1961-03-14

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of the document which was tabled by the Minister of Labour today and which is headed "In the matter of that certain C.B.C. telecast known as "Close-Up", telecast on the evening of Tuesday, March 7, 1961".
My question of privilege is that this sworn statement of Mr. Glen H. Exelby, which has just now become the property of the house, provides evidence that in his statement on March 8, as reported at page 2783 of Hansard, the Minister of Labour misinformed and misled the house with respect to a matter coming under his jurisdiction as a minister responsible to this house.
I think I can demonstrate this by a very brief quotation from the minister's statement and from the document itself. The minister said, as reported at page 2783 of Hansard-


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, what is the question of privilege in this instance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question of privilege, if I may reiterate it, is that a minister of the crown from his place in the house, misinformed and misled the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -about a matter coming under his jurisdiction, for which he is responsible to this house and to this house only.


Mr. Siarr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We cannot have two questions of privilege at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has already raised a question of privilege. If it is proceeded with I will of course hear the Minister of Labour. However, as I understand it the hon. member who has risen on this question proposes to confront the statement of the minister with an affidavit filed by the minister yesterday in response to a question asked in the house.
It seems to me that the hon. member is endeavouring to challenge what the minister said. If there is a misleading of the house by an hon. member or a minister, and it is an intentional misleading, it will undoubtedly raise a question for consideration by the house, using the proper procedure. However it seems to me that the hon. member is rising to establish his case rather than to move a motion or suggest a proceeding which might arise if the case were established.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make a motion so that this matter may be properly brought before the house. My motion, which would be seconded by my hon. friend from Megantic (Mr. Roberge) is as follows:
That the matter of the statements of the Minister of Labour in this house with regard to the case of Mr. Glen H. Exelby together with the sworn statement by Mr. Exelby tabled today be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for appropriate action.


Mr. Speaker:: Before placing this motion before the house it is my responsibility to determine whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. As I understand the hon. member, his question of privilege is that the minister misinformed the house in the statement which he made in answer to a question some days ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should hear other hon. members before determining whether a question of the privileges of the house does arise, assuming that the facts are correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I submit, with respect, on the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I submit with respect sir, that before it would be possible to demonstrate that there is a prima facie question of privilege, evidence would have to be heard. I am prepared to give that right away.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be no function of mine to hear the evidence. I have to determine whether the facts alleged, assuming they are true, raise a question of privilege. Then it would be for the house, through this motion or whatever means it chose to follow, to determine on the facts, would a

Question of Privilege
prima facie question of privilege arise on the allegation by the hon. member that the minister has misinformed the house?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Once again today an attempt is being made to upset the regular business of the house. I think this is the first time an attempt of this kind has been made in the 25 years I have been a member of the House of Commons. Just to show how ridiculous it is, let me remind hon. members that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had a copy of this affidavit yesterday. He told us he had received a copy or, in any event, it was common ground that he had one. The question was discussed yesterday. If he was going to raise a question of privilege, that was the time when it should have been done.


Mr. Pearson:: It had not even been tabled then.


Howard Charles Green: There was no need for it to be tabled, as the hon. member had it in his own possession. Surely he is not at liberty to come in today and initiate a question of privilege of this kind. It would be very interesting to know how much the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had to do with the drawing up and completion of this affidavit.


Mr. Speaker:: The question I have to determine and with regard to which I am seeking the assistance of the Acting Prime Minister is whether or not the circumstances which have been alleged amount to a prima facie breach of the privileges of the house. If the Acting Prime Minister could help me with regard to that decision I should appreciate it.


Howard Charles Green: To put the situation in its very worst aspect, here you have a case where an affidavit by an interested party is produced and an attempt is made to use that against the word which the Minister of Labour gave to the house. I suggest it is stretching things very far if a member of the opposition can go out and get an affidavit from someone whose name has been mentioned in the house and then come in and use that affidavit as part of an attempt to bring in a motion on a question of privilege as a means of attacking statements made by responsible ministers. I suggest that this is going entirely too far, and if we are to have orderly conduct of the business of this house we should be going ahead with the work of parliament and not have these red herrings thrown in every day.
Hon. gentlemen opposite had the opportunity to discuss this question when the estimates of the Department of Labour were up for consideration last week. They have

brought it up on every possible occasion, doing their best to wring the last bit of publicity out of the question, and I suggest that when they bring in this motion today they are going too far.


Michael Starr: Perhaps I may speak on this question, because it directly affects me. The statement I made in this house was based on information, and correct information, which was supplied to me by the national employment service office, information which I disclosed in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Contrary to the law.


Michael Starr: Well, we know that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is a real expert on everything. I do not purport to be so.
May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is on the order paper under notices of motion for production of papers a motion, No. 82, which asks for a copy of all the records in this case. Yesterday I asked that this motion should stand until Wednesday when, I said, it would be dealt with. In the circumstances I suggest that the present motion is premature until it has been proven that what I said in this house, based on the information I got from the national employment office, was incorrect. If these papers and records are produced they will substantiate whether the information I got was true or false.


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the raising of a question of privilege in the house is analogous to contempt of court, and there is nothing similar to that at all in the present circumstances. Beauchesne states examples of what are regarded as breaches of privilege in citation 111. They include reflections on the character of the Speaker, reflections upon the conduct of the chairman of committees, imputing unfair conduct to the chairman of a select committee and imputations against members of corruption in the execution of their duties.
That surely is what constitutes a breach of the privilege of the house, something analogous to contempt of court. Surely if the hon. member in question is not entitled to impugn the accuracy of information given to the house by a minister he is not going to accomplish the same purpose in this indirect and clandestine way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand it we are discussing whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. We are seeking to assist Your Honour in reaching a conclusion about that matter. The only argument advanced by the Acting Prime Minister against my contention that there is, is that this

matter could have been raised yesterday. I do not think it could have been raised yesterday because the document on which it is based was not in the possession of the house then. It is quite true that I had a copy of the document, but I did not have the original; it was sent to the Minister of Labour. Moreover, sir, I felt it would be improper for me, inside or outside the house, to do anything about that document until the Minister of Labour had the opportunity, which he was given yesterday afternoon in this house, to make amends, an opportunity which he did not take.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Instead of which the
minister undertook to summarize the document, leaving out important portions of it. I had in the back of my mind, sir, the thought as to whether I should raise the question at that time, but it seemed to me, since the minister had agreed to table the document, that I should wait until the document was in the possession of the house, when it was an official document of this house, available equally to all hon. members, and then at the first opportunity raise what I suggest to you, sir, is a very serious matter indeed, namely a sworn statement by the person affected that statements made in this house about that person by a minister of the crown in the discharge of his duties were untrue. That is surely something about which the minister does not want to have left any doubt whatsoever.
The motion I am making is a motion to follow the procedure of this house to clear up the matter. The Acting Prime Minister said that in the 25 years he had been in this house no such motion had been made before. Well, I do not know where the minister was last year when the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) raised a motion of a similar character about a much less important matter. Moreover, Your Honour recognized the privilege by implication on March 9 when I raised an earlier question of privilege, which will be found at page 2811 of Hansard with respect to this same statement by the minister. Your Honour said:
The hon. member tor Bonavista-Twillingate has risen on a matter of privilege. The point he makes is that a minister of the crown in the house has not observed the conditions of a statute passed by the house. I think a matter of privilege properly arises under such circumstances-
Surely, sir, if you felt that a matter of privilege properly arose under that kind of circumstance, when at that time we had reason to think what the minister had said was correct, it arises doubly when a man makes a sworn statement-which would constitute perjury if it were not true-that
Question of Privilege
what the minister said is not true and that this house has been misinformed.
Of course, sir, this is not the only evidence. The evidence of the actual employer of this man and the evidence of someone to whom he applied for a job is to the same effect as the evidence given by Mr. Exelby. All these witnesses point to the untruth of two statements made in this house by the minister on March 8. It seems to me, sir, that there is only one proper way to clean it up. Moreover, if Your Honour will refer to paragraph 108 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms already quoted by the learned and hon. member for Stormont-


Grant Campbell: Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -you will discover the following:
Anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal is a breach of privilege if perpetrated against parliament,-
I suggest, sir-


Grant Campbell: Read on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that false witness given in a court would be comparable to what is charged in this case. By recognizing that there is a prima facie question of privilege and by referring it to a committee, we are not making any judgment one way or another about the matter. We are merely sending it to a committee which can hear all the evidence and form its own conclusions.


Grant Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to misrepresentation1, may I read on?


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member's point of order. I recognize the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. This house is frequently misinformed and misled. No question of privilege arises unless it is intentional. I do not admit for one moment that the house has been misinformed or misled in this instance, but no allegation has been made that it was intentional nor could one be made. Therefore there can be no question of privilege.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if I might draw Your Honour's attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 102, paragraph 113, half way down, where it states as follows:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I suggest to you that this is a dispute originated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who has declined to accept the

Question of Privilege
statement of the Minister of Labour and then on the basis of an affidavit or a statement, or both, made outside the house has attempted to launch here a question of privilege and a reference to a committee.
In his motion also, Mr. Speaker, I point out that he does not make any point of privilege whatsoever. He is so unsure of his facts that all he asks is that these matters be referred to a committee. He has nothing on which to found his statement or his motion would disclose that fact. He is simply asking for an investigation by a committee, yet in so far as the house is concerned the Minister of Labour has placed on record the facts that were in his possession, and his statement as to the validity and the truth of those facts should be accepted. That is the normal practice of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the point just raised by the house leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member who raises this matter wishes to reply to the statement of the house leader, I think I will hear him before I dispose of the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just want to say a word regarding the form of the motion and to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in seeking the proper form for my motion I was guided by the advice your honour gave to the hon. member for Timmins on a question of privilege which arose last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that no good purpose would be served by further argument as to whether there is a matter of privilege.
There are two points made regarding the matter raised by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. The first is that there has been delay in raising the matter. The statement of the minister complained of was made, I believe, last week and the reason for questioning that statement which has been given today by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is an affidavit which was referred to yesterday and which the minister was asked to table and has tabled now, and which I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate acknowledges he had in his possession yesterday at the time the Minister of Labour made a second statement, although not the original affidavit.
I doubt that I would dispose of the matter on the ground of delay alone, although it is important that questions of privilege should be dealt with when they arise.
The other point, which I think is made most effectively by the house leader, is that there should be more involved than a dispute between two members as to facts. One has to distinguish between the privileges of the

house and privileges of individual members. I see nothing that involves the rights or privileges of the individual member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who raised the matter. If there is any proper complaint for the house to raise against the minister it is based on his conduct in supplying information to the house.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate alleges that the information supplied by the minister was not true according to the affidavit in question. If, on nothing further, the house were to accept those circumstances as raising a prima facie question of privilege, it would be very difficult to conduct business in the house because almost any statement that is made by any member or minister could be disputed in some form or other by affidavit or contrary evidence.
Beauchesne recognizes that problem in citation 113, which was cited to me. It appears in Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 102, where he says that a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. I feel there is a necessary element lacking in the case made by the hon. member. I feel that he should have been prepared, if he wished to found a motion on his statement, to allege that there was bad faith on the part of the minister; that he deliberately supplied the house with wrong information. That would to my mind, raise a question of privilege of the house. But in the circumstance of a dispute arising over statements made by the minister in the course of his duty or, for that matter, by any member in his place making statements on his responsibility as a member of the house, one has to remember that the whole of parliamentary procedure is really based on the disputing of such statements in debate. Unless it goes beyond debate, in that sort of dispute, I feel that I would be leading the house into interminable difficulties if I accepted this circumstance as it is before us now as raising a matter of privilege sufficient to found a motion which does not allege that there was in fact a deliberate misleading of the house by the Minister of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to leave no doubt on that point. It is my opinion that there was a deliberate misleading of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I was dumbfounded to hear what was just said now. I can say to this house and to you, Mr. Speaker, that at no time as a member of parliament or as a minister of the crown have I deliberately misled this house or attempted to mislead it, nor, I hope, in the years to come will I stoop so

low as to even think, as the hon. member does, that other hon. members do so deliberately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given my best views to the hon. member on the matter which was raised and on the proposed motion which he submitted. Since then he has rather amplified his statement, but I do not propose to traverse the subject again unless it is raised again.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to have the motion put to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a question of privilege, I have repeatedly made statements outside this house and in this house which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately I am engaged with a matter of privilege at the moment, which I thought I had disposed of. The hon. member who raised it, if I understand him correctly, has proposed to refer the matter on a different basis to the committee, and I think in the circumstances it would be desirable that he frame his proposed motion to satisfy those conditions before I can accept it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. member having raised his point of privilege and having submitted his motion and Your Honour having dealt with it, that should be the end of the matter and he does not then have the opportunity of getting up and making a change in his motion verbally as he has tried to do. I suggest that the matter has already been dealt with by Your Honour and that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has no right whatever to have a second try to reach his original objective.


Mr. Speaker:: I think if the Acting Prime Minister followed my last remarks he will agree that is the position I took myself. I consider the request to present this motion as disposed of and if the hon. member wishes to go beyond what he did in his first application today and present a new matter, it is of course his right at any time to do so. In the meantime we shall proceed with the business of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of what the Acting Prime Minister has said I am sure Your Honour would agree that it was Your Honour who raised this point as to whether I had implied deliberate intention, and it was in response to Your Honour's intervention on this point that I made my observation. It never occurred to me at any time that anyone would doubt that if I made a motion
Question of Privilege
of the gravity of this motion I would make it merely because there was a dispute about something that was said. I made it because I considered the minister was lacking in his duty to this house.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, if the hon. member, upon reflection on what has taken place, wishes to present his motion again I will hear him again, but in the meantime I feel we should proceed with the business of the house.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, I would like to bring up the question of statements made by myself, supported editorially in the newspapers, upon which the member representing Bonavista-Twillingate has cast reflections. In support of this statement I read the editorial-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member raising something he said himself as a matter of privilege, or something said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate?


Donald MacInnis: It has reference to a statement made by the member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will state what his question of privilege is before he starts to read, perhaps we can determine whether it is something that should be raised.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate definitely cast reflections upon me similar to those he has tried to cast upon the Minister of Labour. I can substantiate this by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if the statement was made in the house the hon. member should have raised his question of privilege at that time. If the statement was made outside the house perhaps the hon. member would have to establish an attack on his character or moral conduct which would justify it.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on several occasions has made reference to a statement I made casting reflection, and on the basis of this editorial, which I now have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not made any allegation as to what has been said against him, and in the absence of some specific allegation I cannot hear him further by allowing him to read editorials or give that sort of information. fLater:]
On the orders of the day:


Grant Campbell: On a
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have been in this house only a short

Question of Privilege
time, but never did I think that if I were to be here for the remainder of my life I would ever hear in this house one hon. member in effect call another hon. member a liar, as has been done here effectually by accusing another hon. member of deliberate misrepresentation. Mr. Speaker, this scandalous conduct is subversive of the proprieties of this house or any other constitutional body such as this one.


Mr. Speaker:: To what is the hon. member referring?


Grant Campbell: I am referring to the comment by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate accusing the Minister of Labour of deliberate misrepresentation. I say that is the sort of thing that is a disgrace to this house and this country. On the question of privilege I urge that this accusation be withdrawn and not be left on the permanent record.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's concern for the dignity and the fair conduct of the house. The hon. member who was involved in the statement that was made rose and made a statement and denial and did not raise a question such as that which has now been raised by the hon. member for Stormont. I therefore think he might be well advised to leave the matter at the point at which it. rests.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Grant Campbell: I believe this matter transcends the personal reputation of the hon. member concerned. I believe it is a matter which is much more important than that. It goes to the matter of the dignity of the House of Commons.


Mr. Hellyer:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a rule of this house that matters of privilege must be raised immediately, as Your Honour has ruled?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is correct that several proceedings have intervened. The hon. member expressed a concern which is felt by all hon. members when allegations of that kind are made. However, I must point out to him that the matter was passed in the circumstances that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate was prepared to move in the house to refer the matter to a committee in order to review the allegations which he made. It is true that the allegations were made after he had proposed that the motion be accepted. Perhaps the situation is a bit confused by that fact. However, it is open to hon. members to make charges if they are prepared to back them up by prima facie evidence and by moving the appropriate

motion in the house. If the hon. member will refer to his text I think he will find that is the case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman has raised the matter, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to say that I had no intention and no thought of saying that when the Minister of Labour spoke on Wednesday he knowingly said things that were untrue. I took the word "deliberately" to mean that he deliberately made a statement, and he deliberately made a statement to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be allowed to clarify my meaning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a statement which I think the house will want to hear, and I trust hon. members will hear it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman made a statement in order to discredit a broadcast and an individual, which statement has turned out apparently not to be true.


An hon. Member:: Apparently?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the modification which has been made of the statement, it seems to me that the hon. member-


Grant Campbell: He has just
added insult to injury by his qualification.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was about to inform the hon. member for Stormont that in view of the substantial modification which was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate voluntarily, notwithstanding that I had indicated that it was not a matter in which I felt I should intervene, I am of the view now that I should not instruct or direct the hon. member to do other than he has done.



STANDING ORDERS


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: that the sixth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, March 14, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Labour. Has the minister read the report by Mr. Hegge, the business representative of local 1669 of the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of America, regarding the conditions of labour at the radar base construction at Moosonee? If so, is it his intention to have the matter investigated at once?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Can the minister inform the house whether he has done anything about the matter?


Michael Starr: It was just brought to my attention about one hour ago.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate asked the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance whether an interim payment was recently made to the government of New Brunswick in respect of the winter works program. A cheque was issued on February 24.



BARRIE, ONT.  INQUIRY AS TO RATES PAID NATIONAL DEFENCE CARPENTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has a survey of prevailing rates for carpenters been made in the Barrie district of Ontario, and would the minister comment on the complaint by Mr. Derrick Manson, business representative of local 2480 of the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of America, that carpenters are being paid 15 cents per hour below the prevailing rate of $2.55?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it is part of my administrative function to comment on allegations made by Mr. Manson with regard to what are the prevailing rates for carpenters in some particular sections of the country. I may say, however, that a survey has been made of the rates paid in the Barrie area and I understand the matter will be considered very shortly by the appropriate government departments concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: Including your own department?
90205-6-187
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is nothing to do with
my department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why are you
answering?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I think the hon. member knows, surveys of this nature are made by the Department of Labour.


Hazen Robert Argue: What I wanted to know was this. Is it the policy of the Department of National Defence to pay the prevailing rate after the survey has disclosed the prevailing rate?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I think the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, this department and all other government departments pay the rate recommended by the Department of Labour on the basis of the studies they make of these matters.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister care to comment on a press report emanating from Washington that President Kennedy would welcome any move by Canada to join in the proposed plans for economic assistance to Latin America? Has there been any discussion between the two governments on this subject?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no discussion of which I am aware.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the Canadian government given any consideration to the question of participating in plans for assistance to Latin America?


Howard Charles Green: No, not yet.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture or in his absence to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, or to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I sent notice yesterday. Is the Minister of Agriculture in a position to report on the serious allegation, which I have drawn to his attention, that Kelly Douglas Limited in Vancouver have somehow obtained a supply of canned Spork from government sources

Inquiries of the Ministry and are offering it to the trade wholesale at a price of 7 cents a tin less than that charged by Burns and Company?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The agricultural stabilization board offered stocks of canned pork luncheon meat for sale in Canada at a reduced price from April 15 to October 15, 1960. The product packed under a government label as "Canadian pork luncheon meat" was sold directly to any firm applying for stocks. Proprietary brands were sold back only to the original manufacturers. "Spork" is the proprietary brand of Bums and Company, and sales of government stocks of this brand were made only to them. No government stocks of canned pork under the "Spork" label were sold by the stabilization board to Kelly Douglas Limited nor to any other firm apart from Burns and Company.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question. In view of the information which I conveyed to the department with regard to a retail firm obtaining it, or being told that it was part of government supplies, will an investigation be made as to whether Kelly Douglas Limited were able to obtain supplies of the government stocks?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes, I will draw the matter to the minister's attention.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he has completed negotiations with the United States postal authorities which will in effect raise the rate received on United States periodicals coming into Canada.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would expect to have information for the house on that subject tomorrow.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of information I have received that last week two American negroes who were in Edmonton to assist in a fund-raising tour for homeless Jewish children were refused accommodation in the


C.N.R. MacDonald hotel. Would the minister comment on the statement that the C.N.R. in its hotel operations follows the practice of refusing accommodation to negroes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the hon. member is right in asking the administration to assume responsibility for day to day administrative acts of an independent Canadian National Railways hotel.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is customary to ask the minister to comment on and take up certain matters with the management of the C.N.R. We have been doing it very frequently.
There is a further part to this question which I also think is in order. I should like to submit it and you, sir, can make your decision. Would the minister inquire into this particular accusation, and will he assure the house that the hotel operations of the C.N.R. are conducted in accordance with the principles set forth in the bill of rights?
I think it is an exceedingly important question. I hope I have framed it so that it is in order. I think the minister has a duty to the house to take up such a question with the management of the C.N.R.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a matter of asking the administration to inquire from the Canadian National Railways as to their conduct in this matter, I will of course allow the question.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question just as I was walking down to the house. I was not aware of the facts alleged by the hon. member. However, I will take up this matter with the management of the C.N.R. and report to the house as soon as I have anything to report.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of -the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked a question concerning Bill No. C-70. He wanted to know whether any requests have been received with respect to postponing or delaying consideration of that bill for this year. The answer to the question is yes.



REQUEST FOR LIST OF OUTSTANDING RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in her capacity as Acting Secretary of State, what progress the department is

making with the laborious task of compiling a list of the returns ordered by this house with which the government has not yet complied.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I inquired about this matter, as I promised the hon. member, and the answer I received was to the effect that they are working on these returns but they have not yet been completed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring to the list.



CHANGE IN TODAY'S ORDER OF BUSINESS

Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we perhaps change the order of today's business in order to meet the convenience of the house? Last evening we were discussing the reference of Bill No. C-71 to the special committee which is going to study the Civil Service Act. I called it in third place today but perhaps, in view of the expression of opinion last night, we could take it first and dispose of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would see no objection to that.



TRAVEL ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS AT EASTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some hon. members and their wives who have to go west at Easter time have not been able to obtain accommodation on the "Canadian". The accommodation has been filled for over two weeks. Will the minister see whether something can be done about this matter so we can go home at Easter time?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to help my hon. friend and other hon. members to get home for Easter.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier put to me two questions with regard to the new C.N.R. main office building in Montreal and to the maintenance and cleaning staff in the new building.
As the house is no doubt aware, the two old buildings occupied by the C.N.R. head 90205-6-187J
Inquiries of the Ministry office have been sold to the Quebec government and naturally fewer maintenance employees will be required for the new building than for the old buildings.
About 120 members of the cleaning and maintenance staff will be affected by the moving into the new building. The cleaning services in the new building will be carried out by a contractor who specializes in this type of work. Negotiations are under way with the contractor with a view to getting him to give priority to the staff that is now looking after the cleaning of the old buildings. In addition, the Quebec government which has bought the two buildings has agreed, at the request of the C.N.R., to give priority for employment to the present staff. The cafeteria operator in the new building has agreed to grant interviews to all railway employees who would be interested in working there.
Moreover, the railway employment office in Montreal is setting up a service for the placement and advising of employees, and each employee will be helped in the consideration of his case. Arrangements are being taken also with the three prospective employers for interviewing the employees within a few weeks. The railway management hopes, and it is the aim it seeks to attain, that the majority of the 120 persons involved as a result of the move into the new building will be offered work. It is perfectly aware of the present difficulties and it studies the matter with great sympathy, particularly as regards the older employees and the ones to be retrained. It is interesting to note that 67 of the 120 employees involved were taken on when they were over 40 years old and 28 when they were over 50.
Meetings have been held with the employees and their representatives and others are scheduled for this week.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we take it from the minister's answer that he has received the assurance of the C.N.R. management that there will be employment for at least a major proportion of the people affected?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I have just explained, the railway company has taken a great deal of trouble in this matter and has explored all possibilities in order to find employment for these people. I am quite sure

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that with the good will of all concerned the great majority of these employees will be re-employed. As I was saying, the Quebec provincial authorities are going to occupy this whole building, and all these people are available in that building. I hope the province of Quebec will hire the great majority of these people, because they are already employed in the building.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question for clarification. The minister said at one point that he hoped the C.N.R. would provide employment. In the next part of his answer he said he hoped the province of Quebec would be able to provide employment.


Léon Balcer: I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister.


Léon Balcer: As I explained earlier, the railway has explored many possibilities and has contacted various employers, contractors and the province of Quebec to find work for these people. Also, the railway itself will employ some of them.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: That Bill No. C-71 respecting the civil service of Canada be referred to the special committee established to consider the said bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-57 to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very short and straightforward. By way of explanation I may say that the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act was last revised in 1953. The main purpose of the act is to protect fisheries in Canadian territorial waters against encroachment by foreign fishing vessels and to regulate the privileges accorded to foreign fishing vessels in our ports.
Subject to any treaty rights, the act prohibits fishing operations by foreign fishing vessels in our waters. A foreign fishing vessel is defined in the act as a fishing vessel that is not a Canadian fishing vessel. The same section defines what constitutes a Canadian fishing vessel. There are four requirements listed in the act as it now stands, and I think the intention was that in order to be considered a Canadian fishing vessel, a vessel


had to meet one of these main requirements. Under the law as it presently stands, any fishing vessel which satisfies one of the four chief requirements which I have mentioned is a Canadian fishing vessel within the meaning of the act. That is to say, a vessel registered in a foreign country but owned in Canada would, under the present definition, be considered a Canadian vessel.
In recent years there has been a significant increase in fishing operations in the high seas adjacent to Canadian territorial waters. It is therefore necessary for the protection of Canadian fisheries to clarify the law so as to make sure that before a fishing vessel can be considered a Canadian fishing vessel, and consequently entitled to operate in Canadian waters, it must be registered or licensed in Canada and owned in Canada; or, in the case of fishing vessels which are not required under Canadian law to be registered, that is to say small boats, that they be owned in Canada and not registered elsewhere.
There is nothing complicated or obscure about the amendment. It is intended purely to clarify this section of the act which defines what is meant by a Canadian fishing vessel. There are no other implications in the amendment at all.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucesier):: I wish to thank the minister for the brief explanation he has given of the amendment now before the house for consideration. As the minister said, its purpose is to clarify the definition of a Canadian fishing vessel. The hon. gentleman made reference to the purpose of the fisheries protection act, and he also referred to encroachment by foreign fishing vessels which are operating in proximity to our Canadian shores.
I feel that the minister is missing a golden opportunity to amend this act so as to provide proper protection for Canadian fishermen. Under the present regulations as they affect our territorial and coastal waters, foreign vessels are allowed to fish up to three miles from our shores although certain of our own Canadian vessels, vessels of a certain size, cannot come within ten miles of our shores. I recall very well that in years past, when some of the hon. members who are now sitting on the government side of this house were members of the opposition, they took the opportunity provided by consideration of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries to advise the government how it should proceed in order to remedy this most unfortunate situation. I know, and everyone knows, that in the last three years very little if anything has been done to change the position.
We understand that the present amendment will to some extent clarify the definition of

what is a Canadian fishing vessel. But let us look carefully at the amendment, particularly as it is set out in subparagraph (a) which is now to read:
"Canadian fishing vessel" means a fishing vessel
(i)	that is registered or licensed in Canada under the Canada Shipping Act and is owned by one or more persons each of whom is a Canadian citizen, an individual resident in Canada or a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province, having its principal place of business in Canada.
Under the old provision it is stated that a Canadian fishing vessel means a fishing vessel that is:
(i)	registered in Canada
(ii)	owned by one person domiciled and resident in Canada
-and so on. Under the present amendment the word "domiciled" has been taken out and replaced by "resident" only. It seems that under this definition, instead of restricting the interpretation of what is meant by a Canadian fishing vessel we have broadened it.
I repeat that I feel the minister has missed a golden opportunity to improve the position of Canadian fishermen vis-a-vis foreign fishing vessels. As far as I can see now, apart from what has been mentioned with regard to clause 1, all this amendment does is to bring within the definition of Canadian fishing vessels certain small boats which are not mechanically propelled and which, under the present regulation, could not be defined as Canadian fishing vessels.
It is an amendment of very minor significance, as the minister has said. I hope that later on this session when we shall be better able, under the rules of order, to discuss this section of the act in greater detail so far as it relates to the operation of draggers and other foreign fishing vessels operating in proximity to our Canadian shores, we shall be able to get from the minister a definite statement clarifying the policy of the present government so far as the operation of foreign owned fishing vessels is concerned within certain limits of our territorial waters.
When the present bill comes before the committee of the whole we shall be able to discuss the proposed amendment in greater detail, and I hope the minister at that time will be in a position to give us further information.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am also of the opinion that it would be beneficial if amendments were introduced dealing with the territorial waters limit. I know that the circumstances on the east coast to which the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) referred concerning the three-mile limit versus the 12-mile limit seem particularly crazy.
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
We have a somewhat different problem on the west coast. Conditions on neither coast operate to the greatest benefit of the Canadian fisheries in terms of the territorial water limits being placed where they are at this time. That is not within the ambit of the bill and probably I am out of order in referring to it, but I mention this to put our discussion in its proper perspective and perhaps I may be granted that leeway.
Apparently it is the attitude of the department that the intent of the amendment is to bring under the jurisdiction of this act those small boats engaged in commercial fishing but not required to be registered under the Canada Shipping Act. That was the gist of the explanation given by the department on the west coast concerning the amendment. I have nothing more to say in that regard. Some apprehension has been expressed about the amendment making it easier for foreign vessels to enter our fisheries, and we would appreciate having the minister's comment in that respect. There are other minor questions which I shall raise when the committee stage is reached.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak briefly on this bill to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I wish first to commend the minister for the interest he has shown in all matters pertaining to his department, and especially for the action he has taken which will strengthen the position of the Canadian fisheries.
I also listened with much interest to the remarks made by the two previous speakers, the hon. members for Gloucester and Skeena, with respect to the three-mile limit versus the 12-mile limit. I consider it unfortunate that when the Liberals were in power the hon. member for Gloucester was not more vocal on this matter, which is of vital importance to fishermen on the east coast. I trust that the hon. member will contain his curiosity for a little longer this session, because I am hopeful that before long he will receive answers to some of the questions he has raised.
Originally the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act was designed to protect the fisheries in Canadian territorial waters from encroachment by foreign fishing vessels, and also to regulate the privileges accorded to foreign fishing vessels in our ports. Under the old act it was possible to have a vessel, registered in a foreign country but owned in Canada, considered a Canadian fishing vessel. Conversely, it was also possible to have a vessel registered in Canada owned by a resident who was not a Canadian citizen, and this ship was also classed as a Canadian fishing vessel. However, in recent years there has been a significant increase in fishing operations on the

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
high seas adjacent to our territorial waters. Probably no other country in the world has the complex problems in fisheries management that confront Canada. Our interests on the east coast extend from Georges and Brown's bank, which lie in an easterly direction from Cape Sable, past LaHave bank, Emerald bank, Sable Island bank, Middle Ground, Canso bank, Banquereau, Misaine bank, St. Pierre bank, Green bank, the Great bank off Newfoundland to the fishing grounds off Labrador in the Labrador sea.
Our species range from lobsters and scallops to cod, haddock, pollack, halibut, flounder and almost every known kind of groundfish. Each area and species presents its own special problems requiring individual study and individual solutions, if indeed solutions in some cases exist. The tremendous resources of the sea made their contribution to bringing about the early development of the Atlantic provinces, especially Nova Scotia, and a study of early history will indicate the importance of the fisheries even in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald when negotiating with the United States. Even today the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces is a potent force in our area's economy, with the commercial value of fish landed in the four Atlantic provinces during the year 1960 amounting to $59,891,000 in payments to the fishermen.
Our problem today when considering fisheries management and assistance to Canadian fishermen does not concern itself only with the protection of fish but also with the creation of conditions under which the entire resource can be maintained or improved for the benefit of Canada and for future generations of Canadians.
The world-wide interest in the ocean and its resources is becoming broadly apparent, and this is not difficult to understand. Resource competition among nations is becoming increasingly intensive, and with the exception of our narrow three-mile territorial fringe, the ocean resources are free. The fish are there for the taking on a first come, first served basis, and we are only now beginning to realize the value of this resource when we see the extravagant claims for expanded territorial seas put forward by certain nations desirous of protecting their fisheries, as well as the oil or mineral rights found on the continental shelf. However, as fishermen, we are mainly concerned with the ocean as a source of food supply; and as the world's population grows, with greater need for living space and less arable land to provide food, greater and still greater emphasis will be placed upon our fisheries to provide highly edible protein.

With these thoughts in mind, therefore, it becomes vitally important and necessary to tighten up the regulations dealing with Canadian fishing vessels. In my opinion these amendments will clarify the law so as to make certain that before a fishing vessel can be considered a Canadian fishing vessel and consequently entitled to operate in Canadian waters, it must be registered or licensed in Canada and owned in Canada by one or more persons each of whom is a Canadian citizen. While I believe still further changes are required for the protection of the rights of Canadian fishermen, these amendments are indeed a forward step and one in the right direction.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, any act that pertains to fisheries and particularly to fisheries protection is of special interest to Newfoundland. This bill will probably affect our province more than any other province in Canada.
If we look back over the history of legislation for the protection of fisheries, we find that there have been very few amendments since 1868 when the first law came into existence. It was entitled the customs and fisheries protection act. As we follow the history of the amendments that have been made we notice that practically all of them have resulted from an effort to expand or clarify the definition of a fishing vessel. The 1868 act lasted right up to 1913, when it was amended to define foreign vessels. In the 1913 act a foreign vessel was described as one which is not navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada. This amendment, of course, preserved the treaty rights which Canada had with the United States, as the government was empowered to allow United States vessels to enter Atlantic ports to purchase bait, lines, outfits and so forth.
In 1952 fisheries protection was separated from customs protection, and the definition of a fishing vessel was further enlarged to include sealing vessels, vessels engaged in the taking of marine plants and also processing vessels which are sometimes referred to as mother ships. The 1952 amendment was also necessary to legalize certain traditional privileges and arrangements between Newfoundland and foreign powers, for entry to Newfoundland ports, which were of long standing and which applied particularly to Portugal and Spain.
The definition of a fishing vessel under the present act is as follows:
(a) "Canadian fishing vessel" means a fishing vessel that is
(i) registered in Canada,

(ii)	owned by one person domiciled and resident in Canada,
(iii)	owned by two or more persons, all of whom are domiciled and resident in Canada, or
(iv)	owned by a body corporate incorporated under the laws of Canada or the laws of a province and having its principal place of business in Canada;-
The bill before us seeks to amend this definition in three important respects. For example, the first condition that a vessel must be registered in Canada is now enlarged to include registered or licensed in Canada. Condition No. 2, that a vessel must be owned by one person domiciled and resident in Canada, has been changed to just resident in Canada. The requirement to be domiciled has been eliminated. Condition No. 3, that a vessel must be owned by two or more persons, all of whom are domiciled and resident in Canada, has now been changed to eliminate the domiciliary requirement and to require the owners to be Canadian citizens. There is also a new paragraph which, as the hon. member for Gloucester pointed out, brings under this act those small ships which are not mechanically propelled and are not required to be licensed under the Canada Shipping Act.
These proposed amendments appear to involve a relaxation of the requirements of ownership which has been brought about by a broadening of the definition. In my opinion the omission of the word "domiciled" makes the definition much more vague than it was before, because the word "domiciled" has a very clear, precise meaning. When we eliminate this word and rely on the definition of being resident in Canada, the definition becomes somewhat blurred because the word "resident" unlike the word "domiciled" has no clear and fixed meaning. It has different meanings in different acts of parliament; it has different meanings in different parts of Canada and in different situations.
I can perhaps understand that there would be some advantages in having such a broad definition. I can see that perhaps it might facilitate deep-sea sportmen who come to Canada and spend a few weeks in some of our Atlantic ports fishing for tuna and indulging in that kind of sport fishing. But if on the other hand we regard the definition of fixed residence as important, then it seems that the use of the word "resident" when dissociated from the word "domiciled" may constitute a loophole which could be taken advantage of and, as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, it may not achieve the purpose that we intend this legislation to accomplish.
I suggest that the minister might consider writing a definition into this act so that we would know exactly what the word "resident"
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act means as it applies to this particular legislation. It was not possible to do this in the 1913 act because that act included vessels from the United Kingdom, and a person did not have to be a resident of Canada to enjoy the privileges accorded to Canadian ships.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize one point made by the hon. member for Gloucester. Since we are amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and since these amendments are so very rare and infrequent, it is a pity that the government did not see fit to include in this bill some clarification of our territorial waters; because this bill applies to territorial waters, and I do not think we can dissociate our discussion of this bill from some discussion of the territorial waters to which it applies. When I looked up the debate in 1952, when the last amendment was made, I noted that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, now the Acting Prime Minister, who was then the member for Vancouver Quadra, pointed out two things; first that in the main act as we have it today the definition of our territorial waters is not clear. He asked for a clarification of that point.
The second point made was that our territorial waters should be extended. I believe it was said at the time, that this question was being considered by an interdepartmental committee. I think it is safe to assume that departmental committee has finished its work and has made some recommendations in this matter. It would have been helpful if the minister had included those recommendations in this bill we now have before us. I refer particularly to the definition of coastal waters. It is not clear to many people whether we determine our coastal waters on a point to point basis, that is on a straight line from headland to headland, or just by following the contour of the coast and extending it three miles offshore. The minister will appreciate the fact that this particular bill will not contribute very much to the solution of the problem of protecting the coastal fisheries in my own particular riding because our best inshore fishing grounds are 12 miles offshore. Unless we can control our coastal waters to that extent our inshore fishermen will always be deprived of the opportunity of earning a livelihood because of foreign drag-gers fishing in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member is bringing into the debate another principle. I think he recognizes that he probably is. This bill is rather narrow in scope, and the particular problem which the hon. member is now discussing, and which other hon. members have touched upon, might better

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act be left until we reach the estimates of this department or until it is relevant to the precise terms of a bill before the house.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to elaborate on this point. I realize that I was perhaps a little outside the scope of this bill but I was seeking to emphasize that this was a golden opportunity for doing something about this particular problem. I hope the minister will give consideration to this problem and bring in legislation to cope with it at an early date.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments with regard to this bill. I notice it contains a very clear and concise definition of "a Canadian vessel". I believe the amendments contained herein will be welcomed by some of my constituents because they are engaged, at this time of the year, in sealing operations and have purchased ships under foreign registry. We heard a rumour last year to the effect that any ship under foreign registry could not fish out of Canadian ports but I believe this rumour has been discounted. This amendment will bring comfort to those ship owners because they will now know that, although their ships are under foreign registry, if they fall within the clear definition of a Canadian vessel and the owner is a Canadian citizen, they will be allowed to continue their fishing operations. I do not believe the words "domicile" or "residence" have too much meaning in respect of these owners being Canadian citizens. I welcome these amendments and sincerely hope that they will clear away the ambiguity which has existed in the past concerning foreign registry and Canadian licensing under the Canadian shipping act.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, any subject dealing with coastal fisheries is of necessity very interesting to those of us who have ridings with seaports. The protection of coastal fisheries is of vital importance to those of us living in the province of Newfoundland. The minister, as he stated, in presenting these amendments is seeking to clarify and define some points in the present act. This is something with which most of us are in agreement. I feel I should also say that it is of great importance that more be done to protect coastal waters from the incursions of foreign fishing fleets. I have dealt with this subject from time to time and do not intend to make any further comment at this stage. I feel that most hon. members are well aware of the conditions that exist in this regard.
I should like to make brief reference at this time to the remarks made by the hon. member

for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) who presented a very good picture of the importance of fisheries. I would not however associate myself with his criticism of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robiehaud) for putting forward the suggestion he made. It seems that whenever a member on this side of the house makes a suggestion, immediately the question is asked, why did you not do it. I feel this is a very poor excuse for the lack of action of those who are now in power.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: I should just like to say a word or two about this amendment and to express my agreement with it as far as it goes. I do however suggest, as other members have, that we are looking forward to receiving information from the minister regarding fishing limits. I recognize that you have, Mr. Speaker, already advised members that they should stay within the three-mile limit but I would hope, as the member for Queens-Lunenburg has suggested, that during the present session there may be some legislation dealing with fishing limits.
Last year during the debate on external affairs I made an attempt to place on the record the fishing limits as they presently exist and how they affect the province from which I come. I have looked forward with a great deal of anticipation to legislation which will not only deal with the item we have before us today, but also with fishing limits generally around the Canadian coast.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
make a few remarks in reply. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the meaning of the act as it now stands. There are four alternatives existing in regard to the definition of "Canadian fishing vessel". The law officers of the crown have advised me that under the present definition a vessel falling within any one of the four alternatives would be considered a Canadian fishing vessel. The main purpose of this amendment is to clear up the ambiguity regarding the Canadian status of these vessels.
Several points have been raised which I feel are out of order, but in view of the bearing they may have on this subject I might perhaps be permitted to say a word about them.
The first question raised was that of the restriction on Canadian trawlers in certain parts of our sea coast where they are required to stay 12 miles out. This requirement is under section 55 of the Fisheries Act. I am hopeful that before the session is over I shall be able to introduce an amendment

dealing with that matter which will bring a greater element of justice to the situation in which a number of Canadian trawlers find themselves as compared with foreign trawlers and yet at the same time protect the rights and interests of inshore fishermen in smaller boats. I would not want this to be taken as a guarantee on my part that this amendment will be introduced in this session, but I am hopeful that it will be introduced. We have been working on suitable amendments to the Fisheries Act for several months and I am hopeful that we shall have a bill to bring before this session of parliament.
With regard to the width of our territorial waters, may I say that this again is an entirely different matter as is the baseline from which the width of territorial waters are to be measured. A the conference held under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva last year there was the required two thirds approval of several matters, one of which was the method of measuring territorial waters. When these twenty two countries, I believe it is, ratify that agreement, this method will come into effect. The matter of the actual width of territorial waters or an exclusive fishing zone is a matter for further international agreement. I still have not given up hope that some international agreement may be reached. As to the need for further amending of this act if agreement is reached, that will depend on the type of agreement.
I think these are the main points on which I wished at the moment to make observations. However, when we are in committee I shall be glad to answer any further questions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister permit a question?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My question is based on the statement which was made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Made-leine to the effect that under this amendment ships of foreign registry could be registered in Canada. Can the minister explain how this can be done?


John Angus MacLean: There are at the
present time, as I understand it, vessels owned, for example, in commonwealth countries and they can be registered in Canada, without being owned in Canada. As the act now stands you could have for example-and an extremely theoretical one-an Australian owner registering a vessel in Canada and under the terms of the present act it would be a Canadian fishing vessel. Conversely, you could have a Canadian owned vessel registered in some other country and, under the 90205-6-188
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act present section, it also would be a Canadian fishing vessel. But any consideration of the terms of registration and licensing it depends on what is meant by the term "licensing". If the term "licensing" refers to the shipping act, I think the same vessel would not be licensed and registered. Licensing is for a smaller class of vessel. But if the reference is to licences issued by the Department of Fisheries under which certain vessels operate-and I refer to trawlers especially -then of course the two are required, namely registration and a licence.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would ask his questions in committee. It would be more convenient to do so then. They are really matters of detail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On Clause 1-"Canadian fishing vessel".
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to follow up a question which I asked the minister when we were on second reading of the bill a few moments ago. Is it not true that licensing, as far as the Canada Shipping Act is concerned, applies only to vessels of ten tons and under? That is why I wanted to clarify the statement that had been made by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine to the effect that the present amendments will allow foreign vessels-I think he had sealers in mind-to be licensed under Canadian regulations following the passing of this amendment.


John Angus MacLean: I have not the Canada Shipping Act before me at the moment but what the hon. member said is correct, as I understand it. I think it is under ten tons-although I am not sure of the tonnage-where a licence is required rather than registration.


Frank Howard: It would seem to me that one of the parts of this measure which perhaps needs some additional explanation is the deletion, as it were, of the reference to domiciling. As was pointed out, in section 2(a) of the act now reads as follows:
(a) "Canadian fishing vessel" means a fishing vessel that is ...
(ii)	owned by one person domiciled and resident in Canada,
(iii)	owned by two or more persons, all of whom are domiciled and resident in Canada,-
These two paragraphs have pretty well been consolidated now in the phrase "is owned by one or more persons each of whom is a Canadian citizen". The substitution of the words
29G4	HOUSE OF
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act "Canadian citizen" has been made for the words "persons domiciled and resident in Canada". In so far as Canadian citizenship is concerned, this is an understandable part of the government's feeling for Canadianism and of our attitude also. However, I wonder why there was a deletion of the reference to the words "domicile" and "residents". Presumably there are people who are Canadian citizens and yet have lived in other countries for many years, still retaining their Canadian citizenship for one reason or another. Presumably their residence might be in California, England, Australia or some other country and yet they are still Canadian citizens. These people may own a boat or a ship that is a fishing vessel and which comes within the definition here. I wonder whether the minister can explain the reason behind this and just what it means.


John Angus MacLean: The concept of domicile is a legal concept, as I understand it. I am not a lawyer. However, it is something that is very difficult to determine. I believe that it is possible to be domiciled in Canada without living here. As the act stated previously, and as the present act is interpreted by the law officers of the crown, all that was required was one of those four alternatives. One of those alternatives was residence and domicile.
Therefore as the act now stands you have the situation where a person domiciled in Canada but perhaps living in the United States and owning a vessel has the privilege of his vessel being considered a Canadian fishing vessel. We have made these amendments in order to tighten up the act. One has to be actually resident in the country, unless one is a citizen.
These requirements are not alternatives any of which may be met. Since both requirements as to registration and ownership have to be met we felt it reasonable to drop the domicile provision. As I said, this is not effective anyway. As far as Canadian citizenship is concerned, we have introduced this amendment because the vast majority of people concerned are Canadian citizens.
There may be situations where a Canadian citizen may temporarily not be resident in Canada. He retains his Canadian citizenship and his interests are in Canada, but he is resident abroad on a temporary basis. Under those circumstances he would not be disqualified.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. One of the alternatives for ownership is as follows:
-a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province, having its principal place of business in Canada,-


I ask the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, whether it would be possible for nonresidents of Canada to take advantage of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act by setting up a corporation in Canada.


John Angus MacLean: There has been no change in this matter. The company has to be incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province. Usually it is under the laws of a province. We believe that in this case the interests of the province are safeguarded when such companies are incorporated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could put the question in a slightly different way. I realize that there has been no significant change in this particular part of the section dealing with corporations. Is the minister or the department aware that in the past foreign owners have managed to get around the law by using the device of a Canadian incorporation? Has there been such an abuse in the past?


John Angus MacLean: I think there is no difference between this case and that of any other corporation carrying on business in Canada. I know of no specific case where the law has been circumvented in this regard, and where a special corporation has been set up as a front in Canada so that a foreign corporation could operate fishing vessels and have these privileges. We know of no cases of this type. We have strengthened the act considerably by removing this doubt, because the present act requires only one of four alternatives to be met in order to make the vessel a Canadian fishing vessel. Now, both registration and ownership are required.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I should like to ask the minister a question, Mr. Chairman. I refer to sport fishing for tuna, which has some importance in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Does this amendment affect that type of fishing? For instance, does it have any effect on sportsmen from the United States who want to bring their own boats into this country?


John Angus MacLean: This act gives authority for regulations to be made. That matter is controlled under regulation by order in council. There is a regulation which permits tuna fishermen to operate from Canadian ports purely as sportsmen. This applies only to United States sports fishermen.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask additional questions of the minister following upon what I have said in regard to the matter of domicile. Perhaps I could get back to that question. As I understood the minister, he said the act provides four alternatives in this connection. He went further and said that one of those was domicile.

I think this is perhaps not entirely correct, because it is domicile and residence; the two are connected. The minister said that while domicile is a rather vague term and a person could be really domiciled somewhere but not in fact living there-and I think this is quite true-perhaps the coupling of domicile with residence may be a bit stricter and easier to understand. I think this is perhaps easier to understand than the proposed amendment.
In as much as these references to domicile and residence have been incorporated in the act for a long period of time-I do not know how many years, but quite a number of years-and nothing untoward has resulted from these words being used, I think it would be in keeping with the desire of the officials and the minister to replace the words "domicile" and "residence" in the amendment before us in order to maintain as high a degree of Canadian ownership and responsibility as possible.
I think perhaps in order to do this in a formal way, rather than just talking about it, I should move the following amendment.
I	have simply scribbled this on one sheet of paper, but I think that with all the discussion we have had it will be relatively easy to follow the reason for such an amendment. I would accordingly move that paragraph (a)(i) of clause 1 be amended in line
II	thereof by inserting after the word "citizen" the following:
-domiciled and resident in Canada-
The paragraph would then read as follows:
"Canadian fishing vessel" means a fishing vessel
(i) that is registered or licensed in Canada under the Canada Shipping Act and is owned by one or more persons each of whom is a Canadian citizen domiciled and resident in Canada-
Then it would carry on as at present.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of this amendment. I mentioned this matter in the course of my remarks on second reading. I have here the Oxford dictionary and "domicile"-this is after "law"-is defined as "place of permanent residence". This is much stronger than "residence", which is defined as living on the spot for certain periods or altogether.
A person cannot, therefore, be a permanent resident of Canada or one who is domiciled in Canada just because he has a summer cottage in which he resides for a few months. If the purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the definition of "Canadian fishing vessel" I feel the word "domicile" should be left in the act as it is at present.


Mr. MacLellan:: I think it is well that hon. members should keep in mind the large part that is played in the development of the fishing industry on the east coast by 90205-6-188J
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act United States capitalized concerns. In my own riding, for example, one of the largest fish plants is owned by Booth Fisheries Limited. This plant employs 270 people who have been working overtime since the middle of January. It is evident that this concern leaves a large payroll in that community, and for this reason I am glad the minister has made no change in connection with the ownership of vessels of corporations owned outside Canada which, as in the case of this Booth concern, provide ships and plants which give important employment inside Canada.
To turn to the question raised by the hon. member for Skeena, may I say that I was pleased to see that the word "domiciled" had been removed from the old law, because in the act as it now exists a person has to be domiciled and resident in Canada. As the hon. member for Gloucester has said, the word "domiciled" implies that a person must live here permanently. Let us take the situation which arises when a United States fish plant is established in Canada. Executives of these corporations come to Canada to live, but they do not necessarily move here permanently. They may come here for a period of four or five years, and then be transferred back and forth between plants in Canada and plants in the United States. It is in our interest to encourage the movement of fish plants from the New England states to Canada, which is something which has been happening in the last few years and which I hope will continue. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena were carried it would mean that the owner of a boat would not only have to be a Canadian citizen but he would have to be living in this country permanently, as well as being a resident here. It seems to me it is sufficient that a man who is not a Canadian citizen should have his residence in Canada. That also is a word which implies that he lives here and earns his livelihood here, and I think it is sufficient. To enact that he must also be domiciled here would, I think, be placing a restriction on the development of the fishing industry of a kind that hon. members would not like to see.
I submit that the amendment now proposed by the minister is adequate to meet our purpose and I think we should be doing harm to the industry if we tried to impose further restrictions along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Skeena. I do not see why a man should have to undertake to live here the whole of his life before he is permitted to own a Canadian fishing vessel.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: The hon.
member for Gloucester gave a definition of the word "domiciled", and then he gave a definition of the word "residence". If he had
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act continued reading the definition of "residence he would have seen: "a place where one resides, abode".
I do not think there is really much difference between the word "domicile" and the word "residence". Both imply that a person is living permanently in one area. If the hon. member had continued to read the definition of "resident" he would have found in the same dictionary from which he quoted the meaning, "permanent inhabitant of town or neighbourhood". So if a person is a permanent inhabitant, I think we could regard the conditions required by the law as being satisfactorily fulfilled.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In reply to the minister, may I point out that the word presently in the act is the word "resident". In this respect, in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, perhaps I should say that I agree that corporations incorporated under the laws of Canada or of a province, and having their place of business in Canada, must continue to be governed by the provisions already in the act. The change we are discussing affects individuals only. It does not affect corporations, because corporations are provided for elsewhere in the paragraph.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: If I did not make myself clear to the hon. member for Gloucester I am sorry, because I think he must have misunderstood me. In the latter part of my remarks I was referring to the situation of individuals required to be domiciled and resident in Canada. There are many individuals in Canada associated with fish plants owned outside Canada. They are resident here for all practical purposes and they are citizens, for example, of the community of Petitdegrat in my riding. However, if they are to be required by law to be persons domiciled here they must prove that they have come to Canada permanently and that they do not intend to move away again, because the essence of the establishment of a domicile is permanent residence. A person could be resident here, even on a semipermanent basis, for five, ten or 20 years, but unless he could prove he intended to be resident here forever he could not be said to be domiciled here and he would not qualify under the terms of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. I think we should be careful before imposing a restriction of that type upon the class of person I have in mind.


Chesley William Carter: I think the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond has given us a new definition of "residence". The hon. and learned Solicitor General has just told us that there is not a great deal of difference between

"domiciled" and "resident". I think that if we look at various acts of parliament we shall find that the term "resident" is not always defined in the same way. For instance, I think it is defined differently in the Income Tax Act than it is in the Canada Elections Act. The term has many different meanings in both federal and provincial legislation. It has no fixed and definite meaning such as the hon. member would give to it. I think it is on that account that when we use the term "resident" we often place an adjective in front of it and use the phrase "a person who is ordinarily resident". The word "resident" has such a number of interpretations that we have to use that phrase as a safeguard to make up for all the vagueness and uncertainty surrounding it.
I rise to point out to the hon. member for Skeena that if we adopt his amendment-and it is an amendment with which I am inclined to agree-we are going to create another problem, because the hon. member did not say anything about deleting the words "an individual" in line 11. If we insert after "citizen" the words "resident and domiciled in Canada" and then go on to say "an individual resident in Canada" it will be open to this interpretation, that if one person owns a boat he only needs to be an individual resident in Canada but if more than one person owns a boat they have to be Canadian citizens resident and domiciled in Canada. I wonder how the hon. member is going to get over that difficulty.


Frank Howard: Very easily; simply by moving another amendment. I think we are allowed to move only one amendment at a time. If this amendment carries we shall have an opportunity to move a consequential amendment so that the provision would read, "An individual domiciled and resident in Canada," and both would have the same phraseology.


Chesley William Carter: There is a point the hon. member has overlooked. There should be a clarification of what the intention of this amendment is. Even as it now reads it can be interpreted as meaning that if one person operates a boat he should be an individual resident and, if more than one, each individual has to be a Canadian citizen.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I cannot draw that interpretation from it.


Chesley William Carter: If we insert the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena that meaning would certainly be imposed on this clause. The hon. member would then have to make clear in his second amendment that the individual person was also a citizen.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some objection expressed to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has raised an objection. However, as far as the government is concerned there is no objection to stipulating both requirements of domicile and residence. I would be quite willing to accept the amendment as long as the objection raised by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is met. Would the hon. member for Skeena be agreeable to withdrawing his amendment if an amendment to the following effect were proposed. Instead of referring to an individual resident in Canada it would read "a domiciled resident of Canada".


Chesley William Carter: A domiciled citizen.


John Angus MacLean: No, a citizen would not have to be domiciled. Reference would be made to, "one of whom is a Canadian citizen, a domiciled resident of Canada, or a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada." I believe that would meet the objection.


Frank Howard: It would meet part of it, the question of having domicile and residence attached to an individual other than a Canadian citizen, but I submit there are a number of persons who are Canadian citizens and who own and operate businesses in Canada but who are resident in other countries on a permanent basis and spend all their money there. If we inject this flavour of Canadianism into our law I believe we should take the next step and see that these people who are Canadian citizens do not live in Florida, California or Mexico, but in Canada where they make their livelihood. I do not suggest that any fishermen live in Florida. I believe the assistant minister of justice is attempting to interject but I invite him to make his comments at the appropriate time. The minister's amendment does not meet the objection that a person should be resident and domiciled where he earns his living and spends his money, and both points should be coupled together.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a grave mistake to narrow too much the right of an individual to own a Canadian vessel. Problems could arise if a man had to be both domiciled and resident in Canada and had to be able to swear he was a Canadian citizen. I think of people associated with some of our fish plants in the east. They would have to be prepared to swear that they intended permanently to live here. They may not in fact do so, but they must state theii intention to do so in order to qualify as a person domiciled in Canada.
What would be done in effect by changing the wording to specify a domiciled resident of Canada would be to rule out from the definition a United States citizen who happened to be transferred to Canada as manager of, or executive of a fish plant and who might be here five or ten years but who would perhaps eventually go back home to Boston or wherever the head office of the plant may be.
I think it would be a mistake to adopt the wording suggested, and I should like to see the minister further examine the legal meaning of this language before a change is made in the clause. I think it would be a serious mistake to say we should limit the ownership of Canadian vessels to Canadian citizens actually living in Canada.
The situation is not unknown in my riding, and some other ridings on the east coast, where a man associated with some of the fish plants owned in the United States moves back and forth between the maritime or Atlantic area of Canada and the New England area of the United States. If we limit the ownership under the definition to a person who is a Canadian citizen actually resident and domiciled in Canada we would, under this narrow definition, eliminate many people who now own vessels or who may in the future be encouraged to operate vessels out of Canadian Atlantic ports.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat. Does the hon. gentleman think that the individual employees, the managers of these fish plants, would be, themselves, the owners of the vessels? Is it not more likely that the vessels would be owned by the corporations that are provided for in part in another clause in this measure?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: As far as Booth Fisheries Limited fish plant at Petitdegrat is concerned I am sure the boats would be owned by the corporation, but it might not be unusual for a United States executive to own a Canadian vessel while stationed here for five or ten years. Why should we change the legislation to prohibit his owning a vessel while living in Canada?
I should now like to ask the hon. member for Halifax a question. Does the hon. member agree with my definition of "domicile" as meaning a person who lives in a place with the intention of living there permanently? Does the hon. member agree with that definition?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes indeed, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Latin expression is animus manendi coupled with physical presence. I had some experience with this question in a previous and quite famous debate.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I asked the hon. member that question because I think it is important tor those who are interested in this question to agree on definitions. I know that the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo, Gloucester and Queens-Lunenburg are interested in this matter. If a man is to be considered as domiciled here he must be ready to swear he has come to Canada permanently and as hon. members know there are many people now associated with the fishing industry who could not do that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am personally inclined to agree with the amendment suggested by the minister which covers the points raised. I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the provisions of the act relating to the ownership of Canadian vessels by Canadians resident in Canada. The danger of the provision as it reads now is that any individual resident in Canada may become the owner of a Canadian vessel. The objection I indicated earlier, and which the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond does not seem to realize, is that the employees of foreign fishing firms in Canada could have a number of boats registered in their own names as a result of the fact they are employees of that firm. In this instance they may be resident in Canada for three, four or five years or more but they are not domiciled. That is why we want the word "domiciled". This word was in the old act. Paragraph (a)(ii) of section 2 of the old act reads:
-owned by one person domiciled and resident in Canada.
That is why we would like to have the word "domiciled" retained.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the point just made by the hon. member for Gloucester, I was about to point out that as the act now reads it requires residence in Canada and domicile in Canada.
I might also point out that as far as trawlers are concerned, in order to be licensed under the Fisheries Act they have to be owned by a Canadian, anyway. Therefore, even if this restriction were made a little more lax by requiring only residence rather than domicile as well, it would apply to only very small vessels. I do not think the point is really of much substance. I do not feel that I can accept the suggestion that Canadians who have Canadian citizenship should have any of their rights impaired by requiring them to be resident and domiciled in Canada in order to qualify for ownership of a Canadian vessel, because there may be cases where Canadian citizens have abandoned their country but yet retained their citizenship. I suppose that is possible. It would work a greater hardship on Canadians who are

residing out of the country on a temporary basis. I think it would create an unnecessary hardship as far as they are concerned.


Frank Howard: Before you put the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the suggestion of the minister, particularly the second part having to do with domiciled, resident, and so on. In essence this is perhaps somewhat similar to what I suggested so far as Canadian citizenship is concerned. I do not wish to be overly critical but the draftsmanship of this particular bill is rather strange and could lead to a variety of conclusions. I understand one of the rules of draftsmanship is that you use the same words throughout a statute if they are to mean the same thing. In lines 9 and 10 reference is made to ownership by one or more persons. In this instance persons are referred to. In line 11 we no longer refer to persons but to individuals. We draw some distinction between an individual and a person. Is one person who owns a fishing vessel and is a Canadian citizen different from an individual who is a Canadian citizen and who also owns a fishing vessel? For the sake of clarity, it seems to me that the word "person" should be used throughout so that we would know what we are talking about.
I make reference to this part of the act only for this specific purpose. Subsection 3 of section 3 of the act makes reference to person. It says "no person". In other parts of the act, reference is made to persons. For instance, the section on offences and penalties says that every person is guilty of an offence who does certain things. Section 8 says, "Every person who violates" and so on. Throughout there is reference to the word "person" either in its singular or plural form. It would seem to me that the word "individual" is sort of out of place if we mean the same thing as we mean when we use the word "person". It would seem to me that we should be consistent throughout and use the word "person" in place of "individual". The amendment reads in part:
-an individual resident in Canada.-
To follow the minister's suggestion, perhaps these words should be deleted in their entirety and this phrase substituted therefor, "a person who is domiciled and resident in Canada". This is the language that is used in the act at the moment. This language permits continuity of expression and will show to those who come after us that at least we, as members of parliament, had a faint idea of what we were talking about when we used the same phrase. Will the minister comment on why the word "individual" was used in one instance and the word "person" or "persons" in another, and tell

us whether they are supposed to mean the same thing or a different thing?


Chesley William Carter: Before the minister replies would he clarify that point a little farther? The old definition distinguished between when the owner was one person or more than one person? Is this new definition going to wipe out that distinction? If it is not intended to wipe out the distinction, then how are we to read these words "an individual resident in Canada"? Do they apply when the owner is only one person, or do they apply in all cases, whether the owner is one person or more than one person?


John Angus MacLean: This refers to one or more persons, each of whom is a Canadian citizen; an individual resident in Canada or a corporation.


Chesley William Carter: This provision applies whether one person is the owner or more than one? They must all be citizens and also resident in Canada?


John Angus MacLean: No, they must be one or the other.


Chesley William Carter: They must be one or the other.


John Angus MacLean: All of them must be either citizens or-


Chesley William Carter: The amendment reads in part:
-and is owned by one or more persons each of whom is a Canadian citizen,-
An individual can be either a Canadian citizen or an individual resident in Canada.


John Angus MacLean: That is correct.


Chesley William Carter: So that if there are two owners they may be two individual residents instead of two citizens?


The Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Bill SD-1, an act for the relief of Jean George Lipsman-Mr. McCleave.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask again that these bills stand. I will also make a suggestion for the consideration of the house which will save the time of the clerks who prepare the order paper, and also save substantial printing costs. I suggest that until we do come to the consideration of second reading of the divorce bills all those on the order paper be placed under one order.
Private Bills
The second point I make is that since it is possible that members may wish to comment on individual bills, it be understood that when the time comes for second reading of the divorce bills the unified order be dispensed with, and each bill would then be in a position to be considered separately; that is, each under a separate number.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I comment on the suggestion and reiterate it so that it is clear to me as well. I understand that what is being asked precisely is, first, that all of the divorce bills be consolidated as of this time under one order number so that they will all appear under order No. 1, for argument's sake; and that when the sponsor of the bills decides to proceed with their consideration they will then be each numbered as a separate order so that they can be dealt with separately?
With that understanding we would agree.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is the suggestion I made to the house, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax, concurred in by the hon. member for Skeena, relating to order No. 1 covering 53 divorce bills, and also orders No. 2 to 96 inclusive covering individual divorce bills No. SD-54 to SD-148 inclusive is that they stand for second reading. It is proposed that all those orders be stood today and that they be carried on the order paper henceforth under one order until they are proceeded with. It is also understood that they may be dealt with individually if requested. Does the house concur in this suggestion?


Frank Howard: It was my understanding that they were not to be dealt with individually on request but that at that time they appear on the order paper as separate order numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a difficulty involved in what the hon. member suggests in that it will not be known when they are to be proceeded with, but in the meantime will stand on the order paper as one number.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I can solve that difficulty by indicating that notice will be given to all parties concerned several days in advance. I will make a statement of the intention to proceed with them at some convenient time and they can then be renumbered under separate order numbers. I will make this announcement well in advance of the Tuesday period when bills are considered.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if there is an impediment involved in the consolidation of these numbers. At the present time we are

Private Bills
printing ten pages dealing with these bills. Is there any reason why they cannot be referred to in some specific way rather than printing them day after day?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker; I think we should deal with one thing at a time. We have not cleared up the question regarding the renumbering of the bills under separate order numbers. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax regarding the announcement in advance of his intention to proceed with them would overcome the difficulty I have suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: That would involve notice, before the house proceeded with second reading of any divorce bill which, as I understand it, would complicate the matter. If the house is concerned about the economy of printing these bills the suggestion is made that divorce bills coming on the order paper for second reading be consolidated under one order until the time the hon. member, in whose name they stand, wishes to proceed, and they then be listed again. Would the house concur in that suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house leader satisfied with that proposed arrangement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask a question for clarification. By consolidating these bills we would reduce the number of printed pages to three or four. When they are renumbered again we will expand the number of necessary pages to 10 or 12. Perhaps they could be referred to under one order and, when they come up for second reading and we make an agreement and an order issues to that effect, we could call each bill in turn by its present designation, SD-1 and so on. Would that meet our requirements and eliminate the extra burden on the clerk and printers which would follow?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: The individual bills could not normally proceed individually to subsequent stages of proceedings if they appear under one order number. They would have to have individual identity, and I think we would be wise to leave them in the way it is suggested they appear finally on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion which I understand the house had agreed to was that these bills be stood and be not printed again on the order paper until the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) indicates that he is ready to proceed and that they then be set out seriatim as separate orders.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, that is the best suggestion of all, not to print them in the routine proceedings and orders of the day until, say, proper notice is given on a Friday afternoon for the following Tuesday. That seems to me to be the most commendable suggestion of all. If it were followed, we would really be saving money in this respect.


Frank Howard: That would be agreeable, but it would be even more agreeable if they never again appeared on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk suggests that the order paper in the future, until notice is given by the hon. member for Halifax that he wishes to proceed, will show one order in general terms, to second reading of divorce bills and all divorce bills will be encompassed under that order including those which may come forward in the interval. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting Canadian General Insurance Company.
He said:
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to give a French name to the company which, till now, has been known as the Canadian General Insurance Company; it is a question of adding to the name of that company the following French designation: "Compagnie d'assurance canadienne generale". (Text) :


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company-Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the discussion of this bill reminds me of days gone by. Under what different circumstances are we discussing this bill and its principle compared with the discussion that took place on the famous pipe line bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Freedom of speech was endangered then; it is not now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At that time the present Prime Minister sitting in opposition referred to individuals of the type connected with this bill as Texas buccaneers. Hon. members

of the Liberal party who formed the government of that day supported those Texas buccaneers. Only this little group in the corner has been consistent in opposing activity of this nature.


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am quite willing to answer if I can do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is the question I
should like to put to my good friend. Is it not a fact that most of the debate on the former pipe line was on an entirely different point than this debate is on? The debate was on the question of finances, on whether the government of Canada should back the finances. This is entirely different. This case is something like that of Northern Pipe Line of Saskatchewan which the hon. member approved last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member was obviously not here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Bow River is somewhat of a novitiate in this House of Commons. He forgets that years ago we had several discussions on pipe line bills which were almost identical with this one and not related to the one which he mentions at the present time.
However, Mr. Chairman, to carry on, I want to say that this group has been entirely consistent throughout the years in the application of its principles to the circumstances under consideration. I had not taken part in this debate previously. I must apologize even to my colleagues on that account. My time has been taken up to a great extent with my correspondence. My great increase in correspondence has been caused by the Minister of Justice because whenever he makes a speech on the Columbia river, I am obliged to write a great many letters to people who protest.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I trust that the hon. member will come back to the bill under discussion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I can see that you readily appreciate the fact that oil and water do not mix.


An hon. Member:: A big laughing matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Having made that point, I shall continue. As a matter of fact I was going to make only a brief reference to this subject, and I am sure that I would have been quite as much in order as some hon. members have been. However, I accept your ruling.
Private Bills
On this bill to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company, may I say this. I have been looking up the dictionary. I was rather fascinated with the word "Aurora". This is the definition of "aurora" given by the dictionary:
Luminous atmospheric (prob. electrical) phenomenon radiating from earth's northern or southern magnetic pole; dawn; colour of sky at sunrise: Roman goddess of dawn.
And so on.
I can well understand and appreciate why the company was named the Aurora Pipe Line Company. It will glow with gold. Obviously the company is capitalized so that the cost of the pipe line will work out at $3,784 per foot. In fact the press of today mentions that Aurora's golden half-mile is at the heart of the parliamentary debate and they go on to describe the bill.
Then again I notice that certain persons named have by petition prayed that such and such be done. I was rather fascinated. I understand the technical reason for using the word "pray". However, it always seems to be a sort of anomaly to use the word "pray" in connection with the development of oil. I know some people in Alberta who can pray long and loud and at the same time profit from oil, as has happened in other parts of the world.
On one occasion I had a member of the Social Credit party in this house tell me this when we were discussing a prior pipe line bill, and he told me it in all seriousness. I asked him why oil was not discovered in such quantity until such and such a date. He said "I will tell you why. The good Lord wanted to make certain that there was a Social Credit government in power before he let them find it." I think that is an example of having strong convictions as far as your party policy is concerned and as the beneficence of the Almighty with respect to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think there must be some facsimile of order in the debate. Standing order 34 (2) reads as follows:
Mr. Spencer or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance,-
Surely what the hon. member is now discussing is something that is not very relevant to the situation.
. -or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech,-
What he is saying may be funny to the C.C.F., but it is not funny having regard to the development of this country. Surely we should have something that is relevant to the debate in question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, an hon. member has a right to refer to previous debates

Private Bills
on pipe lines and to discussions with members in relation to those pipe lines. I am laying an historical background for my coming remarks and I wish the hon. member would restrain himself and not be impatient because, on the whole, he is a very well-intentioned person.


Hazen Robert Argue: They want to use closure on a pipe line bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before proceeding I must congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South or, I should say, the handsome, courageous, and independent member for Vancouver South for having the courage to stand up in this House of Commons and say his piece, although it is obviously not popular with the hon. member for Bow River. I notice that when the hon. member for Vancouver South speaks the hon. member for Bow River looks like a bloated toad that is going to burst. Anyway, I congratulate him on having that courage and that independence.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I indicate to the hon. member for Kootenay West that his last remarks are, in my opinion, out of place. In the second place I must draw his attention to standing order 59 (2) which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I appreciate the fact that latitude has been given to hon. members up until now. However, I must say that I feel that no injustice would result from applying the rules from now on. I have noticed that we have heard more or less a repetition of speeches that have already been made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, that as far as we are concerned we feel that the discussion in a general way on this first clause has been and is in order. Your Honour has allowed a general debate and has allowed the sponsor of the bill to make general statements and to answer arguments. I would hasten to point that, in my judgment, it would be a grave mistake to rule closure on a broad discussion of this pipe line bill at this stage. I think the memories of some members of this committee go back far enough to give them an understanding of the grave and serious implications that will flow from any such attempt. I say that Your Honour, in my judgment, has acted in a right and proper way in allowing general debate on clause 1 of this bill. That general debate having been precipitated, I do not see how you could contemplate at some particular stage that, by an arbitrary decision, the general debate shall come to an end. I submit that the hon. member for Kootenay West must

be given the same kind of latitude in discussing clause 1 as that which has been heretofore afforded to all hon. members in all parties in discussing this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to say this, Mr. Chairman: For the hon. member for Assiniboia to use the word "closure" with regard to a request that the rules be obeyed, is just nonsense. Closure is a motion that prohibits debate after a certain stage. Here there is no prohibition of debate at all. Freedom of speech prevails in this parliament.


Hazen Robert Argue: We shall soon hear what the ruling is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I speak to the point of order? The hon. member for Assiniboia spoke to the point of order and he talked about a wide variety of subjects. However, may I say this? I endeavoured to keep this matter on the rails. That is why they have been criticizing me. I said that all we come to parliament for is to incorporate a company. They are the ones that opened the flood gate; and when they get the gate open, they try to press open further gates. That is the situation we have.
I think that you, as chairman, have been particularly courteous to the group in the corner in allowing those hon. members to open the gates so wide. Surely, it is obvious that they do not want this information. They are filibustering this bill and they have run out of ideas.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and in particular on the point raised by the house leader, I am one of those members of this committee who, like the hon. member for Kootenay West has not yet had an opportunity to speak on this bill. I do not see any reason why the rules should not apply equally to the hon. members from all political parties of this committee. The hon. members who are now complaining supported a similar bill on another occasion, and we should have the same opportunity to speak on this bill that was afforded them on that occasion.


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not have any second-class members of parliament, or we have not in the past.


Jacques Flynn: I should point out to the committee that the chairman cannot do anything other than enforce the rules. However, in order to be able to do that in an efficient and just manner, it is necessary for the chairman to have the help and co-operation of all hon. members. I think the chairman has been fair to all hon. members of this committee.

I have pointed out to the hon. member for Kootenay West that there are rules against repetition and that the remarks of hon. members in committee of the whole should be strictly relevant to the matter before the committee.
I have indicated before, that in my view discussion on clause 1 of a bill could not be the same as it is on second reading. I expressed the view last year that generally the discussion should be on the method of dealing with the problem as indicated by the manner in which the bill is drafted; that is, the draftsmanship of the bill and the method of dealing with the problem on hand.
On the other hand, I do not think the hon. member for Assiniboia is right in intimating that the application of the rules of the house would be the application of closure. That would infer an intention on the part of the Chair, and I think the remark of the hon. member is a reflection on the Chair.
I have tried to be reasonable. All hon. members realize that if they really have something to say on the bill, they are entitled to say it, but I do not think it is in accordance with the rules of the house to speak just for the sake of speaking. I trust that the hon. member for Kootenay West will bear these considerations in mind. I do not intend to restrict him unnecessarily in view of the fact that the discussion has been very wide, but I count on his co-operation to help the Chair apply the rules of debate which the house has decided should apply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I stirred up a hornet's nest. You have mentioned certain words that I used in respect to the hon. member for Bow River. I believe I used the phrase "bloated toad", which perhaps was offensive. I withdraw that phrase at once and replace it with "a toy balloon about to explode".
While this is just a bill to incorporate one company, this group is taking a particular stand because it represents a certain principle. Before going further I wish to quote briefly from the committee report on this matter. I should say it is a very slim committee report, which indicates that the bill certainly did not receive the attention we were led to believe it would when it passed second reading and was sent to the committee. I think that is indicated by the fact that while this discussion has been going on in committee of the whole, the hon. member for Bow River has repeatedly been offering more and more information. He has been dragged out of his hole, as it were, as the debate has continued.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not fair, and you know it.
Private Bills


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say that last night he made the most informative speech on the question that he has made to date. I would refer to the committee report. This is the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for Tuesday, February 21, 1961. On page 38 I find the following comment by the hon. member for Calgary South.
Do you not feel, therefore, that you should reserve the right to make a decision on these technical problems? Do you think that you, as a member of parliament, are qualified to pass judgment on this?


Mr. Cathers:: I do not think I am qualified to pass on the technical aspects. However, I took an interest in this; I went to the hearings before the Senate, and I was here during the hearings on the Foothills bill. I am not speaking with any expert knowledge, but I say I think it is my right as a member of parliament, when this comes before us, to pass my judgment and to object.
Then the hon. member for Calgary South said:
You think it is your right, but you have said you do not think you are qualified.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: That is right.
Then the hon. member for Bow River said:
Actually you said you do not like to hand over that jurisdiction; but did you not, as a fact, when you voted for the national energy board, actually hand over that authority to the national energy board?
I quote that passage to indicate the implications behind the remarks that this is a matter that should not seriously concern parliament, that it is to a greater extent the responsibility of the national energy board. As against that point of view I wish to quote briefly from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East. On page 39 the hon. member is reported as having said:


Harold Edward Winch: The only matters which come before the national energy board are those authorized by parliament. It would depend on whether or not the company is incorporated. That is what we are
discussing now.
I quote that passage to indicate the contrast between the point of view of the hon. members we oppose in this connection and of this group. The hon. member for Vancouver East was reflecting our approach as socialists. This questioning as reported in the minutes of the committee clearly indicates our great concern for the rights, responsibilities and the institution of parliament.
We in this group consider that this bill, in essence, conflicts with stated government policy. In the speech from the throne to the Canadian parliament on November 17, 1960, announcements were made regarding one of the most important subjects dealt with in

Private Bills
a report, to which I intend to refer. I wish to quote from the speech from the throne:
You will be invited to consider means by which to encourage a greater participation by Canadians in the ownership and control of industry and resources in Canada.
That is one of the main arguments of this group. We say this bill does not give effect to government policy which has been stated. Only one member on the government side emphasized that point of view and supported our point of view. It is very interesting to see the Conservative party split on this issue, and I think it will split wider and wider as we approach election day. However, at least one member agreed with us. The hon. member for Medicine Hat is generally so good-natured that what he said was rather unusual.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: How did you
stand on Northern Pipe Line?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The way I always stand, straight up.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: What is the difference?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope I will not be interrupted for the few minutes longer that I wish to speak. I wish to quote from a report entitled "Policies and Practices of United States Subsidiaries in Canada" issued by the Canadian-American Committee. I may say that this committee is sponsored by the national planning association of the United States and by the private planning association of Canada, and it has been dealing with the very kind of question involving United States capital investment as we are concerned about it in this present bill. The main body of the study deals with major aspects of the behaviour of United States subsidiaries in Canada, including the issue of equity security by subsidiaries; personnel policies; the publication of financial reports and other information; commercial policy; research activities, and contributions to charity and education.
A great deal of information is brought out in this booklet and I am not going to quote from it at any length now, but the report provides a very sound basis for argument in opposition to legislation of the type now before us. I should like to quote from page 10 of this report:
It has been amply demonstrated that successful modern management usually subordinates the immediate and narrow interest of its stockholders to the long term interest of the corporation. Especially where foreign operations are involved, this often calls for conscious effort to fall in line with the aspirations of the community in which the enterprise operates even if it involves substantial policy changes which are not of apparent immediate advantage to the present corporation as a whole.

Elsewhere, the report states:
There is also the pressure which comes from the obligation of management to operate its business, wherever located, in the broad interest of its stockholders.
That is what we must expect with regard to the operations of this particular company in the days to come. Further on in this report, the conclusion is reached:
In certain respects the criticism which some Canadians-including some in high places-make of United States business firms in Canada is unreasonable.
That is fair enough.
Often it involves sweeping generalizations based on the alleged actions of a few companies. Sometimes it calls for policy changes which it would be unrealistic to expect from any business, whether owned and run by Canadians, Americans, or anyone else.
We are not asking for something which is unrealistic but we are asking that consideration be given to Canadian ownership, Canadian directors, and policies which are in conformity with local and national interests when we are considering the incorporation of these pipe line companies. I should like to put on record one final quotation from page 80 of this booklet:
That this demand for Canadianization is growing has become apparent during the course of this study. Well informed Canadians see this as taking the form of pressure for legislation affecting such things as foreign equity ownership, Canadianization of directorships, and the publication of financial and other data. Many Canadians, who are accustomed to reform through persuasion and accommodation, look upon the possibility of such legislation with misgiving. In this they reflect the concern of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects that under some conditions the Canadian reaction to extensive foreign ownership and control "might develop into demands for restrictive or discriminatory action of an extreme kind, the consequences of which would be unfortunate for all concerned."
This report will have served its purpose if, as was said in the opening chapter, it adds greater understanding on the Canadian side of the actual policies and practices, and the reasons for them, of a good cross section of United States controlled companies in Canada, and if on the American side it gives to some parent companies a greater appreciation of the importance to Canadians of their own national aspirations.
We wish to be fair. We do not expect the impossible. We recognize the circumstances under which these companies are financed, controlled and operated. However, we in this group feel there is a principle at stake, and we have to fight for the greater consideration of the national and local interest with regard to the incorporation of this company.
So, in concluding my brief remarks, I wish to say that we oppose this bill because we think it is wrong in principle for the reasons which I and other members of this group have put forward. Another reason is that we believe insufficient study was given in committee to

the proposals in this legislation. That is obvious when one considers the importance of the bill and compares that with the slenderness of the report itself. One has only to bear in mind the repeated additions to the information received from the hon. member for Bow River as the debate has proceeded; as day follows day, another leaf is turned in the hon. member's book of information, and its contents made available to hon. members of this committee. All that information could have been presented to the committee when it was studying this bill. We were given to understand that when the bill had received second reading there would be an exhaustive, extensive and intensive study undertaken in the committee.
The second reason for our opposition to the bill is, thus, because of the fact that inadequate study was given to this question by the committee. Finally, we do not believe that legislation of this type is, in the long run, in the national or the provincial or the local interest.


Mr. Broome:: I intend to be brief. I should like to take advantage of the offer made by the hon. member for Bow River when he said, as reported on page 2936 of Hansard of March 13:
If there are any points which any hon. member conscientiously and honestly believes have been left unexplained, will he put the question in a few words, and I for my part, will try to give an answer in a few words?
I have three questions to ask the hon. member for Bow River. First, in regard to the 12,000 public stockholders referred to by Mr. Burgis, how many of those stockholders are Canadians or residents in Canada, and what percentage of the total stock distributed of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas do they own? Second, of the personnel, the operating management-the entire personnel-of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, how many aliens are employed in the operation?
The hon. member has already answered the question. I put to him with regard to the construction work, although 1 wonder how the story was so common around Calgary. However, I accept the hon. member's word and the statement made by the company that they intend to use Canadian contractors. Incidentally, I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member for Bow River because he is having a rough time. I had a similar experience a couple of years back when I piloted the bill through for the incorporation of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. I fought tooth and nail with hon. members over in the corner, but finally they saw reason and the bill went through. However, it was not until the second year that it did.
Private Bills
My third question is this: is the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company planning to increase the percentage of Canadian participation either through the issuance of treasury stock along the line followed by the Alberta Natural Gas Company or other issues recently made in Canada which have been limited to participation by Canadians, if Canadians wanted to buy? In other words, is this company going to become more Canadian?
Now I want to take exception to a remark made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As reported on page 2930 of Hansard for March 13 the hon. member spoke as follows:
I would suggest that it is little wonder, because of all the bad features of this bill, that the members of the government party on the committee voted against the motion merely to defer consideration of the bill in the committee so that interested witnesses might have the opportunity to appear.
It is only fair to say that the mover of that motion was the hon. member for Westmorland and the seconder was a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, the dean of the house, and they certainly are Conservatives. The person who moved the motion that the committee should recess until a reporter appeared to take evidence was not an alive and alert member of the C.C.F. but the hon. member for the Yukon, although the hon. member for Skeena did second that motion.
I think that hon. members should be fair about this and recognize that the hon. members from Alberta have a problem. I can sympathize with them. The development of the oil and gas industries in Alberta is vital. At this time it has been decided that there are far-reaching national considerations which must be examined in the development of national resources. The purpose is not to stop that development but to give it a pattern. That has been the theme of what I have said in this committee and in the house on second reading.
It is only right and just that the people who come here to assist in the development of national resources should make a profit. The development of our natural resources is a profitable business. It is just and fair that they make their operations good for themselves and for Canada. These are not incompatible statements. This is not Saudi Arabia where the government takes 50 per cent of the royalty, and I believe is now negotiating for 60 per cent or 75 per cent. In Alberta the royalty is 12J per cent. This royalty is valuable to the people and the government of Alberta. It is a reasonable royalty.
The conditions which have been set out and embodied in the Natural Energy Board Act are reasonable. The thought behind that

Private Bills
act is reasonable. The way the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is handling the development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic is in line with that act, and with the philosophy about which I have been speaking. That philosophy is reflected in the form of certain public bills I have placed on the order paper. There is a coherence and an underlying thread all the way through that we shall not discriminate against foreign capital but shall welcome it,, provided it works in partnership with Canadian capital.
In closing my remarks at this stage let me say this to my hon. friends from Alberta. Seventy or eighty thousand United States citizens may run the gas and oil industry in Alberta, but I suggest that Alberta is growing to the point where Albertans can operate many of these enterprises and surely the people of Canada can now participate in every phase of these operations.
Let us have a little bit of sense and reason in this debate. Let us take out the wild statements, such as those made by the hon. member for Assiniboia and those made by the hon. member for Kootenay West when he spoke about the Conservative split. There is no split in the Conservative party. The policy of our party has not changed.
We are discussing a private bill. All hon. members have the right to say what they think in this respect, but I do not think any hon. member or any group has the right to hold up passage of a bill. Hon. members have the right to dissent, but not to obstruct. We can make our positions known when the time comes for the taking of a vote.


Mr. Brunsden:: When will that be?


Ernest James Broome: I trust I shall not be the only hon. member on this side of the committee who will vote against this bill on third reading, but that is my intention unless the hon. member for Bow River can satisfy me in respect of the three questions I have put to him. This is my last word in this debate at the committee stage.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the hon. member for Bow River cares to answer the questions put to him by the hon. member for Vancouver South my remarks might be somewhat curtailed.


Edwin William Brunsden: That would be a good thing.


Murdo William Martin: In view of the fact that the hon. member does not care to answer or has no answers to the questions posed by the hon. member for Vancouver South I have no choice but to proceed with my-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Filibuster?


Murdo William Martin: -remarks in the ordinary course. I have listened carefully

to the debate and followed it closely in Hansard. I must admit my knowledge of the oil and gas industry is not too wide and that is why I listened with such interest to the discussion.
I am interested in this bill and in bills of this nature. My riding is, as it were, at the other end of the oil industry and my area, along with others, has supplied the gold with which this pipe line is apparently going to be plated.
This bill represents another in that series of sorry events that have occurred relating to the development of our natural resources. History shows that in the main it has been a question of development of those resources by quick-buck artists. What makes the present bill even more odious is the fact that the quick-buck artists involved are not even of the home-grown variety.
The hon. member for Timiskaming referred last evening to the decline and virtual disappearance of the white pine industry. This came about because of the methods employed by the quick buck artists in the development of our resources. Another recent example is found in the uranium industry. Under a five-year contract the Rio Tinto company took out $93 million net, and those who got it in the neck were individuals who were unfortunate enough to have purchased homes in the area of that industry.
This quick-buck artistry has never been better illustrated than in the development of our oil industry. A most glaring example was the trans-Canada pipe line fiasco of a couple of years ago which resulted in bringing the Liberal government crashing down to earth. Another example recently exposed was that of a western oil company which proceeded to dispose of its products in the United States at prices cheaper than those which were charged Canadian consumers along the route of the pipe line. Gas and oil should be available at cheap prices to Canadian but people have had to sell their homes because they could not keep up with the high cost of this great natural resource when used as fuel.
Because of this type of development, the benefit of this resource has been denied to our people. The costs of promotion have to be paid by someone and it is the consumer who pays. It may be that the costs are extended over so long a period that you will not have a chance in your lifetime to pay them, but will pass them on to your children and theirs. These paper profits are not supposed to hurt anyone but they do hurt the consumer and are built-in over a long period of time.
There have been interesting developments in this debate. The Liberals have been consistent in the position they took in 1956 of selling out Canadian interests to the United

States. I do not know if one should congratulate them for their consistency. Apparently they are prepared to follow the same consistent line in their approach to this pipe line company. We also see that the hon. member for Vancouver South was consistent with Conservative policy back in 1956, which was that quick-buck artistry is not too bad provided it is Canadian or, at least, if we are to have some quick-buck artistry it should be confined to Canadians. We should not sell out to United States interests.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South on his courage and forthrightness. His stand is consistent with what he believes to be the present Tory policy. An illustration of this is found in the excellent words which the hon. member used the other night, as reported at page 2680 of Hansard:
The only thing tor which this government has stood... is that Canadians can compete on equal terms with capital coming into this country from other sources.
Unfortunately, apparently this stand, which had been expounded so well by the hon. member for Vancouver South is not shared in this instance by the hon. member for Bow River, and certainly, at least during this debate, not by the two hornets from Acadia and Jasper-Edson. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I do not really believe the three hon. members have given a good reason for their stand, unless they are trying to do something which is going to benefit their particular ridings regardless of whether it is in the interests of the province as a whole. Certainly they seem to be disregarding the interests of Canadians as a whole.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member spoke about benefiting a particular riding. I would ask him if Pincher Creek is in the riding of Bow River? From my knowledge of Alberta and western Canada, Pincher Creek is strictly within the riding of Macleod and has nothing to do with the riding of Bow River.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, possibly I did misrepresent the hon. member. If that was not the reason, then unfortunately there is another reason that I can see. We understand that the hon. member, contrary to Conservative policy past or present, appears to be acting in line with Social Credit policy during the pipe line debate of 1956.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Hazen Robert Argue: Our new Beauchesne.
Private Bills


Edwin William Brunsden: Well, you need one. The hon. member for Timmins is attempting to develop a political case for the export of gas and oil, and he has cast some aspersions on the Alberta members. He has tried to talk about uranium, about which he knows very little, apparently; I have not seen him in the research committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no point of order.


Edwin William Brunsden: Yes, there is. The point is simply that this debate is supposed to be about a bill having to do with a pipe line, not about Social Credit or the C.C.F. in Alberta, not about the personal views of Alberta members on a selfish basis. It was intimated a moment ago that we came from Alberta. We do, and we are proud of it and we are just as good Canadians as those who come from Ontario.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, certainly I do not think there is any accusation against an hon. member for saying that he is trying to do something for his particular riding. It may not be in the interests of the country as a whole, but I certainly do not think it is any reflection on any hon. member to say that he is trying to promote the interests of his own riding. I definitely try to promote the interests of my riding.


Edwin William Brunsden: You are doing a damn poor job, then.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think anybody is going to worry about your judgment on this matter or on any other matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is out of order again.


Murdo William Martin: If the hon. member thinks I am doing a bad job, I should like to invite him to debate that question in my riding.


Hazen Robert Argue: He will probably take it out of Hansard.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Murdo William Martin: There is another point I should like to illustrate; I think it is very important in so far as this particular bill is concerned. I should like to refer to the words of the Minister of Agriculture, formerly minister of northern affairs and national resources. I think the best illustration I can give is to quote just a few extracts from a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture in committee of supply when the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were under discussion. His remarks were related to conservation and the development of our natural

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act resources. They certainly are apropos of this particular bill. This is what the minister had to say:
-we are the nation on the northern half of this continent and we want to make certain that the interests, not only of the present generation, are protected, but that the interests of generations unborn will also be preserved.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Bow River whether a bill of this kind, when practically all the control of the company is outside of our country, can be construed as applying to the policy expressed by the Minister of Agriculture?


Mr. Smallwood:: Will the hon. member permit a question? On this matter of outside control, I think it would be of interest to the committee, since the members of the C.C.F. party are filibustering this bill, if the hon. member would tell us what percentage of United States capital is invested in the exploitation of gas and oil in Saskatchewan?


Murdo William Martin: I would love to debate that particular issue with the hon. member at some time but I do not think we can do so now.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I should like to inform the hon. member that over 75 per cent is United States capital. If the hon. member continues to filibuster this bill I do not see how we can waste our time listening to him.


Hazen Robert Argue: Wrong again.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-57, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.-Mr. MacLean (Queens)-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 1-"Canadian fishing vessel".
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the business of the house was interrupted at five o'clock the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) proposed an amendment and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) offered an alternative. The member for Skeena was not feeling well and was not sure he would

be in attendance this evening. He asked me on his behalf, to withdraw his amendment. He was of the opinion that the amendment proposed by the minister would be satisfactory.


Jacques Flynn: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


John Angus MacLean: We had a useful discussion regarding this matter before five o'clock. I will ask my colleague, the Solicitor General, to move the following amendment:
That clause 1 be amended by striking out in line 11 the words "an individual resident" and substituting therefor the words "a person resident and domiciled".


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


An hon. Member:: By leave.


John Angus MacLean: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AGRICULTURE


Gordon Minto Churchill: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to continue its inquiry into the question of prices of farm machinery as recommended by the said committee in its fourth report presented to the house July 28, 1960, and that the committee's minutes of proceedings and evidence with regard to this inquiry at the last session be referred to the said committee.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am
sure that all hon. members are aware of the widespread interest in this question of farm machinery prices. No member representing a rural constituency could possibly avoid hearing the discussion of this subject. Farmers realize the necessity of keeping production costs down to a minimum in order to compete not only in the export market but in their own domestic market, and have expressed their concern regarding the rise in the price of farm machinery since 1955. The increase in production efficiency on the part of farmers is invariably lost because of the high cost of farm machinery.

On Monday, June 6, 1960, the house ordered that the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to inquire into the prices of farm machinery and to report to the house thereon. The committee held three open meetings and the persons appearing before the committee at the last session were as follows: Mr. A. D. Holmes, Director, Prices Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics; Mr. R. A. Stutt and Mr. G. Haase, Department of Agriculture; Messrs. D. W. McGill, Director, and J. J. A. Lefebvre, Machinery Section Head, Appraisers Branch, Department of National Revenue; and Mr. J. T. Wimble of the Appraisers Branch, National Revenue and Mr. W. Kalbfleisch, Chief of the Engineering Research Service, Department of Agriculture.
The chairman gave the following report to the house on Thursday, July 28, which reads as follows:
Your committee has noted the wide-spread interest in the subject of farm machinery prices.
Your committee held four meetings on this order of reference. It heard representatives from the dominion bureau of statistics on farm machinery prices; from the Department of National Revenue on farm machinery tariffs; from the engineering research service of the Department of Agriculture on the different types of farm machinery.
Your committee has found that interested persons or organizations would like more time to prepare presentations.
Your committee recommends;
1.	That the subject of farm machinery prices be referred to it as soon as possible after the opening of the next session of parliament.
2.	That the ministers of the different government departments concerned, instruct their officers to offer every assistance to the persons designated by the committee to procure and compile all available facts regarding farm machinery prices.
During the recess a summary of statistics relative to the inquiry into the price of farm machinery, under the direction of Mr. Gordon Haase of the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, has been prepared. Copies of this report will be made available to the members of the committee both in English and in French as soon as possible, when the committee is prepared to resume its investigation.
No one at this time is prepared to say just where the responsibility lies for the price increase. It is to be hoped that during committee sessions an investigation in this regard will take place following which recommendations will be made as to how to minimize the present increase and prevent any further increase.
I do not think it is necessary for me to indicate the nature of the inquiry which should take place, but I am sure that the committee
Farm. Machinery Prices will investigate that which they may deem necessary, whether it be in the manufacturing, distribution or retail field.
I might also add that the interest in all phases of the industry has been shown by the people concerned. It is expected that their views will be heard, in addition to the representations by labour and agriculture. I hope that this motion will be passed today and that the committee will be able to resume its inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement just made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Jorgenson). I want to assure him that we welcome this opportunity of looking again into this matter, because we believe that this study is necessary on account of the questions that are being asked by many farmers and all those concerned with every aspect of agriculture.
It is the utmost importance, in our opinion, that the committee be once more authorized to continue its inquiry into the question of farm machinery prices; besides, the committee included such a recommendation in its fourth report to the house.
I shall speak very briefly tonight because I do not want to anticipate the results of the inquiry that will be conducted by the committee on agriculture and colonization.
This is not the first time, however, that we have been hearing about this committee and I should like to refer to the statement made by the former minister of agriculture on June 6, 1960, as reported on page 4571 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, during the past 10 years, the most frequently heard general complaint on the part of farmers has been over the cost price squeeze. This arises from the fact that during this period the prices received by farmers for their products either have not increased or have not increased in anything like the proportion of the increase in cost of the goods and services farmers have to purchase.
Nothing could be more to the point, Mr. Speaker, and if we refer to D.B.S. figures, for instance, we note that the price index of goods and services purchased by farmers reached 255.9 in 1957; 259.9 in 1958; 269.5 in 1959; 274.4 in 1960. Therefore, from 1957 to the end of 1960, we note a 14.5 increase in the price index of goods and services purchased by farmers.
If, on the other hand, we refer to the same statistics, we find that the retail price index of farm products for 1956, was 234.6 and that it was 234.7 for the first 11 months of 1960.

Farm Machinery Prices
So, in four years, from 1956 to 1960, the percentage increase of the retail price of farm products was only 0.01.
This inquiry is a must, no doubt, and we, in the committee will give it all our attention but that does not seem to be the main cause of the cost-price squeeze. There may be deeper causes that could warrant a more objective investigation. For instance, what about the farm product marketing organization in this country? Nothing has been done in that field, although our economists have been discussing the problem and have recommended a study of marketing methods by a research committee.
After the then minister of agriculture, on June 6, 1960, had instructed the committee on agriculture and colonization to inquire into farm machinery prices, we hoped that the committee would get to work immediately. But it was not until July 12 next that the first meeting was held. It was followed by three more, on July 19, 26 and 27, 1960. At those meetings, evidence was heard from officers of the departments of agriculture and national revenue, and also from the dominion bureau of statistics. And it was only at the last meeting that we were given questionnaires.
And I think that all the members of the committee had copies distributed to the farmers in their ridings in order to find out what they thought of this price margin on farm machinery.
In 1960, that is during the last session, the committee on agriculture and colonization had this to say in its fourth report:
(Text):
Your committee has found that interested persons or organizations would like more time to prepare presentations.
Your committee recommends:
1. That the subject of farm machinery prices be referred to it as soon as possible after the opening of the next session of parliament.
(Translation):
Who is to blame, Mr. Speaker, we do not know or perhaps we do know it only too well. Still, certain questions remain unanswered in our minds. We wonder what caused the Minister of Agriculture and the government to delay for four months this year the opening of the inquiry by the committee on agriculture and colonization. Even if we blamed the committee for not having met more often last year to consider this matter, I think we must once more blame the government and in stronger terms for this year's four months delay.
Does the government feel that this matter is not important? Does it think that the situation which the farmer must face, as far as


the purpose of this inquiry is concerned, is not important? We do not know. And I would not like to put words in the mouth of the minister. However, we cannot help wondering whether the delay suffered in this matter is not deliberate.
We are really wondering whether the new Minister of Agriculture considers what the situation will be at the time of the next general election when the farmers will remind him that the price spread still exists.
The minister might then tell the farmers that his government has foreseen this development and that an inquiry is in progress. Unfortunately, since this government came to power, we have too often seen similar electoral tactics whose only aim is to create a smokescreen to cover the true situation.
However, we on this side do wish that the committee on agriculture and colonization will make haste in order that a report may be submitted to the house before the end of the present session. That is what we hope for and, therefore, we wish the committee to be called as soon as possible.
In closing, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture, or, in the circumstances, his parliamentary secretary, that if it so happens that the committee is unable to examine fully this whole question this year, we on this side of the house would suggest that a commission be established to complete the inquiry.
May I repeat that the announcement by the parliamentary secretary of the establishment of this committee is most welcome. We on this side of the house who are members of the committee on agriculture and colonization assure him that we will fully co-operate in order to inform not only the house but in particular our farmers who will know at last what to believe in this matter.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of prices of agricultural machinery is an exceedingly important one as far as some 600,000 farm families in Canada are concerned. There is probably no item going into the farmer's cost of production that is larger, more necessary or causes him greater concern than the cost of agricultural equipment.
Farmers have faced many grave problems since the end of the war. One has been a failure to obtain markets for agricultural production. Another has been a failure to obtain relatively good prices for agricultural commodities, and a third and very important one has been the almost astronomical increase in the price of agricultural machinery.

According to the statistics which are available prices of agricultural machinery have increased by almost two and a half times since the beginning of world war II. Farm cash income since the end of the war has remained relatively stable, with a small percentage increase over that period of time. In the farmers' view agricultural machinery is a fixed cost over which he has no control, and it is a burden that is resting very heavily on the agricultural industry.
There is a move for expansion and consolidation of farms in Canada and there is tremendous pressure to force farm populations off the farms. I do not think any item has contributed more to the depopulation of agricultural areas than the impossible burden of agricultural machinery prices for most farmers. Since this is such an important matter one would have thought the government would have taken early action to do something about it.
We are dealing with this matter on March 14. It was first raised in the House of Commons on June 6, 1960, and a report was made to parliament by the agricultural committee on July 28, 1960. This report recommended that the subject of farm machinery prices be referred to that committee as soon as possible after the opening of the next session of parliament.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) has failed to carry out the recommendation of the committee. He has failed to bring this motion before the house at an early date in the session. Parliament opened on November 17. It is almost four months since this session began. It has taken the government four months to get this resolution on the order paper, even in the face of a recommendation from the agricultural committee that the question of farm machinery prices be referred to it as soon as possible after the opening of the next session of parliament.
I suggest that the government, by its procrastination and delay has been blocking its own inquiry and has been making it more difficult for the committee to bring forward recommendations at an early date. I suggest that the government, by these delaying tactics, has shown that its well-known promises to bring about a balance between prices of agricultural products and the cost of agricultural machinery have gone by the board and have been repudiated. I suggest that this committee may well provide a great deal of window-dressing and very little action.
The question of agricultural machinery prices is of tremendous importance because according to dominion bureau of statistics figures farmers spent just under $55 million on farm implements in 1944 and $251 million
Farm Machinery Prices in 1959. That is an increase of five times in the amount of money spent on agricultural machinery. Yet in the face of this tremendous problem and the urgency to do something about it the government has long delayed bringing forward this important motion.
I think there are many items which should be brought before the committee. I think we should bring witnesses before the committee from the main agricultural implement companies in this country. We should ask them to appear before the committee and explain, if they can, why they have done such a poor job in maintaining reasonable prices for agricultural machinery. This spells a difficult problem for Canada because most of the farm implement companies have their head offices located outside our country. It is a question of whether or not we can get witnesses from the majority of these companies- I hope we can, but it does present a problem-since their head offices are located outside this country.
A few years ago the legislature of Saskatchewan undertook an inquiry into the farm implement industry. The inquiry was held in 1952, I believe, and it was a rather exhaustive one. Witnesses from the various agricultural implement companies were asked to come before the committee. The farm implement companies, with the exception of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited, boycotted the committee, refused to appear and therefore made the work of the committee very difficult.
I trust we will exercise our authority where possible, and our influence where our authority does not extend, to have the representatives of the main agricultural implement companies in Canada appear before our committee. I think we should have representatives from Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited, the Massey-Harris Company, which in substantial part is a Canadian company, and from Cockshutt Farm Equipment Limited, which is also a Canadian company. We should also request the attendance of witnesses from companies situated in the United States. I refer to such companies as the John Deere Company, the International Harvester Company, the Minneapolis Moline Company, the Case Company, the Oliver Company, and any others we think should appear before the committee.
There are a number of questions we should ask them. I think we should ask them why we have such a conglomeration of models with modifications in agricultural machinery. I think the farm implement industry is getting almost in the position of the automobile industry. Through an excessive advertising campaign the implement companies have been trying to sell streamlined tractors with special

Farm Machinery Prices gadgets. They are following the plans of the automobile companies in this regard, not with the objective of making durable implements that will last for a long period of time, but to bring forward farm implements that fall into the category of having been produced and distributed on the basis of planned obsolescence. Then within a few years, by large scale promotion they hope to again sell these implements to agricultural producers.
In addition to planned obsolescence, there is the question of the power content of many farm implements. I think the companies are promoting power in agricultural implements in exactly the same way as automobile companies have been promoting power in automobiles. I think there is a rather important question as to whether or not they have overdone the feature of power with, of course, a very large increase in cost.
I think there is another important question which the committee should study in its inquiry. I refer to the question of providing spare parts for repairing agricultural implements. It seems to me that farm implement companies do not keep on hand a stock of spare parts for a sufficient number of years. After a few years it is difficult to obtain parts for the implements that have been sold, and farmers must travel 50, 75 or 100 miles or more to a large centre in the hope that they can get repairs made. Even in my part of the country, if they travel to Regina they may be told: we shall have to send to Winnipeg, or we shall have to send to the factory. I think the companies have done a very poor job, a very inadequate job, with regard to providing a complete stock of spare parts likely to be required for their machines over the probable life of the farm implements. I think this is a question into which the committee should make a full inquiry.
I do not know why the government has set up the committee or why they are proposing this motion. They say-the parliamentary secretary has said-it is an endeavour to prevent farm implements costing more or, even better, that it is an endeavour to reduce the price of farm implements. These are certainly laudable objectives. But every time one asks the government to do something about the way in which the great corporations of this country are operated, every time you ask them to plan production or to control prices, what does the government say? It says: we cannot touch free enterprise; it is beyond our control and beyond our jurisdiction. So I would be anxious to learn from the parliamentary secretary just in what way this government feels it can exercise any control over the farm implement companies of this country. I suggest that the government has abandoned responsibility with regard to the


operation of these companies, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has told us very often that the government has no authority over private business and its operations. When we ask in this house whether or not, for example, General Motors is going to close down a plant in Windsor, the answer is: we have no control; it is beyond our jurisdiction. Very often the government will not even go as far as to make inquiries. If the government takes the attitude that it has no control over the auto industry, how does it expect to bring about the laudable objectives mentioned in connection with this particular committee?
There is the question of price spread, the difference between manufacturing costs and retail cost. There is the great problem of the price spread in the food industry. We had a royal commission set up under this government which brought in a report, but instead of price spreads being narrowed they continued to increase. One can only wonder whether there is a conscientious endeavour on the part of this government to bring about some revision in farm implement prices or whether this is just another case of window dressing, a case of holding a talk-fest and doing nothing about the problem. We have, I think, in Canada an oportunity to do something about farm implement prices because, unlike certain other countries we do have a native farm implement industry. We have the Massey-Harris Company, the Cockshutt Company and Canadian Co-Operative Implements Limited. I suggest that this committee should consider the financial support and encouragement of the co-operative production of farm implements and there should be a full inquiry as to whether we should use to a much greater extent the facilities of CoOperative Implements Limited so as to bring about a reduction in prices. I think we should consider the possibility of public ownership in the field of farm implements.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is straying a little far afield. The subject matter to be referred to the committee is the only relevant subject matter for debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pointing out some of the problems in the farm implement industry, some of the things into which I think inquiry should be made. I think the whole question of the kind of production we should have in the farm implement field is certainly an area into which the committee should make inquiry.
There is another area in which I think the committee should make inquiry. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if it is the intention that the inquiry should proceed along these lines, namely, an investigation into the costs of the various components

which make up the prices of farm implements such as the cost of salaries, wages, overhead, profits and materials. I should like to see appearing before this committee not only experts from the farm implement industry but experts from labour and management to put before the committee information as to the various component costs going into the price of farm implements.
I have in my hand a survey which has been made relating to these costs. This survey is contained in a publication put out by the farm-labour co-ordinating council, which is a body composed of representatives of labour, the Canadian Labour Congress and its affiliated unions, and representatives of the farm unions of Canada. This body found that, comparing 1957 costs with 1945 costs, there has been an increase of 8 per cent in the cost of salaries, an increase of 7.5 per cent in overhead and profits, a reduction in the cost of fuel and electricity by .4 per cent, an increase in the costs of material by 3.1 per cent and a reduction in the cost of labour amounting to 11 per cent. In 1957, wages accounted for 22.9 per cent of the final price of farm implements as compared with 33.9 per cent in 1945.
The bogey has been raised that the higher prices of farm machinery can be attributed to higher labour costs. Let us find out if this accusation can be substantiated. According to this source of information, that is not the case. Increased efficiency and automation have resulted in the reduction of the percentage of cost attributable to labour, and there has been a substantial increase in such things as overhead, profits, salaries and materials.
We trust that the committee will do something about reducing farm implement prices and that it will not be just another talk-fest, another inquiry bringing in another report to gather dust while farm machinery prices continue to rise.


Mr. Speakman:: Is the hon. member not a member of that committee himself?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: His attendance record is not good.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been a member of the committee during part or most of this year. I can tell the hon. member something that I imagine he knows to be correct: It is difficult for me to carry out to the full all these obligations. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) sits on very few committees because he finds it is impossible to attend. This is a difficult job. I hope to be able to attend the meetings. I shall certainly have some ideas to present to the committee, and I hope
Farm Machinery Prices I shall get co-operation from hon. members opposite in presenting those ideas.


Mr. Laurence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a speech from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) which we have heard on many other occasions; in fact, so often that one could almost predict what words were to follow. It was like listening to a record to which one has grown accustomed. The only unfortunate thing was that the hon. member did not even take the trouble to change the needle. The record was worn out and very scratchy, but still he dragged it out and played it for us. The hon. gentleman did his best. We are all aware that he sought to get publicity among the western farmers, and so he blazed away.
I think we should set the record straight. There has been a delay in getting this price investigation study started. However, I remind the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is a member of the committee on agriculture and colonization, that the delay in large part has been due to the death of the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Hayden Stanton. All matters relating to this committee and the continuation of the study were consequently thrown into an upheaval, and had to be straightened out. The organization of the work had to be commenced almost from scratch.
Did the hon. gentleman take cognizance of that fact in his remarks? No, he simply rose in his place and blamed the government and blazed away in an attempt to achieve publicity among the western farmers.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall be glad to answer any question which the hon. member wishes to raise after I have finished my remarks. Let hon. gentlemen in that corner be quiet and take their medicine.
Neither hon. members of the house from agricultural constituencies nor the farmers of western Canada have to be told by the hon. member for Assiniboia that farm costs are one of the most important problems facing the agricultural economy. It is a well-known fact that the price of farm machinery weighs heavily on western Canadian farmers.
The net income position of farmers is determined by two factors, costs on the one hand and prices for commodities on the other. These two factors operate like the two blades of a pair of scissors, and one cannot tell which is doing the most cutting in so far as net income is concerned.
At this time the government is embarking on a study relating to the cost side of the picture. Through the work of this committee the government is seeking to assess the problems relative to the costs of machinery as

Farm Machinery Prices they affect the agricultural producers of western Canada. Economists have been working on many aspects of the problem for the past six months and I understand a wealth of material has been prepared relative thereto. It is also my understanding that representatives of the farm machinery companies and others will be called before the committee to give evidence. Therefore I say that the work that is about to be undertaken by this standing committee should lead to results and produce information which the farmers of western Canada are eagerly awaiting.
I, too, feel a little disturbed about the fact that the committee did not proceed sooner. At the same time, I realized that the delay was in large part due to the death of the hon. gentleman who served as chairman of the committee. Mr. Stanton put a tremendous effort into the work of the committee. He laid the groundwork for this price study and engaged in extensive correspondence in connection therewith. Had Mr. Stanton lived and continued in good health, I am sure this committee would have been functioning months ago.
In all fairness to the government, it should be said that the work that is about to be undertaken by the standing committee deserves the support and assistance of all hon. members of the house.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all the members of the house will agree with the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) that the motion before us tonight is a very good one indeed.
Many members have already spoken here on the price spread between the cost of farm implements and their sales price. Farmers in my area had brought up the matter and I raised the matter in the house last year.
The leader of the C.C.F. party said a moment ago that over 600,000 Canadian families are involved here. The cost of farm production has obviously been an important factor in farm desertion not only in Canada, not only in the other nine Canadian provinces should I say, but also in the province of Quebec.
The government was therefore will advised to request the committee on agriculture and colonization to investigate the reasons for such a price spread. Above all, I hope the committee will make useful recommendations for the government to implement in due course.

Last year, during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, more precisely on May 6, 1960, on behalf of many people who had brought the matter to my attention, I asked the government to create a royal commission to study this price spread. Exactly a month later, on June 6, the minister announced that the committee would deal with that situation.
I am prepared to congratulate the committee if it is in a position to accomplish as useful a task as would a royal commission. However I question this, not because of inability on the part of any members of the committee, but mainly because the standing committee on agriculture and colonization has many other subjects to consider and to look fully into.
It seems to me that, had a royal commission been appointed for the sole purpose of dealing with this particular matter, the government would have benefitted from very specific recommendations on the causes of this price spread and on the ways and means to prevent another increase and especially, on the ways and means to reduce the cost-price squeeze.
I fully agree with the member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) that the committee should summon representatives of large manufacturers of farm machinery in this country. So far the committee has taken evidence only from officials of certain government departments.
I hope it will not be long before representatives of those large industries are summoned to answer certain questions put by the committee.
However, that is all the admiration I have for the solutions suggested or promoted by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
My hon. colleague even suggested that the government nationalize the large concerns selling farm machinery in Canada. Although I am very definitely in favour of private enterprise, I also believe that the government must intervene where private enterprise is detrimental to some sectors of our economy. But between that and nationalizing it, there is quite a margin.
I no longer believe in paradise on earth, Mr. Speaker, nor in incarnate purity in human beings. What distinguishes us is not purity, but veraying degrees of impurity.
People try to have us believe that those new messiahs and prophets will put an end to human misery. I would only ask the government to see to it that the committee

gather useful information, in order to abolish that spread between the production cost and selling price of farm machinery.
No need to go any further than the information gathered by the Stewart commission on price spreads for agricultural products, where it was shown that, in certain cases, two or three large companies in this country were making net profits of up to 33J per cent, after operation costs and taxes. I think there is an abuse there on the part of private enterprise. I do not want to have private enterprise eliminated, when it does its duty for the greater welfare of this country, but I do want the government to intervene and put a stop to such abuses.
I trust that the standing committee on agriculture and colonization will stand up to its responsibilities, as the other committees of the house do, and I more particularly wish to see some concrete proposals made to this government which would contribute to eliminate that spread which is conducive to the desertion of the land.
If it is impossible to gather all the information needed to put a stop to such conditions, I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see to it that a royal commission is appointed without delay in which will be vested all necessary powers enabling it to draw conclusions which will help the government introduce legislation to put an end to such state of affairs in this country.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for a few moments in support of this motion to set up a committee to study the cost of agricultural machinery. You know, Mr. Speaker, I represent a different generation of farmers from those represented by the hon. member for Assini-boia. I represent a generation that lived under different conditions and experienced circumstances that he never experienced. I also represent a different type of farmer. Circumstances have changed a great deal in 55 years, Mr. Speaker.
I am reminded of the great change of circumstances when I think of the day we first stepped off a river steamer on a beach facing a mountain forest. I think of all the machinery we had. We first had to put off the steamer our settlers' effects which were on the bow of the steamer. First was my father's silk top hat in a leather case, and the second group of articles included an axe, a cross-cut saw, a shovel, a grubhoe and a crowbar. I shall never forget my father turning to my mother, pointing to the top hat and saying, "Charlotte, behold the symbol of the leisured past", and then pointing to this assembled group of pioneer farm machinery, all our machinery at that time, and saying,
Farm Machinery Prices "Behold, the symbol of the damned uncertain future".
After listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia tonight I must say it seems to me that the price of farm machinery is still the symbol of the damned uncertain future so far as our farmers are concerned, anyway.
There have been great changes from when I was a boy. I said I represent a different type of farmer. I represent farmers who at one time did most of their work by hand. Some of them had one horse and some had two. When you had two horses you were wealthy. They cut their roots for the cattle with an axe or spade and cut their hay with a scythe. I mention these things to indicate the tremendous changes that have taken place when we hear about the cost of the gigantic prairie machines.
I represent farmers who have, relatively speaking in relation to prairie farmers, small holdings; some stock farmers, those with the larger holdings, some poultry farmers,_ dairy farmers, a good many fruit farmers and some mink farmers. They use a different type of machinery. To some extent they have tractors, spraying machines and all the things required to do this different type of work, different types of machines because of the nature of the terrain and type of farming.
No doubt, the cost of machinery has become an increasing problem, and possibly more so than on the larger acreages where the capital invested in machinery is usually smaller in proportion to the capital invested in land and buildings.
However, I was at a farmer's place in my constituency just before I came down to Ottawa. He was a friend of mine. I asked him what was the cost of the machinery he had on his farm. It was all paid for. He was not a man to buy on time at all. He had $40,000 worth of machinery on his small farm. In those circumstances such a thing would have been unheard of 25 or 30 years ago. Therefore, it is a serious problem; machinery is a serious cost factor with respect to the operations of all types of farming. I am very pleased to see this question is going to be given consideration by the committee. I do hope that the farm organizations will be heard, and representatives of the machinery companies and of labour organizations, so that the committee will get as complete a picture as possible. Because of the, shall I say, multitude of designs and types which, as the hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned increases unnecessarily the cost of farm machinery, I suggest that possibly the committee should hear from agricultural engineers, or persons connected with the design of farm machinery, to get their

Farm Machinery Prices ideas and see whether they could make some recommendation with respect to standardizing the design of various types of agricultural machinery that are required today.
Another thing the committee should go into is the question of distribution, the location of agencies, the cost of distribution, which I think in some cases is excessive because of the duplication of agents. That could be reduced possibly by some, shall I say, more scientific form of distribution, more scientific system of agencies and arrangements for the sale of farm machinery.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to suggest that in the country in which I live there are a good many farmers, fruit farmers for instance, who make quite a substantial portion of their living off small fruit holdings, peach growing, cherry growing, apple growing, plum growing, pear growing, and such small fruits. I see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) looking at me. He knows the sort of people about whom I am speaking. In addition they undertake parttime logging and, in some cases, small sawmill operations, practising a combination of agriculture and forestry. With respect to the people in my district, I suggest-


Douglas Scott Harkness: A very pleasant life.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A very pleasant life under the most scenic circumstances in Canada; but I suggest the committee would be well advised to give consideration to the cost of small logging equipment and related machinery. There is a tremendous duplication in that respect. I have some experience in this connection. I know the difficulty that the small farmer has with respect to the cost of these machines and the duplication of design. On that account, sometimes there is difficulty in obtaining spare parts. The rapid changes which occur today sometimes cause the small man to invest in a piece of machinery today and find out within a year or two that the design has changed and a different type of machinery is more useful. Under those circumstances, his investment has been, to a large extent, depreciated. I suggest that the committee should consider this sector of farming.
I am sure that members of the forest products laboratory, such as Dr. Jenkins and others, would be only too willing to give evidence with respect to the research that is being done by that branch of the forestry department in connection with logging equipment, small saw mill machinery and machinery of that type. I mention these items to indicate that in my district, and I am sure in others, there are difficulties peculiar to this type of activity which result from the type

of machinery required by those individuals engaged in these different farming operations.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. member agree that the picture which he has given us is a picture of unadulterated private enterprise, no doubt initiated but untainted by socialism?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not be beguiled away from the subject by that apparently innocent question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will as usual try to keep in order but, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, which is a fair one, I would suggest it is a form of what we call legitimate private enterprise. I should like to suggest that because of the cost of this machinery there has been a development of a good deal of legitimate co-operative enterprise. Because the cost of spraying machinery, for instance, co-operative societies perform this spraying activity. This is an illustration of our philosophy-namely the mixed economy.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, as vice chairman of this committee I think I would be remiss if I did not comment briefly on this proposed measure. I would certainly be lacking in my duty if I allowed certain statements made by the hon. member for Assiniboia to stand without comment or contradiction. I can assure hon. members that we have solicited representations from various manufacturing firms regarding farm machinery, including the John Deere Company, International Harvester and Massey-Harris. I think we have had replies from all of them, and these replies have been brought to the attention of this committee. There has been a very sincere effort on the part of the government members of this committee to present the viewpoints of all concerned regarding the prices of farm machinery. We are very fortunate, both in the committee and this house, in having full representation from farm constituencies.
I might say that on April 23, 1959, as reported at page 2985 of Hansard, I brought the increase in the cost of farm machinery to the attention of this house. In the same year, as reported at page 2991 of Hansard, the hon. member for Bow River gave a detailed list of machinery prices and the increase which had taken place over a period of ten years. I think that all hon. members will appreciate the sincere effort of those members from farming constituencies in trying to find a solution to the problem of the increased cost of farm machinery.
I have in my hand, a small sprocket from a Massey-Harris swather which costs $9.35 and weighs only 14 ounces. This will give hon. members an indication of our feeling

that it is necessary to find a solution to the problems involved in the increasing cost of farm machinery.
I will not take up any more time at this stage, but I hope that this matter will be referred to the committee at this time.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a word or two regarding the remarks made by previous speakers. I was especially interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I imagine all members of this house will agree that when his father got off the boat and looked at his tools and implements, he regarded himself as a capitalist because he probably owned them. One of the problems facing today's farmer, because of the high cost of these farming implements, is the financing of the necessary equipment to carry out his farm operations. Many farmers in Canada will never own their own machinery but will, as in the case of individuals purchasing automobiles and trucks, be continually financing new models.
The needle referred to by the hon. member for MacLeod (Mr. Kindt) must have indeed been sharp because it produced a number of squawks from that member. I think he was very unfair in his reference to the delay in the commencement of meetings of this committee being a result of the death of the late chairman of the committee. The hon. member should realize that one or two meetings of this committee were held at which time he could have ascertained that this committee was functioning with a new chairman. He would also have known that the clerk of that committee has been responsible for looking after the documents that were assembled. I might inform him at this time that the committee had the services of an economist during the holiday period for the purpose of assembling this material. This material has not gone to waste for want of a chairman. I might suggest that this committee could have taken the opportunity of meeting some months ago, if the house had directed it to do so. There has been ample time, during the last two or three months, to have conducted an investigation into the price of farm machinery. I believe a good deal could have been accomplished during the recess, and this committee would have been prepared to hold meetings to study this whole question of the increased cost of farm machinery.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, coming from one of the most productive farm areas, not only in the province, but in the whole country, I cannot but
90205-6-189
Farm Machinery Prices take part-be it even as briefly as possible -in this discussion.
It is a generally known fact that the area I have the honour to represent here is very highly mechanized as far as farm production is concerned, and the people there certainly expect me to make a few comments on the legislation now before us.
I am the more interested as representations were made to me that I should speak for the farmers when this legislation comes before the committee.
Mr. Speaker, as I wanted to get more information, I sent a list of questions to our farmers in the various parishes in my riding, in order to know exactly what they think of farm machinery prices.
Opposition members are not the only ones to be interested in this matter. This government has tackled the farm problem as soon as it took over. The legislation now before us only complements those other pieces of legislation enacted since the Conservative party has been at the helm.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) and the government for having, once more, got closer to our farmers in studying more intensely this matter which is of interest to all our farmers.
No need to recall here what this government has done in the field of agriculture, as everybody may call to mind the various improvements brought about in different existing acts and measures which more particularly affect our farmers.
Even though some opposition members claim that farmers are not satisfied, I am sure that our farmers know that it is under this government that something has been done for them, and that through its action they will get even more in that field.
I shall not delay any longer the discussion of this measure. I shall not dwell on the complaints made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in particular. In fact, he implied that farmers should continue to cultivate the soil with the type of implements used in 1920 or in 1925. No farmer would buy such outdated machinery, because we would be moving backwards if we were to limit the various models to what they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago. You have there a sample of what the administration would be like if, his party unfortunately, had to form a government and thus look after the future of the farm population across the country.

Farm Machinery Prices
I urge my colleagues and all members in this house to support this measure wholeheartedly since its objective is to help the farm people even more fairly.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary secretary speaks now, he will close the debate.
Mr. Jorgenson Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deal with all of the questions that have been raised in the course of this debate, particularly by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), since most of the questions he raised could be more properly answered in the committee itself. However, there were a few observations made with which I should like to deal now. One of them concerns the alleged delay in bringing this matter before the committee.
Those members who were on the committee last year will recall that a suggestion was made of a concrete nature that the economics division of the Department of Agriculture prepare a summary of statistics for use by the members as a basis for their questions to the various people appearing before the committee. As I indicated in introducing the motion, the English version is now ready and will be available to the members of the committee. The French version is still in the hands of the printer and will be available very shortly. It was felt that this summary should be in the hands of the committee members before they met to continue their inquiry.
The hon. member for Assiniboia also suggested that the committee investigate the prices of component parts of farm machinery. In reply to that suggestion I can only say that the committee itself will decide on its own methods of inquiry. If it decides that it wants to investigate this particular aspect, it will be quite free to do so. As I indicated earlier, the motion is very broad, and members of the committee will have an opportunity to conduct the investigation as they see fit.
The suggestion was also made that representatives of various aspects of the industry be called before the committee. Perhaps it might be timely at this point if I put on the record the names of the various organizations which have indicated that they want to appear before the committee and present briefs. I might also add that members will have an opportunity to question each of the representatives of these organizations as they appear. The organizations referred to include Massey-Harris-Ferguson


Limited; the Ontario retail farm implement dealers; the national farm union; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; the Saskatchewan wheatpool; The Canadian Labour Congress; the International Harvester Company; Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited and Cockshutt Farm Equipment Limited.
The hon. member for Assiniboia also made the suggestion that the government should nationalize the farm implement industry. I am afraid that the next suggestion he will make is that we operate state farms as well and I hope that we never get to that stage.
I want to thank the members of the house for their indicated support for this motion. When the committee meets I hope they will be able to provide us with some answers, and will be able to pinpoint some of the costs that are involved in farm machinery prices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Michael Starr: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Labour, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with provinces to provide for the sharing of costs incurred by the provinces in carrying out programs of vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons; to authorize the minister to undertake the co-ordination of federal activities in the field of vocational rehabilitation and to undertake research in respect to vocational rehabilitation; and for those purposes to provide for the establishment of a council to be called the national advisory council on the rehabilitation of disabled persons; and to provide further for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of the travelling and other expenses of the members thereof and for such professional, technical, secretarial and other assistance as the council may require.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Michael Starr: 
Chesley William Carter: I rise to indicate our support for the principle of this resolution, because we are convinced that any provision to promote and expand a program of vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons deserves the support of all hon. members.
Rehabilitation has as its aim the development and restoration of the disabled person to the fullest physical, metal, psycho-social, vocational and economic usefulness of which he is capable within the restrictions inherent in his environment. As the minister has already told us, rehabilitation has two main aspects. First, there is the human aspect, the enabling of the individual to live a useful, satisfying life and to make a useful contribution to society. Then there is the economic


aspect, to increase the economic productivity of the disabled persons and to enable them to contribute to the economy rather than to become a burden on the economy.
The increase in the life span of man which has been brought about by medical science has resulted in an increasingly large proportion of old people in our population who have to be supported by the working population. Between 1901 and 1949 the number of children under 15 years of age doubled, but during that same period the number of people over 45 trebled. There is a limit to the burden which the working population can carry, as well as to the standard of living which it can support. Anything, therefore, which can increase the working population and at the same time reduce the burden which the economy has to carry is a sound economic investment.
I have not been able to find up-to-date figures about the proportion of disabled people in Canada, but surveys carried out in the United States showed that the proportion of the disabled to the total population there was about 20 per thousand, not including disabled veterans. If we apply the same proportion to Canada, it would seem we have about 360,000 disabled persons in addition to our disabled veterans. In 1940 a very important experiment was carried out by the British ministry of labour in the United Kingdom. At that time they had 185,000 disabled men and women who were listed as unemployable, but as a result of that experiment that number was reduced to less than 8,000. That proves beyond doubt that 97 per cent of our disabled persons can be rehabilitated to the point where they can lead useful productive lives and that 80 per cent of our handicapped people of working age are capable of being rehabilitated into employment; that is, they can become economically useful without the benefit of highly specialized and expensive services.
As the minister pointed out this evening our experience with disabled war veterans in Canada has confirmed the result of that British experiment. I think those of us who have had the pleasure of visiting Sunnybrook hospital and other veteran centres have been amazed at the rehabilitation work which has been accomplished there. It is against this kind of background that we must discuss the resolution which is now before us.
The legislation which will be introduced as a result of this resolution seeks to achieve four main objectives. The first is to make agreements with the provinces with respect to cost sharing. The second is to co-ordinate federal activities and to carry out research. The third purpose is to set up a national advisory council on vocational rehabilitation, and the fourth is to equip this council with

the necessary staff and equipment and to make provision for salary and operating expenses. I should like to say a word about each of these objectives. In the first place with regard to the agreements with the provinces about cost sharing, may I say that the usual cost sharing agreement worked out between the provinces and the federal government has been on a fifty-fifty basis. That has not proved satisfactory to the poorer provinces because the poorer provinces such as Newfoundland can be ruined by cost sharing schemes. I think this resolution differs from most arrangements of this kind inasmuch as it involves human beings and I would hope that when the minister works out the agreements envisaged in his resolution they will be on a basis of need, and on the basis of the capacity of the province concerned to provide the facilities including trained personnel which are necessary to enable this program to be carried out successfully.
The co-ordination of federal activities is certainly a step in the right direction. At the moment rehabilitation activities are being carried on by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labour and the Department of National Health and Welfare. At the provincial and municipal levels we have various provincial and municipal services. Much work is being done voluntarily by private agencies. I would hope that the federal example of co-ordinating the services would be followed by the provinces.
I take it that one of the reasons for this co-ordination is that people would have to deal only with the national advisory council which would serve as a clearing house or liaison for all the work that has to be done in this connection. It is not clear from what the minister said this evening whether the council will actually take over this work or whether it will continue to be carried on by the various departments but be co-ordinated by this body.
Of course, there is a great deal of research to be done in this connection. First of all we need statistical research to tell us how many people will be affected, what age groups they fall in, what categories of disabilities and handicaps are most prevalent in each age group and in addition there will have to be an examination of the research that has been done relating to the techniques and procedures that have been and are being developed in other countries. I presume there will be some co-ordination of the production of films, posters and publications in connection with rehabilitation that are put out by the various departments.
The third objective contained in this resolution is not a new idea. In 1951 a national
Vocational Rehabilitation conference on rehabilitation was sponsored by the Hon. Milton Gregg, who at that time was minister of labour. Also active in the sponsorship were Mr. Lapointe, the then minister of veterans affairs, and my colleague, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who was then the minister of national health and welfare. Now that the government has embarked on an expanded program of rehabilitation perhaps the time has come to set up a permanent body.
While on this subject I should like to pay tribute to the work being done with respect to the rehabilitation of the disabled in my own province. I think in particular of the work being done by the tuberculosis association, by the orthopedic wing of the general hospital, by the children's rehabilitation centre and the sunshine camp for small children. The latter has played an important part in assisting the disabled children of poor people in the outlying areas, improving their health to the point where they have been able to undergo surgery and take treatment for their disability.
I also think of the work being done by the provincial branch of the institute for the blind and of the treatment provided to the deaf and dumb children. There is such a host of organizations and agencies engaged in important work of this nature that one hesitates to mention one for fear of overlooking another. I wish to pay tribute to all of them for the work they are doing and have done in my province.
The essence of a program of this nature is the placement service. There is no point in rehabilitating a disabled person and teaching him a trade if after he has learned a trade there is no work for him to do. That has been perhaps the greatest shortcoming in my own province. We have trained people as barbers, clockmakers, taught them to repair clocks, shoes and television sets, but there is no great demand for work of this nature and we cannot place all our disabled people in these trades.
I hope the federal government will develop a policy of giving preference to disabled persons. In my own province, before confederation, the government did have such a policy. It was an unwritten policy but was accepted by the people generally. In every small settlement there is usually someone with some physical disability, one who is crippled, who has impaired sight or who is handicapped in one way or other. Before we became a part of Canada if there was a position as postmaster vacant a disabled person was given preference because it was a job he could handle. We trained people for telegraph offices, for bookkeeping positions and other clerical

Vocational Rehabilitation jobs and under the unwritten policy, disabled persons were given preference.
Since we joined Canada a different policy has been pursued by the federal government and many of these jobs that used to be set aside for the disabled are no longer available. I think it was a good policy and if, when it is set up, the council is going to coordinate all these activities I hope it will develop a policy of giving preference to disabled persons and that this policy will be adopted by the federal government.
Even a policy of this nature will not provide jobs for all our disabled people in a province such as mine where the population is widely scattered in may small communities. One way of solving the problem, and at the same time of making a contribution to the economy, would be for the council to sponsor home industries and handicrafts which will enable disabled people to work in their own homes making some product that has a market value that can be sold to provide an income for the disabled person and his family. It will probably be necessary to establish a national organization of some description to market these products.
We have people of tremendous talent in many of our small settlements. In the words of the old adage, many a rose is born to blush unseen. In our small settlements we have people with a great ability to paint, singers and musicians and people who are skilled in many handicrafts. This I think would be a solution in a sparsely populated province, and possibly it would apply to the maritimes as well as to Newfoundland.
We know from the work that has been done by the Newfoundland outport nurses' association and by the Grenfell mission that there is a demand for handicrafts of high quality. These groups sponsored the purchase of looms so that handicapped people could weave cloth and make knitted goods. The goods were of high quality and found a ready market.
I pass on these suggestions to the minister because the whole program stands or falls on our ability to find some method of providing work for these people after they are trained.
I conclude, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that this expanded program will be successful and that it will contribute greatly to the productivity of our disabled population.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister introduced this resolution and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo followed. Both spoke about the principles behind this particular resolution. I have to agree wholeheartedly with them. The principles upon which this resolution is based are indeed very good ones. But I do not think it is good enough to

bring in a resolution based upon good principles unless we are going to adopt some of those principles and put them to some use. From reading the resolution itself, from listening to the presentation made by the minister and from the information he has provided us so far, I am not too sure just how much good is going to come from this particular resolution.
First of all, the minister said it is to encourage action and it so states in the resolution. The purpose is to permit the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces to provide for the sharing of costs incurred by the provinces in carrying out programs of vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, and so on. While it is true that the resolution is based on good principles and it is a nice gesture in the right direction, nevertheless the initiative has been left completely with the provinces. We have no assurance that after the passage of this resolution the condition will be any better in the future than it has been in the past.
The minister went on to say that the purpose was to bring hope, to the disabled. Again, this is quite a true statement so far as it goes. It brought hope to me when I saw the resolution on the order paper. I really thought we were going to get our teeth into the problem and do something more about it than we had been doing in the past. Apparently that is not so, because toward the end of his remarks I noticed the minister said that there would be no new expenditures, no further expenditures in the future on the part of the federal government than there have been in the past. While the introduction of this resolution may bring hope to the disabled, I would remind the hon. member and the minister and the other hon. members that it takes more than hope to buy groceries.
The minister said something about a practical and vigorous program. I believe these were some of his words. I did not get them all down; unfortunately, I cannot write shorthand. Again these are fine words, but the minister failed to indicate any kind of practical or vigorous program which he was going to embark upon as a result of this particular resolution.
The minister went on to say further that the plans up to date and the methods adopted in the past, particularly on the part of the federal government, have been experimental ones. While it has been an experimental plan up to date, if we are to embark on a practical and vigorous program and at the same time confine ourselves to the same amount of money we have been putting into this scheme in the past, I do not see how the resolution will mean anything more than some more window dressing.


Mr.   Slari@: Will the hon. member allow me? There will be no new expenditures but a great deal more money will be spent on that type of program.


Murdo William Martin: I am coming to that. I should like to take up that point with the minister later.
The resolution mentions that one of the purposes of the measure is to provide further for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of the travelling and other expenses of the members of the national advisory council that is to be set up. If there are to be no new expenditures, then the expenditures of the council to be set up must be taken out of the money provided in the past.


Michael Starr: No.


Murdo William Martin: This means that there will be less money to spend on doing something for the disabled persons than in the past.


Michael Starr: I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave the wrong impression. An advisory committee has been acting for some time now; it will now be set up under the act.


Murdo William Martin: This brings me to another point, Mr. Chairman. Apparently the only purpose of this resolution is to take the job that we have been doing in the past which, in the minister's words has been an experimental one, and transfer it from wherever it has been in the past to this new division under the minister. I do not think this is something of which we should be too proud.
Business of the House
The minister quoted a host of statistics. He mentioned 5,266 seriously disabled people who come under this plan, 80 per cent of them formerly without earnings. He went on to say that actual earnings amount to $9 million and the welfare costs came to $3 million. He did not say what their earnings were before, or what the cost of the upkeep is now. Therefore, statistics of this kind which give only one side of the picture are not really very useful.
I have some further remarks to make on this matter but I see the hour of ten has approached. Will you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the house leader indicate the business for tomorrow and the remainder of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, as announced, we will take up Bill No. C-73, to amend the Income Tax Act, No. 6 on today's order paper. Should that be completed tomorrow we would then carry on with the resolution we were discussing tonight.
On Thursday we will take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. It will be necessary to make a change on Friday from the order of business that I forecast last Thursday. The supplementary estimates will be tabled tomorrow, and they will be brought before the house for discussion on Friday.


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

[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. Argue: What was the cost, or what is the estimated cost, to Canada for carrying out our commitments under (i) NORAD (ii) NATO, in the fiscal years, (a) 1959-60 (b) 1960-61 (c) 1961-62?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):
(i)	Canada has no direct financial commitment to NORAD. The direct costs of the air defence forces in Canada are estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year
(a)	1959-60	$171,304,000(b)	1960-61	$156,212,000(c)	1961-62	$182,127,000(ii)	Estimated direct costs of Canadian forces committed to NATO:
Fiscal Year
(a)	1959-60	$342,578,000(b)	1960-61	$408,916,000(c)	1961-62	$455,545,000
NOTE: Air defence costs as shown above are the estimated direct expenditures on the R.C.A.F. forces assigned to the air defence of the Canada-U.S. region. These figures do not include indirect costs such as training, logistics support, command and administration.
NATO costs as shown above consist of the direct costs of the army bridgade and the air division in Europe, the R.C.N. and R.C.A.F. forces earmarked for SACLANT and direct expenditures on mutual aid including contributions to infrastructure and NATO budgets. These figures do not include indirect costs of the type referred to in the previous paragraph.

Wednesday, March 15, 1961