1960-05-26

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to table the report of the second and third meetings of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the contribution that this group is making to the good relations between Canada and the United States, and in particular to the contribution made by members of this house who met their counterparts in Washington recently, I would suggest with the leave of the house and in accordance with what was done on an earlier occasion that the report in question be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very appropriate suggestion, and it is supported on this side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its consent to the printing of this report as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document referred to above, see appendix.]


ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASSISTANCE TO EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following the brief statement I made in the house yesterday concerning assistance to Chile, I am now able to advise that arrangements have been completed with the Canadian Red Cross Society on their recommendation to make a preliminary contribution of $10,000 from the international relief fund for emergency assistance for the unfortunate victims of this terrible disaster. This initial grant is in cash, and the money was sent by cable yesterday afternoon. The Secretary of State for External
Affairs (Mr. Green), who is in Chile today, is expected to present this contribution to the Chilean Red Cross and will at the same time convey to the Chilean government the deep sympathy and concern which the Canadian people feel for those who are suffering so dreadfully in this disaster.
Only a few moments ago I talked with the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the telephone, and he said there was an urgent need for emergency supplies. The government is giving its immediate attention to ways in which Canada might help in meeting this need. The Canadian Red Cross Society has arranged to send to Chile 48 cases of new clothing and much-needed medicine and drugs, and it is expected that these goods and commodities will be shipped by air.
I can assure the house that the government, in co-operation with the Canadian Red Cross, is keeping in the closest possible touch with the situation in Chile and will do everything in its power to provide appropriate assistance. I might also say that I feel the house will give support to the provision of an R.C.A.F. aircraft to convey the necessary medical supplies and the like to the stricken victims, and providing there is agreement in all parts of the house arrangements will be made accordingly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we on this side would most warmly support what the Prime Minister has suggested. But perhaps we could go a little further in this house and in this country and, in view of what appears to be the magnitude of this horrible catastrophe, and also the similar catastrophe in Japan, perhaps more can be done if further examination shows that the need is greater than appearerd yesterday. I am sure that if more could be done than this interim contribution through the Red Cross, this house and this country would support the provision of such additional help.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: This group supports wholeheartedly this tangible though token expression of our concern and sympathy for the suffering of those who have been stricken by this disaster in Chile. We should also like to support the suggestion made by the leader of the official opposition with respect to Japan.

Legislation



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 103 of the Supreme Court Act, new rules of court and amendments thereto must be tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate. Accordingly I wish to lay on the table of the house one copy in French and one copy in English of a general order of the Supreme Court of Canada dated April 26, 1960 providing for amendment to the rules of the supreme court which are to come into force on July 2, 1960.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission concerning a certain position in the parliamentary restaurant, laid on the table of the house on Monday, May 23, 1960, be approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Palletl (Peel) moved:: That the select committee on procedure, appointed on May 9, 1960, be composed of Miss Aitken and Messrs. Argue, Balcer, Churchill, Crestohl, Fulton, Macquarrie, McCleave, McGee, Mcllraith, Meunier, Pallett, Pickersgill, Rea and Ricard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-65, to amend the Estate Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. AGRICULTURE



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPORT PRICE

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to assist honey producers by supporting the 1960 honey crop at a price of 13J cents per pound national average for white No. 1 grade extracted honey produced in Canada. The support price is 102 per cent of the base price or the ten year average price for this grade of honey for the 1950-1959 period. This is the same support price that was in effect last year.
Honey production in Canada during 1959 totalled 31.5 million pounds, an increase of 4 million pounds over the production of 27.5 million pounds in 1958. Notwithstanding the
[Mr. Herridge.l
increase in production, storage stocks at December 31, 1959 were only 437,000 pounds higher than storage stocks at the end of 1958. The favourable storage stock position is largely attributed to a significant increase in domestic usage.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has now had an opportunity of looking at the joint release issued by his department and the dominion bureau of statistics on the employment situation and whether, in view of the fact that the percentage of persons without jobs and seeking work is approximately the same as it was two years ago at the height of the recession, the minister can tell the house whether the government proposes to take any steps to deal with this problem.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look up the information the member for Laurier requested. I have figures here which give the percentage of those persons without jobs and seeking work by the number of months they spent looking for work, for periods of between four and six months and more than six months. As a matter of record I think I should present the figures to the house at this time. These releases are all as of April. The figures which I think are best presented in table form are as follows:
Persons without jobs and seeking work by number of months looking for work (thousands)
Looking for Work 4-6	More than
Total	months	6 months	Week ending	No.	No.	%	No.	%April	18,	1953	167	44	26.3	15	9.0April	17,	1954	309	104	33.7	29	9.4April	23,	1955	329	109	33.1	47	14.3April	21,	1956	258	81	31.4	24	9.3April	20,	1957	308	102	33.1	20	6.5April	19,	1958	522	216	41.4	71	13.6April	18,	1959	445	156	35.1	84	18.9April	23,	1960	517	191	36.9	62	12.0It	can	readily	be	seen,	Mr. Speaker,	that
it has run pretty well normally for the past eight years.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the minister for the information he has given me, which was in answer to the second question I asked yesterday.
The first question I put to him yesterday and the question I put to him now is this. What measures does the government propose

to take in dealing with the problem, because as the figures which have now been released indicate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I raise the point whether it is possible now to deal with a question of that magnitude involving, as it does, policy and following, as it does, so shortly after the third debate dealing with the question of measures to meet unemployment; whether it can be satisfactorily dealt with on the orders of the day. In my view it is too broad and general a question to be deal with at this time. If there is some specific aspect that the hon. member has in mind, he might inquire into it.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and there is another question which comes to my mind. After looking at page 3, table 1, of the joint release, I wonder whether the minister can explain to the house what accounts for the increase in the amount of 12,000 in the number of the those not at work due to temporary layoff as of April, 1960, in comparison with April, 1959?


Michael Starr: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. If there are any other questions that the hon. member has on this release I wish he would ask them now so I can get him all the information at once. On the other hand, I should like to point out that the whole picture is not as black as the hon. member has painted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say that the minister should not attempt to debate what I have stopped the hon. member for Laurier from asking.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, moved by a combination of my humanitarianism and my inquisitive instincts, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In view of the fact that in the first instance officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration told Miss Irene Rebrin that she was being deported because she was a stateless person, can the minister explain to the house why, according to press reports, another stateless person is being admitted to Canada by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the first part of the question because the case is before the courts.
Inquiries of the Ministry In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, some 2,800 stateless persons came into Canada last year. This is not at all unusual. People apply for entry in their own country; they comply with the requirements of the Immigration Act, pass the appropriate examinations, and are permitted entry into the country.


Lionel Chevrier: Res adjudicata.


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Can the minister inform the house to what country a stateless person can be deported?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I cannot; it is too broad a question, Mr. Speaker. In general, though, those people might possibly be accepted by the country of last residence, but that is not always true.



STATEMENT ON ILLEGAL ENTRY OF CHINESE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked me if I could give the house any information on a story attributing to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the statement that approximately half the Chinese immigrants to Canada since the war have entered this country illegally. He also asked me to check with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see if this information was given to the press, adding that "similar information was denied to the house" the day before.
I have since checked with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I find that the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is reported in one of the papers as having said that, although the figure in question was not his, he would not disagree with this on the basis of preliminary checks.
I also find that, contrary to what was said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, this information was not denied to the house. On May 24 the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether she could provide any statistical information on this subject. The hon. lady answered that she did not have that statistical information; that the investigations were in the hands of the police, and that it might be some time before any specific information would be available, which is exactly the case. And it should be clear that in view of the scope and nature of the investigation, no specific information could be given to the house at this time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I wonder whether I could ask the minister a supplementary question. Could the minister say when a denial is not a denial?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would say, when there is not a denial, Mr. Speaker, as there was not in the case to which the hon. member referred.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East asked whether information could be given as to the number of persons who were taken off the rolls of the unemployment insurance commission because of the termination of the seasonal benefit period on May 15.
The cut-off date for seasonal benefits is May 15. This year May 15 fell on a Sunday. Payment is made during the week in which May 15 falls, so that this year those on seasonal benefits received an extra week's payment and thus payment was made up to and including May 21.
The latest figures available as of April 30 with respect to active seasonal benefit claims, and covering those drawing and eligible to draw, indicate a total of 228,551. This figure included a total of 182,300 males and 46,251 females.
I might point out to the hon. member for Vancouver East that with respect to seasonal benefits and the period thereof there have been no complaints from the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour about the date of May 15, nor have there been any complaints about the fact that seasonal benefits now commence one month earlier than they did before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask a related question of the Minister of Labour. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement which appeared in the Vancouver Province of May 24 to the effect that unemployment insurance is Vancouver's biggest payroll, with $3 million being disbursed in a busy month? Could the minister comment on that statement?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question should go on the order paper unless the minister had notice or has the information at hand.


Michael Starr: I have not had notice of the question, Mr. Speaker, nor have I read the article to which the hon. member has referred.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware of the existence of a new postage meter as reported in this morning's newspapers? If so, has he considered the advisability of using such a meter as a means of economy in avoiding the use of stamps?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this new meter. As I think the hon. member is very well aware, a similar type of instrument is widely used throughout the government service in place of postage stamps.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It is based upon the indication last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that probably the first item of business on Monday will be second reading of the proposed amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. In order to allow ample opportunity for witnesses to appear and make their views known as to the proposed legislation, will the minister consider moving at the appropriate time that the bill be referred to a committee of the house for study?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to move that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee as soon as it has been given second reading.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the province of Manitoba requested any assistance for their proposed program of experimenting with trap nets on lake Winnipeg? If so, what action has been taken by the Department of Fisheries?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to thank the hon. member for Selkirk for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question.

The government of Manitoba have requested assistance in the introduction of new types of fishing gear to lake Winnipeg, including trap nets and the mid-water trawl. The department's specialists in this field of endeavour are co-operating by giving technical advice, and arrangements have been made for one of the department's technical personnel to make a field study of the gear now being used with a view to advising on new and improved fishing methods which might have commercial application.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Further to the preliminary reply which I made yesterday to a question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) regarding the herring fishery of British Columbia, I should like to point out that the basis of the difficulty in this industry has been the recent phenomenal increase in the production of fish meal in Peru.
Fish meal is produced not only from herring but also from many other species of fish, either directly or as a by-product in filleting operations. It is produced in all coastal provinces of this country and in most other fish producing countries. It is used as a high protein supplement in animal feed.
The ten-fold expansion of Peruvian production over the past few years has brought about a sharp drop in world prices. This directly affects all Canadian producers, as Canada exports nearly two-thirds of her total production. I would emphasize that while the immediate impact is on the herring fishery of British Columbia, the problem is international in scope, and is of major concern to my department as it affects the fishing industry in all parts of Canada.
The problem is now under active study not only by the Department of Fisheries but by other departments of the government.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the minister inquire from responsible C.B.C. officials whether Mr. Pierre Tisseyre, a Montreal publisher, is required to pay for
S upply-A griculture
the publicity plugs that are being made from time to time on behalf of his publishing firm on the T.V. program "Rendez-vous avec Michelle"?
If not, why is this publishing house given preferential treatment, and does the C.B.C. intend to grant equal privileges to other publishers?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: I shall inquire from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and answer this question later.


Lionel Chevrier: You shall have a whole set of answers to give.
(Text):

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
24. Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $239,250.
The Deputy Chairman:: This item will be found on page 6 of the blue book, the details at page 111.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: When we were last discussing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture on May 20, the hon. member for Waterloo North was making a few remarks in connection with the 4-H clubs of Canada and their activities. Unfortunately he was not able to complete his remarks at that time because it was necessary for the house to go on to other business. Knowing his great interest in the movement and how anxious he was to have made known to the committee the valuable activities of this organization, I should like to add a few remarks which may be taken in conjunction with those he made at that time, which are to be found at page 4113 of Hansard of May 20.
I am not going to repeat what he has already said. While the remarks I make at this time will not be complete in themselves, if they are taken in conjunction with what he said at that time perhaps they will give the committee a picture of the atcivities of the 4-H clubs. It is anticipated that enrolments will go up in 4-H clubs again in 1960 and that another conservation club and another tractor club will have been initiated by the end of the year.
One of the officials has stated that one of the chief reasons for the successful 4-H program is the excellent leadership given by the young farm men who have themselves come up through 4-H and junior farmer ranks. Nothing could give the government more

Supply-Agriculture
gratification than to know that junior farmers endorse their support of 4-H activities by voluntarily devoting their time to this work. Service clubs have been encouraged to sponsor 4-H clubs, and I like particularly the condition laid down that sponsorship entails at least one visit by the service club to the 4-H club in action.
This is a very worth while rural-urban outgrowth which has enormous possibilities. It could strengthen the links of understanding and co-operation between farm and nonfarm communities in many ways. I hope that junior farmers, as they in turn become members of service clubs, will do their best to follow up along this line.
I understand that junior farmers are proving of real help in a variety of ways such as in livestock judging, land judging, dairy princess competition and barbecue, public speaking and debating, putting up a stump fence at the Pioneer museum, helping with the needy families Christmas fund and the annual drama festival. They also won four sports championships at the Guelph field day and reached the provincial finals in the drama and public speaking contests at the Toronto conference.
These are very diverse and valuable accomplishments, and they indicate a wide-ranging intelligence on the part of our young rural people. I do not exclude the young women who have their own counterpart to the junior farmers, and whose support at the junior and senior levels is very important to the success of any agricultural movement. I think I have said sufficient to convince you that the federal and provincial governments are doing all they can to encourage, educate and finance any ventures into farm life that have a good prospect of success.
We are fortunate in being born into the machine age of agriculture, where a good head is a better asset than a green thumb or big biceps. The production of a great deal more food than we can readily market at once brings problems for which we cannot truthfully say the machine is entirely responsible. We have had these problems previously in different forms and in varying degrees, and we have made adjustments. The fact is that we each have more responsibility than just our own family and our own community and even our own country. We are trying to work with the community of nations in apportioning the food of the world to the needy of the world, and it is a difficult job to do without disorganizing the ordinary channels of commerce through which eventually the world commerce must flow again, when normal conditions reign.

In the meantime the rapid growth of our own population is the greatest guarantee of the security of the farmer. With a constantly increasing number of consumers and a constantly increasing rate of yield from this wonderful, fertile land, we have the formula for successful living in agriculture. Our minister and his department are extending every assistance to our junior farmers. I know this is greatly appreciated by the younger farmers in our country.


Mr. Van Horne:: I rise this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, merely to draw attention to some of the problems facing the farmers in my area. I wish to point out in the first place that there were three things this government was bent on doing. One was, of course-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that we are on vote No. 24. His remarks, of course, will have to be relevant to vote 24, which is the livestock division of the production and marketing branch of the Department of Agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I merely wanted to mention that this particular item in the estimates will certainly go a long way toward solving the problems of some of the farmers.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let this vote pass until I have made a few comments regarding the grant made to the Canadian council of plowing associations. This grant is appreciated by this organization. It gives them an opportunity to sponsor various plowing matches in all provinces in Canada and also take part in the world plowing match which we hope will eventually come back to Canada in the near future.
Before taking my seat I wish to mention the fact that this year the county I represent, Elgin county, will be playing hosts to the Ontario provincial plowing match to be held near the village of Springfield the week of October 10. It was 20 years ago that the county first played host to this great agricultural organization and helped at that time to stage one of the largest plowing matches held up to that time. The Elgin organization hopes that they will be able to duplicate the event of 1940 and stage once again the biggest plowing match ever held in Canada. I just wish to extend to all my colleagues and all other people interested in good plowing who will be with us on one or more of those days an invitation to see some of the finest land you can find anywhere in the province of Ontario for the site of this match. I can assure them that they will not have to walk too far to see

all the events in the plowing, and I hope my colleagues will keep in mind the week of October 10.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $7,340,000.
Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us the reason for the reduction of $96,000 on this item?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The reason that the estimate this year is less than last year is due to the fact that we anticipate hog production will be lower this year than last year. As the hon. member is aware, we had quite a serious surplus of hogs last year and we have taken measures to try and ensure that production comes more into line with what can be marketed. Present indications are that production this year will be about 16 per cent less than last year, and as a result we require less money for freight subsidy on hog feeds.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would that $96,000 cover the 16 per cent reduction perfectly well?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The actual fact is that there was an $800,000 supplementary vote which was necessary to take care of the big increase in hog production which took place last year. So that there is that large reduction on top of this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27.	Freight assistance on western feed grains, $21,000,000.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather large amount of money which is being asked for. It has been paid year after year; there is nothing new about it. I wonder if the minister would explain to the house what the result would be if this grant were not made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the grants were not made the likely effect in eastern Canada would be that a very considerable quantity of western wheat, oats and barley would not come down here for feed, and that the animals which are normally fed on that would probably be fed on corn imported from the United States. The provision of this freight assistance makes it possible for Canadian produced grain to secure the bulk of the market for feeding stuffs in eastern Canada as well as British Columbia.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister in a position to say how far east our western grain goes in this regard?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It goes right to Newfoundland, and as the hon. member is no doubt aware it also goes to British Columbia.
S upp ly-A griculture


Mr. Benidickson:: Does the minister think that this item will prove to be adequate for the present fiscal year without supplemen-taries? I recall that the estimate last year was greatly under requirement. I have not the 1959-60 book with me but the minister might refresh my memory as to how much was put in the main estimates, because a very substantial supplementary payment was required.
I noticed that when the estimates were prepared and printed, which would be about January of this year well in advance of the end of the fiscal year on March 31, it was indicated on page 114 of the details that the expenditures for 1959-60 would probably be $24.5 million. Would the minister indicate what the actual amount has proven to be to March 31, 1960; and if it is a sum, as I think it will be, considerably more than $21 million, is this a realistic figure?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I believe it is, Mr. Chairman. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has indicated, we had to ask for an additional $3.5 million last year. That was practically all required.
The reason for that was, first of all, that there was an increase in freight rates which the hon. member possibly remembers-


William Moore Benidickson: And that will prevail in the coming year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -which increased our costs. In the second place there was a large increase in the production of hogs particularly, and also in certain other livestock which I mentioned earlier, and the fact that production will be down 16 per cent this year indicates that the amount of grain which will be required will be reduced.
In addition to that the hon. member perhaps recalls that the board of transport commissioners passed an order not very long ago providing for a decrease of 2 per cent, I believe it was, in these freight rates. This only affects those east of Montreal, but that again will result in some reduction over our costs last year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder if the minister would tell us, as I understand there was $23.5 million paid out last year, into what provinces this assistance went generally?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The amount I mentioned was actually $24.5 million last year. I think I can get a break-down for the hon. member in a moment as to where that sum went by way of provinces. I have not got it at the moment but I will reply to the hon. member after the next question.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word on this vote. The policy of freight assistance to feed grains from one province to another was instituted in 1941, and since that time it has been a bone of contention between both provincial and federal governments. I am referring specifically to the feed grains from the Creston-Wynndel area of British Columbia.
As you are aware, the grain grown in my district comes under the control of the wheat board-that is the grain grown in the Creston-Wynndel area-and they were included in the original order in council. The order in council in question was No. 604 of February 1, 1944, and feed grain subsidies were to be applied when sold under the freight assistance policy.
I would like to give you just a part of the act, as I understand it, as it was at that time.
(1) On western wheat, oats, barley, rye, No. 1 feed screenings or No. 2 feed screenings, whole or ground, wheat bran, wheat shorts or middlings, shipped from points of origin in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba and in that part of British Columbia known as the Peace river district, the Creston and Wynndel areas, and in such other parts of British Columbia as the Canadian wheat board may, from time to time, designate under authority of the governor general in council, to destinations in British Columbia and distributed for use exclusively as feed in British Columbia for Canadian live stock or poultry before July 1, 1942.
Because of the lack of direct transportation, it is felt that the feed grains must be shipped out of the province even though the final destination of the grain is British Columbia. Apparently through an oversight, tariff No. 145 was abolished on July 1, 1951. According to my research on this matter, the preamble to P.C. 604 was incorrect. The government was advised, but no change was made, and when shipments were made from the Creston-Wynndel area the department ruled that such shipments were not eligible for freight assistance in spite of the fact that the Peace river bloc and also the Creston-Wynndel district were to be included and receive the same consideration as prairie points. It does not appear logical to discriminate against our area while at the same time allowing Peace river grains to be included. At that time it was necessary for grains from the Peace river to be shipped into Alberta over the Northern Alberta railways to Edmonton and then back into British Columbia, the ultimate destination being Vancouver. Should we ship direct to Vancouver, freight assistance is not allowed. Up to the present we have been refused this allowance which would enable us to place our feed grains on the Vancouver market, a market which is rightfully ours.

In order to fill the market demand in the lower mainland, we endeavoured to transport by truck. This was found impossible under winter conditions over British Columbia roads, owing to inadequate ferries and high summits. The alternative was to ship in bond by way of the United States routes. This was also blocked by the wheat board claim that such movement constituted an export. Permits were refused. On appeal, the customs department ruled that shipments in bond did not constitute an export.
The matter was again discussed in this house in February of 1957 at which time we were given a sympathetic hearing. It is true that the federal authorities do not have complete control over all the factors involved. Nevertheless, we do have the control necessary to correct this injustice. Legislation has been passed in the British Columbia legislature, particularly under the provisions of the British Columbia feed assistance act, to encourage the shipment of Peace river grains produced in British Columbia and shipped over the Pacific Great Eastern railway. This railway is subsidized and operated by the government. As a result, the taxpayers generally are being called upon to pay for this road, including the taxpayers of the Creston-Wynndel area. To the best of my knowledge this act has not as yet been proclaimed.
There is just one other item I wish to mention. The effect of this legislation has been to place the producers of feed grains in other parts of the province at a disadvantage to the extent of the subsidy or assistance provided in the provincial act. As a specific instance, as of December, 1958 feed grains moved by Pacific Great Eastern railway from St. John in British Columbia to the lower mainland at a rate of 67 cents per 100 pounds less freight assistance of 40 cents per hundred pounds, or $5.40 per ton as against a truck rate from Creston to the same destination of $11.20 per ton, movement by rail being prohibited by the wheat board at that time.
In view of this truck movement outside the control of the wheat board and at a disadvantage of $5.80 per ton to the Creston-Wynndel producer, the Canadian wheat board granted permission for shipment of feed grains on a direct producer-purchaser basis. I quote from a letter from the wheat board which states that advantage was taken by this permission to move feed grains by rail from Creston-Wynndel to interior points in British Columbia, and that producers in the British Columbia Peace river bloc, hearing of this, requested permission to move their feed grains by rail over the

Pacific Great Eastern railway to other British Columbia destinations. The wheat board thereupon granted similar permission to the Peace river producers, subjecting both permissions, however, to certain regulations designed to enable the wheat board to maintain a record of such movements, and to provide that the same would not enter any commercial facility in the designated areas, or be billed to a licensed terminal facility on the west coast of British Columbia.
The federal Department of Agriculture agreed to pay freight assistance on movement of feed grains out of the British Columbia Peace river block into other areas in British Columbia, realizing at last that while this was to create a precedent, it was, to quote their own words "completely illogical to pay freight assistance on British Columbia Peace river feed grains if moved via Alberta, but not if moved directly".
The point I wish to emphasize at this time is this: here we have a small section of British Columbia which is producing approximately 300,000 bushels of feed grain per year. We have put this area under the control of the wheat board, and yet we are not allowed any of the advantages of freight assistance such as are allowed to the Peace river block, though the Peace river block is shipping directly over the subsidized Pacific Great Eastern railway which is paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia and, incidentally, of other parts of Canada. I feel, therefore, that the same assistance should be granted to the Creston-Wynndel area.
On a similar theme, I should like to draw attention to the fact that for the last two or three years there has been a shortage of hay on the prairie provinces, though an excess tonnage of hay was grown in our area. Freight rate subsidies were apparently made available to all other points except points in the Creston valley. I feel that our area should be given the same consideration as other parts of the province. If others are able to ship grain over subsidized provincial railways, then the same measure of assistance should be granted to shipments out of the Creston valley. Freight rates should be made applicable to our area in order that we also may be able to dispose of the surplus hay that we have on hand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The matter which the hon. member for Kootenay East has raised does present a certain anomaly. The basic difficulty in the situation is that federal freight assistance was provided to move feed from the surplus producing areas of the prairies to feed deficit areas in eastern Canada and in British Columbia. It was not intended for
Supply-Agriculture
moving grain within a province, and no such provision was, in fact, made. When this arrangement was put into effect, the Peace river block in British Columbia was served only by the railway going out of Edmonton which meant that any grain shipped came across the interprovincial boundary, and then it went east or west from Edmonton. This constituted no departure from the general principle.
As the hon. member mentioned, once the Pacific Great Eastern railway was connected into the Peace river block it was not good sense to subsidize the shipment of grain by way of Edmonton out to the Fraser valley rather than directly down through British Columbia. On that basis we have been paying a freight subsidy on grain moving from that particular area. However, the basic purpose of this subsidy is to pay part of the cost of the freight so that feeders will be in a better competitive position and to ensure that Canadian grain is used to the greatest possible extent for feeding purposes in Canada.
We are paying freight assistance on grain going from Alberta into the next valley to Creston at the present time. The market for the Creston grain should be handled in that immediate area to which we are shipping grain and not in the Fraser valley and not in Vancouver. The people having grain at Creston should be selling their grain in the immediate vicinity where the cost of transporting the grain to the market would be comparatively small. If we were to pay a subsidy on the grain shipped from Creston to send it to the Fraser valley or to Vancouver for distribution from there we would be shipping the grain out to the coast, paying a freight subsidy on it and at the same time paying a subsidy on other grain being shipped in to the area immediately contiguous to the Creston area which would not be good sense and would create an anomaly.
I merely point out that this is a situation in which there seems to be no completely logical answer. We are still looking at the matter. The whole question of the movement of grain and particularly of the movement of feeds is tied up with the inquiry being carried on at the present time in the agriculture committee. After their report is submitted we may make changes as far as the movement of grains and the subsidy on grains, particularly from the Peace river area, are concerned.
The hon. member for Acadia asked for a break-down on the $24.5 million we paid last year. I do not have figures for the entire year because all the claims are not in and all the payments have not yet been made.

Supp ly-A griculture
The total number of claims paid up until about a week or ten days ago is $21,614,000. That is broken down in the following way:
Province	Amount
British Columbia	 $2,058,000
Ontario	 4,956,000
Quebec	 9,804,000
New Brunswick	 1,392,000
Nova Scotia	 2,194,000
Prince Edward Island	 510,000
Newfoundland	 498,000
Those figures are expressed to the nearest thousand.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay East. I have been raising this question since 1952. As the minister admitted, there is a serious anomaly in the administration of this freight assistance as far as the grain producers in the Creston area are concerned. The minister was right in pointing out that the market is in the east and west Kootenay areas with a considerable market in the coastal area and particularly in the Fraser valley. This present ordinance or form of administration creates an injustice for grain producers in the Creston area and the consumers of these grains in some portions of the Kootenay area and especially livestock and poultry producers.
This matter was discussed by various farmers' institutes and poultry and livestock producers' meetings. They are of the opinion that it is an illogical decision and most unfair.
The minister mentioned that possibly after the agriculture committee reported there could be some examination of the question. I suggest he has not complete information as to the true situation. There should be a thorough examination of the situation in the Creston area and the consumers of these needs of livestock producers in east and west Kootenay and other available markets so that feed and grain producers in the Creston area may be treated the same way as grain producers in the Peace river bloc.
The situation has become more unfair since the grain producers in the Peace river bloc were allowed to ship direct to Vancouver. We do not regret their having this opportunity but think that all grain producers in our province and the consumers of coarse grains should be treated on an equal basis.
The minister mentioned the excess tonnage of hay. I had that brought to my attention by farmers' institutes which had a considerable Surplus of hay last year. They are denied the opportunity of reaching markets because of freight costs particularly in the Arrow lakes district. In that area they have to ship over local facilities. The cost of shipping 25 miles

equals the cost of shipping 300 miles once it gets to the railroad. There should be an inquiry into that situation while the minister's officials are inquiring into the matter of coarse grain marketing.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, this month freight assistance for feed grains was cut off for grains being carried into Canada by United States railways. I can understand the feeling of the government with respect to indirectly subsidizing United States railways but at the same time I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that these cattle men, poultry men and others using feed grains in certain areas in Canada have been discriminated against because their grain now costs them approximately $5 or $6 more to bring it into a place.
There are two towns in my constituency served by the Great Northern railway, Keremeos and Cawston. There is no other facility for transporting grains without transshipment which of course adds to the cost of the grain. I should like to know from the minister if it is possible to have a list of the points in Canada affected by this order. I also urge that consideration be given to the moving of feed grains into areas such as Keremeos and Cawston where there is discrimination. There is no point calling it anything else although I hate to harp on the subject of discrimination. These people pay more for their feed grains and the industry which is affected is in all cases an established industry.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no point I know of that is in the exact position of the one to which the hon. gentleman refers but there are many points in Canada which are not on a railway and grain has to be taken from the nearest railway point to the location where it is used. That is exactly the situation here except that this point happens to be on a United States railway. When the subsidy was paid it cost twice as much to ship via the United States to a certain point than it cost to ship to any other point in British Columbia. This was not a practical situation. The solution to this difficulty and the one at Creston is to transport the grain from Creston to these points in the Okanagan valley and adjacent valleys. This could be done much more cheaply than by the payment of the subsidies requested.


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to add my words to those of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I hope that some form of assistance would apply to grains moving from Creston. Frankly, the grain cannot be moved unless there is a subsidy of one sort or another.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister will realize
from the comments of the three hon. gentlemen who have spoken that this is a matter of some concern. The minister mentioned an investigation. When will we hear about the results of the examination? Will a report be made to the committee or the house? I think it should be followed up and gone into immediately so that everyone will have a clear picture of the situation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must apologize to the hon. member. There were two or three people talking to me about a serious matter and I did not hear the question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I listened to the remarks of the three previous speakers on this question and the concern expressed respecting the various producers. The minister suggested the matter should be examined into. After the matter is examined into-I think it should be done immediately-where would the report be made? We do not want it left in abeyance until the next session of parliament. Will the result of the report be made known to this house, to a committee of the house or to the members of the constituencies particularly concerned? Will the minister inform us what will be done to shed some light on the question at the earliest possible date?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The investigation would
really be an internal matter done by Ottawa officials of the department and the report, as a result, would be an internal report made to me, and then subject to general view by the government.


Mr. Fisher:: How much of this money was paid on grain shipped down through the lake-head?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All of the grain going to eastern Canada would be shipped down through the lakehead.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The subject of cattle feeding at the lakehead has been discussed there. It is understood there are difficulties in the way of taking advantage of this particular subsidy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The subsidy paid is on the movement of grain from the lakehead to points in eastern Canada. Therefore, of course, for grain which was used at the lake-head there would be no subsidy paid naturally, because the grain is already there. The hon. member spoke to me about this matter of feeding facilities being put into operation at the lakehead. In view of the fact there are all kinds of screenings and things of that sort available I would think that it is a straight matter of enterprise on somebody's part to put in an operation of that kind. It would appear from the fact
S up p ly-A griculture
that there are all those screenings and things of that sort, which generally sell at a relatively low price and which can be utilized as feed, the possibility of having a feeding operation at the lakehead should be very good.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What is the situation in regard to the rate of those subsidies in effect in relation to the Crowsnest pass rate? This is for information purposes. What is the scale? Does the grain under this subsidy reach the lakehead much more cheaply than other grain.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The grain reaches the lake-head under Crowsnest pass rate and the subsidy, as I say, is from the lakehead on to eastern Canada. In other words, grain, whether it goes into the export market or whether it is used for feeding purposes within Canada, pays the same rate from the place this grain is grown to the lakehead.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not know that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, this subsidy is paid on the movement of grain, which is used for feeding purposes, from the lakehead to points in eastern Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28.	Agricultural lime assistance, $1,200,000.
Mr. Peters:: People in my area in particular
are very interested in the subvention paid on agricultural lime. The use of lime is increasing. I was wondering whether the increase is taking place in Ontario or in other parts of the country?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The figures for last year as to the amount paid in each province are as follows: Newfoundland, $21,000; Prince Edward Island, $63,000; Nova Scotia, $115,000; New Brunswick, $113,000; Quebec, $745,000; Ontario, $45,000; British Columbia, $52,000. In 1958-59 the same relative figures are $32,900; $53,380; $101,290; $85,690; $740,100; $47,150; $56,820.


Mr, Peters:: It has been brought to my attention by farm organizations in northern Ontario that it would be advantageous to them and to all farmers if this particular subvention could be extended to apply to other forms of fertilizers. As we know, this has been a joint proposition on the part of railway companies, provincial governments and the federal government under which the railways give a deduction in freight rates of 25 per cent, the provincial government pays up to 75 per cent of the reduced freight rate and the federal government assists the provincial government, if asked, to the tune of 60 per cent of the amount that the provincial government pays.

Supply-Agriculture
In southern Ontario there is a limit on the amount per ton allowable. In northern Ontario, where they have been able to take advantage of this assistance, there is no limit.
The act was amended in 1958. It does make allowance for trucking by transport as well as movement by railway. What my people are requesting is that consideration be given to extending this type of assistance to agricultural fertilizer.
In the farming communities of Timiskaming agricultural limestone is a supplement to improve the soil, such as fertilizer would be and the farmers there feel that if this type of assistance could be given to help them to pay freight costs it would' be advantageous to them in the area. They suggest that other types of fertilizer be included in the limestone subvention.
The farmer himself is a conservationist. He will put the assistance he receives back in to the land if he is given the advantage of this subvention. If he is given that type of assistance he will apply it to the land and the whole country will benefit immediately from it. I think the farm organizations, particularly the farm unions, have given consideration to this matter. I am sure they have written the minister requesting the inclusion of other types of fertilizer in this item. In the next year or so will the minister give consideration to extending this item to include commercial fertilizers for agricultural purposes?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is a shared program. We pay up to 60 per cent of the subsidy paid by the provinces, whichever province it might be. The only province that I know of that pays any subsidy for fertilizer is the province of Quebec; therefore, the two things are not on all fours.
There is another reason why there is a difference between the provision of lime and of fertilizer. The provision of lime makes a more permanent improvement in the texture of the soil and so forth; whereas fertilizer produces one crop only. In any event, that is the situation. There are seven provinces that pay a subsidy on lime but only one that pays a subsidy on fertilizer.


William Arnold Peters: Is the province of Quebec included under this legislation? Is the federal government assisting them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, the federal government does not assist in the movement of fertilizer. It is done directly by the province only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

29.	Plant protection division, $1,079,622.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to ask one question. It relates to the possibility of the department of forestry that is to be created expanding its scope to include the forest biology division. If this should take place, and it has been recommended in some quarters, is this the division to which the residue of the science services in this field is likely to go?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it will go to the research branch.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with the agreement of July 25,	1958, relating to the
South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; and land protection, reclamation and development-
31. Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,602,105.
Mr. Forbes:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up too much time of the committee but I should like to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of the farmers of Dauphin federal constituency to the minister for extending the designated boundary of P.F.R.A. to include our area. The farmers of my constituency have for years endeavoured to have the boundaries extended to enable them to benefit by financial assistance toward water dugouts and agricultural engineering to prevent erosion by water and so on.
The minister has also authorized the construction of a community pasture in the federal constituency of Dauphin and the establishment of this community pasture will be of great assistance to our grain farmers in encouraging the raising of livestock and in this way helping to balance the agricultural economy of my constituency. The community pasture project was started about two months ago and something seems to have happened to hold up the work. I hope that the minister will take action to speed up the construction of this pasture within the next few months so as to enable the farmers to benefit from it this year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, with particular regard to land protection, reclamation and development, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a very serious problem affecting some of the farmers in my riding. The problem arises because the waters of the rivers and also of the bay of Chaleur are eroding their farms and causing serious loss. In one particular area known as Charlo we have been trying for many years to get the various responsible departments of the federal government to do something about protecting the farms that are being eroded, some to

such an extent that the farm houses and the barns have had to be moved back two or three hundred feet in order that they will not be completely washed away or damaged beyond repair.
In Madawaska county the same problem exists with regard to the Saint John river. At places like Clair the river is eroding the farms. I feel that the minister could very well direct the department-I am sure he will be happy to do so-to make a serious study of this matter at this time. I think it comes under this heading. I would think that the amount of money to be voted here is sufficient for the purpose of having a serious investigation made of this ever-increasing problem in my riding.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This particular vote has to do with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and under that act, of course, there is no authority to carry on operations in the maritime provinces. However, there is a following vote having to do with the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act under which we have done a great deal of reclamation work. At the present time, as the hon. member probably knows, we have in the course of preparation a full-scale conservation conference with all the provinces in order to work out a soil and water conservation program for all of Canada under which matters such as he has mentioned would be taken into account.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize that my remarks would apply more properly to vote No. 33. However, we may not be able to get that far and that is the reason I have brought up the matter at this time.


William Arnold Peters: How extensive are the plans and how far have they progressed with respect to the irrigation and reclamation that will be possible when the South Saskatchewan dam is finished? I presume that work is now going forward on irrigation connected with that project and I am curious to know how much land will be reclaimed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The total amount of land which can be irrigated as a result of the South Saskatchewan dam is estimated at 500,000 acres. It will be quite a number of years before all that land can be irrigated. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we rise and report progress.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



THE LATE GORDON KNAPMAN FRASER


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense
The late Gordon K. Fraser of personal loss that I rise for the purpose of advising the house of the passing of one of our fellow members, Gordon Fraser. This morning he served in his capacity as chairman of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. This afternoon he passed away.
He first came into the House of Commons in 1940 and was re-elected five times since. In every field of public service Gordon Fraser gave of his best. He did so unostentatiously. He helped those who needed help and he let no one know what he had done.
It is difficult to find words to express the feelings of hon. members in all parts of the house at the passing of one with a wonderful disposition and a warm heart. During the days of war he participated a great deal in debate but in the last few years he devoted himself to a greater extent than previously to those responsibilities in committee that are of such great importance in any democratic institution such as ours.
While he had strong opinions and on occasion expressed himself strongly he conducted himself in a way that represents to all of us the epitome of parliament: he never wounded when he disagreed. We shall miss him. Each of us will feel a sense of personal loss.
To his widow, his two daughters and his son I express the heartfelt sympathy, not only of members of the party to which he gave his allegiance but I know that hon. members in other parts of the house will join in tribute to one who lived and passed away in harness. In his day and generation, he made the best contribution he could, with the unusual capabilities he possessed, not only for his own province but for Canada as a whole.
I suggest that, after the other tributes have been paid to him, the house might feel constrained to adjourn for the rest of this day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is always difficult, Mr. Speaker, to know what to say on a sad and indeed tragic occasion like this. It is particularly difficult today because of the sudden shock that we have received. It seems to me that these sudden and tragic occasions are occurring all too frequently in the House of Commons. In a way, perhaps, they reflect the stress and strain under which members work in these difficult days when they are trying to serve their country in parliament.
Gordon Fraser was a friend of all of us, especially those of us who have been some years in the House of Commons. I had a special bond of friendship with him which transcended party differences in that among other things we both had the privilege of living in the same two cities of Ontario, name-

The late Gordon K. Fraser ly Hamilton and Peterborough. I should like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) in paying tribute to the modesty, sincerity, devotion and ability which he displayed in serving his community, his province and his country in this house over so many years.
I know how much he will be missed. It was only a few hours ago that I was discussing with him a trip that I am making to Peterborough next week to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the public school I once attended there. He told me that he would not be on hand, that he would be across the ocean in England. As I left him in the corridor I remember saying, "Well, Gordon, I will say a good word for you". This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I can still say a good word for him; but also my words must be those of shock and grief at this sudden tragedy.
I want to join with my colleagues on this side of the house in the sympathy the Prime Minister has expressed to Mrs. Fraser and the family, and to tell him that we also sympathize with him and his colleagues in the loss they have sustained. I know that will be particularly the case with the older members on the other side of the house who worked and served with Gordon when he was on this side of the house. They will perhaps miss him more than any of us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, these sad but inevitable occasions cause us all to experience a sense of shock and of sorrow, something which I believe demonstrates our common humanity regardless of our differences of opinion on many questions.
The members of this group extend to Mrs. Fraser and the family our sincere and deepest sympathy. These sad occasions which divert us from consideration of the matters of the moment give us cause for a brief time to sense the eternal. Gordon Fraser will be long remembered by all of us as a friend and as a colleague who was loved. He had a constant devotion to duty, and for this quality of character was respected sincerely by all who have known him throughout the years. We join the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in expressing our extreme sorrow at this sudden passing of our colleague and friend.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should be remiss in not paying a few words of tribute to the man who has just passed away so suddenly, and whom a good many of us saw at work, no later than this morning, in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
All members of that committee knew the fairness and spirit of justice with which Mr. Fraser presided over its work. This morning, after the committee adjourned, I was wishing him "bon voyage" to England-he was to leave next Wednesday-and told him that after his return, we might look into other aspects of the matter we had been discussing.
He seemed in good health, and I thought -like everyone here, I am sure-that next Tuesday's meeting would resume under his chairmanship.
Everyone knew him as a generous, conscientious and honest man in every respect, and particularly in politics. To what the Prime Minister said a moment ago, I merely wish to add that, while our late colleague had strong opinions, he always expressed them with great courtesy. To his widow and children, we offer our sincere condolences.
(Text):


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wenlworth):: It is rather a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that we should be seat mates because we attended Highfield school in Hamilton together over 50 years ago. We have always been the best of friends; in fact, we nearly always had lunch together in the building. All I can say at this time is that I have lost one of my best friends.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to adopt the suggestion of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we adjourn our proceedings for the rest of this day in respect for the memory of our colleague?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.12 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put.