontario is definitely a very important secondary industry to mining, I am very pleased to acknowledge tonight the fact that the department will be formed and that I am prepared to support the bill. I am certain that the department will bring about co-ordination of the work of forestry which is necessary in Canada, which work has been going on to some degree in the last 15 years or so, and this co-ordination will bring about great benefits to the industry of forestry and to Canadians and workers in the industry as a whole.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reaffirm the position which I took in the work of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters with respect to the creation of the department of forestry. I felt at that time, and I am still of the same opinion, that such a department is greatly needed in this dominion of ours, and as one coming from Alberta and from a constituency which has a tremendous forest area -the eastern slope of the Rockies-I feel I should say something in connection with this matter. I hope that those placed in charge of administering this act and promulgating the regulations in part II under clause 9 will take into consideration the multiple uses of an area such as the eastern slope of the Rockies. In other words, we look for an area such as this to provide for our recreation, to provide for the enjoyment of fishing, hunting, wildlife and, above all, to provide grazing lands for the cattlemen who have ranches in the foothills. This latter is a very important part of the proper utilization of the open areas in the forest reserve.
Each summer many cattle are grazed in these areas and I hope that whoever prepares
IMr. Godin.]
the regulations will take into consideration the grazing of livestock and the proper care and use of the range resources. We all know, as has been said by many others, that given care and management, selective cutting and wise economic planning and use of the forest resource should be in the interests of all concerned. It should be a profitable undertaking. In fact, it is so now, but it could be expanded under proper management and as a result of the work which I hope will be encouraged by this new department.
I wish to congratulate the government for having taken up the suggestion of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters and for bringing forward this bill. I want to congratulate the government, the minister and all those who have been concerned with it. I think it is a step forward and I hope it will be put into operation at the earliest possible moment so that we may have in the west and in all parts of Canada some long needed care and management of our forest resources.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister to convey to the real sponsor of this bill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), a suggestion, and the suggestion is this: If the government should decide to accept the advice of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Matthews) rather than the advice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), with whom, of course, I agree, and if the government should decide to have a separate minister in charge of this department, then I hope the Prime Minister will give consideration to the fact that for three years the province of Newfoundland has been slighted by having a Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne). The Minister without Portfolio is a well-known engineer and a man well qualified to preside over this department. In those circumstances Newfoundland will no longer be overlooked unless, of course, this department is being created to provide a portfolio as a peace offering to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne).


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased tonight to be able to say at the end of the debate on second reading that apparently every hon. member of the house intends to support this bill. I think it speaks well of the members who have taken part in the discussion and who have raised the level of debate to a constructive level that they have done a good deal to leave a very good taste in the mouths of those of us who have been somewhat responsible for bringing the bill forward to this stage.

As I listened to the debate there seemed to be three main questions, and at this time of night I do not intend to deal with them exhaustively. I will just mention them. The first question was: is a new minister required? I think I am quite prepared on the basis of my experience during the last two and a half years to say, yes, a minister is required. The house may not know it, but the act which sets out the responsibility of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says that everything which does not belong to another minister belongs to the minister of northern affairs. If I had more time I should like to remind the house of other fields over which the act gives the department jurisdiction, quite apart from this matter of forestry, in connection with which there is so much to be done and so few hours of each day in which to do it.
The second question raised dealt with provincial rights. In view of the clear wording of the British North America Act, this is evidently a matter of proper consideration. I think the best test that can be afforded of the government's purpose in this regard is to compare the new bill with the act which the house is being asked to repeal. Clause 17 of the new bill asks parliament to repeal the Canada Forestry Act and if hon. members will compare the terms of that act with the operative clauses of this bill they will see clear signs that this bill is deliberately and carefully designed to ensure that there shall be no infringement of the rights of the provinces.
I was a little sorry tonight to hear the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) attack the provisions of this bill, particularly the subclauses in clause 9. Apparently the hon. member did not realize that he was criticizing provisions which were copied exactly from the Canada Forestry Act which does not make as clear as this bill does the distinction between the provincial and the federal fields. The Canada Forestry Act has no such provision for distinguishing clearly between these two fields. I think the young hon. member can only be excused because he did not do his homework and did not know sufficient about these measures to go and read their terms. The words he criticized tonight are taken out of the Canada Forestry Act which can be examined to ensure that I speak according to the facts. I do not think the hon. member did it deliberately, because we in a democratic country have a respect for those men who rise to the position of premier.
This act was passed under the guidance of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who was minister of the crown in 1949. I do
Forestry Department
not think the hon. member for Lapointe intended to do injustice to the minister who held the portfolio before the change of government, the Hon. Mr. Lesage. Here is an act which was passed by Mr. St. Laurent and administered by Mr. Lesage, and yet attacked by the hon. member for Lapointe. I think if he compares the two he will see that this government did make clear-cut efforts to try and make sure that those who discussed this bill and those who are concerned with it will see that the jurisdiction of it is clearly limited in all cases to those lands belonging to Her Majesty in the right of Canada. Clause 5 refers to all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to the forestry resources of the country. We have clear-cut clauses to make that point very clear.
The final point that came up in the debate today was the growing number of hon. members who are aware of the broader use of the word "conservation". Conservation does not mean just simply saving something; it means the multiple use of those resources. These forests are just as useful, and will be increasingly useful in the field of agriculture as they are to the plain and straightforward interest of forestry.
Recreation has been mentioned. You could also point out that the trees have a great influence not only on the power resources of this country but also on the recreation and the fisheries resources, and so on. I would like to speak at length on this particular aspect of the question because this will be the measure of success of the new ministry. If it can bring to this country at every level, provincial, industrial and right down to the rank and file of the people of Canada just what it means to protect those forests in the real sense of the word, not only against fire, not only against pests and insects, not only against the depradations of humans who exploit them, but against dangers of the future, and think of their positive reason and the positive asset they are to this nation. If these things are recognized by people at all levels, then the real meaning of conservation in its broadest sense will be fully accepted.
Therefore, I want to express my own personal thanks to all hon. members of the house who have been so kind today, not only to me personally and to the government in general on having brought this bill forward but also because they put forward so many constructive ideas. In particular I should like to mention the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Hon. members may not have noticed it, but this hon. member made a suggestion today that I predict that in the not so distant future will

Forestry Department
be a good measure of success of achieving this adjustment from a single type of resource development to a combined type of resource development, and particularly in relationship to agriculture and the forests.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 4-Deputy Minister.
Mr. Hardie:: Subclause 2 of clause 4 pertains to administration of the departmental staff. It transfers staff from the Department of Agriculture and from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell me whether or not the staff and the forestry officers coming under the northern administration branch of the Northwest Territories will be transferred to this new department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The northern affairs national resources section will keep those officers necessary to the administration of the resources of this area. We look on the territories as provinces to be, and we set up all our organizations there so that if ever a province is formed it will have all the officers it needs for various resources; therefore the various forestry officers who deal with administration of resources in the Yukon and Northwest Territories will stay with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Will this new forestry department control and make regulations in regard to the timber in the Wood Buffalo park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman, that comes under the National Parks Act.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: All the wood cutting operations and operations in the park at the present time then come under the National Parks Act?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right.


Mr.   Balien@: Can the minister give any indication as to how many people will be transferred from his department and from the Department of Agriculture to the new department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can give only an approximation at the moment, but one of my officials is coming down with the precise number. Maybe we can go on to another clause and revert to this clause later.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I can ask the minister a question on this clause. Naturally he might not have at his disposal the number
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
of officials to be transferred. Can he tell the committee what will be the research activities of the Department of Agriculture which will be taken over by the new department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The sections in agriculture in the biology section which deal with pests and forest diseases. There is the entomological section and the pathological section, and so on. Those sections which deal precisely with the forests will come over to the new department; but the institutes for the various scientific disciplines in agriculture will remain there. Three or four of the scientific disciplines are set up around an institute and each branch has various subsections. The one dealing with forest biology will move into the new department but will maintain very close liaison with those basic institutes of the various scientific disciplines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this is the proper clause on which to ask this question. Will the new department take over responsibility for international work in the field of forestry? I am thinking of FAO work and commonwealth co-operation on forestry matters. I think there is a commonwealth forestry institute.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think one of the clauses in the bill makes it clear that all the duties now carried out by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources forestry branch, and the duties carried out by the forest biological division of the Department of Agriculture, all those powers, all those contracts will be transferred to the new department, and anything dealing with the interest we have in world associations such as one meeting next month in Seattle will be under the new department.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: What clause is that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The one I was
looking at was clause 14.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Before we leave this clause, the minister stated a moment ago that the wood cutting and timber operations in Wood Buffalo park come under the National Parks Act, Under northern affairs administration there are forestry officers who look after forestry within Wood Buffalo park, which is not a part of the Northwest Territories and therefore these men are not territorial staff. Are the forestry officials or any of them who are looking after Wood Buffalo park going to be transferred to the new department? They come under the Northwest Territories administration, not under national parks.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The information I gave earlier is still true, that those forestry officers who deal with the administration of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon will remain under northern administration. Those forestry officers who do forestry work under the national parks will continue to work under the national parks, hut the new forestry department will give technical advice to the national parks administration and to the administrative people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Further duties.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a few questions on this clause. Subclause 1 (c) says that the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into agreements with the government of any province or with any person for forest protection and so on. Could the minister illustrate the circumstances under which the department would deal with any person.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: An example of that would be a contract with the pulp and paper research institute of Canada to do certain research work. Another example would be a contract with one of the university forestry schools. Another example would be a contract with a person doing publicity where we had agreed with the province as to publicizing certain information about the forests. These are contracts with a person.
I should like to deal with the question of provincial autonomy as opposed to federal interference in the jurisdiction of the provinces. Clause 5 as the operative clause makes it very clear, of course, that these are the duties, powers and functions of the minister. Clause 6 which we are discussing now outlines these duties in detail. The question has been raised whether these subclauses make it clear that there is no interference with provincial governments. I think that point could be resolved legally in a very simple way by saying that clause 5 is the governing clause with respect to the duties, powers and functions of the minister, but nevertheless I have with me an amendment which I am going to ask my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce to move.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I move:
That Bill C-82, an act respecting the department of forestry, be amended by striking out line 13 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
6. (1) Subject to section 5, the minister
The amendment simply puts in front of the words "the minister" the words "subject to section 5" to make it absolutely clear that
Forestry Department
section 5 is the governing section with respect to the duties, powers and functions of the minister and it thereby removes any thought that provincial jurisdiction is being interfered with.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 6 as amended carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one other question to ask the minister. Subclause 2 reads as follows:
In carrying out his duties and functions under this act, the minister may consult with and inaugurate conferences of provincial or municipal authorities, universities, representatives of industry or other interested persons.
I want to ask a question about initiating conferences with municipal authorities. Is it a new procedure for the federal government to initiate conferences directly with municipal authorities or will it be done through the agencies of the provincial governments in question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will answer the hon. member for Kootenay West by simply saying that this is a carryover of part of the act establishing the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Section 7 (2) of that act reads as follows:
The minister may co-operate with the provinces and the municipalities in carrying out any conservation or development plans under subsection 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely that is different. The section the minister has read says "may co-operate" but the particular subclause we are considering says "may consult". Consultation and co-operation are different things.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that is obvious, Mr. Chairman. If hon. members will read the proceedings of the standing committee they will see that one of the suggestions made by the committee was that the new department should consult with industry, the provinces and so on in working out plans for the new department. Subclause 2 of clause 6 gives effect to that recommendation and simply lists the groups with whom we may co-operate in any subsequent plans.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act mention municipal authorities?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. Perhaps I should read the whole section.
7. (1) The minister may formulate plans for the conservation and development of the resources of Canada and for research with respect thereto, and, with the authority of the governor in council and in co-operation with other departments, branches and agencies of the government of Canada, provide for carrying out such plans.

Forestry Department
(2)	The minister may co-operate with the provinces and with municipalities in carrying out any conservation or development plans under subsection 1.
(3)	In carrying out his duties and functions under this section the minister may consult with and inaugurate conferences of representatives of producers, industry, the universities, labour and provincial and municipal authorities.
It is a carryover from the act setting up my department and has reference specifically to forestry.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Can the minister tell me whether this department will look after forest management on federal crown lands where there are forests?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that is that on federal lands such as at Petawawa and Kananaskis and down in New Brunswick the new department will administer and operate these crown lands in the right of the Queen of Canada, but where you have another agency of the government such as national parks or the Northwest Territories or Yukon administrations they will have their own administrative officers and they will get the advice of the new department in the management and running of these forest lands.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Does the minister not think that the new department should have the responsibility for all forests on all crown lands, including the national parks of Canada? If, for instance, the national parks are to allow saw mill operations as they are doing at Wood Buffalo park, does the minister not think that the forestry people should manage these operations?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would imagine it would not be very difficult for us to arrange for their management but they would still remain under the control and administration of the national parks branch.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is Wood Buffalo park a
national park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, it is.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Under the national parks branch of the minister's department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Benidickson:: If there were forestry operations being conducted in Riding Mountain park they would remain exclusively under the jurisdiction of the minister of northern affairs rather than the new minister, is that right?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, that is right.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 inclusive agreed to.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).1
On clause 9-Regulations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Clause 9, subclause (c) refers to the prevention and extinguishment of fires. Is the minister responsible for that masterpiece of English language? The word "extinguishment" seems to be a rather ugly term.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only thing I can say is that this wording was copied directly from the Canada Forestry Act passed in 1949, and apparently it has held up ever since.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Blame the Liberals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, even if the Liberals were responsible, I think it is a horrible word. I do not see why you could not substitute "put out" which ordinary people could understand.
However, I rose for another purpose. When the hon. member for Lapointe spoke earlier this evening he drew attention to certain misunderstandings that might arise with respect to this clause. I am wondering whether the minister would not think it advisable to insert in clause 9 an amendment similar to the one he put in clause 6, which would make it abundantly clear. Personally I think it is clear now by the use of the same term, "forest experiment areas", as used in clause 7. However, some amendment such as, in furtherance of the objectives of clause 7, or whatever would be appropriate, the governor in council may make regulations, would remove the last possible vestige of doubt that this was intended to have a more general application to those areas that were clearly under federal jurisdiction.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would not mind having that amendment moved, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to move:
That in clause 9, line 10, before the words "governor in council" the phrase "subject to section 7" be put in.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I so move.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Annual report.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is an interesting clause. In view of what we learned today about the obligation imposed on the department of external affairs to make its annual report within 10 days of the first sitting of parliament, perhaps the minister would explain why he is asking for a much

longer period in which to do something that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not do this year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is a beautiful fishhook for the end of the day. I think the answer is this. In my own department and nearly all the other operating departments the report is usually brought in during the first few days of the session following the end of the fiscal year. This gives the department 10 months in which to make a report. I think that is sufficiently long and will avoid any embarrassment such as occurred today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You see, Mr. Chairman, the provision was put in the External Affairs Act in the old days because it was considered possible for external affairs in those days to do in that length of time what it took other departments nine months to do.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 17-
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before clause 17 carries, in view of what was said earlier today by the hon. member for Nanaimo, I think perhaps he should be reminded that the Canada Forestry Act was enacted by the Liberal government as a progressive step. If that had not been done there would have been no foundation for what the government is doing today. I might add, moreover, that if the present government had attempted to enact legislation of this sort two years ago when the late premier of Quebec was still reigning in that province, it would have been denounced for invasion of provincial rights.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is just one question in relation to the explanatory note. It reads:
The purpose of this bill is to constitute a department of forestry. The bill also incorporates the Canada Forestry Act, with minor changes.
Can the minister inform the committee what the minor changes are?


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I am pleased to hear that the Liberal party, at some time or other, did do something.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can list one or two things quickly. The first one is that in the Canada Forestry Act, for example, reference is made to national forests. This reference has been eliminated and we have returned to the use of the term "forest experiment areas". Most of the changes are of this nature and make it absolutely clear that the primary function of the new department is research. This was not clear in the old act. A custom grew up for the federal gov-
Forestry Department
ernment to look after research across Canada. I think that probably is the most significant change.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18-Coming into force. (Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister.
(Text):
When does the minister think this act will come into force?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In due course.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no way of knowing when this bill will be passed, but very soon afterwards.


Samuel Boulanger: Does the minister mean six months or twelve months or two years?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The insinuation does not mean a thing.	'


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the minister able to give now the information I requested under clause 4?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The forestry branch will be providing approximately 747 personnel to the new department, that is the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; the forest biology section of agriculture will be providing 550.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance the minister has attached to the question of vision and that sort of thing, and in view of the fact that some of the responsibility no doubt will go from his department and other departments to this new department, can the minister give us an assurance there will be no impairment of the vision?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this opportunity given to me by the hon. member for Essex East is one of which I shall take advantage. I feel that this bill in this session is clearly a part of the over-all planning of this government to solve the problems of this country for years to come. This new forestry department, to my way of thinking, is closely associated with our national development program for agriculture and our national development program for Canada. It is a clear-cut part of the over-all national development plan.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? Now?
6086	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with Russia


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



RATIFICATION OF PROTOCOL RENEWING

[Stage Direction]
agreement with Russia
Gordon Minto Churchill: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April 18, 1960, renewing the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, concluded in Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the statement I have to make on this trade agreement will take about 12 minutes but in view of the lateness of the hour-


An hon. Member:: Eleven o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you want me to go ahead?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister would prefer to make his statement tomorrow at the beginning of the sitting, that procedure would be perfectly all right with those of us on this side. On the other hand if he would prefer to take another five minutes and finish it tonight, that of course will be all right also.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do I understand from that statement that those on the other side will continue the debate on the resolution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just your statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Your statement, to begin tomorrow or tonight, whichever is preferable.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think perhaps it would be more orderly to start with this matter tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed to call it eleven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the house leader would indicate the business for tomorrow and perhaps he would recapitulate the business for the rest of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow we will start with the resolution in my name dealing with the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement, followed by second reading of Bill No. S-36, to amend the Criminal Code. The third item would be the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State dealing with the Canada Elections Act. Those legislative items being concluded, we would proceed with the estimates of the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. and the estimates of the Department of Public Works. That would take the time of Tuesday. On Wednesday, we have already arranged to start off with the estimates of the Department of Transport. On Thursday we have arranged to commence with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I say that for our part I think we would be prepared to go right ahead with the resolution on the Canada Elections Act tomorrow, in view of the fact that, as I understand it, it is precisely what came out of the committee and therefore is well known to the house. If the government wishes to proceed in that way, if it was agreeable to other hon. members, it would be agreeable to us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would be very helpful if we could do that. We will then gain quite a bit of ground tomorrow and will proceed with the study of the estimates of the departments I have named.


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

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

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What consultation with or intimation to the federal government precedes an increase in hospitalization contributions required to be made to a province by families or individuals under the provisions of the hospital insurance and diagnostic act, and what controls, if any, on such contributions are available to the federal government?
2.	Since January 1, 1959, what provinces, if any, (a) have made upward revisions of rates; (b) have given notice to the federal government of an intention to increase rates of contributions by individuals, and what are the particulars of such prospective rate revisions?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	No consultation with or intimation to the federal government precedes an increase in premium rates in those provinces operating hospital insurance programs on a premium basis.
Since the method by which a province raises its share of costs is the sole prerogative of the province, no controls on such premiums
Questions
are imposed by the federal government. There are however controls on the amount of co-insurance or deterrent charges levied by the provinces on insured persons for insured services, through the requirements that such charges must be described in the agreement with the federal government.
2.	Since January 1, 1959, Manitoba is the only province which has made an upward revision of premium rates (from $4.10 and $2.05 monthly to $6 and $3 monthly for families and single subscribers respectively).
The federal government has not been given any notice of an intention to increase rates of premiums for the reasons stated above.


BELMONT BUILDING PURCHASE, VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. McPhillips: 1.	What was the consideration paid by the government of Canada for the property at 805 Government street, Victoria, British Columbia, known as the Belmont building?
2.	What was the date of purchase?
3.	Who was the vendor?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	$175,000.
2.	May 19, 1942.
3.	Scottish Provident Institution of Edinburgh (agent-The Royal Trust Company).
79951-0-384


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Charts referred to by Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources
79951-0-384J
Canada
Orpartmrnt of Northrrn Affairs and National Ursoorrrs

[Stage Direction]
tfanaba
Orfartunt of Northern Affairs anb National Arsoorres

[Stage Direction]
6090	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canada
Department of Northern Affaire and National lUooorrre

[Stage Direction]
tfanaba
Orpartinrnt of Northern Affairs anb National firsoorrrs

[Stage Direction]
1,500 r
1,000

[Stage Direction]
1939	1942	1945	1948	1951	1954	1957
6092	HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Janata
Department of Northrrrv Affair* ani National firooorreo

[Stage Direction]
tfanata
Orpartmrnt of Northrrn Affairs ani* National Ursourrrs

[Stage Direction]
6094	HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canada
department of Northern Affair* and National fieooorre*


[Stage Direction]
(fanata
Drpnrtinrnt of Northrrn Affair* ani* National Hr*ourrr*


[Stage Direction]
0 1____i_________i_________i__________i_________i
[Stage Direction]

1929-33	'34-38	'39-'43	'44-'48	'49-'53	'54-'58

[Stage Direction]
6096	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canada	CHART 9
Cfyartmrnt of ^Northern Affairs anb National Ursourrrs	^	'


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. July 12, 1960