1961-05-31

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways used the services of Mellon National Bank and Trust Co. (Pittsburgh, Pa.) or its agents at any time within the past three years?
2.	If so, for what purposes, and at what cost to the C.N.R.?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The answer to parts 1 and 2 is that from 1928 until 1959, in which year the local traffic office was closed, a bank account was maintained to handle the normal business transactions in connection with that office.



DOUBLE DEPRECIATION AREAS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 364
Mr. Martin (Essex East):: 1.	How many communities have applied to the government to be classed as "double depreciation areas"?
2.	How many such applications have been accepted?
3.	What are the names of the communities which have been accepted in the "double depreciation" category?
4.	What communities have applied and not been accepted?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that by "double depreciation areas" the hon. member means surplus manpower areas or localities under the special capital cost allowances program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct.


Richard Devere Thrasher: The answers are as follows:
1.	The Department of Labour has received applications from 36 areas or localities for designation as surplus manpower areas or localities under the special capital cost allowances program.
2.	As of May 24, 1961, four areas and one locality had been declared eligible under the special capital cost allowances program.
3.	The areas served by the following offices of the national employment service have been
declared eligible under the special capital cost allowances program: Cornwall, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Elliot Lake, Ontario; New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. The locality of Grand Falls-St. Leonard, New Brunswick, has been declared eligible under the special capital cost allowances program.
4.	Following a review of employment and unemployment conditions, it has been found that St. Jerome, Quebec; Richmond, Quebec and Jacques Cartier, Quebec, do not qualify under the criteria announced by the Minister of Labour on March 2, 1961.



JASPER PARK LODGE


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does Jasper Park lodge accept reservations only from people of the "white" race?
2.	If not, has it any record of guests during the regular seasons of 1959 and 1960 who were of other than the "white" race?
3.	Does Jasper Park lodge accept guests who arrive without reservation?
4.	In the seasons 1959 and 1960, was Jasper park lodge always filled to capacity?
5.	Have Canadian National Railways agents in Canada or the United States of America any code word or code arrangement for use in messages to the Jasper Park lodge asking for reservations which indicate the colour of the person seeking space?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	No.



PROVINCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 367
Mr. Creaghan:: 1.	How many provinces assist municipalities by making financial contributions to the federal municipal winter works incentive program?
2.	What provinces, and-to what extent do they, supplement the federal grant of 50 per cent of the labour costs for approved municipal winter works projects?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the two parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Seven.
2.	British Columbia: 25 per cent of direct payroll costs.
Alberta: 25 per cent of direct payroll costs.
Saskatchewan: 25 per cent of direct payroll costs.

Starred Questions
Manitoba: (a) 25 per cent of direct payroll costs in respect of unemployed persons not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit; (b) 50 per cent of direct payroll costs in respect of unemployed persons who have been in receipt of social allowances from the province for a continuous period of 90 days.
Ontario: 25 per cent of direct payroll costs.
Quebec: 40 per cent of direct payroll costs.
Prince Edward Island: 25 per cent of direct payroll costs.



GREENWOOD, N.S.    TENDERS FOR HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Tucker: 1.	Have tenders been solicited for the building of 200 housing units at Greenwood, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the amount of each tender, and did a firm located in Nova Scotia receive this contract?
3.	Have any provisions been made in the contract to use local labour?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Public tenders were called for 200 housing units at Greenwood and closed May 16.
2.	The amount of each tender was as follows: Dell Construction Co. Ltd., Toronto, $1,978,373.39; Eastern Woodworkers Ltd., New Glasgow, $2,095,154.04; Atlas Construction Co. Ltd., Fredericton, $2,209,729.95; Community Enterprises Ltd., Mount Royal, $2,236,848,33; M. F. Schurman Co. Ltd., Summerside, $2,263,375.67; Barker Construction Co. Ltd., London, $2,271,866.00.
No contract has as yet been awarded.
3.	The contract will contain a provision that local labour be given preference.



C.N.R. HIGHWAY OPERATIONS, MONTREAL

Mr. Valade: 1.	Will the C.N.R. soon complete the highway operations undertaken in the tunnel connecting the Acadie and Persillier boulevards in Montreal?
2.	What are the reasons given for the delay in the completion of such operations which were started during the summer of 1960?
3.	On May 19, 1961, did the C.N.R. or its staff have on the work site, on this line, two power shovels No. 78 and 79, and a bulldozer No. CN-584?
4.	If so, why was work suspended during May 19, 1961, before regular work quitting time?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the four parts of this question the management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	By June 2 it is anticipated that a sufficient portion of the temporary trestle work will have been removed to permit the city of Montreal to commence paving of the street and sidewalks.
2.	Work on this complex project has proceeded in accordance with the railway's
[Mr. Thrasher.1
construction schedule. Upon completion of a temporary trestle diversion on December 8, 1960, the contractor began construction of the permanent subway. Following the normal one month curing period of the structure, the railway commenced operations thereover on May 12.
3 and 4. On Friday, May 19, certain equipment was moved onto the site for testing and adjustment only. This was preparatory to its utilization by construction forces on Tuesday, May 23. At 7.30 a.m. May 23, demolition of the temporary trestle was commenced.



URBAN REHABILITATION STUDY, MONTREAL   FEDERAL GRANT

Mr. Valade: What amount has been granted by the federal government for research work with respect to a contemplated study of an urban rehabilitation project in the city of Montreal, and who was appointed to do the economic research in this connection?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
In March, 1959 the city of Montreal requested a grant from the federal government to cover approximately one half of the cost of carrying out an urban renewal study in the area bounded by Craig, Bleury and Sherbrooke streets and St. Laurent boulevard. A grant in the amount of $15,000 was subsequently approved by the federal government. The study was conducted under the general direction of the town planning service of the city of Montreal.
In September, 1960 the city requested two further grants from the federal government to cover part of the cost of two further urban renewal studies. The first study was to cover the overall area of the city of Montreal and the second study was to cover an area south of Lafontaine park bounded by St. Laurent boulevard, Sherbrooke street, Delorimier avenue and the St. Lawrence river. Two grants were subsequently approved by the federal government, the first in the amount of $63,750 and the second in the amount of $37,500. The city retained the services of the firm Economic Research Corporation Limited for the comprehensive study and the firm of Quebec Land Research Company Limited for the specific area study.



UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT STATISTICS

Mr. Lessard: 1.	What was the number ol unemployed drawing unemployment benefits for the following months: End of March and April 1960, and end of March and April 1961?
2.	What was the number of unemployed applicants registered with the national employment offices for the same periods?

3.	From January to the end of April 1961, how many unemployed drawing unemployment benefits had used up their benefits?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the first two parts of this question, in tabulated form, are as follows:
1.	No. of active claimants at
March 31	
No. of active claimants at April 30	
2.	No. of unplaced applicants
registered for employment in national employment
offices at March 31	
No. of unplaced applicants registered for employment in national employment offices at April 30	
1960	1961
823,005	837,961
714,894	713,147
1960	1961
834,990	864,016
756,432	767,791
The answer to the third part of the question is not available.



MOTOR TRUCK TENDERS, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, NEW GRAFTON, N.S.

Mr. Granger: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries circulate tenders for a 1961 motor truck for use by the department at Kejimkujik F.C. Station, New Grafton, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, to whom were such tenders circulated, what was the amount of each bid, and what is the name of the successful tenderer?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) (1) Rossignol Sales Ltd., Liverpool, N.S.; (2) Hebb Motors Ltd., Bridgewater, N.S.; (3) Bridgewater Motors Ltd., Bridgewater' N.S.; (4) Lunenburg Motors, Lunenburg, N.S.; (5) Donal Cornelius, Blandford, R.R. 1, Hubbards, N.S.; (6) Mahone Auto Service, Mahone Bay, N.S.; (7) Bluenose Motors, Lunenburg, N.S.; (8) Saunders Motors, Bridgewater, N.S.; (9) Milford's Garage, Liverpool, N.S.; (10) Silver's Garage, Bridgewater, N.S.; (11) Earl Whynot, Liverpool, N.S.
The information for the last two parts of the second section of the question is not yet available.



SURPLUS MANPOWER AREAS


Mr. Pitman: 1.	On what date did the cities of Cornwall and Windsor apply for designation as surplus manpower areas?
2.	On what dates were their applications accepted?
3.	What is the size of the labour force in these two cities?
4.	What was the percentage of months, between May and November between 1953 and 1960, during which these cities had surplus manpower available?
Motions for Papers
5.	(a) Was this the same percentage as can be determined by examining the Labour Gazette during these months? (b) if not, what difference in computation in assessing a surplus manpower area has been adopted for the purpose of determining whether a city should be so designated?
6.	(a) Have any other centres applied for such designation beyond the 28 centres already given? (b) if so, what are the names of these centres?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, because of the great deal of detailed information required in this answer it should be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


SURPLUS MANPOWER AREAS


Mr. Pitman: 1.	On what date did the cities of Cornwall and Windsor apply for designation as surplus manpower areas?
2.	On what dates were their applications accepted?
3.	What is the size of the labour force in these two cities?
4.	What was the percentage of months, between May and November between 1953 and 1960, during which these cities had surplus manpower available?
5.	(a) Was this the same percentage as can be determined by examining the Labour Gazette during these months? (b) if not, what difference in computation in assessing a surplus manpower area has been adopted for the purpose of determining whether a city should be so designated?
6.	(a) Have any other centres applied for such designation beyond the 28 centres already given? (b) if so, what are the names of these centres?



R.C.A.F.-FLYING PAY

Mr. Argue: 1.	On May 1 of each year from 1950 to 1961 inclusive, how many persons, by ranks, in the Royal Canadian Air Force were drawing flying pay (a) as pilots (b) as non-pilots (c) while on squadron duty (d) while not on squadron duty?
2.	How many squadrons of aircraft did the R.C.A.F. have on each date given in question 1?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 134-Mr. Deschaielels:
For a copy of the complete list of passenger railway lines, where reductions have taken place since July 1, 1957, as to service, schedules, and equipment, by the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
(Translation):
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the hon. member and have explained to him that the railway companies are required to notify the board of transport commissioners when actual discontinuance of train service is proposed, but that the railways

Inquiries of the Ministry are not required to advise the board when only reductions in service or changes in schedules or equipment are proposed. The information called for in the motion not being on record with the board, I believe the hon. member is prepared to drop his motion.
I might add that I shall be tabling today or tomorrow the return to the order of the house which was passed recently on motion of the hon. member having to do with train services that have been discontinued since July 1, 1957.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: The answer is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion dropped.



URBAN REHABILITATION STUDY, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 135-Mr. Valade:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the authorities of the city of Montreal and the federal government with respect to a contemplated study of an urban rehabilitation project in the city of Montreal.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to referring the Columbia river treaty between Canada and the United States to the standing committee on external affairs for examination, pending the completion of negotiations between the government of British Columbia and the federal government.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has given no consideration to this suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, while negotiations are going on I think it would be most improper to have this matter considered by a committee.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of reports to the effect that the Minister of Justice is proceeding to British Columbia, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the minister intends to have another meeting with the premier of British Coulmbia with respect to this question.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the international wheat agreement will expire next year and some discussions have been going on among agricultural organizations of many countries, I wonder whether the minister could inform the house whether the Canadian government has as yet taken part in any preliminary discussions on a new international wheat agreement, and whether Canada is supporting such an agreement if it is satisfactory.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a signatory to the international wheat agreement and as such is a member of the international wheat council. Members of the civil service of the government of Canada are on the continuing committees of the international wheat council. Frequent meetings of these committees are being held. It may interest the hon. member to know that the international wheat council itself meets in London at the end of June. Canada certainly has every reason to continue its support of the international whea-agreement.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CANADIAN


[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 report that two Canadian trade commissioners, a Mr. Forsythe Smith and a Mr. Small, have been on a mission and have made quite a tour of China. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether this was a regular visit, or part of the increased efforts of the minister and his department to increase Canadian trade with various countries.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this involves an increased effort carried out in a regular way.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is an increased effort, but could the minister report any concrete results from this mission, or have any been obtained?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have not received that information as yet.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance based on today's daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics, which indicates that for the first quarter of the present calendar year the sale of new passenger and commercial vehicles had declined by over 10 per cent.
My question is, in view of this will the minister table at the earliest possible date the Bladen report covering the inquiry into conditions in the automobile industry? At the same time, in view of the possibility of our having a budget before the end of this year, 1961, will the minister give us an assurance that among the things he will recommend will be the elimination-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -of the excise tax on automobiles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the latter part of the question relating to fiscal policy is not one that is ordinarily entertained, but the other part might be dealt with.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the observations of the hon. gentleman, which of course is the only part that is proper, as he well knows, I may say the Prime Minister has already made it clear to the house, in reply to repeated questions of the hon. member and others, that the Bladen report will be made available at the earliest appropriate time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have had it a long time now. Is it not about time we had it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You had a lot of
things for 22 years and you did nothing useful. You imposed this tax.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Don't be so touchy.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government aware that the Kennedy administration has reduced the F.H.A. ceiling to 5J per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would start again. There
Inquiries of the Ministry was a certain amount of conversation and I regret that I was unable to hear his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was a monologue by the Minister of Finance.


John Richard Garland: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has an air of familiarity. Is it not the same question the hon. member asked on a previous occasion?


John Richard Garland: No, Mr. Speaker, it is based on a recent news release.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the same interest rate that the hon. member is inquiring about. May I say that it is in order to ask a question which suggests that action be taken by the government, but I suggest to the hon. member that it would not be in order to repeat the same suggestion every day, or even every other day; there should at least be an interval.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, do you not think one ought to be allowed to pursue this matter until the government does take some action?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is an opportunity to debate these matters; that is when the house normally presents its views to the government.
As I have said, an occasional reminder is not out of order, but the time of the house at this period should not be used or abused by repetition.



NATIONAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received the invitation, which seems to have been widely circulated among members of parliament in the last 24 hours, to hear one of his employees, Dr. Marcel Chaput, address a meeting to be held in Hull tonight in favour of secession or separation for a portion of the Canadian nation?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such invitation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister approve of such political activities on the part of a civil servant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now asking the minister to express an opinion in regard to something which is not within Ms departmental responsibility.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I should perhaps answer that question by saying that I disapprove of political activity on the part of civil servants, period.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, following a question asked on Thursday last on orders of the day concerning lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways at Moncton, the hon. member for Essex East asked a supplementary question regarding a cut in railway employment at North Bay.
I inquired of the management of the Canadian National Railways in this respect, and they are unable to identify those reports of lay-offs at North Bay as relating to the Canadian National Railways. As the hon. member knows, there is another railway serving North Bay and the reports may have concerned that railway; but as it is a private company, my hon. friend will appreciate that it is not within my jurisdiction.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the particular interest of this group in the preservation of national historic sites which represent our struggle for independence, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the Prime Minister's assurance, given to the house on January 25, 1960 that the preservation of Battlefield park in Stoney Creek as a national historic site would receive immediate attention and consideration, and in view of the imminent despoilation of this site by the erection of a housing development, could the Prime Minister assure the house that immediate action will be taken by the federal government to acquire the land about to fall into the hands of a subdivision contractor, and thus preserve the historic site for posterity?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for
Northern Affairs and National Resources,

under whose jurisdiction the subject matter falls, might comment in response to the hon. member's rather lengthy question.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to inform the hon. member for Kootenay West that the government has been very active in this matter. I have been kept closely informed by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has a particular interest in this site, as well as by the hon. member for Wentworth. Actually the Stoney Creek battle site is a national historic site. It was declared to be such in 1913, at which time the federal government erected a monument, and has since been maintaining that monument. The Wentworth historical society has also been very active in maintaining the site, and has made a particularly worth-while contribution in the maintenance of Gage House.
In view of the pending encroachment referred to by the hon. member, the chief of the historic sites division, Mr. Herbert, met with a local group last fall and a specific offer to purchase was made. Unfortunately there is an option held by a subdivider to purchase the land concerned. It is not the policy of the historic sites division to compete with subdividers' prices. This problem is recognized by the local people, with the result that a local committee has now been formed under the chairmanship of the mayor of Hamilton, and it hopes to resolve all these local difficulties so as to be in a position to make specific proposals to the historic sites division.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope the minister realizes that there are members of other parties who would be willing to subscribe to any fund to retain this site.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked if I had received a petition from fishermen of certain parts of Newfoundland, and I should like at this time to inform him that no formal petition has yet been received by the Department of Fisheries in respect of the areas referred to in the question. However, we are fully aware of the situation in the area, as a result of correspondence, and we have been attempting to resolve the problem on an equitable basis.
The fact of the matter is that there are two groups of fishermen involved. One group represents strongly that fishermen should be permitted to fish with cod trawlers and

draggers, or more modern gear, while the other group represents that the area should be reserved exclusively for hand lining. The officials of the department have made several proposals to adjust the situation on the basis of reservation of smaller areas for hand lining. So far these suggestions have not met with the complete approval of all fishermen. Efforts are being conducted to find a satisfactory solution to the problem.
There is no prohibition contained in the fisheries regulations for Newfoundland under the Fisheries Act against fishing in these areas with gear other than that used by large trawlers. Present regulations in this regard were made effective with the full support of many of the fishermen in the areas, in order to permit full exploitation of the fisheries in the locality.


Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Am I correct in assuming that the minister has authority, under the present Fisheries Act, to deal with this problem?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[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 National Health and Welfare arising out of reported criticism in Australia in respect to 200,000 doses of Salk vaccine which were shipped by the Connaught laboratories to that country a month ago. Could the minister say whether or not batches of these 200,000 doses were tested in the laboratory of hygiene here in Ottawa as well as at Connaught laboratories?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I saw mention of this situation in an article appearing in the newspaper. I am having my officials look into the situation to see if every precaution was taken in this case, as is taken in every other case, and I am sure the results will show that every precaution was taken.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a report regarding the serious flood
Inquiries of the Ministry damage in New Brunswick which has occurred in the last three or four days, and which still exists? Will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the provision of some measure of financial assistance to those individuals who have suffered serious damage and, in many cases, have lost all their worldly goods?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has supplemented what appears in the press regarding this catastrophe which struck the area in New Brunswick to which he refers. I am sure I speak for all Canadians when I express the deepest sympathy.
With regard to the second portion of his question, there have been certain principles generally followed throughout the years with reference to federal assistance in matters such as this. They are: The damage done must be beyond the competence of the provincial government or the municipal authorities to handle. In other words the financial loss must be of such a magnitude as to be beyond their financial resources. Furthermore, an application must be made by the provincial government for assistance. No such application has been made, and I presume that the loss suffered is regarded as being of such a nature as can be readily met by the provincial government. However, the matter will be looked into and the hon. gentleman may rest assured that where it is established there is federal responsibility, it will naturally be followed by action.
The Minister of National Defence points out that assistance has been asked from that department and that the army is putting up a bridge as a result of the request.



INQUIRY AS TO QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Agriculture gave the house some statistics on grain quotas in western Canada. Since the crop year has only another two months to go, I wonder whether the minister can inform the house in a general way what the quota objective will be after July 31, and whether in his opinion a general equitable quota can be reached so that all producers may have an opportunity to deliver an equal amount of grain; and I am thinking particularly of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the question of quotas is constantly in the minds of all farmers in western Canada. A week ago we had a meeting of the wheat board with the advisory
5644	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development board representing the farm organizations present, at which quotas for this year were discussed. It was agreed unanimously by the advisory board that the first objective was to accelerate the sales of wheat from western Canada. The second objective was to equalize the quotas as far as it was humanly possible to do so. Last year, for the first time in the history of quotas, we were able to equalize all the quotas in western Canada at 7 bushels with the exception of 43 points. With the amount of grain now sold and available for export, I think it can be accepted that this year certainly the figure of 7 bushels would not be impossible to meet.
I should like to warn the hon. member that the difficulties we now face with respect to box cars and shipping are still causing a great deal of trouble. I give this assurance to the hon. member and to all western farmers; that just as we equalized the quotas very successfully last year, every effort will be made this year to see that each shipping point gets a real 7 bushel quota.



AGRICULTURE


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not too usual in the history of the Canadian parliament for a minister to speak on his own bill on third reading. There are special reasons why I chose this course today.
I am sure that day must be a happy one for the Prime Minister, because it was he who in the days when he was in opposition enunciated the policy that in Canada there should be a national development program of which agriculture should be the basic cornerstone. This bill, the third reading of which I have just moved, is one of a series of five major steps by the present government over the past four years to put into legislative effect the ideas expressed by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. Those ideas are not the product of just one person; they are the results of years of representations by farm organizations and farmers themselves; they are the results of years of study and discussion by intellectuals among the farm movement in trying to grapple with what was always pending, namely a very serious difficulty in the industry of agriculture.
I am very pleased that so many members of the house participated in the debate which 

started with the introduction of the legislation in December and dragged on until now, the last day of May, 1961. I am pleased because it indicates to me as the minister that many members realize just how this bill will beneficially affect not only their ridings but the regions in which they live, and eventually will affect the whole country. As I mentioned on second reading, I am pleased that the reaction across the country has been so good because, as I said in reply to the hon. member for Greenwood, the essence of the success of this legislation will depend on its educational aspects. I am going to quote for the records of the house a report dated May 26. It is taken from the "Ottawa report on agriculture", which is a weekly news analysis, featuring farm policy. This report goes out to all editors and leaders of farm thought in Canada:
In closing the debate this week, on second reading of the A.R.D.A. bill, agriculture minister Hamilton indicated that he is ready to take action under the legislation as soon as it is approved. He reported holding discussions with the farm-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it is not regular to quote from dispatches or reports which reflect on or deal with what has taken place in this house. Even though the report is favourable the same rule applies.


Hazen Robert Argue: Skip the propaganda.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much. I will simply say that the interruption of the hon. member for Assiniboia is really the reason I am making this speech on third reading, together with the type of opposition we have had.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no opposition to this bill.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the debate on this A.R.D.A. bill, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to rouse a discussion in the House of Commons similar to that which we have had across the country in the farm organizations.
I have said here I am pleased with the evidence that many individual farmers have realized what this can do for their particular regions. What I am not pleased about is that the opposition has failed in its function to criticize this bill constructively as to principle and objectives. When we were at the resolution stage I joined with the two opposition parties in asking the chairman to let us discuss the measure within the framework of the whole agricultural policy, because only by discussing this bill in relation

to the other measures of the government under its national agricultural program can the purpose of this bill be understood.
I do not pose as a person who thinks he knows more about everything than everybody else. I am quite conscious of the fact that at great moments in our history it is sometimes very difficult to lift up legislative bodies in this and other countries to the significance of what is being done. I well remember reading of the historic occasion when the British North America Act was being discussed in the House of Commons in Great Britain. The bill went through in a matter of seven minutes, I believe, but following its passage there was a two-day debate on dog licences. Sometimes this seems to be the type of thing in which opposition members take a real interest.
So far as this very important bill is concerned, I say to the opposition that they have failed to criticize the bill constructively and I am put in the position where I have to stand up and point out what are the real dangers in this legislation and the risks that must be taken by the government of Canada and the provincial governments in meeting these dangers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't be so modest.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The opposition have failed to realize that today not only in Canada and the United States but all through the western world and in some parts of the Asiatic world the growth of technology is so rapid and so effective that countries which were once in a deficit position with respect to food production can now look forward, if they have not already reached this point, to being surplus food producing countries.
This was the real heart of the bill, which was part of the four or five point program to get at this fundamental difficulty. We have had discussions with the secretaries in the United States, and they agree with us that our fundamental approach to this bill is sound and right. They are following an intermediate course under a new policy of raising prices on fewer units of production from each farm. In other words, they are trying to bring an end to the intensive cultivation brought about as a result of previous support policies by putting forward different policies that will reward the farmers if they produce fewer units; or in plain terms, instead of paying subsidies on the basis of acreage reduction they are now giving subsidies on the basis of unit reduction of production.
Here is the challenge before us. Can we as a nation in this twentieth century face up to a fact which has been made clear to us over the last 25 or 35 years, that technology has now outpaced the demand for food for domestic consumption and for export to such
Marginal Lands Development a degree that the level of income of farmers is being forced downward and downward, no matter how efficient they become both in production and in organizing their distribution to meet this challenge. We are in this race between technology and the finding of proper uses for land. The agricultural rehabilitation and development bill in my opinion hits at the core of this problem better than any other legislation of which I am aware, not only on this continent but in western Europe.
The bill is tied in not only with the government's accelerated marketing program, which has not only brought about greater distribution of our goods within the country but also abroad, and with some success, I might say; it is also tied in with our policy of stabilization of prices, with our policy of encouraging the organization of groups of farmers to enter into crop insurance schemes on a voluntary basis not only for cereal crops but for special crops as well. It is tied in with the main gun in our arsenal, the farm credit corporation program which will provide farmers who are on reasonably good land with the opportunity to get capital in order to make full use of that land in traditional agriculture. It is tied in with the resources for tomorrow program coming forward this fall.
I had hoped that the opposition would take this bill, discuss it in the light of these other things we are doing and ask questions as to how it would fill the gap. At the resolution stage I did my best to point out that according to the 1956 census, 120,000 farmers had incomes of less than $1,200 a year, and that this was a challenge to us to try to do something that would not only help them increase their incomes but at the same time would give an opportunity to the other 70 per cent of the farmers of Canada who are on land that can return a good living.
This is the challenge that I put before the House of Commons. I had hoped that it would inspire not only from members of the opposition but from all members a thorough discussion of what the government was trying to do and whether this was the right way to go about it. So far, Mr. Speaker, no one has mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been following the minister with a good deal of attention, and I am asking myself whether his remarks are appropriate on third reading. The subject matter before the house on third reading is the bill itself as it has come out of the committee, and not the debate which would take place on second reading, when the principles of the bill and other possibilities were under consideration. We have now reached the point

Marginal Lands Development where we have a bill that has been approved in committee, and the terms of the bill itself are the only appropriate subject of discussion.
I do not like to interrupt the minister or circumscribe his speech, but in listening to what he has been saying I thought perhaps he was overlooking that limitation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I have failed to make it clear that I am discussing the bill I accept that failure as due to my own inability. The question that must be in the minds of farmers throughout the country is whether this three-fold program, the alternative land use program described in clause 2, the rural development program described in clause 3 and the soil and water conservation program described in clause 4, meets the over-all problem of making the best use of our land and at the same time fits in with the actual marketing situation as we see it in the world. If the bill does not meet these problems, then it is subject to proper criticism. My main point today is that I had hoped that during the long weeks of discussion members would take the bill and give me their thoroughly considered opinions whether the alternative land use concept related to marketing and I believe this is the first time such a concept has ever appeared in any legislation, certainly in the western hemisphere-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What	about
Ontario?


Hazen Robert Argue: What about P.F.R.A.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What	about
P.F.A.A.? Such propaganda.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The interup-tions of the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Essex East indicate the depth of their ignorance as to what this bill is doing. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, that great piece of legislation, was brought in in 1934 and passed in 1935, and has done a great deal to rehabilitate the prairies over the last 25 years. As part of the concept of this bill we are transferring the principles of P.F.R.A. to the whole country under clause 4 of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask the minister a question. When he says they are transferring some of the principles or the principle of P.F.R.A. to this legislation, does it follow that the provisions of P.F.R.A. will not be maintained and that by this means the federal government will try to foist the larger part of the financial responsibility on the provinces?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member knows that I have answered this question on two occasions during the previous debate. I repeat that in the concept in clause 4, which

relates to agreements for soil and water conservation projects, we seek to establish in all parts of Canada the same type of operation we have had under P.F.R.A. We are endeavouring to establish equality between what may be received by farmers in all parts of Canada and what has been received by those on the prairies in the last 25 years. The principles of financing will certainly follow the precedent of P.F.R.A. Under P.F.R.A. during the last two years we have been moving increasingly in the direction of joint operations between the federal and provincial governments on a 50-50 basis. This is supported by the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, who gave evidence before the Senate land use committee.
We have introduced what we consider is an important bill. All that hon. members of the opposition can do is snipe and ask if I have not heard of P.F.R.A. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that I witnessed the birth of P.F.R.A. when it was planned by a committee composed of western members. I saw its commencement and am aware of what it can do. That legislation was endorsed and supported by hon. members who were familiar with the unfortunate circumstance of drought. It is a valuable act. If there is anything that can be said to be to the credit of the previous government in 22 years of administration it is the action taken in broadening the scope of that act. We are simply attempting to apply those broad principles all across Canada; but that is only a small portion of the value of this legislation.
There has been no discussion of the theory of alternative land use as related to markets. I have exchanged ideas on this subject with businessmen and farmers in small towns across the country. I am aware that in small towns throughout Canada groups of businessmen, professional people and farmers have gathered together to plan programs to raise the income level of farmers in those areas.
The big question confronting the government is this. Can we as a government, supported by provincial governments across Canada, move fast enough under alternative land use programs to shift that land into uses that will provide a greater return to the farmer; and, in so doing, can we move quickly enough to stay ahead of the technological process that is taking place in building up production on farms which are not marginal? That is the key issue.
If I could venture a prediction I would say that the speed with which we move will be the $64 question in terms of whether or not the program envisaged by this legislation will be successful. The question is, can governments working in co-operation gather together sufficient information quickly enough and

draft programs of alternative land use that will provide increased returns, and also keep ahead of the rising production of the good land areas and give the farmer on the good land a market for his product at a reasonable price? This has been the fundamental weakness of the price structure in agriculture for the last 20 years. To my knowledge this is the first time an effort of this kind has been made by a government in this part of the world in going out on a limb, as it were, by putting its full weight behind a program of alternative land use related to markets.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense. What about the province of Ontario?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: An alternative land use program is altogether different from P.F.R.A., which has as its objective, the drainage and storage of water to increase productivity. Alternative land use involves taking land presently in use but not providing the farmer a good living and discovering an alternative use for it that will provide a better living to the farmer.
I could proceed to discuss this bill at great length. I simply wished to take the opportunity on third reading to say to the men and women all across Canada with whom I have discussed this program during the last few months that I appreciate their support for this bill. I appreciate their understanding of the tremendous effort we are expending under the alternative land use program. I appreciate their promise of support in assisting in rural development projects in communities. I wish to let them know that the understanding we reached did not fall on barren ground.
I had hoped to bring this measure before the house and inspire hon. members to the same intensity, sincerity and depth of discussion that I encountered all across Canada. Naturally I may be impatient that there has been little discussion in this chamber of the broad fundamentals. I know that as an ordinary member of parliament one must be interested in moving stones and stumps on a farm to improve conditions in a local area. I know there has to be an individual approach to this question at the constituency level on the part of hon. members. I had hoped, however, that among the leaders of the opposition parties there would have been an appreciation of what this program is aimed at accomplishing. I do not suppose I had any right to expect hon. gentlemen opposite to view it as part of a broad national agricultural program, as an important foundation stone of our national development policy.
Without the support of foundation stones at the four corners of this agricultural program we are building, the structure would
Marginal Lands Development not sit squarely. We believe that in A.R.D.A. we are providing an important foundation stone in Canadian agricultural policy. It is my feeling and hope that this measure will go down in the history of Canadian agricultural legislation as one of the most significant measures passed by this House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to further delay the passage of this bill which would have passed by now if it had not been for the quite extraordinary performance on the part of the minister to which we have just been subjected. During most of the time the minister spoke the hon. gentleman was out of order, as Your Honour pointed out, and I assume I will be given the same latitude in dealing with some of the matters the hon. gentleman raised.
The minister began by pointing out that it was only in special circumstances that a minister would speak on third reading of a bill, and he said he felt there were special circumstances in this case. So far as I can gather from the minister's remarks the special circumstance in this instance is that the minister thought this was a great opportunity to glorify himself and the Prime Minister. I think it can be said of the minister, without offence, that with him modesty is not a deformity. I would have thought that the minister would have been satisfied with the glorification he has received in the debate on this bill from his colleagues in the Conservative party. We recall, of course, that one use this bill has already served was to fill a blank day in the House of Commons by enabling Conservative members to get up, one after another, and tell the minister how wonderful he was in the introduction of this legislation.
The minister also said that this was a great day for the Prime Minister because it represents the realization of the agricultural objectives the right hon. gentleman held for so many years in opposition. The agricultural objectives of the Prime Minister in opposition and during election campaigns may be summed up in two famous statements made by the hon. gentleman, neither of which is carried out in this bill in any way, shape or form. One statement was "Parity, not charity" and the other was "Elimination of the cost-price squeeze". It would indeed be a great day for the Prime Minister if those two objectives could be realized in legislation introduced by him or by the Minister of Agriculture. But of course this particular bill, useful as it is-and we have testified to its value-has no relationship whatever to these two agricultural objectives so often put forward in this
5648	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development house by the Prime Minister when in opposition and during election campaigns, but about which very little has been done to carry them out.
In the passion for propaganda of the Minister of Agriculture which extends even to the provision of gold plated syringes, the minister has made some exaggerated, misleading and, as Your Honour pointed out, quite inappropriate statements about this bill. I made a note of some of the hon. gentleman's words. He went so far as to say that the alternative land use concept is now, for the first time in the western hemisphere, being embodied in legislation. Quite apart from P.F.R.A. and what has been done in this country, the minister must know very little about agricultural policy in the United States in the last 15 or 20 years to make the extraordinary statement, which will be received with some interest in Washington, that for the first time in the western hemisphere

it is really a wonder he did not say "in the world" because the minister has a world embracing concept in his speeches-the alternative land use concept is being embodied in legislation.
The minister also said that we in the opposition were so remiss in our duty in our consideration of this bill that it was necessary for him to rise in his place and not only glorify the bill but point out these things because the opposition took no action in that regard. All the minister needs to do is read Hansard, even that of yesterday. If he did so he would soon find out that many questions were addressed to the minister pointing out some of the deficiencies in this bill which we approved in principle. Indeed, that is something that was done prior to yesterday. The opposition has discharged its duty in connection with this bill in supporting the principle of it and in trying to make it a better bill.
We understand the implications of this bill, and we understand the principles involved. We should do so, Mr. Speaker, because the initiation of this bill goes back to a time prior to the coming into office of this government, and the principles involved have been studied in the Senate committee over the years. We know all about the bill, and we know all about its origin.
One of the questions asked of the minister about this bill was what its immediate effect would be on the farm situation today. The minister has admitted that this is a long term proposition. Of course it is a long term proposition. It may have very considerable long range value in this country, and we hope it will. But the minister also has admitted that for the first year or two there


will be no concrete and practical effect. Indeed, in one of his more exuberant statements, perhaps in order to cover up the lack of immediate effect and perhaps also to obscure the failure of the government to carry out its promised agricultural objectives, the minister said he expected that ultimately $600 million would be spent under this bill over the years, perhaps during the rest of this century. All this kind of loose, windy and exuberant talk does not mean anything.
This is an important bill. It has been supported in principle by the opposition. The opposition has tried to make it a better bill. We think the best thing we can do now is to get the bill passed, get it into action and see how it will work out. That would have been done days ago if it had not been for the policy of the government in putting up members one after another to speak in support of this bill, on one occasion indeed, merely to conceal the fact that there was no other business on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: The performance by the Minister of Agriculture this morning, Mr. Speaker, is extraordinary in many ways. It is an almost unheard of thing for a minister of the crown to initiate a debate on third reading of a bill that has had the unanimous approval of this house at every single stage. I suggest that this is an irresponsible attitude on the part of a government that says it is trying to facilitate the discussion of the business before the house this session.
The government says it wants to get out of here by the end of June. The Prime Minister has wielded the club and said "If you have not passed the legislation before the end of June, we will adjourn the house". Yet lo and behold, the Minister of Agriculture comes along and, on a third reading motion, initiates another discussion. It would seem that the government members were not content with a filibuster which they themselves conducted on second reading of the bill, but that they apparently want to start another filibuster today.
I have not a clue as to why the Minister of Agriculture would come in with this speech of his. There was nothing in it. It was just more hot air. He criticized the opposition. He said we had not discussed the bill and that we had not asked the right questions. Perhaps he should send us some questions, if he does not like ours, and we will ask them. But we cannot get any answers. There is nothing wrong with the questions.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has made his speech. How many projects will be in operation next year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I gave the hon. member a chance to let me ask a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: How many projects will be in operation next year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member tell me of one question, outside of that of the hon. member for Peterborough, which was asked by the C.C.F. party and which dealt with the essential principles of this bill?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been asking how many projects will be in operation under the bill. I have been asking the government what proportion of the financial cost it will pay, section by section. Until the minister gave this kind of general hint this morning that the provinces will have to pay 50 per cent, I have not known. I do not know what the government has in mind. However, I know that under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act the federal government pays the total cost of stock watering dugouts and so on and the farmer pays any balance, if there is a balance. Sometimes there is not a balance. However, the minister said this morning that these projects will be on a 50-50 basis with the provinces. I say that is going backwards, and that the federal government should be paying much more than 50 per cent of the cost.
This is the kind of bill that we have had before us on so many occasions in recent years. It is couched in general terms and fine-sounding phrases, and has resulted in windy speeches. The minister said he did not know why we did not discuss the other aspects of the government's farm program so that we would have an understanding of this tremendous program in all its particulars. The trouble is that we know the rest of the program. Under Bill No. 237 most of the so-called protection by way of support prices has been a hoax. There has been no solid floor. It has been just more window dressing and more guesswork.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the fact that there is some latitude beyond what might be normal by reason of the introductory speech, but it seems to me that the hon. member is going quite out of order in discussing another piece of legislation and its results.


Hazen Robert Argue: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I do so particularly because you called
Marginal Lands Development the minister to order when he was doing the same thing. But since the minister had been out of order for a time I thought that I might get out of order for a sufficient length of time to reply to this sweeping generality of his that we were not prepared to discuss the rest of the mess in the Department of Agriculture and that we wanted to confine our remarks only to this bill.
Some good things can come from this bill if there is a good administration. The minister can pay 99 per cent of the cost under this co-operative scheme with the provinces, if the government wishes to do so. But there is no certainty. What the minister is asking parliament to do is to give him a blank cheque or a green light without any definition as to what kind of projects will be undertaken, and without any idea of how costs will be apportioned, as to the timetable or as to any definition of the kind of projects that are going to add to farm income.
It is easy for the Minister of Agriculture to rise in his place and say he is most anxious that the program be brought in at a sufficiently rapid rate to enable land to be taken out of uses that are now being made of it and put into more productive uses. I have heard this kind of advice given to agricultural producers for a long time. May I say that I have a great deal of faith in the ordinary individual farmer. When he goes out to seed his crops I believe it is a fair bet that he is going to seed the kinds of crops that are likely to bring him the greatest income. I suggest he does not very often need all these windy insults that he does not know what he is doing with his land; that he has it in the wrong use; that if somebody could just come along and give him some free advice and a little direction he would stop all these terrible errors he is making and get his land into the right kind of use.
The good wheat land in western Canada is producing wheat and by and large very poor land for wheat production is producing grass. The farmers have shown themselves adaptable to growing such new products as mustard seed and rapeseed. It has been said to us in the House of Commons that the vast majority of farmers on the prairies do not know enough to produce livestock; they produce grain; they are all off to California or Florida for the winter.


An hon. Member:: Or Ottawa.


Hazen Robert Argue: The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of farmers who are today in the grain business are in the beef business, and they were in the beef business before this government came into power. They are producing beef because they find it gives
5650	HOUSE OF
Marginal Lands Development them a moderate income which is comparable with the income they would expect from other products.
We have had a lot of advice from the minister. He says there are people on farms moving stumps and stones. If the minister were on a farm I doubt that he would be engaged in moving stumps and stones; I think I can understand the work the minister would be doing. He would be spreading; in some places thick, in some places thin. He was in good liquid form this morning; he was really spreading it. He did not mind getting some of it on himself, either, because he is the most enthusiastic supporter that the Minister of Agriculture has anywhere in Canada. He is really convinced that the legislation he has brought in, because it is worded a little differently, perhaps, than acts in some other countries, makes this the greatest government in the world with the greatest program in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear; it is the greatest.


Hazen Robert Argue: It makes the Minister of Agriculture a flop as far as dealing with the main problems of agriculture is concerned. These are not the inability of the farmer to decide the crop or the use of his soil. The minister may want to give him all the advice in the world. He can make loose, insulting statements that the farmers have to have this kind of guidance, but I suggest to him that the greatest problem is in the field of prices for farm products, and this the government has yet to touch.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I just had to respond to the challenge of the Minister of Agriculture. One should never be ashamed, I suppose, or modest when within the aura or atmosphere that he casts, and I should like to tell the minister that I think he is full of nonsense when he says this is the first time the alternative land use concept has been put into legislation. I wonder whether the minister has ever heard of that great and good Progressive Conservative in the province of Ontario, (Hon.) Leslie Frost. I wonder whether he knows that Mr. Frost's government, I believe supported by the other parties in the legislature, has introduced a number of bills to which the alternative land use concept is central. I should like to send the minister some time some of the conservation authority reports. We have had one for the Neebing river valley, for instance, that affects the lakehead area. This sets out an analysis by agronomists, foresters and other land use experts, and deals with just what use should be made of the valley; its soils, drainage, ecology, as problems and prospects.


The minister may not know it, but the legislation brings the municipal authorities into co-operative work. There has been developed an authority for us embracing several government agencies and voluntary groups. There have been arrangements for giving advice to farmers for terracing and reforestation in the area. There is even an authority forest. There are even provisions in township budgets for certain funds to do this. Right here within the little microcosm that I know, the minister is just wrong.
I wonder whether the minister ever reads the aspects of this matter which have been dramatized most, perhaps, by books such as "The Grapes of Wrath", the old story of the "Okies", and the things that were developed by the United States new deal. I wonder whether I could refer the minister to some of the books that cover the new deal in the agricultural recovery program and what it did in states like Iowa, Arkansas and others like them where the drought, overcultivation and grasshoppers had wrought destruction. I wonder whether the minister has driven through some of these areas recently and seen the developments. I should like to ask him whether he does not agree that the United States forestry development in Minnesota, for example, and the other lake states, where they had volunteers out in tents, was an excellent thing. This was all set up, I suggest, by legislation, and it involves alternative land use concepts. The lake states have reconverted thousands of acres from farm to forest land.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does not my hon. friend realize that the minister antedates F.D.R.?


Douglas Mason Fisher: My hon. friend says the minister antedates F.D.R. He is certainly throwing a very wide loop, and I cannot follow the claims he has made at all. As a reader, Mr. Speaker, at times I have read over the reports of the Senate committee on land use. I was going to mention this in one of the earlier debates. I have never really felt that committee came to grips with the problem of land use in Canada at all.
I think most of the evidence given by experts was good. I have been interested in evidence given by people such as the greatest soils expert in Canada, Angus Hills, and some of the great forestry authorities. Some of these people put forward what I think is the crucial problem that I hope this bill affects, and that is what agricultural men call rivalry for land in the conturbations of growth such as we have all the way from Welland around to Oshawa. To me this is the greatest agricultural redevelopment problem we have. It is a matter of stopping the growth of the

kind of suburbs that we have and the intermixture we are getting which is taking some of the best land out of agriculture and has destroyed the whole aesthetic sense of a region and much of its aesthetic possibility.
I did not think it proper to raise these things on a piece of legislation which largely depends upon the whims, energies and tax resources of at least ten other authorities in addition to the Department of Agriculture. I did not want to mention my own experience in trying to get the officials of the Department of Agriculture interested in the rather minor agricultural problems that we have in our area. They are not minor to the men who are involved, but we have very few farmers. My experience is that there is about as much enthusiasm amongst the Department of Agriculture officials for any kind of survey work or analysis of the problems of a region as there is with hon. members in a party caucus, where people can put forward ideas in a fleeting way but usually without the time or the response to do something about them or carry them out.
I did not want to raise these doubts because the minister and the Conservative supporters were so enthusiastic. I have almost begun to think this is a bill that has a brilliant future behind it because of the exaggeration of the minister about what it can do, but when it is set against the practical difficulties that we are all aware of in legislation that is not unlike it, the comparison is very sobering. I should like to ask the minister, does he not agree that the legislation in the Canada Forestry Act, for example, which has been on the statute books for some time and was put in by a previous administration, contains remarkable parallels in its purposes, objects and structure to this A.R.D.A. bill?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do you want me to answer that question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hope the minister will answer it. I think the similarities are marked. No one who is interested in forestry in Canada will really claim that this bill has worked well, that it has worked evenly or that it has done a great deal for the standards of forestry in this country. It has made its main impact at the fire prevention level and not in the field of silviculture. I think if the minister is honest he will acknowledge that.
It seems to me the reason this does so poorly in the field of silviculture is that there is a great deal of controversy over the handling of silvicultural programs. Silviculture is an approach to or search for an ideal. Anyone can think pragmatically in terms of putting out a forest fire, but when the problem concerns the envisaging of the situation existing
Marginal Lands Development 50, 75 or 100 years ahead it involves another kind of land use concept, another type of thought. When there are ten provincial authorities and a federal authority attempting to give leadership, using varying kinds of carrots, which are not too definite, the results are not exciting.
I have not changed my opinion in regard to this bill, and probably should have retained my seat, as I intended to from the start, to allow the hon. members of this house who are interested in the farming industry to deal with it. In my opinion this is an imaginative bill, but it is an abstraction rather than a concrete measure. When hon. members begin to holler in excitement about an abstraction such as this before it has even begun to jell or fill in, as being a new basis for our agricultural industry and economy, that seems to me to be nothing more than a political exaggeration.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to what has been said this morning regarding this bill, because there is a great deal of concern in my constituency regarding the construction of projects which might well be carried out under this proposed legislation.
I am particularly interested in the cost sharing arrangements for projects of this type. I realize that the minister has previously stated that the cost sharing arrangements under this legislation will be similar to the cost sharing arrangements under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I believe I am safe in saying that the federal government has on most occasions in the past paid for the construction of dams, and that the provinces have taken over the provision and distribution of power and the distribution of water for irrigation or stock watering. I believe that has been the situation in regard to dams built in western Canada, such as the St. Mary's river dam in southern Alberta, and the South Saskatchewan dam.
I realize there is a great deal of difficulty in arriving at a formula in respect of cost sharing arrangements, because of the many types of cost sharing arrangements that have been entered into in respect of forestry, community pastures, dams and the distribution of water, but could the minister indicate whether irrigation and stock watering projects, such as those which have been carried out under the P.F.R.A., will involve cost sharing arrangements under the scheme similar to those arrangements made under the P.F.R.A.


Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two in respect of this proposed legislation.


Mr. Hellyer:: Another farmer.

Marginal Lands Development


Walter George Pitman: We have seen today the strong pressure which has been brought to bear in this house in respect of this measure.
I am sure this day will go down in history as being the day a minister initiated debate on third reading having already provided his own opposition. I think that represents the final step in this peculiar procedure which has taken place in respect of this bill.
I must say that we have already received as an act pamphlets advertising the minister's proposal, and in view of that fact, what has gone on here has been rather surprising to me. As a student of government I was under the impression that the wealth of the country was controlled by responsible government. In spite of the fact that this proposed bill is in the legislative process in this house, and has been introduced by the minister today for third reading, the minister has gone around the country to find opposition to it. If the minister finds no opposition in the country he can, of course, come back to this house with 200 members on the government side, and with the executives of practically all the farm organizations in existence arrayed behind him, and say there is virtually no critcism to the proposal except that expressed by members on this side of the house, which the minister can refute by saying that all farm organizations are in favour of it. I wonder, as a student of government, whether that is a legitimate form of pressure to be placed on those of us who are on the opposition side.
The minister also reminded us that we did not bring in this business regarding alternative land uses, but I think he must remember that he has given a great deal more information to the individuals with whom he spoke across the country, so far as this bill is concerned, than he has given us. He has not given us much information, or anything specific about its purposes whatsoever. I must agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we should be informed as to what is happening. Let us find out what will take place when the provinces do come into this scheme; how much money will be paid out by the federal government and how much money the provinces will have to contribute to this proposal, which is supposed to solve all of the problems of the farmers. I asked a couple of questions yesterday in respect of the farmers' union regarding this proposed bill, but as yet have not received any answers. I shall have to place questions on the order paper, hoping that in that way I will obtain some information.
The minister must have been reading different books and articles than I have read in regard to the problems of world technological

food production, because he gave a picture which indicated that the world is virtually being drowned and buried in its own food as the result of modern technology. Surely that is not a truthful position at all. I am under the impression that there are a tremendous number of people in this world who go to bed hungry every night. When I listened to the minister I began to get the impression that there is no problem, although it has been my understanding that this world food problem has not been solved at all because of a lack of imagination on the part of countries of the west, including Canada.
The area of this problem, which has not been solved, involves the devising of a means to put the food presently being produced into the mouths of the hungry peoples of the world. The problem does not involve the existence of statistical tables which show that there is an overproduction of food, but has regard to the ever increasing number of starving people in different countries of the world. There are more hungry people in this world today than there were ten years ago, and that number is increasing every year. The problem involving the destruction of world food markets by modern technological methods is a small one in terms of the world situation.
The minister suggests that great efforts must be made to increase the incomes of the many individuals on the farms who are now receiving in the neighbourhood of $1,200 per year. I admit there is a challenge in regard to raising the standard of living of those individuals, but I see no answer to that challenge in this proposed legislation. I suggest the minister should realize that those individuals are now paying, in effect, retail prices for all their needs when they should actually be paying wholesale prices. Farming is an industry, and should be entitled to wholesale prices. Perhaps the difficulty arises in many cases because the farmers are not sufficiently organized in a co-operative way to demand the privilege of purchasing at wholesale prices, but I do not find anything in this legislation in that regard.
I am sure all hon. members realize that many farms in eastern Ontario contain a great number of trees, but how can we be assured that under this legislation farmers will be able to market these trees at a better price than they are receiving today?
I fail to understand the minister's answer to the criticisms expressed by members of the opposition in respect of this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-101, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anybody in the house who would prefer to second this bill more than the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has been interested in veterans affairs throughout his life, particularly during all the years he has been in this House of Commons. He has consistently, year in and year out, whether in opposition or as leader of the government, pressed for attention to the veterans, and scarcely a week goes by that he does not draw to my attention some individual among our veterans population who requires special care and attention. The government generally takes the same attitude as the Prime Minister does in these matters.
I now have pleasure in bringing before the house the bill about which we talked on May 16 when we discussed at some length the resolution introducing this bill. I do not intend to repeat what I said on that occasion. I took some time then to outline the background of the war veterans allowance legislation, and to indicate the extent to which it affects veterans across this country as well as the benefits it is bringing to people who so richly deserve the thanks of their countrymen.

War Veterans Allowance Act
It is rather difficult to discuss the general principle of the bill because it contains a number of wide ranging amendments dealing with certain matters of administration and other factors. The most important aspect of the bill is, of course, the increases that are suggested in the rates and ceilings to compensate for the recognized changes that have taken place in the cost of living, and to provide for the continuation of the general relationship which has existed between the rates and ceilings under this act and pensions payable under the Pension Act.
When I was speaking on the resolution on May 16, I referred to the fact that pensions had been increased across the board by 20 per cent this year, except for the somewhat greater increase of 33 J per cent for orphaned children who had not been included in previous increases which had been made to the pensions. In giving consideration to the amount by which the rates and ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act should be increased, the government has concluded that the same percentage should be applied across the board as was recently granted pensioners, namely 20 per cent and that orphan children likewise should be granted an increase commensurate with those given to pension orphans. Accordingly, this bill sets forth revised schedules A and B which provide for a 20 per cent increase both in the maximum monthly rates of allowance and in the maximum total annual incomes applicable to the various classes of recipients.
I might draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, particularly to the allowances and the ceilings applicable to orphans as proposed in the schedules. The allowances are now the same as the pensions payable to one, two or three orphans respectively. The other improvement that would be proposed in the schedules is that where a recipient or his spouse is blind the income ceiling which applies is in each instance $120 a year greater than the ceiling which applies where blindness is not present. The schedules under the present act recognize the difficulty experienced by the blind to the extent of allowing a comparable increase in the income ceiling where the recipient's spouse is blind. We have thought it desirable to extend this advantage where a single recipient or a married recipient or his spouse has been thus afflicted.
The rather substantial increase in the rates and income ceilings is expected at the present time to cost about $17 million on an annual basis. This is a considerably greater increase than that which has been provided in some other years when the war veterans allowance rates were raised. In the year 1948 an increase was provided of about $3,500,000, in round numbers. In 1952, the increase was $7


million. In 1955, the increase provided was slightly over $8 million and in 1957 it was slightly over $4 million. On this occasion we are proposing to provide an increase of $17 million. That will raise the annual liability or at least it will make the annual liability quite a bit larger than it has been in the past. Just by way of comparison I might point out that the annual liability or the annual expenditure by the dominion government on war veterans allowances in the fiscal year 1956-57 -and again these figures are in round numbers-was $41 million. In 1957-58, it was just under $48 million. In the fiscal year 1958-59, it was over $54 million. In 1959-60, it rose to slightly over $57 million. In the fiscal year 1960-61 it rose to slightly over $58 million, although there was a rather substantial decrease in the number of pensioners from the earlier wars. The present proposed increase-and of course, it is an estimate-of $17 million will provide for the 20 per cent increase across the board that I have mentioned.
I shall touch on just two or three of the highlights in the bill rather than deal with it clause by clause because the intention, of course, is to do with this bill as was done with other bills dealing with veterans matters, namely to refer the bill for intensive study to the standing committee on veterans affairs. That committee will go through the bill clause by clause. Officials will be present to provide any additional information that is required by the members. Then when the bill comes back to the house, in committee of the whole house we shall again have the opportunity of discussing it clause by clause. So all that I shall do now is to touch briefly on some of the highlights in the bill beyond the ones that I have already mentioned.
Last year, as you may recall, Mr. Speaker, when the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended provision was made for the payment of an allowance outside of Canada to a qualified veteran who had resided here for at least 12 months and had left Canada as a recipient subsequent to the amendment. That has been found to be a desirable change in the act. We now propose that similar provision be made for a recipient's widow. As the act stands at the present moment, in order to qualify she would have to return to Canada if she were living abroad, and this might be a considerable hardship on a number of widows for whom return to Canada would be impractical or impossible for various reasons. We are therefore proposing that the requirement of return to Canada be withdrawn under certain conditions and therefore a widow who left Canada at about the same time as did her husband recipient in order



13G1

[Stage Direction]
to live with him elsewhere, if she is otherwise eligible and if she applies within one year after his death, may become a recipient. Similar action is proposed with regard to the orphan children of the recipient so that they too will not be obliged to return to Canada in order to establish qualification.
Another highlight which affects a small but very important group of our citizens is one which has reference to South African veterans. Under this act the allowance may be given to Canadian veterans of the South African war if they require assistance. However, the deadline for service in South Africa in the present act is May 31, 1902, as that was the date on which the South African war was declared to be officially at an end. We have knowledge that late in that month there were a number of Canadian soldiers who were on board ship but who had not landed in South Africa prior to the end of the conflict. We propose granting eligibility on the service basis to soldiers who had embarked for service in South Africa prior to the deadline. There are very few survivors in this group and they are all in the 80-year or 90-year age group, so I am sure that no one would object to that type of benefit being provided.
With regard to first world war veterans, an amendment was brought before the house- I am not sure whether it was last year or the year previous-permitting them to get allowances under this act if they had been in the United Kingdom during the first world war for a period of 365 days. Similarly there were veterans of that war who were on board ship and who consequently did not get in the full quota of 365 days in the United Kingdom prior to the terminal date which was set at November 12, 1918. So we are proposing to recognize the fact that these members of the forces, in proceeding to and from the United Kingdom prior to that date, underwent hazards at sea and therefore that the time they spent on the high seas could reasonably be included in the calculation of the length of their service in the United Kingdom. If the house approves, that amendment is in the bill for consideration and I hope it will be passed.
There are other items in the bill which as far as individuals are concerned are of equal importance to the ones I have mentioned, but it is not appropriate on second reading to go into too great detail with regard to the various clauses.
The members of the war veterans allowance board, other officials of the department, my parliamentary secretary and myself and, interested hon. members in the house have put a great deal of time and attention into considering problems concerning amending the
War Veterans Allowance Act War Veterans Allowance Act. We have drawn heavily upon the useful suggestions that have been put before us by the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations.
We have accepted most of the suggestions that have come from these organized bodies. I think the amendments we are now proposing will give recognition to changing conditions which affect veterans and their dependents and I hope the amendments we are proposing will be agreeably accepted by the great body of Canada's veterans and their dependents as well as by the people generally in our country.
The War Veterans Allowance Act, as I mentioned at the resolution stage, is designed to assist bona fide veterans who volunteered for service, in many instances endured a great deal of hardship overseas, who were lucky enough not to be wounded during the course of that service and some of whom, unfortunately, after their return to Canada, for a dozen different reasons found it rather difficult to become firmly established in civilian life and to make provision for all the hazards to which everyone is subject during the course of life.
Some of them have, through economic distress, illness within the family or for other reasons, found the going a bit difficult. To these veterans, as to the disability pensioners, there is a debt owed by the people of Canada. Once again, as with the disability pensioners, we are proposing to pay in part that debt to these men who were quite prepared, when you think about it seriously, to make the supreme sacrifice during wartime.
We hope the house will receive this bill and consider it very carefully. In committee I am prepared to give careful consideration to any suggestions which might improve the drafting which we have done here. This again, as with the Pension Act, is a subject matter to which the house can give serious attention without some of the disturbances to which we subject ourselves from time to time. My experience in the House of Commons is that when the cause of the veteran is before it, the house is quite prepared to deal with it at its best. The House of Commons, in the study of veterans legislation during the time I have been here, has always shown itself to be at its best. It is in that spirit and that mood that I present to the house this bill suggesting amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has already been discussed at considerable length in the resolution stage and I have no intention of detaining the house for more than a very few minutes at the present time.
As the minister has already indicated, this has never been a partisan matter in the

War Veterans Allowance Act house. We have all desired to do the right thing by the veterans ever since I have sat in this house. The veterans are fortunate, of course, at the present time in their minister. There are not many among my friends who managed to get into the front line in both wars. I do not know how the minister did it. I suppose he played up his age in the first war and played down his age in the second war. At any rate he managed to get into both, and if the veterans ever had a sympathetic friend, it is he.
I have no intention of dealing with the details of this bill. I am sure they will receive the sympathetic consideration that the minister mentioned. But I thought I should like, for just a moment or two, to carry the mind back and picture these men, many of them now old, who are receiving these benefits and whose minds will no doubt be carried back to the days when they made the efforts and sacrifices by which we are now seeking to deal justly.
I should like just for a moment to refer to the South African war, of which there are a few survivors left, and to recall that they were the pioneers. This was the first time we had ever sent troops overseas, and I should like to recognize their service and the example they have been ever since to others.
Then I should like to go on to the first great war. There are somewhere between
35,000	and 40,000 veterans of that war who will receive the benefits of this bill. I should like to recall the summer of 1914 and read quite briefly from the speeches of Sir Robert Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the special session of 1914 after war had been declared.
I will do this very briefly, but I have been moved by what I read here as showing the spirit of co-operation which I am sure will be most pleasant to us all. I will now read very briefly from what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said on August 19, 1914. I would ask the house to bear in mind that in 1914 we did not have to declare war ourselves; it was declared for us; but there was no hesitation on the part of the government of that day in stepping right in and taking vigorous steps to make our participation real. I am glad now to read from what Sir Wilfrid said, and I think the house will be glad to hear it:
It is our duty, more pressing upon us than all other duties, at once, on this first day of this extraordinary session of the Canadian parliament, to let Great Britain know, and to let the friends and foes of Great Britain know, that there is in Canada but one mind and one heart, and that all Canadians stand behind the mother country, conscious and proud that she has engaged in this war, not from any selfish motive, for any purpose of aggrandisement, but to maintain untarnished the honour of her name, to fulfil her obligations to her allies, to maintain her treaty obligations, and to save civilization from the unbridled lust of conquest and domination.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
We are British subjects, and today we are face to face with the consequences which are involved in that proud fact. Long we have enjoyed the benefits of our British citizenship; today it is our duty to accept its responsibilities and its sacrifices.
Sir Robert Borden, in reply, said:
I have listened...with the utmost interest and
profound admiration to the patriotic speech which has just fallen from my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Already, even before parliament had been called, he had announced to his friends and to the country that his meetings were discontinued, that the voice of party strife was hushed for the time being, and that he and his friends would co-operate in every way with those upon whom falls the duty, the very responsible duty at this moment, of administering the affairs of this country-
I read that with feeling because I thought perhaps others might be interested to have that recalled to mind, and would take pleasure in the fact that at that moment we had such unanimity in a common cause.
I look back to the war of 1914, and the rather happy go lucky way, perhaps, many people went to war. I like to think of one boy who had joined up and received his first pay. In those days pay was handed out in legal tender. When this boy was handed his first pay he said, "What is this for?" He was informed that it was his pay. "My God, do we get paid to fight?" was his comment.
I remember the first big action in 1915 in which Canadians took part and distinguished themselves. Then comes that ghastly period from 1915 to 1917 when we were involved in trench warfare where men had to cross flat fields in the face of machine guns, suffering fearful casualties.
I recall the first appearance of tanks in September of 1916. One can always find a certain amount of humour even in war, and it is a fact that when these ungainly creatures, which looked liked prehistoric monsters, lurched and rolled across the battlefield, they were greeted with roars of laughter.
The battles of the Somme, Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele belong to those days. Then came the early days of 1918 when we nearly lost the whole thing and then the 100 days from August 8 to November 11, and the steady relentless march to victory.
With victory we thought we had-God forgive us-saved the world for democracy. If we had been told in 1918 that in something less than 20 years we would be faced with a much worse situation we should not have believed it. Then came the second world war and the terrible days of Dunkirk, the march across Africa, the days of El Alamein, D-day and the march through France, Italy, Belgium and finally Germany.
I should just like to assure those pensioners who will receive the benefits of this bill that we do not forget them nor their efforts and

sacrifices, that we realize civilian life has not dealt with them perhaps as gently as it might have dealt with them, and that we will pass this bill in an attempt to help make life somewhat more palatable to those who have played a great part which meant so much to this country.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, we of the official opposition welcome and support this bill, as we welcomed and supported the resolution which preceded it.
We are very pleased to see the 20 per cent increase in the monthly rates and income ceilings for war veterans allowance recipients. We are particularly pleased to see the increase in the rates for surviving spouses, for orphans, and the revision in the income ceiling regarding blind veterans. We are also pleased because of the change in the allowable property value exemption, which has been increased by 25 per cent, and the allowable real estate equity, which has been increased from $8,000 to $9,000.
All of these changes have been advocated on many occasions by the Canadian Legion, and by other veterans organizations, as well as by many hon. members on both sides of this house. It must be a source of great satisfaction not only to veterans, but to the public at large, to have these measures brought forward in this bill today.
I should like to bring the minister's attention to one case which I feel has been overlooked. The minister himself, referring back to the debate on the resolution, mentioned the 133,000 veterans who had lost their war veterans allowance benefits because of the increase in their pensions.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I think it is convenient at this time to correct that statement. There were not 133,000 in that category, but 13,000, with some overlapping.


Chesley William Carter: Yes,


Henry Frank Jones: Of course they did not lose their benefits; they merely did not receive the full advantage of the increase,


Chesley William Carter: Those veterans were not able to receive any benefit from the increase in pensions because their war veterans allowance was reduced by the same amount.
In order to bring these veterans back to the footing where they were prior to the pension increases, it would have been necessary to make the effective date of this bill, the same date the pension increases became effective. This bill will come into effect on June 1, as I read it, and veterans will, in a sense, lose two or three months' increase, which they otherwise would have enjoyed.
90205-6-357
War Veterans Allowance Act
We on this side are also very pleased to see that the act has been extended to cover three additional groups of recipients. Those groups are: children of unmarried parents, who are war veteran allowance recipients; the dependents of war veterans allowance recipients, who died outside Canada; and the dependents of deceased allied veterans who have been declared eligible after death.
In view of the fact that this coverage has been extended, I should like to record my disappointment because of the fact the government has not seen fit to extend the coverage under this bill to members of the merchant navy, to members of rescue services, and fire fighters. As a resident of Newfoundland, I am especially disappointed that nothing has been done to bring the Newfoundland foresters of world war II within the compass of the War Veterans Allowance Act. However, I suppose we cannot expect everything at once. I should like to ask the minister to keep this in mind, and to bring forward the necessary changes at the earliest possible date.
I am a little disappointed also because the minister has not seen fit to eliminate the 365 day requirement in respect of veterans of world war I. He has taken a short step in that direction by the inclusion of the number of days spent by veterans on the voyage between Canada and the United Kingdom. There does seem to be, however, little reason for retaining this qualification at all, because naval veterans who cruised in home waters have been regarded as serving in a theatre of war. If members of the navy serving in home waters are entitled to these benefits, while members of the army and other armed forces are not entitled to the benefits in respect of the time spent in other than territorial waters, that does not sound logical to me.
In view of the fact that our old veterans are fading away quite rapidly, if we do not make the changes I suggest very soon there will not be many of them alive to benefit. I suggest that the few extra dollars required to date this legislation back, so as to make it conform with the recent amendment to the Pension Act, and to extend coverage to the groups I have mentioned, would be insignificant when compared with the $17 million required for the extra benefits envisaged in this bill.
We were very happy to hear the minister say that the bill would be sent to the standing committee on>
veterans affairs. We know it will be given thorough study and examination in the committee, and in the course
5658	HOUSE OF COMMONS
War Veterans Allowance Act of that examination, we can have the benefit of the opinions of the departmental officials and also of whatever representations any veterans organization may care to bring before us. We are very happy to have this legislation before us and we shall do everything possible to expedite its passage.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr
Speaker, we have just witnessed a precedent shattering occasion rarely seen in Canadian parliamentary history in that the Prime Minister of Canada seconded the motion for the section reading of a bill. I thought it was worth bringing particularly to the attention of hon. members.
We in this group are very happy that the government has responded favourably to the representations of the Canadian Legion, of a number of other veterans organizations in Canada and of members of this house who are supporters of all the parties represented here, and in so doing has recognized the need-and it has been an urgent one for some time-for an increase in the rates of war veterans allowance to compensate the recipients for the increase in the cost of living. It has been very necessary for some time and because it will meet a particular need of those veterans and their dependents we are very pleased to see this amendment in the bill.
We are also very pleased to see that there is a provision in the bill which, after the bill becomes law, will make it unnecessary for the widows of veterans overseas in receipt of war veterans allowance to return to Canada in order to qualify. I suppose the numbers are not large, but it does remove what many of us considered a quite unnecessary inconvenience to those widows, and I am sure they will be very grateful for this amendment.
The amendment that now makes it possible for South African veterans who were aboard ship going to South Africa or returning to Canada, prior to June 1, 1902, to qualify will be welcomed by the very few survivors of that campaign. They are few in number, but I am sure we all rejoice in the fact that this amendment will bring some happiness to them.
Also the amendment in the bill, after it becomes law, which will make it possible to include in the 365 days required as service in Great Britain the time spent going to Great Britain or returning from there will meet the circumstances of quite a number of veterans. I know several who were denied the opportunity to receive the allowance because they were short a few days or a week
(Mr. Carter.]
or so. However, like the hon. member who preceded me, I am sorry that the government has not seen fit to withdraw the 365 days of service in Great Britain or now on the seas required to qualify for war veterans allowance.
There is another amendment that I am particularly interested in because it affects one or two cases in my own constituency; in fact, one most unfortunate case, because the veteran in question with whom I had a close acquaintance served in my battalion and I have a particular knowledge of the facts. For that reason and for the benefit of widows generally, I now am pleased to see that a widow who has lived as a wife with a veteran for seven years or more prior to his death can qualify as a war veterans recipient. I am not going to go into the details at the present time but there can occur some most unfortunate circumstances which are not the responsibility of the veteran or the wife concerned. In this case the lady in question received misinformation from the war office in London that her first husband had been killed, and he turned up 40 years later. As far as I can understand he simply disappeared for that time. He lost his memory and turned up 40 years later. The lady in question had married a second time. On this account-until the amendment becomes law-this circumstance has unfortunately affected her right to the war veterans allowance and I am very pleased to see this amendment included. I am sure it does not affect very many widows but it does remedy some injustice that has been suffered by a few; not intentional injustice, because legislation is amended as a result of experience. I am sure this amendment has been included in the legislation because of a few unfortunate circumstances somewhat like the type I have described. We amend legislation because of experience but in so doing we often remedy a quite unintentional injustice which even members of the veterans affairs committee who study this legislation throughout the years fail to see until a case is brought to their attention.
I am also glad to see the increase from $25 to $50, in the amount of interest on bank deposits, and so forth, and the increase in the exemption on property from $8,000 to $9,000. These are in a sense, in relation to the increase in rates, minor amendments but they do produce some benefits for a minority of persons who are otherwise qualified for the allowance.
I am glad to hear that the bill is to be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. The committee will hear the representations of the Canadian Legion and

other veterans organizations. It will obtain the opinions of the members of the committee and the bill will be reported back to the house where there will be opportunity to discuss it again. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be too long winded about this because I am sure those persons who will profit from these benefits are anxious to receive them as soon as possible.
I was quite interested in what my hon. friend from Greenwood had to say. We are of a similar generation. We are a couple of old soldiers who are beginning to fade away, as far as I can see. I was interested in his reference to the South African war and to world war I. I remember as a boy being taken to Portsmouth to see Lord French's army disembark at Portsmouth and march to the camps in Hampshire, and other places.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We were not in the South African war.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not want to mislead the house in that respect; we were not at the South African war in person but we were of an age to understand what was going on during the South African war. I was one of those who listened to Sir Robert Borden in Belgium and I also had the opportunity to listen to Sir Sam Hughes in France. We gave a bombing demonstration at his request. I was then a sergeant of bombers, and the boys were so annoyed at something he had said prior to coming to this demonstration that as we used square sandbags as dummy bombs, one chap lodged one right on Sir Sam's hat, and we all enjoyed the thud, and his surprise but that is all in the past.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I must not detain the house. However when one gets to my age one is inclined to reminisce. Because of Canada's gratitude to those who defended our shores during various wars, because of our recognition of the responsibility of the Canadian people to veterans and their dependents and because of our recognition of their needs, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) was quite correct when he made reference to the fact that partisan strife is hushed temporarily, and, I trust, to their advantage.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canadian Legion I was indeed very proud a few minutes ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) seconded the motion of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) for second reading of this bill. As I am the son of a veteran of the South African war and also of the first great war and as I have personally witnessed the suffering and hardships endured by many of our veterans, 90205-6-357i
War Veterans Allowance Act may I say that 1961 will be a memorable year in the minds of all veterans. This bill is the third piece of legislation we have dealt with this year for the purpose of aiding our veterans. I think it is needless to say that the minister is the right man in the right place, and I am sure that all veterans in Canada will wish me to congratulate him.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the principle of the bill. I recognize that it is a little difficult to define the principle of the bill briefly because the bill contains a number of amendments. However, I think we can say that the principle of the bill is to improve the War Veterans Allowance Act, and as far as that is concerned I wholeheartedly agree. I think it is wise that the legislation governing war veterans allowances should be brought into line with previous legislation dealing with an increase in pensions. In my view it is a good thing that these two pieces of legislation should be brought into balance.
I am also happy that the bill is going to be sent to the standing committee on veterans affairs where its various clauses will receive the attention they deserve and where we will be able to receive from the officials the explanations that will be required. I have always believed that the 365-day clause in the legislation has been a little rigid. I am pleased that the minister has now been able to bring in a bill to provide for the inclusion not only of days spent in the United Kingdom but also days spent in travelling to and from that country. I believe that a fair number of veterans who heretofore were excluded will now be able to come under the act.
There is one question I should like to ask. In the past some veterans have applied for the war veterans allowance and have not been eligible because of falling a few days short of meeting the 365-day requirement If the days now to be added because of travelling to and from the United Kingdom will make them eligible, will those who have already applied be notified or will they have to re-apply after the bill has been passed? When the minister replies I hope he will be able to give an answer to that question
I cannot refrain from saying that if the days travelling to and from the United Kingdom are to be included in the number of days which will make a veteran eligible for the war veterans allowance it must then be conceded that days spent on the high seas were days spent in a theatre of war. That, of course, brings me back to the merchant

War Veterans Allowance Act navy. One thing that I regret about the bill is that members of the merchant marine are not made eligible for the benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act. On an earlier occasion this year and also last year I brought to the attention of the house the plea of the Newfoundland foresters. I gave the history of this group of men some time ago in the house. Again I must say that I had hoped these people would have been covered in any amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. Not only would I like to see included the veterans who belonged to the merchant marine and the Newfoundland foresters but also those who belonged to the fire fighting service and the tug rescue service. However, Mr. Speaker, in general I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of the bill. I do not want to make extended remarks because I hope the bill will receive speedy passage through the house. I know it will be given careful examination in the standing committee. I hope that the bill will be passed quickly by the house so that our veterans will be able to receive the increase in benefits which I think they rightly deserve.
(Translation):


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a few words about this legislation. I need not tell the house that I heartily approve this bill.
Once again, these measures prove to those who served in the three armed forces during both world wars and the Korean war, that the Canadian government in fully conscious of its responsibilities towards those who, when the hour of danger struck, did not hesitate to go abroad to face the enemy, in order to preserve the principles in which they believed and an ideal which was so worth defending.
Mr. Speaker, most particularly, I should like to refer to the remarkable services rendered by our Canadian soldiers during both world wars. One thing which adds value to the heroic deeds of our Canadian soldiers in the war is the fact that this country, either in the first world war or in the second world war was never as directly threatened as France the beautiful, or even Great Britain, despite the natural barrier of the English channel in the case of the latter
On the contrary, this country's frontiers were such that no other country was better protected from the horrors of war than Canada.
Why was it, then, that so many of our people, both in 1914-18 and in 1939-45, freely accepted to don the uniform and to go abroad

to fight an enemy that did not even seem to threaten them in any direct or precise manner?
Perhaps the true reason lies in the fact that some Canadians had enough love for their respective mother countries, namely Great Britain and France, to feel compelled to lend a hand to those who had to fight for their own survival.
But, in my opinion, if so many Canadians joined the armed forces of their own free will, it is mostly because we, in Canada, are conscious of our responsibility towards democracy. We know how good it is to live freely in a free land. We also appreciate all the advantages of this extraordinary freedom we enjoy thanks to our way of life and especially to our system of government. We realize that freedom must be defended at all costs and that the ideals of truth, law and justice must be the formal rule of all of man's actions.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that the soldiers of the first world war, just like the ones of the next generation to which I belonged, namely those of the second world war, and those who fought in Korea, felt, when they signed up, that since they had the privilege of living in a free country, it was their duty to go and defend freedom on a foreign soil and to check the tide of barbarism which was threatening the whole of humanity.
I believe that the fact that Canadian soldiers volunteered to fight for this ideal makes their services even more commendable than those of the soldiers of other countries, who were fighting for their own survival. Thus I feel that we are justified to pay a special tribute to our veterans who, being the victims of their own sacrifice, must now suffer from the serious wounds sustained on the field of honour.
I feel that we have a duty to recognize and reward the services of those men by introducing, as is being done today, legislation to make their old age more bearable.
There is a second reason why our veterans deserve to be recognized in a very special way. If there is today unity between the two races forming our country, the basis of this unity can be found in the fact that Canadians of various extractions, French, English, Irish, Scottish and others, were willing in times of danger to join hands, to combine their efforts toward the same goal, the same ideal. Through their valiant deeds, they have achieved glory, but they have also made possible, for times of peace, the national unity that we are enjoying today.

This national unity that our veterans have forged in war years, at the cost of much suffering, is well worth mentioning today and time and again so as to maintain it and strengthen it in times of peace.
This bill acknowledges the merit of those soldiers of truth, justice and law who, during the critical years of the first and second world wars, fought for the survival of the ideals of democracy and liberty.
I feel the government and indeed all parties deserve special commendation for giving unanimous support to the bill now before the house.
I would not want to take more of the time of the house but I think hon. members will understand that it is because I am a veteran that, once in a while, I like to pay homage to my comrades in arms who fought with such distinction on the battlefields, to pay homage especially to those who must now carry the burden of serious wounds because they were true to their duty, and who have to rely on state assistance for a moderately comfortable existence.
Mr. Speaker, it is on their behalf that I thank all the members of this house for their support of this bill which, I am sure, will carry unanimously.
(Text):


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: I should like to express my support for this bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the result of which is to increase the benefits by 20 per cent. I know this bill is going to bring a measure of better living to a number of Canadians who are required to live on the war veterans allowance. These men are deserving of this increased support which the Canadian government is giving them and I am sure it is a bill that is going to be well received by the public.
I am sorry the minister was not able to include in the act the small group of British imperials who served on the Afghanistan front during the first world war to which group I referred in the house on several previous occasions. However, since there is such a small number of them, perhaps he will find some other way of taking care of them. There is a great deal of credit to be given to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) this year because he has certainly brought forward a very full program of benefits to our war veterans and I am sure the people of Canada will appreciate this.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. War Veterans Allowance Act Speaker, I thought I would say a few words to deal with some of the questions that have been raised during the course of this discussion. I thought it was very fitting that the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) should bring to the attention of the house the fact that this bill was moved by a minister, who himself is a veteran, and seconded by another veteran in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker). I believe everyone who has taken part in this debate has been a veteran of either the first or second world wars.
The bill, as now laid before the House of Commons, represents in some respects greater increases than those contained in certain proposals made to the government and to the department in relation to the monthly rates of allowance and the income ceilings. Some of the proposals which have been made from time to time by various veterans organizations, as well as by members of the house, have not been acceded to by the government, but I think one can tell from the discussion of this bill that, by and large, the measure has received a favourable response from hon. members and I believe it will receive the same response from the country as a whole.
I think hon. members will recall that in the speech from the throne this year the item dealing with the veterans charter which was mentioned for an increase was the disability pension under which an increase was granted a few weeks ago in the house of 20 per cent for adults and 334 Per cent for the children and orphans of the veterans. Not mentioned in the speech from the throne were the amendments that are now before the house.
I think this represents that, by pressing forward in the department this year, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has been able to advance consideration of this measure to the extent that it is before the house a year before it might otherwise have been possible to bring forth this measure. I think probably that will answer some of the points made by those who would have liked the bill to be even further backdated.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) of that particular point. Again I say that it has been owing to the energy and the efforts of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the cabinet that it has been possible to bring forward and advance the stage of consideration of the War Veterans Allowance Act to this date.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's wanted to know the position with regard to those veterans who were denied eligibility

War Veterans Allowance Act under this act because they did not qualify for the 365 days' service overseas under the previous provision. He wanted to know whether or not those veterans would be notified of the addition under this bill of the sailing time between this country and England and return. We will certainly take into account the suggestion and will see whether or not this can be accomplished. At the same time I hope all hon. members in this house will give as wide publicity as possible to this bill in order that all those veterans who will be drawn in under no matter what additional category, may be alerted in order to see whether or not they are eligible if previously they were not eligible.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Will the hon. member allow me to interrupt him at this point?


Henry Frank Jones: Yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: My question dealt particularly with those veterans who had heretofore applied for war veterans allowance. These were the people whom I was hoping the department would be able to notify if they were now to become eligible under these amendments. I recognize the fact that, as to those who have not already applied, that matter will be up to them; they will have to apply. My question referred particularly to those who had applied previously for the war veterans allowance.


Henry Frank Jones: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker; the department will make every effort in order to see whether or not that is something that can be done. I myself am hopeful that it can be done and that those veterans who have made applications in the past will be able to be notified by the department of the change in the bill or to have that change brought to their attention so that they may renew their applications. However, I do not want to pass over the point which I understood the hon. member to have made and, may I say, the proper point, namely that all of these veterans who are now included in the act by reason of the various amendments made as a result of the various suggestions which have been made will not become aware of these changes in general unless we and the service organizations-I refer to the Legion and the other veterans organizations- do our jobs in bringing these amendments to their attention.
In connection with this matter of the amendment which permits the sailing time between here and the United Kingdom and back to be added to the days spent in the United Kingdom in the first world war before November 12, 1918, I think we should pay tribute

to those members in the house who have raised that problem as well as to the various veterans organizations. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) comes to my mind as well as other hon. members who have been assiduous in promoting that amendment. Some mention was made of the Newfoundland foresters and the fire fighters. That, of course, is a matter which, because of a personal association, has been made known to me since I first came into the house. As hon. members will recall, when I first came here in 1957, I shared a room with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). We had not been in association very long before he was telling me about all of the problems of Newfoundlanders, including this particular problem of the foresters and the fire fighters. I think perhaps it is sufficient to say at this time that there are other acts under the administration of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and that perhaps it would be more appropriate to consider that matter under some of the other acts, particularly the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
These are just a few remarks in summing up some of the questions that have been raised by various members. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) has always been assiduous in his promotion of the welfare of the Afghanistan veterans. Other hon. members have raised various points which I hope we shall be able to go into more thoroughly in the veterans affairs committee when this bill is referred to it. The increases of 20 per cent for single and married recipients, with larger ones for orphans and higher exemptions for personal assets and some adjustments in eligibility requirements that are represented in this measure now before us in my opinion, will meet with the general approval not only of the members of this house and the veterans across the country but, most of all, I think of the general public as a whole. These veterans and their brother veterans made it possible for us to be in this chamber now discussing this matter. If it has not been for their stand in the defence of freedom, having regard to the attitude that Hitler was taking at the time of the last war, there certainly would not have been a Canadian House of Commons in session at this time. That is a debt that this measure and the other measures under the veterans charter can only inadequately repay to those veterans who placed their lives on the block for freedom.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, just before the question is put all I want to do-


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: All I want to do is thank the house very much for accepting this bill so readily and with such unanimity. I should like to congratulate the hon. members who spoke for exercising so much restraint in making their remarks very brief. I think the mood of the house is that we should get on with this legislation as rapidly as possible, and consequently I will end my remarks at this point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-88, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Interest.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the requests for a further increase in the interest rates which were made by my colleagues on this side of the chamber, and also to reply to some of the arguments made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs last evening.
The parliamentary secretary said, as reported in yesterday's Hansard at the top of page 5634, that we should stick to the original principle. I believe the original principle was that the interest rates paid by the government on this fund should be in accord with the prevailing rates in the country as a whole.
Even if an error has been committed in the past and we have departed from that principle in the past, I see no reason why we should perpetuate that error and compound it again at this time.
The important fact is that this money is veterans' money. It belongs to the veteran and the government has had the use of it. In fact, the government has had the use of it for a number of years now at a much lower rate than the prevailing commercial rates in the country as a whole. I feel we ought not to take advantage of the veterans in this way. If the government is not prepared to pay the prevailing rates, I think they should relinquish the administration of this fund and hand it over to a special committee of veterans set up for this purpose.
Army Benevolent Fund Act
Last evening the parliamentary secretary said that the fund came first and the use came second. What difference does that make? The fact is that parliament-with the support of all parties of this house, I believe- determined that this fund should be used in this particular way. Evidence has been produced in committee that this fund is being depleted too rapidly to perform the function that parliament assigned to it, and because of that the fund will have to be revised on an actuarial basis which will give it a shorter period of usefulness, or else the yearly benefits of the fund will have to be curtailed.
Neither of these courses would be necessary if the fund was permitted to earn revenue at the prevailing commercial interest rates. The purpose of the bill which we now have before us is to remedy this situation, but we are providing only a partial remedy. It is true that we are raising the interest rates, but the increase in revenue from these higher interest rates will still leave the fund $60,000 per year short of what it requires to carry out the normal services that it has been providing down through the years.
Surely if we are going to remedy this situation we must remedy it completely, and not half do it. I believe that was the consensus of the standing committee on veterans affairs, or at least it was the opinion of the majority of that committee. Therefore I urge the government again to reconsider this matter and bring in the necessary amendment to complete the job that this bill sets out to do.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, as I said last evening, this money does not belong to the government and it does not belong to the taxpayer of Canada. Therefore the government, in assuming responsibility as trustee for this fund, should exert its utmost endeavour to procure the best possible return on this fund which is compatible with safety. If this were a situation in civil life and the trustee failed to do that, he would probably be faced with an action by the cestui que trust for failing to carry out his obligations as trustee.
Before the committee on veterans affairs Mr. Chadderton had this to say:
Even with the proposed increase in interest in the bill before the parliamentary committee today, we can increase our expenditure to only $470,000 a year, even if we should get this increase in interest. The actual expenditures have averaged over the past ten years $530,000 a year. We are facing a very serious problem, and our board sees one of two alternatives; either they must cut down on the amount that we spend each year and leave deserving cases out in the cold, or second, we must reduce the remaining 17 years of operation of the fund.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Audit.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question in respect to clause 3 of this bill. In the explanatory notes I read the following statement:
When the act was first enacted it was anticipated that disbursements for grants would be made and accounted for directly by the various provincial committees. Subsequently arrangements were made for the disbursements to be made by the comptroller of the treasury and for the accounting to be centralized at the head office of the board in Ottawa. The requirement contained in subsection (1) of section 11 that the Auditor General examine accounts of committees quarterly is, therefore, unnecessary and it is considered desirable that it be deleted.
Mr. Chairman, my questions are the following. Will the Auditor General examine the accounts of the board annually in so far as these disbursements are concerned, and will the disbursements then be made by the treasury board? I understood that interest funds were paid directly to the board and that the board disbursed them. Could the minister advise the house if the Auditor

General examines the accounts of the board with the right to criticize the grants made, in a similar manner to his examination and criticism of departmental estimates? Will the Auditor General be able to say, for instance, that a particular grant is not within the regulations?
The second question I have to ask is in regard to the words "for the disbursements to be made by the comptroller of the treasury". Does that mean interest disbursement to the board, or disbursements generally?


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Chairman, the amendment has a rather interesting historical background in that apparently the original clause in the bill envisaged auditing in the provincial commands. This was, and has never been done, and it has been eliminated in this bill because it has been inoperative since the inception of the fund.
As far as the hon. member's question is concerned in regard to payments being made by the comptroller of the treasury, this involves payments out of the fund to the board, and the Auditor General has the right to fully examine the accounts of the board to ensure that the handling of the fund is in accordance with the purposes of the act. The hon. member for Kootenay West will realize that the purposes of the act are broad, and that the board is not hampered in making these grants, as envisaged in this program, by this restriction. Nevertheless, I think the hon. member will agree that it is useful to have an independent person, such as the Auditor General, keep track of the activities of the board in order that, as the phrase states, not only may justice be done, it may seem to be done as well.
When I discussed this particular matter with the secretary of the board, he certainly was satisfied with the thoroughness with which the Auditor General has pursued his task in this regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this point is rather interesting to me, and I have one further question to ask in respect to the explanatory notes which say that disbursements are to be made by the comptroller of the treasury. Does the board make application to the comptroller of the treasury for certain lump sums required to meet obligations in respect to grants, or are the disbursements made by the comptroller of the treasury to the recipient of the grant? That is the point in which I am particularly interested.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Chairman, it is my impression that the board requisition for funds, and those funds are paid, in some cases, to the

creditors concerned. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West raised a question in the standing committee regarding the method followed by the board in dealing with actual crises with which veterans are faced. If I recall correctly, the hon. member directed a question, on that occasion, to the secretary of the fund, as to whether the board paid the recipient his money directly, or whether he paid the creditors directly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is not quite the answer to my question. I should like to know if the treasury board, or the trustees, pay these funds directly to the recipients or to the recipients' creditors.


Henry Frank Jones: I think the hon. member for Kootenay West has his answer. I have stated that requisition is made by the board. The hon. member received an answer in detail regarding the actual disbursements of the fund when the secretary of the fund appeared before the committee. I am sure if the hon. member checks back in the committee reports he will find an answer to that half of his question, and I suggest I have given the answer to the other half.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Mr. Benidickson:: At the next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister
wishes, he may put the motion now because the bill was considered yesterday in committee of the whole.


Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
387.	Departmental administration, $332,439.
Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, does the minister intend to make a statement in respect of his department?
(Translation);


Mr. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Chairman, I need hardly say that it is always with some misgivings that a newly
90205-6-358
Supply-Secretary of State appointed minister is faced with the responsibility of introducing his estimates in the house, I shall discharge this responsibility with all the co-operation expected by the house. I know I can count on the cooperation of the house and I feel sure that co-operation will also be helpful to all those who are interested in knowing about these estimates and their use.
(Text):
I should like to make a few brief remarks with respect to the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State. This is one of the oldest departments and I feel that most hon. members are sufficiently familiar with the operations carried on within it that it is not necessary for me to take the time of the committee to outline them.
The expenditure of the department is, as hon. members will note, just over $5 million annually. The estimated amount required to operate in the period 1961-62 is $94,117 more than that which was estimated for 1960-61, an increase of 1.8 per cent.
This department is also a revenue producing department, and I might say that the revenue for the year 1960-61 was $2,726,550, which represents a small increase, namely $28,535, or slightly more than 1 per cent over that collected in 1959-60.
I should like to indicate briefly the reasons why I am asking the committee to approve an amount of $94,417 more than the amount estimated for last year. In some areas the increase is more substantial but in others we have been able to effect certain economies, and thus the total additional amount required is relatively small.
Our salary item is up $149,167 over last year. This is almost entirely due to salary revisions, statutory increases and reclassifications, since the net increase in the department's establishment is only one position. There is also an increase of $15,000 in the amount required to provide for translation done outside the bureau for translations, and an increase of $18,000 for supplies and equipment in the nature of special types of filing and storage equipment in the companies division and the patent office.
Thus we estimate a total gross increase in our requirements for certain operations of $182,167. Against this figure we balance the economies to which I alluded earlier. The large item here is a decrease in the costs of printing patents and the Patent Office Record. We show a total decrease under our publications object of $75,800. In addition there is a decrease under other items of $12,250 which,
5666	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State when added to the decrease under publications, gives us a total figure of $88,050 less than we estimated that we required for these objects last year.
We therefore need $182,167 more than we estimated for last year for certain of our operations, and $88,050 less for others, giving us a net requirement of $94,117.
Having delivered myself of these statistics I am prepared to attempt to deal with such questions and to accept in a co-operative spirit such suggestions as hon. members may care to make as the appropriate votes are called. I would point out that the order in which it is proposed that my estimates will be dealt with is, first, the Department of the Secretary of State, then the chief electoral officer, followed by the civil service commission and finally the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. In the interest of orderly discussion I would suggest that this order be carefully followed, disposing of each branch and likewise of each vote of each branch, before passing on to the next.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, the committee is happy to welcome the new minister presenting his estimates to the committee for the first time and we wish him well in his new office. I hope-and I have repeated this for many years since 1945- that the new occupant of the post of Secretary of State will stay long enough in this post to become acquainted with this very complicated department and so that we may be in a position at a future time to be a little more difficult with him and to expect that he will be an expert in each of the branches of his department. That has been "lacune", as we say in French, in the past. As soon as the minister has been long enough in the department for hon. members to feel that they should be questioning him closely he disappears to another department or to the Senate. I do not know why the Secretary of State is picked for that particular function although if my hon. friend feels he should go to the Senate I have no objection, of course, and I would wish him well there, too.


Noël Dorion: Thank you.


Jean-Thomas Richard: As the minister has said, the Department of the Secretary of State has a number of important functions to perform. However, at this time I wish to make only a few general remarks relating to the branch dealing with patents, trade marks, copyrights and designs in a


general way because I will come back to these items for questioning more specifically during the discussion of the particular estimate.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, it has been a little bit difficult to get ready to question the minister on these estimates this afternoon because the last report which we have from this department covers the year ended March 31, 1960, and of course that is hardly useful at this late date. I do not blame the minister for this, and I was assured that if the estimates had been taken up a little later we could have had more information. However, I will try to proceed by the slower process of questioning.
As I was saying, one of the important branches of the Secretary of State's department is that which relates to patents, trade marks, copyrights and designs. It is quite some time since we received the royal commission's reports on patents, industrial designs and copyrights. One of the first questions I ask the Secretary of State is whether it is the intention of the government at this time or in the very near future to implement the reports of the royal commission or at least to take some of the suggestions from them and include them immediately in the existing acts by way of amendment.
There are two ways to proceed, of course. The first is to introduce a new patent act, a new industrial designs act and a new copyright act. The second is to take some of the suggestions in the reports already presented by the royal commission and bring them forward as amendments to the existing acts. As the house knows, these very important pieces of legislation, the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act and the industrial designs act bring about, in a way, monopolies in favour of a particular person or company, and the departmental report has shown in the past and would show now if it were available that the owners of these so-called privileges are not in the main Canadian subjects.
In 1959-60 Canadians obtained approximately 1,500 patents out of 21,000 granted by our patent office, and the same thing can be said about trade marks, industrial designs and copyrights. In the light of the desire of the government to see that the rights of Canadians are protected, possibly something might be found in the royal commission reports on patents, industrial designs and copyrights which might be helpful.
I know, for example, that only recently in the course of the investigation into drugs being conducted by the combines investigation branch it was found that the prices of

drugs are greatly affected by patents, by the exclusive right of a certain person or company, mostly foreign, of course, which owns a patent and can dictate the price of a particular drug because they are the exclusive manufacturers and owners of the right to make that drug. It is true that there are some provisions in our Patent Act which permit licensing but these are very difficult provisions. The royal commission suggested some broadening of the licensing features with respect to patents to allow Canadian industry and the public to benefit from these inventions whether they concern drugs or other things.
In connection with the industrial design and copyright legislation there is one feature that comes to my mind. The revenue of these two branches is very low and one reason why it is so low is that the acts are not operative. We require as soon as possible a new copyright act and a new industrial designs act. They are antiquated and almost useless in their present form. If the minister will look at the figures for 1959-60, and they must be similar for 1960-61, the revenue of the industrial design branch from filing fees was $4,000 and I believe the revenue in the case of copyrights was $17,000, hardly sufficient to pay half of the cost of the salaries involved in these two branches.
But that is not the one and only reason for amending these acts. The real reason is that the acts are not operative. We need a new copyright act, one that will protect the rights of Canadians. Again, this act is being used by people who are foreign to this country to exact very high fees or royalties without any control being exercised through our own legislation except by so-called international agreements which are really designed to protect the rights of people in other countries because they are the ones who have the greatest number of copyrights.
I am simply making general remarks. I ask the minister to take a look at the legislation in the light of the three reports on patents, copyrights and industrial designs. I have not said much about industrial designs because the subject is rather technical but, as the minister knows, the present act is very faulty. It is only supposed to cover the shape, appearance and configuration of an article like a Coca-Cola bottle because it has ribs on the side or in the case of other articles the round shape or hollow shape or whatever the case may be. The act does not cover any mechanical features, and the real purpose of an industrial design patent is to cover the mechanical features which are not the subject matter of a patent of invention. I do not 90205-6-3584
Supply-Secretary of State intend to say more at this time. I think I have said enough of a general nature and I will question the minister on the particular items of his estimates as they come before us.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the words of the hon. member and his constructive manner of discussing these questions.
(Translation):
As to the legislation suggested by the Ilsley commission, I have already stated in the house, following a question put to me by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), that the officials of my department were preparing legislation according to the order of the recommendations submitted by the commission.
Looking at the order in which the recommendations were made, we find that the first suggestion had to do with the Copyright Act. On that point, as the hon. member is surely aware, Canada in 1952 ratified, or rather signed the universal copyright convention.
The next step is to ratify it and make it effective in Canada.
The question arose as to whether we should await the complete revision of the copyright, or whether at this stage we should just ratify the convention without awaiting the revision. I think on the basis of the steps already taken, I can reassure the hon. member on that point, because the last steps required before ratification are nearly completed. It is important that ratification be approved, either by parliament or by the governor in council, according to the advice we shall get from our legal advisers.
With regard to the other pieces of legislation, as I indicated a moment ago, we are preparing a complete revision. Unfortunately, I do not think it will be possible to place them before the house during this session.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I hope the minister will realize that I am not as anxious as he is-perhaps he misunderstood me-to ratify the international convention, unless I can be assured that it will in no way affect our rights under the new copyright act, and that the new act will give greater protection to Canadians than the present act.


Noël Dorion: That point I would answer as follows. If the effective acceptance of our convention under the existing law, can in no way affect the legislation which will eventually be adopted, the period of time already set down in the convention and our existing law will have to be respected.

Supply-Secretary of State
Here is the problem: In the light of the Ilsley report, would it be better to adapt our law to American legislation or should we keep the provisions of our Copyright Act which stipulates that copyrights are good for a period of 25 or 50 years after the writer's death? If we can thus ratify the universal convention immediately without having to amend the existing legislation, we will have the protection we need against certain provisions of American legislation which, at present, are prejudicial to some of our writers,


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a proposal which would benefit national unity and which, if adopted, would at the same time represent a substantial saving for the government.
I would like to say a few words especially about the publication in French, of certain documents issued by parliament or the government.
Section 133 of the British North America Act, 1867, reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec: and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
The last paragraph of the British North America Act does not suggest any procedure, but it certainly does not recommend an English original and a French translation. It is clearly stated in the first part:
and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses.
It would therefore seem that the legislator intended both languages to be used equally, and not separately, by producing an original text of which a translation would be made later.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend this Canadian government which, for some time now, has had some of its publications printed in both languages under the same cover. I have here a bilingual report entitled:
Report of the special committee responsible for considering the proceedings of the House of Commons, jointly with the Speaker, submitted by the Hon. Roland Michener, Q.C., Speaker of the House of Commons.
which was published on July 25, 1960.
I might also point out that Votes and Proceedings, bills and all documents of the Quebec legislature are printed in both languages.

Every paper there is printed in this way, The cover is printed in both languages, i.e French and English, and the text inside is also bilingual, that is French on one side and English on the other. The order paper of the Quebec legislature follows the same pattern,
By printing first of all the English text and then the French text, we may sometimes experience delays of several days, weeks or even months, for instance in the case of minutes and proceedings of committees of this house and of the Senate. And what about annual reports of some departments?
I have here some French editions which were published two months after the English ones. In such cases, the French version is so outdated that its value is greatly reduced.
French speaking members of the house and people who wish to carry out research will rather use the English version which is available, than wait for a French translation which does not come. Those people will not go to the trouble of reading the French version when it comes, after weeks, perhaps even months, of delay, a situation which makes it practically useless.
To facilitate the consideration of this problem, let us take as an example Hansard for the House of Commons and for the Senate, bills, committee, board and departmental reports and, finally, the Canada Year Book.
I wish to point out that, as I said a while ago, there has been great improvement in that respect under the present administration. Indeed, instead of getting the minutes and proceedings of the committees of the house two, three, six and even eight months after the English version of the reports, we get them only a few days or a few weeks late.
The English and French versions of Hansard of the house and of the Senate could be printed side by side in the same edition; thus we would have only one edition with both versions, instead of two diiferent editions.
The same thing could be done for bills by printing both versions of amendments side by side, and the explanatory notes, at the bottom of corresponding pages.
That is the system which has been followed since confederation, in the legislature of the province of Quebec. As I said before, it was even tried here once, as an experiment, under the present government, with a report of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The same thing could be done for committee reports as for bills; the English and French versions could be printed side by side. Naturally, the translation of the minutes and proceedings would have to be hurried up by giving stenographers' transcripts to the translators instead of letting them wait for the printed version. If you calculate the amount of time it takes to transcribe the stenographic reports, to revise them properly, to set them up, to print them and to prepare and distribute the booklets, then translation can easily be delayed for several weeks. If translation were done from the transcript of the shorthand notes, the French version would be available as soon as the English edition.
As for commission or departmental reports those publications are of the utmost interest to the public of both languages, and therefore they should be published not only simultaneously but in side-by-side editions.
The Canada Year Book is obviously quite extensive. It could be subdivided into several volumes with French and English pages side by side.
Mr. Chairman, coming back to reports of committees, I learned during a personal investigation, that when a Senate or House of Commons committee sits in the morning, it could be possible, like it is for Hansard in both houses, to translate and edit the text and send it to the printers within 24 hours. This would obviously involve a fast process which would require co-operation on the part of the committees, the reporters and the secretary, the translators, the editors and the printing bureau.
If the sitting of the committee ended around one o'clock, for instance, the reporter could make his copy available bit by bit as it was transcribed, instead of waiting until the whole sitting was completed. In that way, the translators could, in the afternoon, start working on the proceedings of the morning sitting, and by maintaining this rate of production, translation and revision, it would probably be possible to send the copy to the printer the following day.
This is, of course, a matter of probability, but the margin of error, even if it reached 24 hours in some cases, would be nothing as compared to the present time lag. Under present conditions, apparently, the translation is started only after the original copy has been printed and stitched. Even at that, it would certainly be possible to publish a report of committee proceedings within seven to
Supply-Secretary of State 10 days. At the present time, the French copy may weL be published only several weeks and even months, as in previous years, after the English booklet has been made available to the public.
Delegates to the last federal-provincial conference of November 1957 recall that it was possible to distribute the French text to the delegates at the same time as the English text. Of course, that was an exceptional case, but work was first sent to the translators in the afternoon; they worked until late in the night, and at nine o'clock in the morning, the French mimeographed copy was in the hands of the delegates at the same time as the English copy. This was mimeographed copy, but at the previous conference, the copy had not only been mimeographed, but printed. This shows that in the matter of translation, the French version can, if necessary, be ready a few hours after the English copy. If we want to save money and time, the next step would be to publish both versions together under the same cover, thus requiring only one setting of the type and one team working in both languages.
Mr. Chairman, there is of course the fact that a large number of committees may be sitting at the same time, both in the Senate and in the house.
One of the many problems that arise is the matter of the availability of translators. In view of that, consideration might be given to increasing the number of translators working on committee proceedings, or to having several shifts so that the work would go on without interruption.
It goes without saying that use should be made of the quickest translation facilities, and that as far as possible, the most efficient and modern methods of translation should be promoted.
Several thousand dollars would certainly be saved if there was only one printing instead of two; once the material is collected, there is only the page setting to be done, so that the French text will face the English text, and then it is ready for the press. Otherwise, there must be two type settings and two printings and everything else involved in two operations. It would also result in a saving of paper because it often happens, both in French and in English publications, that many pages are left blank. This applies not only to the official reports of the house and the Senate, but also to all committee and commission reports.
5G70

Supply-Secretary of State
Mr. Chairman, if we examine, for instance, the figures showing expenditures incurred by the government for printing certain documents pertaining to the operation of the house and Senate, we note that in 1955-56 the English edition of Hansard cost $240,708.28 and the French edition $151,364.60, or a total of $392,072.88.
In 1956-57, the printing costs of the same documents reached $254,493.82 for the English edition, and $161,940.29 for the French edition, or a total of $416,434.11. It should be realized that those are considerable sums of money-nearly half a million dollars.
Moreover, the printing costs of the Votes and Proceedings of the house, for the same two years, amounted in 1955-56 to $13,790.66 in English, and $9,129.12 in French, or a total of $22,919.78; in 1956-57, those amounts were $16,820.20 in English, and $11,394.23 in French or a total of $28,214.43.
We could also quote similar statistics for the order paper and other documents concerning the business of the Senate and the house.
As to the minutes and proceedings and records of the various parliamentary committees, we unfortunately do not have before us separate figures for the French and English printing costs, but we have an expert's opinion on this matter, to the effect that the proportion of expenses is about 75 per cent for the English edition and 25 per cent for the French edition.
Therefore, when we say that, in 1956-57, the printing costs of the proceedings of the committee on banking and commerce amounted to $18,920.95 we may be assured that 75 per cent were spent for the publication of English text and 25 per cent in respect of the French translation. Similarly, in 1956-57, the external affairs committee asked for $10,891.02 to print its proceedings, the same proportion prevailing for the English and French editions.
Therefore those are considerable expenses representing a heavy burden on the public budget. If there is any possibility of reducing those expenses, I think we should not hesitate to do so. Indeed, printers will tell you that the main expense factor in printing is the lay-out and the time required for that operation.
Once a page, or eight, or 16 pages are all set up the press does the work. Costs are mostly made up of lay-out work. If there could be only one typesetting operation for the English

and French versions instead of two separate ones, it would result in considerable savings, in view of the large number of Hansards, proceedings and reports of committees published both by the Senate and the house in one single session. Within a few years, the savings would offset the annual cost of printing those documents.
Bearing in mind that in 1955-56, the total cost of printing committee proceedings and other documents of the house and Senate amounted to $764,429.06, including $92,607.86 for committee reports, and that in 1956-57, the same costs were $698,563.97, including $109,120.74 for the committees, one realizes the tremendous savings that would result if printing costs could be reduced perhaps 25 per cent or even more. It is not a matter of complicating the work, but on the contrary, of simplifying and reorganizing it and giving recognition to the truly bilingual character of our official documents.
Government publications are filled with tables and statistics requiring an equal number of forms in each language; in publishing a single bilingual edition, duplication of that work would be avoided.
I am only expressing a wish, but I do hope that in view of the importance of the matter from the angle of national unity, and in view of the possible savings involved, a committee of officials will soon be set up to this effect. The committee might include official representatives of the printing bureau, the bureau for translations, the editors of the various departments, as well as the secretaries of the house committees, who could jointly consider the practicality of this scheme.
The importance of publishing English and French simultaneously and side by side comes from the fact that as long as those documents are published separately, English speaking Canadians will never see the French version and vice versa, which is contrary to the spirit and the letter of our constitution. Under the present system, English texts enjoy an undeniable priority, because of the circumstances in favour of such an anomaly.
In brief, the important thing is to make sure that the French language has in fact the same rights as the English language and to see that French publications are printed at the same time as the English ones, while saving money. By publishing them side by side and under the same cover, we would

avoid this delay and we would assert the true bilingual character that is guaranteed to us by the British North America Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have here two comparative tables showing the expenditures incurred by the government during the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 for the publication of certain documents dealing with the proper functioning of the Senate and the House of Commons. It would be too long to quote all those figures in detail here, but I ask your permission to table them for their publication in Hansard to supplement my argument.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to have printed in the record, at this point, these two comparative tables. They are official documents and besides, they are quite short and will help to support what I have just said.


The Deputy Chairman:: Before I give this permission to the hon. member, he will have to obtain leave from the house. Has the hon. member the consent of the house to have those tables printed in Hansard?


Mr. Roberge:: What is the source of that information?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They are comparative tables indicating the cost for printing parliamentary documents, that is the debates of the House of Commons, committee reports and so on, for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. They are official documents.


Charles Edward Rea: Is the answer given by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm satisfactory?


Gabriel Roberge: I feel that the answer is rather vague. We need a more specific answer as to the source of that information so that we can make a comparison later on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I got those figures from the Clerk of the House of Commons, and they are official figures.


Gabriel Roberge: Oh, very well.


Charles Edward Rea: Then has the hon. member consent to print those documents in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Tables referred to at p. 5672.]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State in charge of that department for his excellent work. I am very happy-


Mr. Meunier:: Would the hon. member please not read so fast?
Supply-Secretary of State


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am quite willing to accede to the request of the hon. member, but I am not reading. I will speak more slowly and ask the hon. member to correct what he has just implied.
As I was saying I commend the Secretary of State in charge of the department for the services rendered. He has done excellent work. He has done a lot towards national unity.
I hope that he will rise to make a few remarks on that matter or rather on what I just said. I hope that the minister will have something to say concerning the printing and publishing of documents since he has assumed responsibility for this department which he so ably administers.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I must say, first of all, that I readily endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm about bilingualism.
However, a slight correction is in order. He claimed that under the present government it was suggested for the first time to print the official report of the house in French and in English under the same cover.
I have here the standing orders of the house of 1955 published in French and in English under the same cover. Therefore, there is nothing new about this. I admit, however, that those are about the only documents that are published both in French and in English.
The House of Commons has always published its standing orders in both languages under the same cover. This is an old practice that has been maintained. I am pleased to congratulate those responsible for it at present.
But I fully agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that there is plenty of room for improvement.
For instance, I note that since his appointment, the new Queen's printer has applied himself to hasten the printing of French reports. But, up to now, his efforts have not been completely successful, and it is alleged that this is due to a shortage of translators.
Well, I believe that the department should strive to recruit more translators, if they are to be found. I know there must be some somewhere, for when we decided to establish a simultaneous translation system in the house, it was possible to secure the services of expert interpreters who perform a remarkable job all day long.

(Text):
Supply-Secretary of State



COMPARATIVE FIGURES SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COST OF PRINTING PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1955-56 AND 1956-57

[Stage Direction]
1955-56	1956-57
$	$	$	$Debates	English French	240,708.28 151,364.60	392,072.88 61,942.43	254,493.82 161,940.29	416,434.11 58,293.07Stationery, Supplies and Equipment	Votes and Proceedings	English French	13,790.66 9,129.12	22,919.78	16,820.20 11,394.23	28,214.43
Order of the Day				French	15,557.69 8,991.00	24,548.89 12,164.97	21,554.94 12,277.16	33,842.10
					
Evidence of Committees	
Printing of Bills	92,607.86 27,791.75 24,835.89	109,120.74 17,228.72 4,869.65Printing Forms, Binders, ^tc	21,272.47 58,787.21	12,056.09Binding, Statutes, Votes and Proceedings, etc	
Reports of other Government Departments	21,242.06 4,240.27	8,525.72 9,409.86 406.36-	156.27Miscellaneous Printing	2.60	6.85764,429.06	698,563.97
* See Schedule 1

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture and Colonization	
Banking and Commerce	
Capital and Corporal Punishment, and Lotteries-
Marine and Fisheries	
Standing, Sessional and Special, House of Commons
Privileges and Elections	 -
External Affairs	
Veterans' Affairs	
Estimates	
Railways and Shipping	
Broadcasting	
Industrial Relations	
Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines	
Miscellaneous Private Bills	
Public Accounts	
Fed. Dist. Commission	
Procedure -....		
Research	[DOT]		 ^	,,«.
1955-56 Accts. Paid in 1956-57	
1955-56	1956-57
$	$
6,749.93	10,398.59
4,356.30	18,920.95
13,098.67	3,311.24
322.49	354.79
302.20	123.37
3,780.37	-
7,848.76	10,891.02
2,273.37	-
11,850.87	14,405.93
10,710.37	6,238.04
12,837.92	-
9,479.64	1,148.77
6,205.14	5,565.33
65.78	210.13
701.97	2,521.51
806.58	18,302.49
917.50	-
-	7,123.51
-	9,605.07
92,607.86	109,120.74
(Translation);
I wonder whether the Secretary of State should not make a serious effort to recruit translators.
On the other hand, if it is true that the translators in the employment of the government get a lower salary than those who work

for private companies, I am of the opinion that the Secretary of State should immediately put a request to the government to raise the salary of those who are particularly qualified to translate efficiently in English or in French. I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to intensify the efforts in that area.

I know that everybody wishes to secure the services of qualified translators, but it seems to me that someone is being lazy. They do not seem to realize the problem, and that is why I completely agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
I hope that the present Secretary of State will do all he can and that he will hold his office long enough to enable him to complete the business undertaken, because, as the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) said earlier, the secretaries of state succeed each other so rapidly, these last few years, that they do not have time to complete whatever work they have undertaken. The Secretary of State would have to stay in his present position long enough, at least till the next general election. Then another one could be appointed who would prove himself very capable, and in this way such work could be continued and even increased.
Moreover, like the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and other hon. members both French and English, I would like to see implemented in this house the system used at Quebec. The bills there are printed in two columns, one in English and one in French, which allows anyone not too familiar with the other language to follow on the translation and thus be able to better understand the legislation.
If such a system were implemented here, it could be indicated that in the event of inconsistencies the English or the French as the case may be has precedence.
Whenever there appears to be any ambiguity due perhaps to translation in either of the two official languages, it would be easy to state at the end of the bill, that the original text will have precedence over the translated version before the courts, parliament and elsewhere.
Anyhow, I am sure that the actual Secretary of State is acting in good faith and good will. As a patriot, he intends to improve the situation whenever opportunity arises, Therefore, I do not blame him in the least for the conditions which existed in the past, but I hope he will also share the views expressed by the member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm and myself.
Moreover, I have already advocated more complete bilingualism in this country. In my view, the best way would be to follow the method now in use in Quebec, that is, to print the two texts side by side so that everyone could better understand the meaning of the other.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Secretary of State will kindly speed up the work in order to improve the situation.
Supply-Secretary of State
Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank very sincerely the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and the hon. member for Joli-ette-l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) for what they said about me, and especially for their really practical and appropriate suggestions, which I shall not fail, indeed, to take into account in carrying out my duties.
However, I should like, at the very start, to say that I wish to reply particularly to those remarks, because the problem seems to me of capital importance. For instance, I simply wish to point out, to begin with, that the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State is somewhat limited by paragraph 3 of chapter 270, dealing with the bureau for translations;
-the duties and function of which are to collaborate with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of the parliament of Canada and all bureaus, branches, commissions and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament, or by order of the governor in council, in making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
In other words, the point is that for all branches, departments and particular agencies, those branches, departments or agencies ask the bureau for translations to do such and such a task, such and such translation work; it is therefore the responsibility of the authorities of each branch or department to determine the work they want to be performed by the bureau for translations.
I must say there is, it seems 10 me, a constant improvement and that, more and more, instead of using at times the English language, and at other times the French language in those documents, at least in the very simple ones, such as letter and envelope headings, etc., the tendency is increasing to use both languages simultaneously. And I feel that even from a practical point of view much success has been achieved and that, in my opinion, is more in accordance with clause 133 of our constitution.
On the other hand, as far as the translation services are concerned, I think we have recently recommended to the civil service commission to raise the translators' salaries and the hon. member for Hull is quite right when he says we should do more along these lines in order not only to add to the number of our translators but also to increase their qualifications.
I must say that the bureau for translations has a staff of highly qualified men who perfectly discharge their duties, but we often ask quite a lot of them, more than they

Supply-Secretary of State can do, with the net result that those requirements cause delays which are not due to the bureau of translations or to the translators but rather to the fact that there are not enough translators.
On the other hand, I must say that we now experience lots of difficulties when recruiting translators. I understand that about twenty positions remain open, despite all efforts to create an interest among translators who come to the rescue of those already with the bureau who, in my opinion, do their duty perfectly well.
Now, about the department itself, and this, I think, covers the third part of the remarks made by the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-I am most happy to see that cooperation as between members of the opposition and government members is achieved on such a sore point as that-I must say that we have most successfully tried to establish the idea of bilingualism at most levels of the administration of the printing bureau.
Recently we opened a shop in Toronto which, of course, comes under the Queen's printer, and the experiment has proved most fruitful, as French and English publications are found there side by side. As a matter of fact, the last report I received was astounding. It is remarkable to note the increase in the sales of French publications, simply because the French issue was put immediately beside the English one.
This might be an incentive for the citizen who wants to improve his French or English. He can buy both the French and the English editions.
Moreover, we intend to open another establishment of this kind in the very near future in Montreal, and we will proceed exactly the same way.
I must indeed say that the sales manager is perfectly bilingual.
As to the other things we have done, I might mention a few. Notices to tenderers are now completely bilingual. There is no need to change the form according to whether we are dealing with a French speaking or English speaking tenderer, because the same form is sent in both languages to all parts of Canada.
This also applies to calls for tenders, to calls for a description of machinery, to general circulars, to instructions to employees and even to bail-point pens or pencils, which previously had only an English inscription.
I should also mention some improvements for which I can take no credit, since they
[Mr Dorion.]

were brought in before I took this office, perhaps under the former administration, I do not know, and I do not want to take credit that is not mine. However, to the list I have just given, we could add the following doc-cuments:	printed specification documents,
printed specification forms, business forms, slogans on stationery items, various posters for boards, directions inside as well as outside the buildings, parking signs, press releases and the samples which are now under press.
As for the secretary of state department itself, we have moved to other quarters quite recently, and that was an opportunity to see that everything be entirely bilingual, in order to respect the principle so eloquently upheld by the hon. members for Hull and for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
(Text)


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, 1 hope that I will be forgiven if I speak in respect of a particular element of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State which has already been touched on briefly by one of my colleagues, and I refer to the matter of an amendment to the Canadian Copyright Act or, as I should like to be able to refer to it, the repeal of the present act and the institution of a completely new, modern act, as recommended by the report of the Ilsley commission and, in addition, of course, the ratification of the universal copyright convention.
I was somewhat astonished this afternoon to hear that consideration has been given by the department to the ratification of the convention prior to an amendment to the Copyright Act. Since excellent legal authority has looked at the problem and, in fact, the Ilsley commission was set up and assisted by the best authorities regarding the subject, I should like to refer to a statement made in section 6, page 16 of the report.
That statement is, that Canada, as a signatory to the convention, has a right to ratify it, but before it does so, it must be in a position, under its domestic law, to give effect to the terms of the universal copyright convention, article 10, and, therefore, it is of prime necessity that an amendment to our domestic legislation should be made first, in point of time, and, thereafter, we may ratify this convention.
That statement appears to be unopposed by anyone who appeared before the commission, and they seem to have had the best reasons for making it. In fact, the minister has been quoted earlier this year, after he received an extensive brief from the Canadian Authors

Association which recommended a new copyright act and ratification of the convention, in the Toronto Globe and Mail, as having told the president of that association that the amendment to the Copyright Act was under way now, and that it might be expected not this year, but next, but that parliament would not be asked to pass upon it at that time, and that a further year's delay might be expected while those interested individuals in Canada had the opportunity of studying it.
I should like to refer to that article appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 8, 1961, where the minister is reported as follows:
"I hope that it will be possible to introduce a bill to revise the Copyright Act at the next session of parliament," Mr. Dorion wrote. However, following the introduction of the bill, parliament may decide to stand it over to the next session, so as to afford those interested a better opportunity of studying it and expressing their views on it.
The minister then goes on to deal with the universal copyright convention.
I became interested in this subject, which is a fairly erudite one, not through my practice of law, because I have not had the opportunity, but because of a situation which arose in my own constituency. In that constituency there is a young professional man who is the author of a book, and who intended to publish that book in Canada in an effort partly to create employment for Canadians. I do not think there is any point here for me to beat a dead horse, by saying that there is considerable unemployment in Canada and has been for the past three years, but let me say that the printing and publishing industry of Canada is in pretty sad shape.
There is a provision existing in the United States copyright act providing that books must be printed and published in the United States, and, if printed here in Canada and sold in the United States, after the sale of 1,500 copies, the author loses his copyright. The effect of that provision is that any book printed and published in Canada, and sold in the United States, may be pirated after 1,500 copies have been sold.
The author to which I refer wrote his book with the anticipation of selling a considerably larger number than 1,500 copies in the United States. I expect every author has that same anticipation. Although that individual consulted several Canadian publishers both in the Niagara riding and outside, he was advised not to publish in Canada for his own sake, but to publish his book in the United States. He, accordingly, did so.
It is impossible to say, in terms of dollars and cents, how much was lost to the Canadian publishing industry as a result of
Supply-Secretary of State that one book being printed in the United States, but if we multiply the amount involved in respect of that one book, by the number of books written by Canadian authors and published in the United States, I suggest to the minister there is a very large amount lost annually, and we are not doing what is necessary to assist that industry, which is already in bad trouble. By the mere fact of assisting the publishing industry I would suggest that the minister's immediate response, when he has such a small department and only $5 million to expend, should have been as follows. One of the first things he should have done on coming to office was to insist that his departmental officials place before him and before the house for discussion a copyright act.
Because of the situation which arose in Niagara, I began to look into the situation and I found that ratification of the universal copyright convention, which was a convention mainly instigated by the United States, would have the effect that the printing requirements of the United States domestic legislation would no longer take effect and therefore Canadian authors would not be in jeopardy if they printed in Canada.
Canada was a signatory of the Berne convention and of the Rome convention. These things were discussed as well as the possibility of ratifying what had been signed at the universal copyright convention. The Ilsley commission spent a great deal of time on this matter and heard a great number of interested groups and individuals in this country. They produced the first report in 1957 which dealt only with copyright and, of course, not merely copyright in literature, music, works of art and things of that kind. It went much further and covered a much broader field than the present legislation, which I think was last amended or enacted in 1924. Surely, all hon. members will agree that since 1924 the world has changed drastically and in this time little protection has been given to authors, artists, architects and those individuals who produce musical works in this country, certainly not the protection which should have been given to them. The report which was produced by the Ilsley commission is one which starts with a new act in force and that is the copyright act introduced in the United Kingdom in 1956. It is a radical departure from our old Canadian Copyright Act. It is an easily readable act. It is a long act, and it establishes quite a few new rights.
The commission which sat in Canada had before it not only the new United Kingdom

Supply-Secretary of State act but in addition the reports of the committee in the mother of parliaments, and the report of the commission out of which the act arose. It looked into this and felt that some of those rights were not ones which should be in effect in Canada. If one spends sufficient time to read the report of the Ilsley commission on copyright one will find that in fact it is a simple document. It is one which almost goes so far as to draft the legislation.
Now, I cannot believe that in the minister's department in the past four years there could not have been found at least one person who could sit down and draw a draft act at least fully in conformity with the Ilsley report. Had this been done there then would have been an opportunity to circulate it around the country and give authors, artists and composers the opportunity to comment on something which was concrete. So far there has been no indication from this government as to whether it intends to adopt the principles of the Ilsley report, whether in fact it intends to adopt the various provisions which it recommends, or whether it intends to go off on another frolic of its own.
I think there are a lot of unpopular things which are recommended by the commission but the commission took a very bold view in order to try to produce legislation which is the right thing. I think there is a concept in the public mind that anything which is printed or published is by the common law protected and that it is an infringement of the common law to copy any such thing. Well, it does not take too much study of the subject to find that this is arrant nonsense. In the absence of a copyright act there is no natural law against using the product of any man's hands or his brains. This is the reason why jurisdictions around the world have brought in copyright acts, and have tried to keep them up to date.
Obviously, because of the nature of copyright because it is in a piece of music, a painting, a book, a scientific article, plans for a house or dwelling of some kind, because of the nature of the article, in which copyright may exist, because they are interchangeable all across the world, it therefore makes it most important that whatever our legislation be, it be something which is workable not only in Canada but around the world.
The universal copyright convention is the most modern of the agreements signed by individual countries. I believe only Russia and China did not sign. Most of the countries of the world that signed the convention


have ratified it. Some of the countries, including the United Kingdom which had entered into the Berne agreement and the Rome agreement on Canada's behalf have become members of the universal copyright convention and were able to do this only after they amended their domestic copyright legislation.
I say to the minister that if his department or his officials are of the opinion that they should ratify the convention without first bringing in a new copyright act, under the authority of the Ilsley commission's report, it would appear that we shall be pretty well stuck with the provisions of the present copyright act. The Copyright Act in force at the present time does not cover modern situations such as television, the right to televise certain material which is in copyright, the right to make records, the right to sell these. It does not cover juke boxes and the records used in them; it does not cover the type of literature which is now available but which was not available in the 1920's. It makes no provision for the changes that have occurred in the last 35 years. There has been a tremendous change in trade and a tremendous change in the speed with which these articles may be passed across the world. Television, of course, can show us now instantaneously something that is occurring elsewhere and I am told that before very long we shall have instantaneous television coverage of what is occurring on the other side of the world.
Copyright is becoming of increasing importance There are authors, artists, architects and musicians who believe that copyright should be a right in perpetuity. Of course, it cannot be that because there must be a necessary balance between what is right for the protection to a man of the fruits of his labour or of his intellect or of his skill and what is good for the body politic. At some time the ideas, the designs or the music must pass into the public domain.
We in this country are now in an unfortunate position because we do not give the necessary assistance. We not ony do not attempt to assist those creative elements in our community, we in fact depress them. We force publication in England or in the United States. In failing to protect designs, in failing to protect art and creative things of this nature we do not create a climate in which they can properly grow as they should in Canada
I think Canada is proud of its design council. Recently the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought in a new act with respect to this. Design, of course, is not copyright but the two are interrelated because if there is a copyright in an article which, is an artistic

article and which can be applied to an industrial design, then it is necessary to take away some of the copyright protections and leave them under the Industrial Designs and Union Label Act, or similar legislation,
Copyright is the first and most important of the modern legislation in the commercial and artistic fields which must come before the house, Canada cannot proceed into the 1960's in a 1920 vehicle. I would suggest to the minister that the first thing that is necessary is a crash program. I would also say to the minister that if he hears from the officials of his department that it is not possible to produce an act this year I will tell him that I as a private member in the last six weeks have almost completed producing an act. It will not be a perfect one but I have produced a draft copyright act which I will have on the order paper before the end of the session. The minister has a department where $5 million a year is spent and yet since 1957 he has not been able to produce such an act, one of the most important measures in assisting our creative people.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this question is so important that I should like to answer the hon. member for Niagara Falls now. I thank her very much for her suggestion. I should like to note that the report on copyrights does not attempt to draft a new statute. Furthermore, the recommendations in the report have to be studied carefully before we can decide whether or not to adopt them and, if we adopt them, how to implement them.
The subject is highly complex. It took over four years in the United Kingdom following the report of their committee on copyrights before a new copyright act was adopted. I should add that we are also working on the revision of the industrial design legislation. May I add to what I said a few moments ago. Although the matter has not been decided by the cabinet yet, on the basis of legal advice we have secured I do not believe it is necessary to change our own Copyright Act in order to protect the rights of our authors. The protection to be provided in the proposed new copyright law depends on what decision is made as to the duration of the term for which protection of the copyright is afforded. I know that in the Ilsley report there is a suggestion that the period of time be changed and if we have to change the period of time it would be necessary to have a new act, but if we do not change the period of time it would be possible to adopt the last convention and protect the rights of our authors without a new act.
If the government decides to retain the present term, namely, the life of the author
Supply-Secretary of State plus 50 years, our legal advice is that the universal copyright convention can be ratified without changing our legislation. This matter is now before the government and I hope it will not be long before we will have a decision of the government in order to protect as much as possible the rights of our authors against foreign legislation which now creates a very difficult situation for them.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the minister answer a question? There was an article by Miss Judith Robinson in the Toronto Telegram of January 24, 1961 in which she alleges that the minister, in attempting to protect Canadian authors, publishers and printers from American exploitation, wants it done by diplomatic representation at the international level. Her report is based on a meeting which the Secretary of State had with Ottawa printers a week before the appearance of this article in which she alleges that the minister aspires to persuade Washington at the international level to change its copyright laws to suit Canadians. This is a pretty scathing report, not unusual for the lady who wrote the article, but can the minister advise the committee whether in fact there has been some sort of consultation between his department and the appropriate authorities in the United States from the point of view of asking them to change their laws to protect Canadians?


Noël Dorion: I might answer that this is a question which is within the authority of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but what I said on that occasion was absolutely true. I do not know whether it is possible for me to answer for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but the hon. member can be certain that we made every effort possible by diplomatic means in order to have that change made by the government of the United States. Even if we did not succeed, I believe it would be easier for us to follow the procedure indicated a few moments ago without being obliged to have recourse to new legislation. Surely it would be sufficient for the protection of our authors if we ratified the convention but did not accept the period of time suggested. The commission's suggestion was in conformity with the American law and we have only to establish our own law now in respect of the duration of the period of time. I believe that if we act in that way it will be possible to protect our authors.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Does the minister agree that if there is ratification of the universal copyright convention first it will then be absolutely impossible for Canada, without

Supply-Secretary of State being in breach of the convention, subsequently to change the period during which the copyright exists?


Noël Dorion: Yes, we fully realize that. If we ratify the convention it implies that we accept the actual period of time mentioned in our law. This is the only difficulty to my mind, but I do not believe it is necessary to refer to the American legislation to protect our own authors. I believe that the method now in existence in Canada would be sufficient in respect of the period of time for the protection of authors.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I think we should congratulate the hon. member for Niagara Falls on her clear expose with respect to the matter of copyrights. I think this whole discussion clearly raises the point that there is a conflict of opinion with respect to whether we should ratify the international convention before a new act has been adopted. The United Kingdom did pass a new act before ratifying the international convention, and I cannot see why it should be so difficult to draft an act, say for the next session of parliament, when we have had the advantage of all the work that has been done in other countries and also the work of the Ilsley commission. We have waited for a very long time for a new copyright act.
I am one of those people who is absolutely nationalist when it comes to international conventions. I know that some people in government departments are ready to seize on every international convention there is in the world and make us a party to every agreement they can make with other countries. However, we always get the poor end of the cut of beef in these matters. I have never seen us get anything very good out of an international convention. We have everything to offer others and they have nothing to offer us. This is one of those conventions where we will not get anything out of it. Others want us to agree to it because they will get something out of it. We get the short end of the stick. My point is that there is a conflict of opinion. For years, I have been asking for a new copyright act. I think we have enough material at hand now to enable us to draft a new act. It is not a question of waiting four or five years more, especially if there has been the study made during the past four years by the department as suggested by the minister.
Now, of course, the matter is rather simplified if it is true, as stated a few minutes ago, that the government has agreed the new copyright act will adopt the terms of the old act. Apparently this has been decided because it could not be changed once we

adopt the international convention. Starting from there, then, the provision of the new act ought to be a rather simple matter. I think the whole discussion has centred around the question of the term. I doubt very much that we should adopt the term in the old act without some closer study, in the light of modem conditions.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, before item 387 carries, I should like to ask for some information. I do not have anything to say on that item but I would like to talk about the estimates of the department of public printing and stationery. As those items come under the Secretary of State, would I have leave to discuss them when you call that item?


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being a little late, but I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State as a result of the remarks he made a few moments ago concerning bilingualism.
The minister told us that his department has for some time supplied bilingual bid forms. Does that apply only to the Secretary of State department or to all departments?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I think I have given a moment ago an opinion based on the legislation concerning what goes on in other departments. The Secretary of State has no authority whatsoever in that field. Now, I am not in a position to say whether or not the other departments do the same.
(Text):


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, before the item passes I should like to ask the minister a technical question. I am wondering how the department functions, and how effective it is in its relations with all its branches. There is the electoral office, the civil service commission, the printing bureau and the secretary of state department, all of which appear to me to be separate and not in any way related to the office of the Secretary of State. I am wondering how these matters are handled, in a physical sense. How do you handle each one of these departments? Is there a set-up under which a deputy minister heads each one of these departments or is this a field in which we should revise the procedure for dealing with these branches? These branches, for instance, appear to me to have very little relationship to the printing bureau or to each other.
Is it now time for some reform of these branches to facilitate the handling of them within the department? Is there something that could be done to make it easier? It

seems to me they are not related, and I am wondering if this produces some difficulty for the department?


Noël Dorion: The answer to the hon. member's question is that there are two principal branches within the Department of Secretary of State under the provisions setting up that department. One is the secretary of state proper, and the other is the printing bureau. In so far as the chief electoral officer and the civil service commission are concerned, the Secretary of State is only the spokesman in the house for them.


William Arnold Peters: Has each one of these different branches a deputy minister? I know where the printing bureau headquarters are and the electoral officer-I am not sure about the civil service commission-but does the fact these headquarters are widely separated present any physical difficulty in getting around? If there is such a problem, is there any way that this can be overcome by parliament?


Noël Dorion: There is one deputy minister or the equivalent for each of these four departments. If there is something which is not precisely correct, then I am at the disposal of the hon. member to give him all the information he desires.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
390. Bureau for translations, $1,811,686.
William Arnold Peters: What is the function of this bureau? Does its functions include translations that may be directed to it from the House of Commons? If so, how extensive are the facilities available in that division?


Noël Dorion: The functions of the translation bureau are provided by law. They are to translate from French to English or from English to French, as well as foreign languages, for all departments, parliamentary reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence. Then too, the division is responsible for the simultaneous interpretation of speeches in the House of Commons and the publication of terminological bulletins.


William Arnold Peters: Are these facilities available to members of parliament? Quite often members who are not bilingual require translations of letters that are written in languages other than French or English. Is it part of the function of this bureau to supply this service to members of the House of Commons? If so, is there any specific way in which this service is obtained?
The problem, as I understand it, has been that translations have been done by several branches for members of parliament. This
Supply-Secretary of State service is on a request basis and at the discretion of the bureau. If they wish to do it, they do so and if they do not wish to do it they do not have to do so. It seems to me that the system we have now of asking the various agencies to do this work could be greatly improved. Members should be instructed as to where this work can be done, not only in so far as the French and English languages are concerned but other languages as well. At various times, the problem is rather acute, especially when we receive letters in Croatian or some of the Scandinavian languages. It is very difficult to have those letters translated here. I am wondering if this service is available to members?


Noël Dorion: The members of the house can have translations made by the bureau, but the bureau has to communicate with the Clerk of the house. It is to the house that the bureau is responsible, and not to each member. If there is some complaint about it, these complaints are supposed to be made to the Speaker of the House. We depend on representations from the Speaker or from the house and not from individual members of the house. Generally speaking, the translators are always ready to do whatever they are asked to do for every hon. member, even if we are not proceeding strictly in conformity with the rules and the law. The law is that we are responsible to the house and that we are obliged to give our services to the House of Commons.


William Arnold Peters: Does this mean that if we wish translations to be done, we should send them through the Clerk of the house or is there an office to which we can send them? It seems to me that this procedure will be giving the Clerk of the house some unnecessary work as he would immediately be obliged to dispatch them anyway. I am not asking that this be done right now. However, I think this matter could be taken up with the Secretary of State and the Clerk of the house so that an arrangement that is understood by everyone could be worked out.
As the situation stands now, the problem is this and I am quite sure that every hon. member is aware of it. Everybody gets translations done in a different department. One hon. member finds a friend in one department, and can send his letters there for translation; another hon. member finds a friend in another department. I would suggest that there is not any formal method now by which this work can be done. If this bureau is charged with doing this work on behalf of the Clerk, possibly a better arrangement can be arrived at so that a more suitable way can be found of doing this work than

Supply-Secretary of State is at present in operation. I am not suggesting that I be told about this matter now. However, I am suggesting that the minister give consideration to discussing it with the Clerk so that study can be given to the matter with a view to working out a method which will make it a little bit easier for those of us who are not bilingual to handle some of the correspondence that is of that nature.


Noël Dorion: Every department has its own officer to deal with the translations bureau. The hon. member can well understand how difficult it would be to proceed otherwise. However, if there is any procedure suggested properly, the hon. member can be sure that we will make every possible effort to give full consideration to the suggestion. (Translation).


Romuald Bourque: "Would the Secretary of State tell us whether the salaries of translators of the House of Commons, both English and French, are covered by item 390 amounting to $1,811,686?


Noël Dorion: Yes.
(Text).


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Office of the chief electoral officer-
46, Salaries and expenses of office. $83,685.
William Arnold Peters: Would the minister care to comment on this department? I am particularly concerned with the changes that have been made recently on, I would suggest, a partisan basis. I will use the example of my own riding where the returning officer over a period of years has been one person. He has established a very good record. I am not sure what his politics were and I do not really care. However, he did an exceptionally good job in two elections with which I had something to do. In one of those elections we had, as I suggest to any hon. member who may not have gone through this experience, a very unfortunate occurrence that happens occasionally. I refer to a recount. A recount is very tough on the people involved having regard to the fact that it takes some time. However, it gives one the opportunity to examine the work the electoral officer has done or the returning officer has done in that area, as you have the opportunity to see the results of the instruction that was given to the deputy returning officers under his control as well as to the clerks and other officials of the returning officer.
In this particular case, to use my own vote as an example, in 1957 before the recount I had a majority of 46. After 21,000 votes had been counted I had a majority of 40. This result would strike me as being an exceptionally good recommendation for the work

of that returning officer, having regard to the fact that he was able to conduct, through the people he appointed, an election as to which, after a judicial inquiry and personal examination of every ballot in the ballot box and of the work and the reports in those ballot boxes, out of over 20,000 votes the recount resulted in a change of only six votes.
In this particular case I fail to see why that man should be replaced by somebody else, as I suggest, possibly on a patronage basis. The other gentleman in this case had been doing this type of work in a provincial field and had been very unsuccessful in it. His record was not nearly as good in the provincial field and terrific complaints were made of the enumeration and some of the other things under his jurisdiction. Now we find that, for no particular reason, unless it would be a political one, this gentleman of whom I certainly have no knowledge politically, is removed and replaced by somebody else.
It seems to me that this is one field that is of the utmost importance to us. No matter what political party one may come from, I think this statement applies to the politicians involved. However, it reflects much more on the general public and on the success that may attend our desire to see that democracy works to its full extent by having as large a vote as possible. This result hinges partly on the returning officer and the ability he shows in choosing people who will see to it that the largest number possible are enumerated, particularly in an urban area and that all citizens have an opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
We know that in rural areas a person who is not on the enumerator's list, can be put on it very easily on election day. But I agree with many of the people in my riding who will say that they will not be sworn in on election day in an area in which they have lived for 40 or 50 years. Many of them have held municipal office and have lived all their lives in that particular area. To be left off the voters' list on election day is, to them, an insult. In my particular case, the experience I have had in the elections is greater than my years in parliament would indicate. I have been closely connected with the election machinery since 1947. I have had the opportunity to observe the work of various returning officers. I have found some to be conscientious and follow the book to the letter. These people do an excellent job; I am sure they have not become mixed up in politics and politics have not been used in their cases. I would not say that politics were not

used in their appointments in the first place, but this is not indicated in their operation of this office.
On the other hand, I have seen other returning officers who in my opinion have done a very poor job. They have hired people who will go down a block and not do the job properly. I remember one particular case where a boarding house was concerned. This boarding house had 66 people in it and the deputy returning officer only obtained the names of the man and woman who owned the boarding house because he believed the rest of the people did not vote the same way as they did.
In my opinion this does not do anything for the democratic process and I should like an explanation of this from the minister. I think other hon. members may be interested in this question also. In the case of men who have proven their ability and knowledge in relation to the whole of the Canada Elections Act and the operation of it-and certainly in the case where a man has proven before a judicial investigation that he has this ability and where I think it would be safe to say that no political complaint has been made of his impartiality-why should they be replaced and somebody else put in the job where the charge of it being a political appointment could be made against that person?
As I have said on other occasions where this has been done, it seems to me it does little to advance the interests of a particular political party. I say this because one man is appointed and there may be 20 who think they should have been appointed. Only one man will be grateful for the appointment and 19 will be rather upset. It does seem to me this does not do a great deal toward accomplishing the end which is intended.
I think the average Canadian citizen is more interested in honesty, integrity and the utmost attention by people concerned so that they may exercise their democratic right, be on the voters' list and may get out on election day and exercise their franchise. They would rather have this than the old, narrow concept of getting people out to the polls to vote a particular way. We, as politicians, will I am sure look after that aspect of the matter. We will be interested in getting those people to the polls whom we want to get there. Each one of us will be doing that for his political party.
It seems to me this is not the function or even part of the function of the returning officer. I am curious about this. Out of the 265 ridings in Canada, how many have been changed since the last election, and what are the reasons for any changes that have been made?
Supply-Secretary of State
Specifically I should like to know why the change has been made in my own riding, where I think it would be very difficult for anybody to accuse the previous returning officer of having been political in any sense of the word. His job is that of clerk of a large municipality. He has the staff, the facilities and the knowledge to carry out this job and it seems to me rather foolish to change that set-up when it has worked satisfactorily.
I am curious to know how many changes there have been. Of course, none of them has been changed for political reasons; we all know that. However, I should like to know how many have been changed because of unsatisfactory service, and why has the one in my riding been changed?


Noël Dorion: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question of the hon. member is this. Under section 8 of the Canada Elections Act, which section I believe was adopted without alteration after careful discussion in committee before coming before the house, these men are appointed on this basis:
The offices of all returning officers appointed prior to the passing of this act shall be deemed to be vacant and the governor in council may appoint-
The governor in council has the responsibility:
-to such offices either the same persons as now hold them, any of such persons or any other persons: he may also thereafter appoint from time to time a returning officer for any new electoral district and a new returning officer for any electoral district in which the office of returning officer becomes vacant, within the meaning of subsection (2).
This is the law, and I believe this section was adopted without discussion on third reading of the bill. If a complaint is to be made against a returning officer, section 58 (2) of the act applies. This section says:
Every candidate at any election and every official agent of any candidate has the right to send to the chief electoral officer in writing any complaint he may have to make with respect to the conduct of the election or of any election officer, and to suggest any such changes or improvements in the law as he may consider desirable; every such complaint or statement shall be included by the chief electoral officer in his next following report to the Speaker of the House of Commons, with such recommendations, if any, as he may see fit to make thereon.
In reply to the question put at the end of the observations of the hon. member, of all the persons appointed to date as returning officers, 81 acted as such at the 1958 general election; of this number 36 had also acted as such at the 1957 general election.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and the reply given

Supply-Secretary of State by the minister. I have no personal complaints in this matter because in Kootenay West everyone, regardless of party, recognizes the excellent service that has been rendered by the returning officer in a number of elections.
I am very glad to note in the list of reappointments that he has been reappointed. A number of persons in my party have indicated their satisfaction in his reappointment. However, would the minister inform the committee who is consulted with respect to the reappointment of returning officers, because I wish to refer to a letter after I receive the minister's reply.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to reply to the hon. member because circumstances are different in every case. But I can assure the hon. member that in respect of each person we have a report of his morality. This applies to all persons who are suggested or recommended to the governor in council for appointment, and in the final analysis the governor in council is solely responsible for the appointment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very interested to hear that there is an inquiry made as to the morals

of returning officers. Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock because I have a very interesting letter to refer to later.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Habel:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader will tell us what the business will be for tomorrow and Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on with the estimates, and will deal first tomorrow with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. On the completion of those estimates, we will resume consideration of the estimates of the Department of Secretary of State, which I hope will be followed by the completion of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries on which we spent some time earlier. If all goes well, and the house continues to be in a co-operative mood, as it has today, we will then take up the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


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

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

Mr. Regier: 1.	How many copies were printed of a report entitled "Licence Limitation, British Columbia, and Method of Economic Fisheries Management" by Sol
Question
Sinclair, professor and head, department of agricultural, economic and farm management of the University of Manitoba, published by the Department of Fisheries of Canada?
2.	How many additional copies, beyond the copies available, have been requested?
3.	What efforts are being made by the government of Canada to obtain additional copies to meet the demand?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
1. 1,000.
2.	None.
3.	None.

Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
387.	Departmental administration, $332,439.
388.	Companies division, $143,140.
389.	Trade marks division including a contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $223,658.
390.	Bureau for translations, $1,811,686.
Patent and copyright office-
391.	Administration division, $138,104.
392.	Patent division. $2,464,547.
393.	Copyright and industrial designs division including a contribution to the international office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $38,265.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 1, 1961

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.