1962-03-26

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should like to inform the house that under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, the governor general in council has approved a request of the New Brunswick power commission for financial assistance in the construction of new facilities at an estimated cost of $13,150,000.
Three projects are involved. The largest, estimated to cost $10 million, is a 60 megawatt extension to the Grand lake thermal station. This new unit will burn exclusively eastern coal from the Minto field in New Brunswick. The extension will meet the expected growth in demand for electric power in New Brunswick over the next two years.
The second project, estimated to cost $3,000,000, involves the construction of a 138 kilovolt transmission line over about 90 miles between Moncton and Saint John. This link in the 138 kilovolt grid will make it possible to meet increased demand for power in the Moncton area from the recently completed thermal station in East Saint John.
The third project is associated with the second; it involves the expenditure of about $150,000 to extend the Moncton terminal station to handle the power coming in over the new line.
Financing required for these projects in the forthcoming fiscal year has been included in the 1962-63 estimates, and will come before the house in due course.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the population of New Brunswick will welcome this announcement made by the minister showing co-operation between the New Brunswick electric power commission and the federal department. The most important part of the announcement is certainly the $10 million approved for the extension of the Grand lake power generating station. We welcome the decision of the New Brunswick electric
power commission to use New Brunswick coal to generate power. We hope that this practice will be followed in other areas in the mari-times, as it has the dual purpose of providing cheap electric power for Atlantic provinces industries and at the same time providing assistance to our coal miners.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group are happy with the announcement that has been made by the minister. We note that the taxpayers' money is being used to help power development in the Atlantic provinces. We have also observed in the past that it is being used to help in the case of the Saskatchewan river development. We would like to think that this government would alter its offer to the government of British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not within our practice in going beyond the announcement that has been made.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission concerning the position of cataloguing librarian 1. laid upon the table of the house Monday, March 12, 1962, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-79, to amend the Customs Act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as it appears, includes several amendments to various sections of the Customs Act all of which deal with matters of procedure and provide for an enlargement of the time for appeals from decisions of dominion customs appraisers, the deputy minister and other officials of the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions JUDGES ACT



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL ONTARIO JUDGES

Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario and seven additional judges of the county and district courts of Ontario including one chief judge.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the establishment of an electoral boundaries commission for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons; to provide that certain members of the commission may be paid such per diem allowance as may be fixed by the governor in council; to provide for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses for the members of the commission; and to provide also that the commission may engage the services of such technical advisers and other staff, including a person to act as secretary to the commission, as it deems necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Herridge: Have any communications been received from Mrs. L. Lank, 5322 Snowdon street, Montreal 29, P.Q., concerning bankruptcy proceedings; and, if so, what was the gist of these communications, and what replies, if any, have been made?
Answer by: Mr. Fulton:
Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable exchange of correspondence between Mrs. L. Lank and the Department of Justice concerning the bankruptcy of Ralph W. Macdonald and Harold Johnson of Montreal trading as Packaging Specialty Company. In this correspondence Mrs. Lank complained about delays and other irregularities on the part of the trustee. These complaints were inquired into by the superintendent of bankruptcy and found to be unwarranted. Mrs.

Lank was advised that any irregularities antecedent to the bankruptcy, or not involving the trustee, were matters for private advice or, if criminal behaviour was involved, for the attention of the provincial authorities.


SMALL POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION IN NEXT FISCAL YEAR
Mr. Racine: How many small post offices does the Department of Public Works intend to build in the course of the next fiscal year, and where; and for each place, what are the operating revenue or deficit, and the population served?
Answer by: Mr. MacLean (Queens):
Mr. Speaker, a program for the construction of small post office buildings is now being planned with work to be carried out during the winter season in 1962-63. The site locations for these buildings are now being investigated but until final decisions are made regarding the sites it will not be possible to give the detailed locations. The information requested will therefore not be available for another four or five months.


* TARIFF BOARD HEARING ON ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, ETC.
Mr. Broome: 1.	What was the date of the Minister of Finance's reference to the tariff board in regard to engineering drawings, blueprints, etc.?
2.	When did the tariff board complete their hearings on this matter?
3.	Has the report of the tariff board been received by the minister; and, if not, when is this report likely to be tabled?


Mr. Fleming (EglinJon):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	July 8, 1960.
2.	February 15, 1961.
3.	The report in question will be tabled within 15 days of its receipt, pursuant to section 6 of the Tariff Board Act.


* SYDNEY MINES, N.S.  WAGES PAID FREIGHT HANDLERS
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport received a letter from the Princess local union of the united mine workers of America, of Sydney Mines, N.S. protesting the low wages paid to the employees of the Northside freight handlers association, subcontractors of the C.N.R.?
2.	If so, will representations be made to the C.N.R. to ensure that it lets work out on subcontract only to employers who pay according to acceptable union wage scales; and, what answer has been made to the letter?


Mr. Martini:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
With regard to part 2, as this is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the

Canadian National Railways the only action open to the minister is to transmit the representations to the management of the railways. The reply made to the letter stated that the representations had been carefully noted but that as the subject was one for the Canadian National Railways the communication had been immediately referred to the management.


* CLAIMANTS RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Mr. Deschalelels: What is the latest figure available of the total number of claimants receiving unemployment benefits?


Mr. Thrasher:: The number of persons claiming benefit as at 31st January, 1962, was 698,538.


GIFT OF CARGO SHIPS TO WEST INDIES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the total cost of each of the two new passenger cargo ships, a gift from the government of Canada, which are to be placed in service by the West Indies Shipping Corporation, Port of Spain, Trinidad?
2.	When were the gifts delivered?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbalier:
1.	M.V. Federal Maple, $3,179,383.61; M.V. Federal Palm, $2,654,866.35.
2.	M.V. Federal Maple, August 4, 1961; M.V. Federal Palm, September 1, 1961.


*WHEAT BOARD MEMBERSHIP
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	How many members sit on the Canadian wheat board?
2.	Which provinces do such members respectively represent?
3.	How many vacancies have occurred since 1957?
4.	Give the name, address and qualifications of those appointed to fill such vacancies.


Mr. Jorgenson:: The answer is as follows:
1.	Four.
2.	Commissioners of the Canadian wheat board do not represent individual provinces. The Canadian Wheat Board Act defines the object of the board as the "marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, of grain grown in Canada". In carrying out this function the board undertakes to market on behalf of producers wheat, oats and barley grown in the designated area of western Canada and offered by producers for sale.
3.	The Canadian Wheat Board Act provides for the appointment by the governor in council of not less than three nor more than five commissioners. At no time have there been five commissioners serving on the board. Since 1957 there have been two resignations and two appointments.
Order -for Return
4.	Mr. J. T. Dallas was appointed a commissioner September 1, 1958 and resigned December 31, 1960, Mr. J. B. Lawrie was appointed a commissioner December 22, 1961. Prior to their appointments Mr. Dallas was executive vice president of the Continental Grain Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Mr. Lawrie was European manager of the Canadian wheat board, London, England. Both these gentlemen, because of their successful association over many years with the Canadian grain trade in executive capacities, were eminently qualified to assume the responsibilities of commissioners of the Canadian wheat board.


* CHIGNECTO CANAL COMMITTEE MEETING WITH CABINET
Mr. McWilliam: Has the Prime Minister received a request for a meeting between himself, other members of the cabinet, and the Chignecto canal committee; and, if so, has a time and place been set for this meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: This subject has been discussed, but no definite date has been fixed for a meeting with the Chignecto canal committee. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) is the chairman of the Chignecto canal committee of the maritime provinces and has discussed the matter with me and with other members of the cabinet. Today Brigadier Wardell of Fredericton, who has taken a great interest in this matter, is in Ottawa, and I hope later today to see him.


*ROADS TO RESOURCES GRANTS, ONTARIO
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Did the government of Ontario, between January 1, 1961 and March 12, 1962, ask the federal government to provide, under the "roads to resources" agreement, dated December 22, 1959, for the fiscal year March 31, 1962 to March 31, 1963, an amount greater than $750,000 as referred to in clause 4(1) (d) of the said agreement?
2.	If so, (a) what amounts of 'matching grant' for 1962-63 was requested, and, (b) what maximum amount has the federal government agreed to provide?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The answer is as follows;
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Martel: 1. Were public tenders called in connection with the construction under the "roads to resources program", of a culvert near mile No. 9 on the Amos-Mattagami highway; and, if so, on what date were tenders called, and in what newspapers, giving dates of publication, were the notices published; if not, in what manner was the contract allocated?

Inquiries of the Ministry
2. What was the total cost to date of (a) the construction of the Amos-Mattagami highway (b) extras paid and authorized for the said highway?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime
Minister a question about the intentions of the government with regard to parliamentary business before the Easter adjournment. More specifically, I should like to ask him what business there is likely to be in addition to the supplementary estimates and the legislation on the order paper. I should also like to ask whether there will be a budget before the Easter adjournment, with provision for normal discussion and action.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we intend to proceed with the matters now on the order paper. The fourth set of supplementary estimates will require to be dealt with this week. In addition, of course, there is on the order paper a motion to set up a commission on redistribution, a matter that has been of continuing interest for years. I feel sure the house will want to deal with that at the earliest possible date. Then there are some other measures, of which the house will be given notice in due course, over and above those that are already on the order paper.
I do not think I can go further at this time. I only hope that there will be a spirit of co-operation on the part of the opposition and that we will not experience again the delays that took place on the earlier supplementary estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has called delays were due to the inability of the government to give us information as to the business of the house. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will deal with my question regarding the possibility of a budget before the Easter adjournment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that will receive the attention of the house in due course.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of press reports to the effect that the Minister of Justice has
[Mr. Martel.)
assured Mr. Peter Dewdney of Trail, a solicitor for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and Progressive Conservative candidate in Kootenay West, that he will visit the Kootenays as soon as possible to speak with the authorities on the Sons of Freedom problem, and in view of the interest of all the people in Kootenay West in this matter, would the minister be willing to meet representatives of all the municipalities, all the labour organizations, all the chambers of commerce and all the farmers' and women's institutes when he visits the district?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am flattered by the interest and attention that the hon. gentleman shows in my prospective movements. I can assure him that while I appreciate his concern over the situation, it has not been necessary to have his prodding in order to be in touch with many of those whom he has mentioned. What I have done is to assure my friends in that area, of whom I also have many, that at the first possible opportunity I will arrange to have a discussion with them either in the Kootenays or at some other convenient place, depending upon the exigencies of my schedule.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Are the heads and representatives of all the organizations I have mentioned included in the list of the minister's friends with whom he will speak? That is what I am concerned about.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, I am flattered by this attention to my intended movements. I think the hon. member will have gathered that as yet there is no schedule; therefore his question is a little premature.



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question arising out of a statement made by Judge Cooper, retiring president of the county and district judges association of Ontario. The question is, has the minister made any reply to the letter the judge says he sent to the minister on February 8, in which he alleged that Ontario judges were being starved into contravening the Judges Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if I received a letter from a judge on February 8 I would have replied to it by now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister whether

the government has under consideration at the present time any change in the remuneration of judges?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it seems to linger in my memory that judges are not the only ones who have an interest in changes in their salary or remuneration; I seem to recall a debate on indemnities in this house on the initiative of the hon. member not long ago. I can assure him that the problem he has brought to my attention is receiving the same earnest consideration as the problem he brought to the attention of the house a short time ago.
(Translation) :



BELLECHASSE CONSTITUENCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion).
Has the minister a statement to make about the request he submitted to the chief electoral officer to investigate the activities of the returning officer in the riding of Belle-chasse? Could he tell us in particular on what date he made that request?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked me that question. I should like to make the following statement on this matter.
Early in February, I think-I cannot remember the exact date-I had the visit of the man who printed electoral literature in 1958, at the request of the then returning officer, who is the official returning officer, Mr. Labrecque of St. Raphael.
I got in touch immediately with the chief electoral officer to communicate to him the information that gentleman had given me. Right at that time I had asked that an investigation be carried out to determine whether that information was true or not.
The chief electoral officer and I had a discussion. We did not agree on the meaning of subsection 14 of section 17 of the Canada Elections Act.
Later on I communicated three times with the chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, at the end of February, on March 10 and finally on March 22.
As the chief electoral officer required that a formal complaint be made, I took it upon myself, on the basis of the information I had gathered during that time, not to lodge
Inquiries of the Ministry a formal complaint but to give the chief electoral officer the information that had been provided to me and I earnestly asked him to have an investigation launched immediately by the R.C.M.P.
On March 22, Mr. Castonguay informed me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been advised and that it was to begin forthwith its investigation, which had been given priority over all others.
Now, of course, until the results are known, the chief electoral officer himself, who is responsible for the administration of the act, is unable to come to a conclusion and take the steps which may be required when the results of the investigation are known.


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) a supplementary question in this regard.
If the investigation report has not been submitted, how could he state the next day that the Quebec Conservatives were victims of calumny. Why not just say slander, or why not simply wait for the investigation report?


Noël Dorion: Who said that?


Azellus Denis: The Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), in Montmorency, as reported in the March 24 edition of La Presse.


An hon. Member:: Nothing but gossip.


Noël Dorion: I never made such a statement in Montmorency. When I left-


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that
the matter under discussion is now taking the form of a debate. It seems to me also that the subject does not relate to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State as minister but rather as member for a constituency. If the hon. member feels that the statement made needs further elucidation I will allow one further supplementary.
(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State another supplementary question.
Since the minister was officially made aware of the whole situation at the latest on February 6, 1962, how can he account for the fact that he decided to take action only at the end of March, after Mr. Labrecque's doings had been made public by the press?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Noël Dorion: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the inference made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) is completely unfounded. Before the press report came out, the investigation was supposed to have started and on four different occasions I had notified the chief electoral officer who- and I would like the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska to take a look at the act- is responsible for the administration of the act.


Mr. Pigeon:: Good.
(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: My question, Mr. Speaker, is based on an editorial appearing in The Fisherman dated March 9 last. In view of the apparent inability of the Minister of Fisheries to attend even one annual convention of the united fishermen and allied workers union on the grounds that he has time to attend only annual meetings of national organizations, would the minister consult with the Prime Minister to see how that right hon. gentleman apparently finds time to open county fairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question departs very broadly from the accustomed type of question. It seems that he is intending to convey some argument or information to the house rather than get an answer to a question of fact.


Erhart Regier: If I might ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister feels he should comment on the assertion made by the hon. member, he may have the floor.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that, as all hon. members know, there are many meetings concerning fisheries carried on in every province of Canada, and when an organization of a provincial nature unfortunately has a meeting during the time in which parliament is in session I feel it is my duty to remain here in Ottawa rather than go to all these provincial annual meetings. I might say that in no other case has the executive of any organization experienced any difficulty in understanding the reasonableness of the view that the House of Commons is probably the most important organization in our democratic system, and that it requires our best attention.

(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Did the minister receive a formal request from the government of the province of Quebec that in the future the educational system for the Eskimo population in new Quebec, a territory which was integrated with the province of Quebec in 1912, 50 years ago this year, be placed under the jurisdiction of the government of the province of Quebec instead of that of the federal government?
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern
Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.
(Text):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the government made any representations to the government of Cuba with respect to the trials of those who participated in the attack on Cuba about a year ago?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been concerned over the fate of the prisoners held in Cuba, and that concern was expressed to the Cuban authorities through diplomatic channels in February. Furthermore, in view of press reports to the effect that the trials of these prisoners are to take place in Cuba later this week, I think on the 29th, instructions have been given by me that the matter be raised once again with the Cuban authorities in order to urge the Cuban government, on humanitarian grounds, that any trials of prisoners should be conducted in a fair and just manner.
There is, of course, a limit to the impact of representations made, because none of the prisoners were Canadians; but this appeal on the part of the Canadian government is made on the basis of what we believe should be the purpose of all governments, namely the maintenance of justice.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house what consequences have flowed from representations which the Secretary of State for External Affairs said some six weeks ago would be made with respect to the apprehension of certain Christian trade union leaders in Cuba?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, this is a question of detail and I will make the answer available to him tomorrow.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact, as stated by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. La-freniere) at his convention on Friday, March 23 last, that a part of the civil service is betraying the government? Has the Prime Minister any comment to make thereon?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I did not hear the substance of the question-


Mr. Brunsden:: There was not any.


Mr. Speaker:: -after the reference to the civil service.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is the question, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact, as stated by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency at his convention on Friday, March 23 last, that a part of the civil service is betraying the government? Has the Prime Minister any comment to make thereon?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will recall that questions asking the government to confirm statements by individual members have not generally been accepted on the orders of the day, but only where the statement might be construed as a statement of policy by a minister of the crown.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we want to know exactly whether the hon. member was speaking only as a member of parliament or whether he was giving the views of the government in that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Prime Minister wishes to answer he is at liberty to do so.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report, but I may say that any inference of the kind that is inherent in the hon. member's question is not my view. I am one of those who through the years have had an intimate knowledge of the civil service-my father for 25 years was a member of the department of customs-and my attitude to the civil service of Canada is one of deep trust and appreciation.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the interest of this group in the proper recognition of Canadian poets, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. Since August 2, 1962 is the centenary of the birth of the youngest of the big four of the confederation poets, Duncan Campbell Scott, would the Postmaster General consider commemorating the occasion with a special stamp?


Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General's appreciation of the field of arts and poetry of this country was illustrated in one way at least with the stamp in honour of Pauline Johnson issued about a year ago. Unfortunately it was not possible to include this year in the limited number of stamp issues available, out of the over 100 suggestions we received, a commemorative stamp for Mr. Scott, and at present there is not sufficient time available to produce it.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I might just add that while Mr. Scott's is a very noteworthy birthday, I would like to pay my own personal regards to the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) who has staggered along to another birthday today. Since I probably will not have the opportunity to extend my congratulations to him next year-he will not be here-I thought I would like to do it on this occasion.


Lionel Chevrier: You will be lucky if you are here.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say a word of thanks to the Postmaster General for his greeting, which I appreciate very much. However, as we have some appreciation of some kinds of communism I want to share everything we have been doing. For four years we have been in the opposition, and I hope it will soon be their turn to take our place,

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



REPRESENTATIONS BY AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY RESPECTING BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask the Minister of Finance if it is still possible for certain sections of the automobile industry to make representations to the Minister of Finance in the course of the hearings usually held by a minister of finance prior to the introduction of the budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The door of the present Minister of Finance is always open to any good citizens who have matters of interest to lay before the government, and the fact that they come from a part of the country which is groaning under the kind of representation in this house from which they will soon be delivered is no reason why that door should not be open.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister very much, but may I ask him what would be the latest date when these representations might be made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. member that as far as the present government is concerned it will be far, far in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No budget?



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because of our concern with the principles of the bill of rights and their application, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice another question. Has the minister had an opportunity to examine an amendment introduced by the government of British Columbia to the legislation whereby it expropriated the B.C. Electric Company, to determine whether the provision forbidding recourse to the courts is contrary to the bill of rights or ultra vires?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question of this legislation has been referred to me and is now under study.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister say if it is true that it is the intention of the government to proceed with the construction


of penal institutions in the Brome-Missisquoi riding and also in the riding of St-Hya-cinthe-Bagot?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I am glad to note the hon. member's interest in this matter, and to be able to reassure him, as I have already reassured the hon. members for the constituencies he has mentioned, that that is the intention.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the construction of penal institutions in all the other Conservative ridings in the province of Quebec?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We might in ordinary circumstances prefer to put them into Liberal ridings, where possibly, the need would be greater, but with respect to our construction program in Canada we are limited by the amount of finances available.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether in a recent speech at Sydney he made a prediction that now Britain was going into the common market, that city could look forward to being larger than Toronto.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not spoken in Sydney for two years, so I do not think I can be charged with having made any such statement there. However, I am sure this is a vision which could be substantiated some day, given time.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER GREATER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS

John George Diefenbaker: That a select committee, to be designated, be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, and, in particular, to consider the desirability of repealing standing order no. 33 (closure rule), with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the Prime Minister going to say something?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that I might have a few words to say on this motion. I assure the house that I shall limit myself to

a few brief observations at this time. It will be recalled that in the speech from the throne the following appeared:
My government intends to ask you to reconstitute the special committee on procedure of the house and request it to make recommendations on the elimination of closure of debates in the House of Commons.
It is in pursuance of that undertaking and promise that this matter now comes before this house.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on a number of occasions the committee has operated in previous sessions and I think, generally speaking, members of the house will agree that the recommendations made have been beneficial to the efficiency and effectiveness of the house. Indeed, I believe that consideration might be given at some later session to having this committee set up each year as a standing committee.
The resolution, as it has been written by the Clerk, asks that consideration be given to the desirability of dealing with standing order No. 33. The purpose of the motion is to enable the House of Commons, through this committee, to give consideration to this very important matter. I could go back over a period of years and point out circumstances which necessitated action being taken in this regard. I could relive past days; but today I have such a feeling of good will to all that I shall not go into that unless pressed to do so by hon. members in any part of the house.
All of us agree that full and free debate is necessary in the parliamentary system, the examination without restraint of the programs and policies advanced not only by the government but by those in the opposition who would provide an alternative government. In the process of national decision-making, the role of parliament is pre-eminent and vital. I believe, in the light of the experience of the past, the principle of closure need no longer be accepted under our system.
There have been tremendous changes since 1913, when it was first introduced in Canada. In the intervening years a number of committees have been set up for the purpose of considering the rules and a number of changes have been made, with the result that the time within which discussions can take place in parliament has been reduced. When closure was first introduced in 1913, parliament had had the experience over a period of three or four years of unlimited discussion. Indeed, in the debates in 1910 and 1911 and again in 1912 and 1913; in debates earlier on the navy bill and on the subject of reciprocity, and later, again on the navy bill, legislation introduced by the Borden government, the House of Commons sat for an almost unlimited time. I have not recently reviewed this, but I think there were a number of occasions
Committee to Consider Business of House when the house sat by day and by night for more than a week, broken only by Sundays.
Then came the changes. There was the determination of the length of speeches, first limited within recent years to 40 minutes and then reduced still further in the house. In committee, in recent years changes have reduced the time to 20 minutes.
I know there are issues upon which lengthy speeches are necessary on the part of the leaders of the government and of the opposition, but generally speaking my own experience in the house has been this. After half an hour or 35 or 40 minutes one has been able to say all that would be necessary on any particular subject. All of us, because of the limitations placed on speaking time, tend to make the maximum the minimum. I know that is human nature. When we decided we would set a limit of 40 minutes on speeches in the house, hon. members found it necessary to speak 40 minutes; otherwise it might be said that they had not fully covered all the matters they should have covered in the period available to them.
When closure was introduced originally there was unlimited time. I believe everything we can do to improve the standards of parliament should be done. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy demands the maintenance not only of the forms of parliamentary government but also of its soul. I said that in this house six years ago and I still believe it to be true. I also said on an earlier occasion that it is the right and duty of the opposition to advance their arguments and to educate public opinion. I still hold this view.
I believe I was elected to this chamber for the first time 22 years ago today. In the intervening years I have tried to look at parliament objectively, to understand that indefinable something that comes only from membership. I often hear people say that if they were in parliament they would do thus and so. Well, all of us have those views when we become members for the first time, but in the passing years we find that the rules governing debate are necessary, based on experience, and generally speaking provide every opportunity for full discussion.
We in parliament have a duty to preserve the freedom of debate because our freedom, the freedom of parliament, is essential to the freedom of the people we represent. When we have rules that confine or limit our freedom in debate we are permitting rules that also limit freedom in Canada outside parliament as well.
I need hardly quote anyone in that connection, but permit me to recall the words of the late Mr. Ernest Lapointe who, speaking in the house on March 29, 1932, said:
2164	HOUSE OF
Committee to Consider Business of House
The first duty of parliament is to remain a parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental body. Parliament has a right which is certainly paramount to the convenience of the prime minister, the right to live. It has the duty to defend itself and not to allow anybody to invade its rights and privileges. It is the will of parliament, not that of the government, that is the will of the nation.
In the same year a former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, made the following statement in reference to the imposition of closure:
I want to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the battle which has been put up in connection with this measure is not merely over the rights of minorities or the rights of majorities; it is true that it has to do with the rights of both; rights, which in the case of the majority no less than in that of the minority are threatened-
The committee, representing this House of Commons, will make its recommendations. I believe that the closure rule is no longer necessary. Its original purpose was to terminate excessive debate or systematic obstruction. Where there has been obstruction in this house, however far it has been carried, I have taken the stand that under no circumstances should the motion for closure be made. I believe that the experience of a few years ago has assured that never again will closure be applied in this House of Commons. I hope that the fullest consideration will be given to this question by the committee when established.
The use of closure arose by reason of the terrific obstruction that occurred in the British House of Comons during the days of the home rule debate. It came to Canada in 1913 under the government of Sir Robert Borden. It was used on three or four occasions, the last of which was in 1956 under the government of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. As long as our rules provide for the use of closure it can be misused. On the basis of the experience of the past I feel we should give the fullest consideration to this because governments, whatever their political stripe, with the closure rule at hand have an invitation to do the things that the rules permit.
I shall say no more. I have endeavoured to speak objectively without going into detail and without citing the unhappy experiences of the past with regard to the use of closure. I shall refrain from saying more, because I feel this matter will be dealt with objectively by the all party committee when it is set up. Your Honour will head that committee. I urge the establishment of the committee and trust that on the basis of the experience of the past and the knowledge of the committee it will bring in an early report and recommendation to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister reminded me of something I might otherwise not have remembered this early in the day, and that is that although today is a Monday, and he was elected to parliament on a Tuesday, this in the 22nd anniversary of his election to parliament. In view of the shadows which events have cast before them the Prime Minister will appreciate my being somewhat measured in my expression of congratulation, but I will say that the parliament of Canada would have been a very different place if the right hon. gentleman had not been elected 22 years ago.
It is perhaps not the role for which I am most notorious in the house, but I cannot forbear to congratulate the Prime Minister on something else, namely the tone and temper of his speech today in moving this motion. I am afraid the Prime Minister will have disappointed the press, whose advance notices of his speech were somewhat more lurid than the fact justified. However, in this instance I think the Prime Minister has been wiser than those who sought in advance to forecast what he would do.


John George Diefenbaker: I could be provoked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman almost seems to be inviting me, Mr. Speaker. I can assure him that at the present time I would be extremely chary about responding to his invitation in the affirmative. The Prime Minister talked about the need to be expeditious-and the motion also mentions the matter-in the conduct of our business, consistent with proper debate of public issues. I must say that, having regard to the temper and tone of the house at the present moment, I think no one would quarrel with that at all. If the debate continues in the way in which it has begun I think there will be no need for any prolonged discussion on this motion at all. From the main part of the motion we on this side of the house have no dissent whatsoever. Perhaps I might just refer to the words:
That a select committee, to be designated, be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure ol this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business -
That is the main part of the motion. The next phrase, on which I will say a word or two in a moment, is of course merely a subsidiary feature of the main motion. I think we are all agreed with the main motion, particularly after the experience of the session of parliament of 1961. In the light of the private circumstances of many hon. members I think all of us feel that if, by co-operation between the two sides of the house with

regard to the business, we can reduce the length of the sessions of parliament and still deal with the public business effectively, we should do so.
In my opinion we would be more effective if we reduced the length of the sessions. I also think it would have this other advantage. If members were away from the house and in their constituencies longer between sessions this would be a better representative body than it is when we are here for so many months of the year. Hence from every point of view it seems to me that there is the strongest possible argument for reducing the length of sessions and reducing unnecessary debate as much as possible. I refer to unnecessary debate, not necessary debate.
I agree completely with the Prime Minister in his view that the most important of all our functions in this parliament is to uphold the right of freedom of speech for all our citizens through their representatives, so that we shall really have self government. That, of course, is the purpose of the House of Commons. It is not the duty of the House of Commons to govern. That is the duty of Her Majesty's ministers. In those famous words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1877, it is the duty of the House of Commons to watch over the government in order to see that the government does that which the people want done, and only that. That is an extremely important function.
I also agree-indeed it would be rather ungenerous of me not to do so-with what the Prime Minister was good enough to say about the work of Your Honour's committee in the last two sessions of parliament. I think the experimental changes that we have made in the rules have resulted in distinct improvements in the procedure. I do not intend to take up any time going into the details of those changes. I certainly hope this committee will have time enough at the present session to recommend that some of those experimental changes be put permanently into the rules, as I think they have worked out in a way that commends itself to nearly all hon. members.
If it will not be taken amiss, I may say that those of us from this side of the house who have served on that committee always did so in the lively expectation that some of us would once more be on the treasury benches and hence felt that we ought to look at the rules from the point of view of both sides of the house. That is something that is very important to remember. We need to remember two things. In these modern days, with modern communications and modern menaces, we need to remember that there must be power in the government to act and
Committee to Consider Business of House to do so expeditiously in times of public danger, and that we cannot have a parliamentary system that is going to endanger our very lives. At the same time we must do nothing which will make the government so independent of parliament that the representatives of the people do not have over the government that constant control which is the glory of our British system.
Having said that, I come to the specific suggestion made in the Prime Minister's motion, in these words:
-and, in particular, to consider the desirability of repealing standing order No. 33 (closure rule)-
I do not wish to be a purist. If I had been drafting such a motion I am not sure that the precise word I would have used would have been "desirability". However, that is an unimportant matter. I agree with the Prime Minister. He may be surprised to find my saying this without any qualification. I agree with the Prime Minister-and I have no more desire or intention than he seemed to have to relive the past or to try to rewrite it or do anything of that sort- that, having regard to what has happened, I believe that no government in its senses would ever again use the existing closure rule in our book. I therefore do not see any sense in leaving it there. Moreover, it will be recalled that before the Prime Minister became Her Majesty's chief minister in this country, in the election campaign of 1957 he undertook if he formed a government to repeal the closure rule at the first session of that parliament. He gave a similar undertaking in 1958.
I am also not going to say anything more about that matter. However, since the government has twice received a mandate when that was a part of its program, it seems to me that it would be desirable just to repeal the rule right now. It does not seem to me that there is any need at all to send this particular rule to the committee. If it was not, it seems to me that the committee would then be freer to consider these other things.
Moreover, this was a matter of acute party controversy in the past. I do not think that is the situation now, particularly as in what I have just said I	believe I	speak for	allmy friends in	the	house. It	seems to	methat it would	be	preferable	to have	the
motion extended and simply to repeal this rule.
There is another reason for that procedure, and again I do not wish to exaggerate this matter; I do	not	wish to make it seem
too important. However, His Honour the Speaker, if this motion is carried, is to preside over this committee. If we can settle here in the house something that has been a matter of political controversy without
2166	HOUSE OF
Committee to Consider Business of House remitting it to a committee over which Your Honour presides, it seems to me that would be the preferable course.
Beyond that, I speak for my friends, I think, when I say that we will support the Prime Minister's motion and its main objective. If a committee is set up and if reasonable time is permitted to the committee to carry on its work, we will endeavour, in the same spirit in which we have operated in the last two sessions, to seek the objective which the Prime Minister set out as the principal objective of his motion.
I had intended to propose a small amendment to the Prime Minister's motion but I am not going to do so now. I simply wish to tell the committee what was in my mind before I heard what the Prime Minister had to say. I will read the amendment which I had thought it might be desirable to move as one that might commend itself to both sides of the house. It is is these words:
That the motion be amended by striking out the words:
"and, in particular, to consider the desirability of repealing standing order No. 33 (closure rule),"; by substituting a semicolon for the full stop after the word "house" at the end of the motion; and by adding the following words:
"and that standing order No. 33 (closure rule) be hereby repealed."
I appreciate that there might be some difficulty and some embarrassment for the government and perhaps some other technical problems if I were to propose this amendment. Here, sir, I am speaking for myself, and while I may be taking a rather long chance I hope that what I am going to say will commend itself to my friends. I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister to adopt this suggestion. I do not say that he should use these precise words, and it might require unanimous consent for him to do so, but I would hope that this suggestion might commend itself to everyone in the house.
The Prime Minister, and I agree with him completely, says that this rule should never be used again. Let us take it off the books and let the committee start from there in the spirit that would be created by doing so. It seems to me that would give us even greater hopes than we might otherwise have of making real progress in a matter about which I do feel we should seek to be as nonpartisan as possible consistent with our duty.
Let me say that I have no apology for being partisan. It is through political parties that we have self government. I am not ashamed of that at all, and I know the Prime Minister is not either. But there are some matters with respect to which it is certainly preferable not to be partisan if the objective can be accomplished in any


other way. Rather than move this amendment I feel, therefore, that I should ask the Prime Minister whether he or his colleague the house leader, or someone else speaking for the government, would be prepared by consent and by agreement to dispose of this matter in this way, which I believe would be in the general interest. If I may, sir, I should like to send two copies of this document across the floor to the Prime Minister so that he may have the opportunity to look at it.
I say, sir, that we believe there is a real opportunity today to do something which will make parliament a better and more effective instrument for the service of the Canadian people, and I am sure everyone in the house is agreed that on this day, the anniversary of the Prime Minister's election to parliament, we would all like to do that.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to add my words of congratulation to the Prime Minister on having been a member of parliament for 22 years. I can well remember the day on which he was first elected. I believe most people in his province were very proud of his election on that day 22 years ago.
I want to say at once that I am most appreciative of the consideration of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in not moving his proposed amendment. This is a day, Mr. Speaker, on which parliament looks at itself, and I believe that every once in a while a look at ourselves is a welcome procedure. I am unable to agree with the proposal of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. As I take it, he is proposing that the resolution should be amended to provide for the abolition here and now of standing order No. 33 without reference to a committee. While on many occasions I take advantage of my rights in the House of Commons to squeal, complain and shout as loudly as I can against actions of the government, to me the basic factor is that when the people of Canada give a majority to any particular party in an election, they also grant to that government the authority to have its way. To my mind the majority must prevail, Mr. Speaker, but the majority is strengthened when it pays proper respect to minority opinion.
I should not like to think we would ever manoeuvre ourselves into the position where an opposition group or groups would be able to frustrate the will of the duly elected government. Within recent days I have seen far too much of the ability of opposition groups in other countries to frustrate the will of the duly elected government. Inasmuch as we generally have elections every four years, I

believe that once the people have decided upon those in whom they have confidence it behooves opposition groups and more particularly opposition leaders to remember that in the long run the majority party must be permitted to have its way. If the majority abuse their power the electors will have a chance to express their opinion on the actions or inactions of the government at the time of the next election.
Therefore when we talk about abolishing the closure rule I think we should be very careful. I believe the Prime Minister is most wise in asking that the question of the abolition of closure be referred to the committee on procedure headed by Your Honour, because we could get ourselves into a position which either we or those who come after us might live to regret.
I remember that in the election campaign of 1957 our Prime Minister pledged to the Canadian people the abolition of the closure rule. Now in 1962, five years later, at long last we are faced with action in this regard. The action, of course, as I indicated earlier, consists of a reference of the matter to a committee. There is no assurance that there will not be another election called before this committee is able to consider this particular reference, bring in a report and have that report adequately considered in the house.
As I said before, we in this group welcome this move on the part of the government. However, we should like to qualify our welcome by saying it is our firm conviction that under our system of government, as we have known it in the past, nothing should be done that will prevent a government that has been duly elected from having its way in the long run. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the only time opposition political parties have the right to frustrate the will of the government that has been elected by a majority of the people is when the government has completely violated basic human rights as we know them. I am a great believer in the rule of law. There are far too many areas of the world in which the rule of law is subjected to many qualifications. I would not like to see this parliament do anything that would limit the normal supremacy of the will of the majority of the people as expressed on election day.
I hope no one will mistake me when I endorse this particular viewpoint. I believe that the majority is really strengthened by granting every possible right to the opposition and to the minority. I would be the last one who would be prepared to sacrifice any of the existing rights of the opposition or of a minority. If this resolution passes I should
Committee to Consider Business of House like to see the committee pay very close attention to the possibility of greater consultation amongst the house leaders of the various parties in relation to the order of business and the length of time that ought to be allotted to the various matters coming before us. I believe this is the practice in other democracies to a greater extent than it is here.
I should like also to see the committee pay very close attention to the practice in other democratically elected parliaments relating to the establishment of orderly and ordered sessions of the house. If we knew in advance that we would be here from say January 9 until April 1, then have a month's recess and be here from May 1 until July 1, from September 5 to October 31-these are only abritrary dates-and then have a recess for the months of November and December, I believe our house leaders and our party whips would very soon accommodate themselves to the business at hand. I know this practice prevails in a number of other countries, and I should like to recommend it in all sincerity for the serious consideration of the committee. I believe that if we had this kind of arrangement we would not be engaged in a debate as to whether or not the closure rule ought to be abolished.
There is another recommendation I should like to make, not to the committee but to the government itself. I believe an attempt should be made to have the blue book of estimates a little more accurate than it is at the moment. I notice a growing tendency on the part of the government to introduce increasingly large amounts by way of supplementary estimates. In this particular session I believe we are about to be faced with the fourth list of supplementary estimates. I understand, though I may have been misinformed, that the sum total of the four lists of supplementary estimates equalled 25 per cent of the main estimates in the blue book. Surely this is a flaw, when departments are asked in October to prepare their estimates and submit them to treasury board, yet many months later we are faced with the fact that the estimation of these departments has been wrong by 25 per cent.
I believe this is a habit that is becoming almost an evil so far as orderly parliamentary procedure is concerned. The government is providing the opposition with an opportunity for delaying the business of the house and, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned, for unnecessary debate. I would appeal to the government henceforth to order departments to attempt to reduce the amount that it may be necessary to request in supplementary estimates.
2168	HOUSE OF
Committee to Consider Business of House
The Prime Minister made one statement that surprised me a little bit. He has moved a motion to the effect that it is desirable to repeal standing order No. 33, the closure rule, and that the matter be referred to a committee. At the same time he did something that was a little unprecedented, in that he offered a lot of advice to the committee. He stated that the closure rule is no longer necessary. He added also that never again will closure be applied. I felt that these two statements were a bit unfortunate, in that they might prejudice the thinking of the committee that is to meet. He said, too, that governments have the temptation to use the methods that the rules permit. I took down this statement as closely as I could, but there may be a word or two out of line. As I have it, he said that governments have a temptation to use the methods that the rules permit.
This has not been my experience, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is a reflection on the government of the Prime Minister, and also a reflection on past governments. In the main I can honestly report that I have always found the government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative, rather anxious to bend over backward in order to permit the opposition to have its say. I believe that the Prime Minister is a little out of line in the aspersions he is casting not only upon his own government but also on other governments of the past when he says that governments have the temptation to use the methods that the rules permit.
Our group feel that merely because of one unhappy and unfortunate incident when the St. Laurent government applied closure unnecessarily and most prematurely-and, as events proved, it served no useful purpose; if anything it only lengthened the debate which the government of the day was seeking to curtail-this is a very poor excuse for wanting to go whole hog and completely abolish the right of the government of the day to have its way. We agree that the closure rule needs amending. However, I do maintain that after debate for a period which has been agreed upon by all parties the will of the people of Canada ought to be expressed in the form of legislation, no matter how distasteful that legislation may be to opposition groups. It ought to be left to the people of the nation at the time of the next election to express their opinion as to the deeds or misdeeds of the government of the day.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.
[Mr. Regier.l


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is on occasions such as this that parliament is at its best. I appreciate very much the expression of views by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I will refer to the suggestion that he made in a moment.
If one goes back to 1957 one finds that in November of that year, I think it was, I placed a motion on the order paper which would have abolished the procedure of closure had it been accepted. Then there were other events that required attention; other matters arose, and finally there was dissolution at the end of January, 1958. I have found over the years that the novelties of today become the accepted things of tomorrow. In 1957 the press of Canada was very divided on this matter. I had stated that our view was that closure should be abolished and, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has stated, it should never be used again. I believe that is correct. The only times it was ever used in Canada it was followed by the defeat of the government which used it, when the people had the first opportunity to vote either for or against the party that brought it into being.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in 1917.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, not in 1917, but we are not going into the history of 1917. As I recall it, the closure at that time was not brought in by the union government. I am speaking now from recollection, but I think the union government was formed afterward. Closure was used in 1917 in respect of various matters of legislation introduced by the Borden government before a union government was formed. Then many Liberals joined with the Conservatives of that day and formed the union government. In 1917 the vote had nothing to do with questions of party government; it was a vote on the necessity of a subordination of party considerations to the objective of winning the war.
In 1957, when I first dealt with this matter in Toronto at the opening of the campaign of that year, there was divided opinion expressed in the press. I have found over the years, Mr. Speaker, that when you have an objective in mind you cannot always secure it by immediate action; it takes time for public opinion to be educated. I would be the last one to bring into this amicable discussion today anything that might shatter the unanimity of the government and the official opposition, but I am sure nobody will deny me the satisfaction of saying I am happy to learn that the stand taken by this party is now accepted by the Liberal party in opposition. That shows the benefit of discussion and the results that come from taking stands that are proper, appropriate and necessary.

I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. However, it is a singular circumstance that the opposition to anything of this type comes from an hon. member who belongs to a party which must look so far ahead. For, after all, the hopes of political parties go ahead for generations. He looks to that day when the party he represents, whatever its name may then be, because it may have been succeeded by one of another name, but ultimately a party of some kind espousing the national socialism which he also espouses, might find it necessary to have this power in order to carry through its policies. I took it that the hon. gentleman was looking a generation ahead and he realized that with the removal of closure it might be impossible to achieve that for which his party stands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would permit me to ask him a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
Prime Minister was not reflecting, as I was when the hon. gentleman was speaking, on the kind of letter he is going to get from Mr. Knowles when he reads his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a very penetrating question and one that I am sure penetrated the sensibilities of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). However that may be, he recently had the opportunity of viewing parliament in another portion of the commonwealth, and spoke with that authority which comes from knowing how governments operate in other parts of the world. I took it that he referred to that experience when he was a one man representative of Canada to British Guiana.
However that may be, I think it would be well not to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, because it might be thought by those who represent the third party that an unfair advantage had been taken of them by so rapid an agreement on the part of the official opposition.
Such a reformation on the part of any party has, I think, never been equalled since biblical days in the case of Saul. This has been one of the most unusual transitions and changes. Even so, no one would deny that it is a worthy step forward. I compliment the official opposition for this and, speaking most seriously, I thank the hon. member for this suggestion. In order to prevent the possibility of a numerically small group in the opposition saying that advantage was taken of them, the committee might meet and give a report on this matter at the earliest possible date. It
Veterans' Land Act
should not take long now, in view of the unanimity among more than 95 per cent of the membership of the house. A unanimity of 95 per cent should assure that the committee will be able to report on this, and then action can be taken immediately. Certainly I thank the hon. member for having taken this step. I know now that the committee will operate with assurance and effectiveness.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said that I, in the course of my remarks, had prejudged what the select committee might do. Nothing of the kind. Anyone who knows the stand I have taken knows that this has always been my stand since 1956, and that the attitude taken today will not have changed that in the slightest degree. This being so, the committee can meet and report on this matter and we shall be able to carry out almost immediately the abolition of closure.
I do not think there is any more I need add.
I am pleased with this attitude on the part of the official opposition, and can only say that parliament will always discharge its responsibility for the benefit of all the people when members are prepared to stand up, as did the hon. member, and take the position he did. It is quite the antithesis of what took place in 1956, but the hon. member will recall what Sir Winston Churchill said at one time, though these are not the exact words: "I have never developed indigestion as a result of having to eat my earlier words".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
amendments to extend qualification

Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans' Land Act to extend the period during which a veteran may qualify for benefits; to establish dates on which persons shall be deemed to be discharged; to extend the repayment period of loans; to enable the director to arrange group life insurance for veterans on a voluntary basis; to increase the rate of interest where a property reverts to the director; to increase the maximum assistance under part II; to provide further financial assistance to certain full time farmers; to provide further financial assistance to part time farmers and commercial fishermen; to extend the purposes for which a part III loan may be used; to extend the uses to which proceeds of a sale or other disposition of land may be put; and to provide for the release to a veteran of a portion of the land on which he is established.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Mr.   Carier@: Does the minister intend to make a statement?

Veterans' Land Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: The statement I have to make will run for about 12 minutes, but I am sure there are other hon. members who will wish to comment on this subject because of its great importance and interest to veterans who have been settled on land in all the provinces of Canada.
The Veterans' Land Act has been in effect since 1942, and this is the fourth occasion since 1945 when action has been taken to amend its provisions. The last changes made to the act in 1959 were both important and extensive. Undoubtedly the major amendment enacted then was that which substantially increased the maximum amount of loan the director was authorized to advance, on a broader basis of security, to a full time farming veteran for the development and operation of an economic family farm unit. In general the changes made almost three years ago were aimed at bringing the lending provisions of the act into line with increases which had occurred over the years in land, building and other costs.
In the main, the purposes of the present amendments are basically similar to those of 1959; to assist qualified veterans to acquire farm or home ownership in keeping with their particular or changing requirements by expanding and increasing the financial provisions of the act. As compared with the situation following the amendments in 1959, study of the land and building costs involved in the recent settlement of veterans as small holders or under part II has established that the existing financial assistance available to such veterans is inadequate. It is proposed, accordingly, to increase from $10,000 to $12,000 the maximum amount the director may advance on behalf of an eligible veteran for the construction of his home under part II of the act. In conjunction with this increase it is proposed to raise from $800 to $1000 the minimum security in land or money which a veteran must furnish to the director before a contract is entered into.
Another proposal of a similar nature would increase the maximum loan presently available under part III to small holders and commercial fishermen from $3,000 to $4,800. In conjunction with this increase it is proposed to reduce the amount of contribution required of each such veteran to $1 for each $4 loaned by the director. At present the veteran is required to contribute $1 for each $3 advanced. The combined effect of both these proposals would increase from $10,000 to $12,000 the maximum amount available for the settlement of veterans as small holders and commercial fishermen, at an initial cost to each veteran of only $200 more than the amount of the initial deposit and contributory payment he is now required to make.

When related to the beneficial results of the government's action last summer to reduce to one half acre the minimum land requirement for small holding settlement, it is considered that these proposals to increase materially the maximum amount available for such settlement will facilitate and accelerate the establishment of many more thousands of veterans. From inception of operation to December 31, 1961, a total of 47,575 veterans had been settled as small holders. Of this number 1,814 have been approved for financial assistance in the first nine months of the current fiscal year as compared with 1,424 in the same period of 1960-61. Since the beginning of last July small holding settlement has been 45.9 per cent greater than in the same period of the previous year. Notwithstanding this increase, there remain over 12,000 veterans who are already qualified for this type of settlement but who, in the majority of cases, have been precluded to date from actual establishment due to insufficient funds and because of the difficulty they previously experienced in acquiring land of adequate size to meet the minimum required.
A further measure of considerable benefit to small holding and commercial fishing veterans will be contained in a proposal to enable the director to make additional loans under part III to such veterans who are already settled. Since part III came into effect in 1954 it has been possible to make loans thereunder to small holders and commercial fishermen only at the time they were being settled. It was believed that the additional financial requirements which veterans already settled might have for effecting alterations or additions could be met under the provisions of part IV of the National Housing Act. While many loans have been so made, the arrangement has never been considered too favourably by veterans, and has presented certain administrative difficulties.
At present there is more than one maximum amortization period. All repayable contracts relating to land and buildings under part I can be extended over a period not in excess of 25 years. This same maximum term applies to loans made to small holders and commercial fishermen under part III. However, part III loans advanced to full time farmers may be repayable over a period of 30 years. The bill will propose amendments to various sections of the act to increase the maximum repayment period to 30 years.
The major changes made in 1959 to the farm credit provisions in part III of the act have been well received and, as anticipated, have enabled a considerable number of full time farming veterans to extend their enterprises to sound economic proportions. From

the time the part III provisions were promulgated at the beginning of September, 1954 to December 31, 1961, a total of 6,855 additional loans were made to full time farmers already settled. Of this number over 50 per cent were made subsequent to August, 1959 when the amendments made in that year became effective.
The existing farm credit provisions, with one exception, have been found to be reasonably adequate and satisfactory to meet the requirements of the veteran whose circumstances are such that a loan can be made to him for the development and operation of an economic farm unit. To overcome the deficiency which has been encountered in some cases it is proposed to extend the purposes for which a loan may be advanced to permit the payment of farm related debts such as a feed bill, taxes, etc. Any loan made for debts of this type is in the nature of debt consolidation. The proposal will also provide, therefore, that a loan for such a purpose may be made only once to a veteran, on the occasion of the first loan he receives after the enactment of the amendment.
In comparison with the well established veteran farmer for whom the existing provisions of the act have been found to be reasonably adequate, it has become increasingly evident that the same provisions do not meet the needs of an appreciable number of veterans who are settled on what might be described as small family farms. I am not referring here to marginal units or marginal operators. The small family farm of which I speak may be classified as one where the farm income permits an acceptable standard of living to the owner-operator and his family, and which may be supplemented by some off-farm income, but where the physical and financial attributes of the unit or the owner-operator do not permit the development of a strictly economic farm unit.
It is estimated that approximately 6,000, or slightly over one third of the veterans who are still settled under the act as full time farmers, are established on properties which today cannot be considered to be fully economic family farm units. These veterans and their families invariably wish to remain on their farms in their existing communities but require additional financial assistance, usually for basic herd livestock, soil improvement, and permanent improvements to the farm buildings including hydro and sewage facilities.
To meet the additional credit requirements of these veterans who are settled on small family farm units, it is proposed to enact a new section under part III whereby fully repayable loans bearing 5 per cent interest over a maximum repayment period of 30
Veterans' Land Act
years may be advanced for practically all of the purposes for which part III loans may otherwise be used. The maximum amount which could be advanced under this new section to a veteran on a small family farm would be the lesser of $6,000 or $12,000 less any indebtedness outstanding under existing contracts the veteran has with the director under parts I and III. In no case would the amount advanced, together with the indebtedness outstanding, exceed 75 per cent of the market value of the farm land as determined by the director.
The provisions of this proposal, in conjunction with the fact that the trained and experienced staff of Veterans' Land Act credit advisers is again in a position to provide an advisory service to veterans established as full time farmers, should assure attainment by the veterans concerned of a better standard of living for themselves and their families. These factors will also make it possible for economic growth to take place within the line fences of the small family farm, and it is contemplated that such growth will be sufficient in some cases to enable the director to advance the larger loans which are available under section 64 for the development and operation of fully economic farm units.
Recommendations have been made periodically over the years by the Royal Canadian Legion and others relating to the matter of insurance protection on the life of a settler under the Veterans' Land Act. In light of the fact that the plan applicable on a compulsory basis to borrowers under part III of the Farm Credit Act has recently been extended on a voluntary participation basis to farmers who secure loans under part II of that act, there is now reason to believe it might be possible to arrange for the provision of such protection to Veterans' Land Act settlers on a similar basis. A proposal is being introduced, therefore, which will enable the director to endeavour to arrange, on satisfactory terms, a group life insurance plan on a voluntary participation basis.
The major change made in the recent amendments to the War Service Grants Act was to extend to October 31, 1968 the period during which application may be made for unpaid war service gratuity and outstanding re-establishment credits. It is proposed to make a similar extension in the Veterans' Land Act and estabUsh October 31, 1968 as the deadline by which veterans must be qualified to participate in the benefits of part I of the act.
Another proposal will be introduced which will also involve the establishment of a date, in fact two dates. At present the legislation specifies that a person who served in world

Veterans' Land Act
war II or in Korea must be honourably discharged to qualify as a veteran for the purposes of the Veterans' Land Act. However, many persons who continued to serve in the forces were not discharged at the conclusion of their war service. It is proposed that, for the purposes of this act, such veterans will be deemed to have been honourably discharged on September 30, 1947, in the case of those who served in world war II and October 31, 1953, in the case of those who served in Korea.
Experience has shown in some instances that, without endangering the security position of the director, better and more equitable use might be made of proceeds from the sale or lease of mines and minerals, or attributable to permanent improvements effected by a veteran, than is now possible. It is proposed, accordingly, to increase the purposes for which such proceeds may be used.
Mr. Chairman, I have outlined the major amendments to the act to which this resolution pertains. There will be, in addition, a few changes of an administrative nature to which I need not now refer. I might merely add that some of the points I have mentioned are of a technical nature.
We wished to accomplish two things in respect of this act. First we wanted to bring it into conformity with other related acts by extending the date of the application of the measure to 1968 so that veterans who have not been in a position to take advantage of the Veterans' Land Act may have plenty of time in which to make up their minds and look into the problem. Second, we considered that while we were doing that we might also introduce certain other amendments which would make the act better suited to the changing conditions that have occurred in the last few years. It is in that spirit that I bring these amendments forward. I appreciate the fact that it may be in the committee stage, after the bill has been before the house, that it will be possible to answer some of the questions which may arise.


Mr. Carter:: This is a lengthy resolution, Mr. Chairman. It proposes no less than 11 separate changes in the Veterans' Land Act. If we examine the resolution, it seems to me that by far the most important changes are those which propose to increase the maximum assistance under part II of the act-that is the part which provides assistance for veterans who wish to build on city lots-to provide further financial assistance to certain full time farmers and to part time farmers and fishermen; and to extend the purposes for which part III loans are used. Consequential on those four main amendments are three others. There is one to extend the

period in which a veteran may qualify; another to establish dates on which veterans may be deemed to be dicharged; and a third to extend the loan repayment period.
I am sure that all of these changes will be warmly welcomed by veterans all over Canada. They are in line with the recommendations made by the veterans, the Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations. We strongly support these proposals and commend the minister of bringing them in at this time.
Then there are four other unrelated changes. One is to increase the rate of interest where property reverts to the director. Another is to extend the use to which the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of land may be put. The third is to permit the release to a veteran of a portion of the land on which he is established. The last one is to permit voluntary group life insurance for veterans to be arranged by the director. The minister did not make such reference to this particular change. One must assume that the group insurance envisaged in this resolution will be arranged with commercial life insurance companies rather than under the Veterans Insurance Act.
These proposed changes which the minister has outlined to us in this resolution are very much in line with a report put out by the veterans land administration in a summary of a survey which they conducted between July, 1957 and September, 1958 of 5,000 V.L.A. farmers who have been settled under the Veterans' Land Act. On the cover of this document it is stated:
The survey was designed not only to obtain statistical information and as a staff training exercise in the assessment of credit needs but, and more particularly, to create an occasion for the credit advisor and each of his farmers to sit down together and discuss the progress of the enterprise to date and to go carefully into the farmer's plans for the future and particularly what he could and would do with more credit were it available to him.
This report contains such extremely useful information that I think it should be put on the record for consideration when the bill arising out of the resolution is introduced into the house. The first paragraph of the report states in part as follows:
It was also planned that this survey would include an individual calculation of the amount of additional credit required to put on a sound, economic family unit basis, each, and every V.L.A. farm enterprise which had in it the potential for success. This survey was also intended to bring out the purposes for which additional credit was now required, and the extent and nature of the assets available as security.
Then it goes on to give some interesting statistical information with relation to the present farm income of the 5,000 V.L.A. farmers who participated in the survey. On page 2 we find that the net income per

farmer, including farm perquisites and an allowance for home use, was $3,207, but that the amount of income required to give an average standard of living, including farm perquisites and allowance for home use was $4,309. Hence there was a shortfall of around $1,000. The survey came to the conclusion that the average amount which, after careful consideration in each case, it is estimated could be earned if necessary reorganization and/or refinancing were carried out was $5,186. In other words, farmers were capable of producing increased income of nearly $2,000.
On page 3 we see that the average total credit required by the settlers in order to put their units on an economic basis worked out to about $9,740. As to the purposes for which the credit was required, 36 per cent of it was for land, including soil improvement such as liming and permanent planting such as orchard and bush fruit; 14 per cent was for farm buildings; 8 per cent for the farm house; 30 per cent for basic herd breeding stock; 10 per cent for essential farm equipment and 2 per cent for working capital.
On page 4 the survey also points out that of the 5,000 farm units which were analysed, 1,441 would appear to be best advised to continue as at present, with the same farm and the same type of enterprise; 808 should continue with the same land but change enterprises to a greater or lesser extent; 1,359 should enlarge farm but continue same enterprise; 618 should enlarge farm and change their enterprise; 104 should sell present farm and buy a better one; 508 are now, or should be, operating their farms only as a supplement to full time income from some other source; and 162 should sell their farm, get away from the farm entirely and try to get some other type of employment.
The resolution apparently seeks not only to remedy some of the needs brought out in the survey but also to go further and, if I understood the minister correctly, make the benefits under the Veterans' Land Act available to a larger number of veterans, many of whom cannot now qualify. In reading this very interesting document I could only wish that a similar study had been carried out with respect to commercial fishermen. I come from a province where the people depend largely on the fishing industry and I represent a community where 90 per cent of the men are fishermen. Therefore it will be understood that this resolution is of special interest to me.
I endeavoured to get some information on what had happened in the case of veterans who had become established as commercial fishermen in different parts of Canada. When 26207-1-139
Veterans' Land Act
the standing committee on veterans affairs sat in 1961 I solicited this information, which was supplied later in a letter dated July 20, 1961. The information reveals a very interesting variation in the incomes obtained by veterans from commercial fishing. In British Columbia, Victoria region, the high gross income was $7,400 per year while the low gross was $1,200 per year, with an average of $3,700 per year. In the New Westminster region the high gross was $10,000, the low gross $900 and the average gross $4,150. This shows that there is a wide variation even within the same province.
In Alberta and Saskatchewan hardly any veterans have been established as commercial fishermen. In Manitoba there is only one and his income is approximately $2,000 per year. Others were getting supplementary incomes of approximately $550 each per year. In Ontario 11 veterans have been established as commercial fishermen and their incomes range from $2,400 to $3,000, including income from renting boats. In Quebec there were none. In New Brunswick the typical veteran established as a full time fisherman grosses approximately $5,500 and nets approximately $3,000. In Nova Scotia most of the veterans established as fishermen are part time fishermen and net approximately $1,300 annually from fishing, while full time fishermen net approximately $3,700 annually. In Prince Edward Island the typical veteran established as a full time fisherman has a gross of approximately $4,300 per year. The typical cost figure is $1,050 leaving a net before depreciation of $3,250, but depreciation of equipment averages about $1,000 a year leaving a net after depreciation of $2,250. Here is the sad part about this information. In Newfoundland there was only one veteran established in commercial fishing on a full time basis and his net income was very low indeed, averaging only about $500 per year.


Edwin William Brunsden: He is one of your constituents?


Chesley William Carter: He probably is. That is about the average income for most of the inshore fishermen in my riding. I am very grateful to the minister and the government for bringing this legislation forward and I hope it will still be possible for some of our Newfoundland fishermen to take advantage of the new section which the minister outlined to us and which will make loans available at about 5 per cent, if I understood the minister correctly. That at least would give the fisherman veteran a source of borrowing which is not available to him either under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act or from any source within the province.

Veterans' Land Act
I know that other members want to make their contributions to the debate on this resolution and I will close by making one suggestion to the minister. I suggest that the bill be sent to the standing committee, because from the length of the resolution we can see that the bill will be quite comprehensive and will require careful study. It is my opinion that study could best be carried out in the standing committee on veterans affairs and I hope the minister will see fit to refer the bill to the committee.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman-


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the last speaker a question?


Gordon Campbell Chown: If he will give the floor.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member used certain figures having to do with veterans with respect to the statement that the minister made. I am wondering whether he has compared those figures with the over-all figures for agriculture and fishing across Canada?


Chesley William Carter: No, I have not had an opportunity to do that. I have not had the time.


Mr. Benidickson:: I doubt that the department has.


Chesley William Carter: I think that perhaps would be a chore which might properly be carried out by the department and if the bill were sent to the committee we could get that information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, now that the dialogue between the two members to my left has been completed I wish to say a few words on this very interesting resolution proposing the amendment of the Veterans' Land Act. The Veterans' Land Act has been a most successful and excellent piece of legislation since it was first given effect in 1942. I think the major reasons for its success are three in number. First of all, there was the consideration given to the experience during world war I and after under the soldier settlement act when without a doubt there were many unfortunate instances of veterans who failed because of having been settled on poor land or under improper circumstances.
The second factor was the representations of the veterans organizations with their knowledge of the circumstances that surrounded the settlement of veterans of the first world war. Third, there was the determination on the part of the government of that day, which I remember quite well, to make certain that the mistakes of the past
[Mr. Carter.!
were not repeated, and the views of other bodies, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and related organizations, were sought before the legislation was finally drafted and presented to parliament.
I think the success of the act is fully illustrated in the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year 1960-61. I want to refer to this and incorporate it in my few words because many people read Hansard who do not have the opportunity to read this report. On page 41 there is the following:
Repayment record.
From inception ol operations to March 31, 1961, a total of $451,700,000 has been spent on behalf of 76,135 veterans established with repayable contracts. Including $58,738,000 constituting conditional grants earned by veterans who have fulfilled the terms of settlement for the first 10 years of their contract, 55.8 per cent of the $252,100,000 has already been repaid.
The number of full-time and part-time farmers with arrears in excess of $200 and $100 respectively represents 2.5 per cent of the active accounts.
I am not going to read further. I believe that is a clear indication of the success of this legislation and its efficient operation. The acting temporary deputy parliamentary secretary has had some experience in this connection I know, and is fully acquainted with the administration of the act. I must pause, for a moment, to congratulate him upon piloting this resolution during the absence of the minister for five minutes. Somewhat like the hon. member for Kootenay West, he has his brief moment of glory.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I should go on. The settlement of veterans on what the minister termed the economic family farm has made a great contribution to rural Canada since the act was introduced. It is interesting to note that in many districts the Veterans' Land Act settlements, and I know a number in the area which I represent, are usually the showplaces and are examples to others. I think the experience under the Veterans' Land Act was partly the cause, shall I say, of the introduction of farm credit legislation and so on. The veterans legislation illustrated what could be done on the basis of providing supervised credit, as we have it under the Veterans' Land Act.
Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I must say that the change made last year in the regulations reducing the acreage requirement to half an acre was an excellent one. I am sure the minister knows that this has made it possible for more and more veterans not only to qualify but to obtain land when they were already qualified. The increase in the amount of the small loans from $10,000 to $12,000 rectified a deficiency in the legislation. The changes under part III of the act extending the repayment period to 30 years

and extending the purposes of the act to the granting of loans for feed bills and other requirements were also good. I am sure these amendments were brought forward as the result of the experience of those operating in the field.
The minister dealt with the small family-farm particularly and those who had supplementary incomes as well. This new section in part III which he proposes will provide loans for development up to 75 per cent of the total value of the farm, and this should be of some assistance to a percentage of these veterans. We all know the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations have made proposals with regard to insurance. The minister did not give the details. We readily admit that when you enter into that field it will take some careful planning to design a satisfactory scheme. We shall look forward to what the minister proposes in this respect and the regulations related thereto.
I am glad to see the deadline for applications for loans has been extended to October 31, 1968. This should give the veterans of this country ample time to make up their minds if they wish to take advantage of this act. Strangely enough the farther away we get from the war, as a result of personal experience, I find an increasing number of veterans who had deserted the family farm or family life at the end of the war and were attracted by the dollars that could be earned in industrial employment, are finding that all is not gold that glitters and that there are certain advantages to living on the family farm and enjoying the rural way of life. I find repeatedly men coming to me who have decided to go back to the farm and either take up their parents' property or buy land of their own. This legislation will provide them with an opportunity for this action.
This group wholeheartedly supports the amendments proposed by the minister because we believe they will be of benefit to the veteran who is a small holder and the veteran who is a full time farmer. However, before taking my seat I do want to make another suggestion and ask the minister to consider it. I suggest that the time has come, as a result of developments in recent years, for tree farmers to qualify under this legislation. I know this is a new field and has to be approached with some caution. However, I believe it is a field that should be considered. You know, Mr. Chairman, at the moment there are some 20 million acres of crown lands available east of Manitoba for the development of privately owned tree farms. A tree farmer requires from 500 to 1,000 acres. You cannot operate with a few acres, you have to have a sufficiently large acreage to make a living. In the interior of British 26207-1-1394
Juvenile Delinquents Act Columbia the average value of the timber yield per acre varies from $7.50 to $15 per year, according to the stand. This is the stump-age value. If you enter into manufacturing, of course, the value increases.
I am just concluding, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps you will give me a minute to finish and then the minister will get this resolution cleared up by five o'clock. I am asking him to consider this suggestion. Perhaps he could discuss the matter with the officers of the Canadian tree farmers association. I suggest also that he ask his officials to make a study of the possibility of moving in this direction. Perhaps this project could be made to fit in with A.R.D.A. I also suggest the minister could ask his officials to make a report to him concerning the possibility of including tree farmers in this legislation on the same basis as full time farmers. I have trespassed upon your time for a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman, so I shall take my seat and leave the remainder of what I have to say until the bill is introduced.


Gordon Campbell Chown: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to a consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should undertake a complete review of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, with consideration being given to the appointment of a special committee to bring in recommendations thereon.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after I had filed the notice of motion in connection with the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the Minister of Justice announced that he had set up a departmental committee to study the questions raised by that act. I welcome this study and, although it does not go as far as I had envisaged, I expect that the committee will do a great amount of work and come up with a solution to the problems which have been troubling a lot of people in recent years.
There are shortcomings in the Juvenile Delinquents Act at the present time, particularly in the system of treatment of juveniles, which has not been remedied. There is a noticeable drifting away from the original concepts of the act, and since there has not been an over-all review for some years and since this act operates in co-operation with the provincial authorities, I think it is now high time that the operation of the act and its administration by provincial authorities should be carefully gone into.

Juvenile Delinquents Act
The first thing that a committee must do, Mr. Speaker, is to examine the theory and philosophical approach to the treatment of juveniles. This is an entirely different matter than an examination of the mechanics of the act and its procedures, forms and penalties. The committee set up by the minister is composed of a very eminent group of persons concerned with the administration of justice, although I think it fair to say that none are engaged principally in working with juveniles. Therefore I hope that they will give major attention to basic issues and not only to the mechanics of administration.
The first question with which I think the committee should deal is whether there is a proper balance in the juvenile court system between the concepts of courts of law set up to administer semi-criminal law with all the essential protections of criminal procedure, as against the social duty of the state in its obligation as parens patriae to oversee the welfare of children who might be abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents or guardians and thus be led into improper conduct. The Juvenile Delinquents Act which we have is a typical Canadian blending of the two theories, as well as being a midway point between British and United States practices.
Since criminal legislation is in the federal field under our constitution, we must have a sufficient element of criminality to justify a federal and over-all act such as we now have. Since child welfare is a provincial matter under our constitution, we cannot go too far in that direction. But the act provides for a very wide scope as between the two approaches. The United States has in general adopted the social side of the scale and most of the legislation on juvenile delinquency in that country is a state matter rather than a federal one. They consider it a social duty rather than a semi-criminal one. For this reason, the normal protections of the rules of criminal procedure have been fairly well lost in the juvenile courts of the United States.
In reading many of the publications on delinquency work that come from the United States we find that this is one of the things that concerns a good many of the social workers in that country. I refer to the fact that the protection of juveniles is being lost when they come into court; the fact that they are being charged with a breach of conduct which may determine their future lives is completely overlooked, and therefore the normal protections that the state must give are gone.
I believe that the Canadian act has an excellent potential in delinquency matters and I hope this potential will be taken advantage

of when the act is under review. The advantage of having juvenile courts with semicriminal jurisdiction is that protection is, or should be, given to those who appear there; protection against self-incrimination; proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the right to counsel, and limitations on the use of hearsay evidence. I believe that not only equal, but actually greater protection should be given to children and to parents who appear with them than is given to adults. For that reason I think we must be very jealous of the rules that give protection to juveniles in the juvenile courts.
It is not necessary for the courts to make a great show of this protection, but I believe it must be given. I do feel that the trend of the juvenile courts is away from this protection of juveniles and is toward a general feeling by the courts that if the juvenile is brought in by the social agencies, then he must be guilty.
On the other hand, when dealing with children the courts must always have in mind how easily they are led and how important it is to have understanding and sympathy. But the courts must also recognize the hard facts of some cases and the great amount of work and research that comes from the social workers in their reports. Unjustified and ill-considered sympathy can be just as harmful as oppressive sentences.
With this background, Mr. Speaker, and from information which reaches me on this subject, I believe that there is a trend toward giving juvenile courts the prestige and appearance of courts of law, while in fact they are internally moving too far in the opposite direction with strictly welfare considerations. The closed courts, the difficulty of appeal, the dependence of the child on the court, require the judge to be his own most severe critic. This ability is not always present. The juvenile court system with which I am best acquainted is that in Ontario. It is operating extremely well; its judges, probation officers and other staffs have a very high level of ability. But those who are best acquainted with the problems are the first to recognize them.
With this background, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate several trends which I believe are appearing in the juvenile courts and which should be very seriously considered. First, there is an overemphasis on the prestige and appearance of juvenile courts as courts, rather than working social agencies. Second, that in spite of the foregoing there is a lessening of the sense of necessity to have a juvenile proven guilty, by proper evidence, of the delinquency with which he is charged.

Third, I believe that there is too much secrecy in the juvenile courts, which is evidenced and caused by the difficulty in appealing, the provision for closed courts and the casual interest of the public and the press caused by these situations. Fourth, I believe that the combination of adult and juvenile probation is causing the latter-that is, juvenile probation-to suffer. Fifth, I believe that there is undue pressure on some courts with family and welfare matters, to the detriment of delinquency cases. Finally, in general there is rather casual attention given by all levels of government to juvenile courts and delinquency problems. These are matters which, as I understand it, are subject to divided jurisdiction and one level of government tends to leave them to the other. I am pleased, for that reason, to see that the minister has set up a study of the question at this time.
I should like to make a few suggestions in closing these remarks. While there are a great many important matters in the act which might be considered, I should like to make some general suggestions which, I believe, are worthy of attention.
First, as to appeals from decisions of the juvenile courts. Under section 37 of the act, leave to appeal from such decisions must be obtained from the supreme court and if such leave is given appeals must be prosecuted in the same manner as those on indictment. This is so cumbersome a procedure that appeals from the juvenile courts have virtually disappeared. There are very few of them indeed, and this, in my view, is not a proper situation. I suggest that an appeal should be available as of right to the county or district court judge in the same manner as is now provided in cases of summary conviction, that is, the right to have a trial de novo before a county or district court judge. It would be simple to have such appeals held in camera to protect the interest of the child while at the same time providing for a second hearing in cases when it was felt that justice had not been done.
My second suggestion concerns the age at which offenders should come within the provisions of the act. This question has been under debate for many years. The age fixed at the present time is 16 years. However, some provinces have extended the limit to 18 years. Many proposals have been put forward in connection with this age limit. One proposal which came to my attention was made by Miss Isabel MacNeill who suggested that there should be two levels of court, one for children up to the age of 14 and another for juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18. However, I think there is a simple remedy for the difficulties here. The
Juvenile Delinquents Act basic reason why this difficulty over age has arisen is that in every situation one is dealing with individuals. Sometimes a young lad of 15 has the characteristics, mental and physical, of an 18 year-old. The nature of his delinquency may be such that the juvenile courts cannot deal with him effectively. Another lad, just over the age of 16, may have the physical and mental development of a child of 13 or 14, yet in most provinces he would have to be dealt with in open court as an adult. Section 9 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act recognizes the first situation and permits the juvenile court to send on any juvenile over the age of 14 to an adult court in certain circumstances. My suggestion is that there should be a provision either in the Juvenile Delinquents Act or in the Criminal Code for the second situation so as to permit an adult court at its discretion to remit the case of any accused person of 16 or 17 years of age to the juvenile court. This would meet the chief problem which arises in all cases of offenders between the ages of 14 and 18; it would depend on the discretion of the person administering the court whether or not the person should be dealt with in an adult court or in a juvenile court.
My third suggestion is that the principle relating to the secrecy of records in the juvenile court, as provided in Bill No. C-57 now in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South, should be adopted. Finally, I think the committee must take a long look at the usefulness of the juvenile court committees which have been set up under section 27 of the act. These are described as committees of citizens serving without remuneration. Except for some unusual instances, these committees do not exist, or do not function. The idea that there should be something in the nature of a community interest-a kind of grand jury for juveniles-was good. But the system has not been used and I suggest that some thought should be given to its effectiveness. If this provision is not proving effective, perhaps it should be abandoned. On the other hand, if it can be made to function usefully, then I think better provision should be made in the act.
I hope these few remarks and the others which will be made in this debate will be seriously considered by the committee which is being set up to study the act and by the government when it contemplates legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere-


Edmund Davie Fulton: wonder if I might ask the house to show me its indulgence, with your permission, Mr. HOUSE OF
Juvenile Delinquents Act Speaker, so that I may say a tew words now. I regret that I have another urgent appointment, and while I should like to sit here and listen to the debate I shall not be able to do so. I can assure hon. members that I shall read it carefully in Hansard. If hon. members will understand the reason why I would appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words now, and then leaving-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member is willing to defer?


William Moore Benidickson: I think there is no objection to departing from the usual routine in this instance. I hope the hon. gentleman's speech will not be a rehearsal of what he intends to say to the ladies of the Canadian Club about juvenile delinquents, perhaps tomorrow.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that he need have no qualms on that point. I do not intend to speak for long, and I can also assure him that even if I did say here what I intended to say to the ladies, it would not shock him.
The reason I should appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words now is that I should like, first of all, to express my appreciation to my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka for having put this subject down on the order paper. I hope he will understand that my action in announcing, a few days earlier than his motion actually appeared, that a special committee on juvenile delinquency was to be set up was not intended in any way to steal his thunder. It is, rather, that the persons concerned with this subject have arrived at the same conclusion, namely, that it is necessary that a concentrated and co-ordinated effort should be made to come to grips with this problem of juvenile delinquency. It is for this reason that I announced earlier in the session the appointment of a special committee within my department to look into all aspects of this matter and to study it across Canada in consultation with other government and private organizations concerned with this field so as to make recommendations within a year as to efforts which may be made by the government, both within its own jurisdiction and in co-operation with other authorities, to improve the situation.
I should like to take this opportunity to correct one impression-one criticism, I should say-which appears to be widespread. A number of organizations wrote to me after the appointment of the committee was announced expressing regret that we had not included upon it any trained social workers. The answer, as I have indicated in my letters on this subject, is that we do not have in my department, for reasons which I think


will be obvious, anyone who has had experience as a trained social worker. I wanted a departmental committee because it was the experience, certainly in connection with the correction and reform program which we instituted, that effective and concentrated work could be done by a departmental committee of this sort. I think, with due respect, in the kind of field in which we are operating more effective, more concentrated and more speedy work can be done by a departmental committee of this sort than by other kinds of general committees or commissions. That was the reason that led us to decide to appoint a departmental committee.
I can assure the house, as I have assured all those who have written me, that there need be no cause for concern that the views of those concerned in this field of social work will not be fully in mind when the committee's report is submitted, when its recommendations to me are prepared, because we have taken care in the terms of reference, the detailed instructions as it were which we gave the committee forming the basis of their operations, to specify that they seek at an early stage meetings and conferences with organizations, welfare societies and individuals active in this field all across Canada for the specific purpose of enabling them to have a first hand and extensive knowledge of the views and recommendations which those concerned with and working in this field would wish to bring to our attention with respect to the solutions and the actions which will be brought to bear on this problem.
It is, as I have said, the intention incorporated in the instructions to the committee that they shall complete their work and let me have a report within a year from the date of their appointment. They are hard at work now. They have made a number of visits to points outside Ottawa. I am glad to be able to report to the house that everywhere they have been in contact with both government and private organizations their presence has been welcomed and the fullest co-operation and mutual interest in arriving at a solution has been evident on the part of those with whom they have met and held their discussions. So I am satisfied that the committee is at work effectively, and I look forward to a useful and constructive report.
The only other observation of a general nature I wish to make at this time is that a certain amount of research, I believe, will be necessary to be done by this committee and by others with whom they work because it has been my conclusion, as a result of the consideration we have given to the matter to date, that there are almost as many impressions of and definitions of the problem

of juvenile delinquency and what constitutes a juvenile delinquent as there are individuals who are called upon to express their opinion. What is a delinquent? What is the age at which a person ceases to be a juvenile delinquent and becomes an adult criminal? These and a host of related problems are questions to which there is no agreed answer, questions on which there has been, in my view, not sufficient attempt as yet to arrive at a common basis of understanding that would be acceptable across Canada, at least as the basis upon which to found an attack upon the problem.
It has always seemed to me that you will not make an effective attack on a problem unless you first of all define clearly and concisely the nature and extent of the problem you wish to cure. This will be one aspect and perhaps the first aspect of the committee's work, to define the nature and extent of the problem of juvenile delinquency in Canada and then to grapple with the question of its basic causes. And then if, as I hope, they are able to come forward with specific answers in those general fields, we should be able to get really concrete and constructive proposals for the cure of the problem.
Recognizing always, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, that this field is one of divided jurisdiction, I would therefore wish to make it clear that we as a federal government cannot come up with a course of action which will provide the entire solution. We may be able to, and indeed I believe we shall be able to, arrive at a series of recommendations which will cover the whole field, but it will be the case that we as a federal government, under the present constitutional division of responsibility, will be able to act or intervene directly on only a portion of those subjects or perhaps of those recommendations. With respect to the remainder, it will be our intention and our objective so to conduct our own affairs here and so to co-ordinate our own activities that solutions may be found. For instance, I have in mind the activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare, for one thing, and the possibility of the grants in aid for physical fitness; that is one head that occurs to me. Then we would offer a series of coordinated activities or programs with provincial governments and with such other agencies of the provincial governments as they may care to bring to bear on the field, and in so far as lies within our competence, also with private agencies working in this field.
In other words, what it is essential to bear in mind is that the solution is not going to lie in action at one level only. We hope that our
Juvenile Delinquents Act recommendations which will have been discussed in advance with all those across Canada in that field, both governmental and private agencies, will commend themselves to those bodies, and that then we will be able, by action in our field and by co-ordinating where we can do so our activities with others not members of the federal government or its agencies, to accomplish a complete attack on the problem of juvenile delinquency.
Why have we been so concerned as to set up this special study recognizing as we do the complex nature of it to which I have just referred? In brief, the answer to that question is simple, but I believe fundamental. It is that no program designed to meet the problem of and the concern for criminality in Canada can be practical or complete unless it attacks that problem in all its aspects.
We have attacked it at one end with respect to our penitentiary system. We have, we believe, fairly launched an up to date, sensible and sound correctional reform program. We are revising our penal system and the programs operating therein in order that we may have, and I believe we will have, one of the best penitentiary systems in the world. That is only going to be a very partial answer to the problem if we stop there because we would be dealing only with one end of the problem of criminality. If we are going to have a well rounded and complete program it is essential that we deal also with the basic causes and factors which contribute to criminality.
I would think there would be general agreement in this house, at any rate, that one of the first places to start in dealing with the problem of criminals and criminality is to do what you can to prevent people from becoming criminals; and surely you can take no more effective action in that field than by launching an attack on the problem of juvenile delinquency. That will be most effectively done on the basis of the following approach, that we give consideration to the young people of this country, even those who may have inherently some psychological or other tendencies which are such that they are prone to become criminals or to fall into a life of delinquency and crime. Then if we can isolate them, find them before they have gone too far down the road, and bring to bear a program such as the one I have hinted at in broad general outline, then we can, I think, confidently expect that we shall have gone a fair way toward preventing the incipient delinquent from becoming a hardened criminal. This is, at any rate, the objective. It is for this reason that we in our department, with the support of my colleagues in the government, have come to the conclusion that, having got our correctional
2180	HOUSE OF
Juvenile Delinquents Act reform program well launched, then the next consistent and essential step to take is to launch a study leading to a series of recommendations and a program in this field. As I said, I shall bring to the attention of the committee and I myself shall study carefully the remarks made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the remarks which will be made by all those who will speak here in the course of this debate. I thank the hon. member particularly for making it possible to discuss this matter here. I look forward with anticipation to reading the remarks of those who will participate. I should like to express in anticipation my appreciation of the help I am sure we shall derive from them in these sittings.


William Moore Benidickson: I rise only to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Edwin William Brunsden: I will yield to the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: No; go ahead.


Edwin William Brunsden: I merely wished to ask this question. In his exploration of this most fundamental question in Canada, has the minister found a receptive attitude on the part of the provinces? With respect to the provinces is there any willingness to cooperate with the federal government in coming to grips with the real fundamentals of the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a little bit early to answer that question conclusively with respect to the policy level, as we have not yet approached that stage. However, on the basis of what we have found so far with respect to the readiness of provincial government officials to meet and to discuss this problem gladly and co-operatively with our committee, I think I am quite safe in anticipating a real readiness on the part of provincial governments as such to cooperate with us. I think it is only fair to say that the extent of their co-operation will to a degree depend on their judgment of the soundness of the recommendations we make.
I think I may safely anticipate that we shall come forward with sound recommendations.
I think I may also say that I can safely anticipate effective co-operation in the long run.


William Moore Benidickson: If the Minister of Justice will permit me to do so I should like to ask him this question. I think he said, "My colleagues and I have reform well advanced". While he was speaking I tried to look through the index of Hansard in order to determine which member of parliament asked not long ago about the committee to which the minister referred, and the likely time when that committee would present its report. Can the 

minister reconcile the fact that the ministry has well advanced plans for dealing with this matter with the expectation of a report from a committee about which a member of parliament-as I very well recall although I cannot name him-asked not long ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend has confused two things. I am sorry if any remarks of mine just a moment ago gave rise to that confusion, although I do not think they should have done so. What I said was that we are well advanced with the implementation of our program of correctional reform. I then went on to say that we have concluded that, having gotten that far on that aspect of it, it is now timely and indeed essential that we start on this aspect, namely the juvenile delinquency aspect of our over-all program of attack on crime in Canada. I certainly did not say that we are well advanced in our program with respect to juvenile delinquency, as I drew to the committee's attention the fact that we appointed our study committee only in January. We have instructed that committee to have its report available by the end of the year.
(Translation):


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for having thought of giving the house the opportunity to examine a problem which has become crucial, as anyone who has taken the time to consider the effects of juvenile delinquency in Canada will agree.
I think hon. members appreciate the explanations the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has given and the additional remarks he has made concerning the work of the committee which was set up to examine precisely the problem of juvenile delinquency and to make all possible and necessary reforms so that we may at least find a partial solution to that problem.
The hon. member who introduced this motion mentioned certain advantages of the present legislation which is to be found in chapter 160 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
When this legislation was first adopted, the situation was just as serious as it is today. If one reads each article of the act, one comes readily to the conclusion that the role assigned to the state is and must remain that of a substitute and that the heart of the matter is to be found within the family circle, from which stems the problem of juvenile delinquency.
During the 15 years I have been practising law, I have been called many times to appear before the social welfare court to assist young delinquents who had got in trouble

with the law. Much as I hate to admit it, the parents, in almost the majority of cases, had been remiss in their duties, by failing to watch over their children, by not showing enough interest in them and, above all, by too often setting a bad example.
I think the act should not be amended, but it should be more strictly enforced. One has but to read section 33 to see what forceful provisions are laid down concerning parents.
Parents who, through indifference or bad example, allow their growing child to become a juvenile delinquent should be brought before the courts, so that the sentence imposed could serve to remind each and every parent that he is duty bound to try to bring up his children in such a way that they will become worthy members of tomorrow's society.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I wholeheartedly agree with his remarks concerning the provisions of section 27 of the act.
I think our small towns and municipalities should make it a point of honour to set up a committee of citizens with a view to checking juvenile delinquency within their own territory.
If those who belong to welfare agencies, such as the Rotary, Kiwanis, Richelieu or Knights of Columbus clubs, or other similar organizations, dealt with the real problem of juvenile delinquency, they could do a wonderful job to stem that growing calamity.
Alas. It is often said that juvenile delinquency is but the doorway to crime. I think parents should more often be held responsible for offences committed by their children. When they have been advised that their children must appear before a welfare court, as provided in section 20 of the act, I think that our judges should penalize those parents when there has been real neglect on their part, because, too often, unfortunately, the children only follow the example and advice, especially the example, their parents give them.
While waiting for the committee's report and the adoption of the legislative measures that will undoubtedly be called for later, I think that our welfare courts should be more concerned with the consequences of juvenile delinquency, and the presidents of our courts should see to it more often that the parents are held responsible for their children's misdeeds, when they have shown themselves indifferent and neglectful.
26207-1-140
Juvenile Delinquents Act
Of course, there are exceptions. Very often, the offences of the children are committed without the knowledge of the parents, but when the latter neglect their duty or set a bad example, I think we should not penalize only the children but rather and especially the parents who are responsible for the crimes committed by those children.
Mr. Speaker, I must somewhat disagree with the mover of the resolution when he says that it would be advantageous for us to give greater publicity to trials that take place before our social welfare courts.
I prefer to endorse the proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) who, by a bill introduced in this house last year, requested the destruction of young delinquents' files after five years, in order that they be spared the burden and consequences of a criminal record all their lives. I rather think we should give publicity to trials of adults who are brought before our social welfare courts and keep on considering with pity and helping young delinquents, because the prime object of the act is precisely to reform the child who is in trouble.
Section 3 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act shows the real spirit behind the adoption of chapter 160. Section 3, paragraph 2 provides as follows:
Where a child is adjudged to have committed a delinquency he shall be dealt with, not as an offender, but as one in the condition of delinquency and therefore requiring help, guidance and proper supervision.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the role of the father and the mother. As I said a moment ago, if we had the courage of assuming our responsibilities, the state would not invade that field of education, because the Juvenile Delinquents Act aims, first of all, to help and bring back on the right path those of our children who have strayed away from it. If all parents understood the gravity of their task, we would not have to consider today such a serious problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we all realize how serious is this problem. Therefore let us all try to improve the situation.
I am happy that the mover of this resolution has called the attention of the house to the problem of juvenile delinquency. By giving it serious consideration and by co-ordinating our efforts, we will allow the growing generation to become the hope and the consolation of their parents.

Juvenile Delinquents Act
(Text):


Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is a good one and shows a tremendous amount of thought and study on the part of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. However, I think the remarks of the Minister of Justice have made this debate redundant and my contribution will be very short indeed.
My approach is somewhat different from that of the hon. member who moved the motion, his, I believe, being more that of the lawyer and mine perhaps more that of the social worker. However, I am sure both of us see the problem as a national one and one with which the federal authorities have a great deal to do within their jurisdiction, I think the Minister of Justice made a very important point when he said that we must deal with the problem of definition and decide exactly what is a juvenile delinquent, whether the test is to be by age or by development. I believe he also put his finger on the problem when he disclosed the difficulties in getting a commission which would deal with both the area of law and that of social service.
I have only one comment I wish to place on Hansard in this regard. As the committee is mainly concerned with the legal aspects of the problem, I hope that when it writes its report it will not deal with it only from that point of view. We know that there could very well not be a complete meeting of minds between those concerned with social service and welfare and those who deal with the problem from the point of view of law. If there is such a difference I hope every effort will be made to see that the report brings into focus and clarifies rather than obscures the position of the social welfare people who, as the minister himself said, are trying to discover the causes of juvenile delinquency rather than looking at the matter simply from the point of view of the punishment of such delinquents.
I think it would be well for us in this chamber to remember that Canada is not alone in facing this problem. If we read newspapers and magazines we are aware that the problem is faced to an even greater degree in some ways by our friends to the south in the United States. It is certainly also one which the Soviet Union faces and one which causes great concern and consternation in the United Kingdom. Why? There are a great many reasons. Possibly one is the feeling of insecurity in a very insecure age. We are living in an age of transition, of moving from one set of values to another. We are living in a society in


my opinion in which, incidentally, all values are being questioned, and we are living, of course, in a society in which life itself seems to be a very uncertain thing.
I hope that the committee about which the minister spoke will make a very detailed, thorough and progressive study of the problem. I believe the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and I perhaps differ on a number of points but we certainly do not differ in terms of the importance of this issue. He referred to the problem of secrecy. I am sure he would recognize the great difficulties in not allowing a general debate to take place in those areas where the lives of young people certainly could be adversely affected in the future. I know there are others who wish to speak. I give my support and that of this group to any change that is made which will help to alleviate the causes of juvenile delinquency in Canada.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is to be complimented on the introduction of this motion. In my view the Minister of Justice is also to be complimented for having taken part in the debate. I think it is an indication of the value of this motion that it has already been adopted by the government. A committee is at work and that committee has been instructed to report back in one year's time.
As mentioned by other speakers, I have a bill on the order paper, Bill No. C-57, which has to do with the secrecy provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I was attempting to correct one particular problem through amendment of the act. The approach taken by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is much broader and better and the approach taken by the ministry is much better.
I would however, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness say that Biff No. C-57 was originally introduced by the hon. member for Belle-chasse, the present Secretary of State. This committee might well refer to the debate which took place on June 24, 1958 when the hon. member for Bellechasse introduced his bill. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka made a tremendous contribution to that debate.
As other speakers have said, I do not wish to take up too much time of the house. I would, however, like to stress one point and that is that since the committee considering the revision of this act will be composed of representatives of the department charged with the responsibility of law enforcement, the drafting of laws, the appointing of counsel to support these laws, the prosecution and conviction of people who may be accused of breaking laws, this committee should give

great weight to the opinions of people in the social science field. I have heard it said, for instance, that the secrecy provision which was incorporated in Bill No. C-57 would make it more difficult for law enforcement officials to do their work.
This provision is to the effect that if anyone convicted under the Juvenile Delinquents Act does not get into trouble for a period of five years the records in respect of that conviction must be destroyed. If a person is convicted at the age of 12 and nothing else has happened to him until he reaches the age of 17, I do not see why those records should not be destroyed. After that age he would come before the adult court and be treated the same as any other adult. There have been instances, and I think they were cited during the debate of June 24, 1958, where juvenile delinquency records have been used after the person has become adult. I do not believe this is fair.
In so far as the matter of appeal from the juvenile courts is concerned, I would say that I have no opportunity of judging this complaint one way or the other. However, if there is a lack of the right of appeal, it would seem to me this may be an indication that our juvenile and family courts are doing a better and better job. I will be looking forward to seeing the report of this committee. As I say, I only wanted to say a few words because the minister informed us the committee will be reading this debate and being guided by what has been said.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have noted, Mr. Speaker, the indication by the Minister of Justice that a committee has already been established to study this matter. I should like, rather than have a vote, to make a few remarks in closing and then call it six o'clock.


William Moore Benidickson: Speak for one minute, and then get a vote.


Ernest James Broome: There is no point in voting.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to clear up one question that arose during the debate. Several speakers indicated that during my introductory remarks I had put forward the suggestion that there was too much secrecy surrounding juvenile courts. I did not intend to convey this impression. I believe it is essential to the work of the juvenile and family courts that their sessions be closed. The act 26207-1-1401
Juvenile Delinquents Act sets out that no press reports can be made and no names used publicly in connection with any case considered by a juvenile court. My point was that the secrecy of the proceedings left wide open the possibility of abuse by judges of the court, if they were so inclined. The difficulty of appealing makes it all the more important that the secrecy provision be not abused.
My suggestion was that appeals should be more easily attained rather than that the secrecy should not be as great. I think that is one of the things with which we are most concerned, that is that courts that operate as social agencies, with secrecy for those who are involved, should have a right of appeal attached to them so that juveniles who may feel they were unfairly convicted could take an appeal to another court.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Before leaving the chair, may I say that I understand the hon. member for Halifax wishes to revert to motions in order to obtain unanimous consent of the house to standing private divorce bills for a further period.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker. Some excellent progress is being made, but it will take a few more days yet to achieve a solution to the problem. I must, therefore, ask if the house is agreeable for unanimous consent to have the provisions of section 3 of standing order 15 concerning the printing of orders for the second reading of divorce bills, and consideration thereof, suspended until otherwise ordered by the house. The effect of this is to save the cost of printing the daily orders.


William Moore Benidickson: I can quite understand the reason the hon. member makes this motion. I wonder if he has been actively associated with other sections of this house in connection with this important matter? I know a number of pages of routine proceedings are required for the printing of these bills unless something of this kind is done. I did not understand the hon. member to say he had consulted the opposition house leader in respect of this motion. Has he done so?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Not in respect of this
request, Mr. Speaker. However, there has been consultation going on with all the parties concerning the procedure to be used in handling divorce bills.

Business of the House


William Moore Benidickson: Since there has been no consultation on this request, as is usually the case, I must ask if there was a date set in the motion. Was any date set as to when these items would be restored to the order paper?


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the proposal of the hon. member for Halifax, it is to the effect that the printing of divorce bills on the order paper be suspended until further order of the house, which could come about at the instance of any member.


William Moore Benidickson: The matter could be raised and I suppose, within 48 hours, the effect of this motion could be reversed, is that right, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River objecting to the proposed order?


William Moore Benidickson: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to make it clear what is being asked, the proposal is that the provisions of section 3 of standing order 15 concerning the printing of orders for the second reading of divorce bills and consideration thereof, be suspended until otherwise ordered by the house. This would mean that the matter must be brought up again in the house and an order made to put them back on the order paper before they would come back on the order paper.


William Moore Benidickson: As I have indicated to Your Honour, I assume any member could make a motion to make that possible within 48 hours?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that at any time, under the heading of motions any hon. member could rise and ask that this order be reversed. With that understanding, is the house agreeable?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that I am completely at sea owing to the mystery of this business, but apparently it is a move to save the taxpayers' money without any infringement upon the rights of hon. members, and therefore I agree.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it, then it is agreed that this course be followed with respect to the printing of these bills on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



VETERANS' LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. MacEwan in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans' Land Act to extend the period during which a veteran may qualify for benefits; to establish dates on which persons shall be deemed to be discharged; to extend the repayment period of loans; to enable the director to arrange group life insurance for veterans on a voluntary basis; to increase the rate of interest where a property reverts to the director; to increase the maximum assistance under part II; to provide further financial assistance to certain full time farmers; to provide further financial assistance to part time farmers and commercial fishermen; to extend the purposes for which a part III loan may be used; to extend the uses to which proceeds of a sale or other disposition of land may be put; and to provide for the release to a veteran of a portion of the land on which he is established.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Chatierion:: I feel compelled to say a few words on this resolution for more than one reason. First of all, I have been closely associated with this legislation for several years. Second, as one of the "backest" of the back benchers-and I sometimes wonder, in this position, how far our voices carry-I ask myself whether the proposed resolution coincides by accident with some of the suggestions I have made or whether some of my suggestions and recommendations to the minister have played a part in the drafting of the resolution which is before us. It is hard to say.
In any event, it is certainly a source of satisfaction to me to know that many of the provisions in this resolution are such as I have recommended to the minister and to the staff of his department. First, as to the extension of the deadline date. The deadline has, up to now, for all practical purposes, been September, 1962. It has now been extended to October 31, 1968. This action was very necessary because of the many anomalies and inequities which arise in legislation such as this in connection with a deadline. For example, under the provisions which have existed up to the present time, certain veterans would have been eligible after the deadline date whereas others, with overseas service, might have lost their eligibility as of September of this year. Another important factor concerning the extension of the deadline in so far as people now serving in the

armed forces are concerned is this: not too many of them are aware of the fact that they are eligible under at least two parts of the Veterans' Land Act. The first is part II, under which members of the armed forces are eligible, provided a commanding officer can state that they will be stationed in one location for a period of 18 months. Another area of the act with respect to which members of the armed forces generally are not aware of their eligibility includes parts I and III. By virtue of an amendment brought in by the present government, members of the armed forces are eligible under parts I and III of the act, provided they are on their last posting. This extension of the deadline date to 1968 will make available the benefits of this legislation to members of the armed forces for a period of some five years. I should like to have recommended to the government that no tailgate or deadline be included in this legislation. However, we know that this government will still be here to extend the deadline further in 1968 and I take it, therefore, that the present provision will be satisfactory to the veterans of Canada.
Some of the provisions in this resolution are far reaching. The minister had indicated that the amount of loans to small holders will be increased from $10,000 to $12,000. This is particularly significant when we consider that the amount of the increased deposit required to get this larger loan will be only $200. In other words, for a $200 increase in the down payment the loan under part III will be increased from $10,000 to $12,000. This in itself will be most acceptable. But the one new departure indicated in this resolution is the fact that these increased loans, for the first time in the history of the Veterans' Land Act, will be made retroactive. Hitherto, all the increases, first, from $6,000 to $8,000, and then from $8,000 to $10,000, were available only to new borrowers. They were never made available to those veterans who had previously obtained assistance under the act.
As the minister told the committee this afternoon it is now considered that those veterans who are already established should be able to obtain the additional money required to enlarge their homes or their holdings. It is true they might have been able to do this under part IV of the National Housing Act. Over the years I have maintained that the veterans of Canada are deserving of better assistance than is provided under part IV of the housing act, so I think it is one of the satisfactory features of this resolution that all these veterans, numbering in the order of 60,000, established under parts I and
Veterans' Land Act
III of the Veterans' Land Act will now be able to get this additional assistance.
One of the major departures envisaged by this resolution, as I gathered from the minister this afternoon, is the new clause proposed to amend the act in relation to the small family farm. Before I discuss that clause I wonder whether for the sake of clarity and getting the record straight I should refer to the welcome comments made this afternoon by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He read at some length from the report made by the veterans land administration on some 5,000 farmer veterans across Canada, going back to 1957. I think the hon. member did not clearly understand that the recommendations resulting from the findings of that report were fully implemented by this government in 1959. That report indicated the need for additional credit to enable these veterans to set up economic farm units across Canada under the Veterans' Land Act. The act was amended, and those recommendations were implemented by the present section 64 of the act which allows for a loan of up to $20,000 for one farmer, provided he farms an economic unit. That is the crux of the difference between that wonderful legislation and this new proposal mentioned by the minister today, that is, the provision for the small family farm.
The new proposal makes provision for veterans who operate small farms who could not have been accommodated under the existing legislation. Under the small holdings provisions a man was supposed to be able to assure the administration that he had an income from employment and there was a provision relating to the farm being an economic unit before one could qualify for a loan of $20,000. Between these two positions were a large number of veterans operating small family farms who will be taken care of under the new provision.
I think this is a rather bold experiment.
I	hope it will serve as a guinea pig for similar legislation which will be made available to non-veterans who operate small family farms just as the Veterans' Land Act served as a guinea pig for the Farm Credit Act. In the same way I hope this legislation will serve as an experiment for similar legislation to assist non-veterans who operate small family farms.
Another proposed amendment will have the effect of extending the advance under part
II	of the Veterans' Land Act from $10,000 to $12,000. As hon. members no doubt appreciate part II of the act is an adaptation of the National Housing Act to the specific use of veterans. This is part of the self-help program. It must be understood that although the advance is increased from $10,000 to $12,000 the

Canadian Wheat Board Act amount of the loan available to veterans under part II of the act remains the same as it is now under the National Housing Act. In other words for a three bedroom house a veteran under part II can still obtain a loan of $14,200 and for a four bedroom house he may obtain a loan of $14,900. The only difference is that under part II the amount of money advanced by the administration will be increased from $10,000 to $12,000.
The measure of insurance mentioned by the minister will, I think, be well received. Certainly the experience of the administration in respect of the Farm Credit Act has been satisfactory. I believe the proposal will be accorded widespread approval and a warm reception by veterans.
Further details of the amendments will be presented to the committee in due course. I merely wished to take this opportunity of making a few comments particularly because in my riding there are approximately 1,200 veterans who have taken advantage of the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act. The half acre provision that was introduced last year was well received. I know that the proposals foreshadowed by this resolution will win wholehearted support not only among the veterans and the Legion but among people all across Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-80, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: Canadian Wheat Board Act points were on a seven bushel quota. It is anticipated that in a very short time all delivery points will be on an open quota basis.
This is a most remarkable change in five years. I happened to run across in Hansard for April 1957, a speech by one of those members from the province of Alberta representing the Social Credit party who drew attention to the facts in his area and I think he listed 30 or more delivery points, most of the delivery points were on the three bushel quota, some on the four bushel quota and I believe three on the five bushel delivery quota. Five years later we find almost universally across western Canada open delivery at all the delivery points.
Many of the 29 delivery points not now on an open quota have stocks of No. 1 northern wheat exclusively, and are in the Vancouver shipping area. To ship No. 1 northern from these points in excess of market requirements would cause congestion at Vancouver for a grade of wheat not in immediate market demand. However, it is anticipated that additional quantities of No. 1 northern will be required in the near future at Vancouver, and these stocks will be shipped from these 29 points. A daily check is being made on these 29 points in order that they will move to an open basis as rapidly as is possible, consistent with good marketing practices.
I have already stressed how important the stability of the wheat economy is to the prosperity of the Canadian economy in general. In achieving this stability the Canadian wheat board plays a central and vital role. This role, we all recognize, has become more difficult and complex with the growth of world surpluses and of surplus disposal programs. Consequently, the international wheat agreement, as an instrument of price stability and market guarantee, has become even more important than in the past and, in addition, our bilateral consultations with the United States have in substantial measure succeeded in safeguarding our commercial markets.
I should like to make a reference to the importance of eastern Canada as our primary commercial market for western feed grains. From time to time problems arise in the supplying of western feed grains for eastern livestock and poultry feeders. In order to bring about a closer liaison and a better understanding of these problems the Minister of Agriculture will shortly be announcing the establishment of a special eastern liaison committee ta work with the Canadian wheat board.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to re-emphasize the support of the government for the principle of western producers marketing their wheat, oats and barley through the Canadian wheat board.

Accordingly, I strongly recommend the extension of the Canadian wheat board's powers for another five years.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the minister permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: As a matter of re-emphasis, would he give us the figures with respect to the total number of open delivery points and the total number on a seven bushel quota or less?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has nothing to do with the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ninety nine per cent of the delivery points were on open delivery. Seven delivery points were on a six bushel quota and 22 on a seven bushel quota.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset of my remarks I should like to join in the expression of regret at the absence of the Minister of Agriculture on the occasion of the presentation of this bill. I am sure all other members of the house will wish to join with me in the wish for a speedy recovery to full health on his part and an early return to participation in the activities in the House of Commons.
I must also say I was glad to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who presented the bill, indicate near the end of his remarks that it was very difficult to overemphasize the importance of the stability of the wheat economy in relation to the total economy of our country. I think some of us may tend at times to underestimate the importance of the wheat economy in the over-all prosperity of the country. I was glad to hear him make that statement and I think it bears reiterating.
I do not propose to review the history of the wheat board legislation. When a similar bill was presented to parliament on February 1, 1957, the history was rather adequately reviewed by the then minister of trade and commerce, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, as appears on page 888 of Hansard for that year. The whole history of the legislation and its development and of the changes made throughout the period since its inception are set out there, and I do not propose to repeat it.
But there are some matters in the bill that concern me a good deal and I want to address myself to them. Since the bill amends several sections of the existing act it is rather hard to describe its principle, but probably the main principle is the extension of the provisions of the act with the present powers for a further term of five years. Therefore in effect the bill renews the act

for a further term of five years although there are other important provisions in the bill.
One amendment not mentioned by the minister is the change in the definition of the word "grain" for the purpose of the act by adding rapeseed to the grains included in that designation. That is an important amendment of real substance. The development of the production of this oilseed to the present extent and the potential development in the future if proper markets can be found are quite important not only to the economy of the western provinces but to that of the whole country.
Then there is the change in the definition of the word "minister" from Minister of Trade and Commerce to Minister of Agriculture. It is a curious thing, but when that change was announced in the House of Commons taking away jurisdiction over the wheat board from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and giving it to the Minister of Agriculture no explanation was given by the government of the underlying reasons for the change. If I remember correctly, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs will bear me out in this, the change was made when he left the Department of Trade and Commerce, was moved to the portfolio of veterans affairs and the new Minister of Trade and Commerce was appointed. The new Minister of Trade and Commerce was left with a very much truncated department. Jurisdiction over wheat selling, with all its importance to the economy of the country, was taken away from him. Jurisdiction over the atomic energy control board, with all its increasing importance to this country, was taken away from him. A few other things were also taken away from him and he was left with bits and pieces of the trade and commerce department. If jurisdiction over marketing of products of our mines, the newsprint and woods industry activities was also taken away from him he would be reduced to a very junior position.
In any event, I do think that the government, having done this sort of thing, owes an explanation even at this late date as to why this change was made and why the marketing of this commodity with all its importance was taken away from the trade and commerce ministry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman not think that question has been answered by the subsequent conduct of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce?


George James McIlraith: I did not say so just as nakedly as that, but that is undoubtedly so.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Lambert:: Is this Pat and Mike?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is George. They would not let George do it.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I want to point out that surely the marketing of wheat is of sufficient importance to the economy of this country that it should be the major activity of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has jurisdiction over marketing generally. Certainly some explanation is owed to the House of Commons why this change was made, and surely a change is not to be made because of the personalities of different ministers occupying the portfolio at any given time. Surely that cannot be the basis of a change of this importance.
The wheat board seems to have earned the support of the producers of grain in western Canada. I think there is virtually no opposition to it today from producers, although I can recall many debates in earlier years in this house when the spokesmen in the house for the producers opposed the wheat board rather roundly and in language that was not always a model of moderation.
There are one or two things about the bill that concern me. Apart from the change extending the act for five years, I wonder why there are so many small, relatively inconsequential amendments in the bill.
The minister spoke about marketing, increased sales, the shortage of wheat in some parts of the world, credit sales and other things. This raises in my mind one question: why was there such secrecy about the China wheat sale? Why is the house not given the relevant information about that sale, although the minister talked about other sales, the number of bushels each year and certain credit sales. So far as I am concerned, I believe that the major agreement for the China wheat sale was signed before the Minister of Agriculture left for that trip across the Pacific, and the announcement he made about having signed the agreement was completely misleading.
I asked a simple question on the order paper on this subject, and I am going to read it. The question, as it appears at page 1562 of Hansard for March 7, 1962, was:
On what date was the long term agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company with respect to the sale of wheat and barley signed?
2. How many individual contracts have been signed under this agreement, and what is the date of each?
These questions were not answered at all. The simple question with regard to the date when the agreement was signed would presumably be answered by a simple statement

Canadian Wheat Board Act of the date. No such information was given, but a long winded answer was given which reads, in part, as follows:
Apart from the information with respect to volume and credit terms, it is contrary to government policy and not in the public interest to reveal details of the commercial sales contracts entered into by the Canadian wheat board.
I just have to say that that answer is false because I did not ask for credit terms. I did ask on another occasion for the rate of interest charged on the contract and the rate of exchange on which the price given to this house had been computed; but that information had been refused by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance. This answer, on the face of it, therefore is false. I can give the reference in Hansard to the refusal of that information.
When I asked in the second part of my question how many individual contracts were signed under the long term agreement and the dates of each, I expected a simple reply stating the number-four, five or six, whatever it was. The government did not give that information, but merely this long answer, and I quote:
Five contracts have been signed under the long term agreement negotiated by the Canadian wheat board with the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation and its accredited agent, the China Resources Company.
I should not have said, by the way, that the number was not given. The dates were not given.
As indicated in the reply to question (1), the details are considered to be privileged.
The details were not requested.
The volume and shipping period for these contracts are as follows:
Then, there follows a table showing the quantities in millions of bushels and the shipping period as well as the ports, information which was not requested at all. What is the reason for the secrecy about the one point, the dates of the agreements? We can only construe from the answer that the stories in the trade about these agreements are true and that the trip across the Pacific was for window dressing. We can only conclude that the wheat board is being used, that splendid producers' organization that has functioned so well over the years and grown and developed so well over the years, for the purpose of the propaganda machine of the present government. This splendid sale is being made into a propaganda weapon for the ex-advertising man running the propaganda for the present government. There is no longer any regard for the board and its independence, or for parliament-


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was not mentioning you, so how could there be a question of privilege?


Edwin William Brunsden: Well, a point of order, then. My hon. friend is discussing an organization that is highly admired in the western provinces-


George James McIlraith: That is what I said.


Edwin William Brunsden: -and he is accusing it of being the tool of this government.


George James McIlraith: No.


Edwin William Brunsden: It is the tool of no government. It is a producer organization and it is controlled by the producers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the point of order? It is a point of disorder.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later if he wishes to do so.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has not been listening to what I was saying. I was saying that this was a splendid producer organization. It is the tool of no one. I was accusing the present government of misusing it for propaganda purposes. I was going on to point out if they continue on that improper course they will damage the wheat board, damage this splendid producer organization. I also made it quite clear that it is the government who in this China wheat sale made the date of the contract such a great government secret, apparently for security purposes or some other reason of government policy. I want to point out that I believe all members of the House of Commons support efforts to sell wheat to China. They are very happy indeed about the fact this sale has been made, but they are greatly concerned about the conduct of this government in relation to that contract.
I challenge the Minister of Veterans Affairs when he replies to my remarks, as he will have an opportunity to do, to answer precisely the points I have raised. I should like to draw the attention of the house to another example of the abuse of the wheat board by the present government. In so far as the China wheat sale was concerned, the government saw fit to guarantee the payment of the wheat to the extent of $100 million. I asked some questions to obtain information about this, and I found out that the government had not used the vehicle heretofore always used for insuring payment on sales of wheat on credit terms. All previous sales had been insured under the export credits insurance legislation. The reason they could not use this legislation became quite obvious when we examined the provisions of the

measure. The $100 million was larger than the authority granted under that act, so the government could not use it.
However, there was another reason. It has been the practice, indeed it is an obligation under that act to produce and disclose such contracts. The secrecy could not, therefore, be pursued if that act had been used even if the government had increased the authority to guarantee payment under that act. In any event, I asked a question about the insuring of the contract and I received another rather long winded answer. It will be found in Hansard for February 26, 1962 at page 1246. I shall read the answer:
This matter was covered by order in council P.C. 1961-1012 of July 13, 1961, which was reported to the house in the summary of orders in council passed that month, tabled on September 27, 1961. This order authorized the Minister of Finance to give the Canadian wheat board an undertaking that, in the event of any default by the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation in respect of payments due the board under contracts for the sale of Canadian wheat and barley made under the long term agreement between the said board and the said corporation, such parliamentary approval as may be necessary will be sought to enable direct reimbursement by the government of Canada to the board of any payments in respect of which the corporation is in default, and authorize the minister also to guarantee to six chartered banks the repayment of advances and interest thereon made to the board up to a total not to exceed $100 million outstanding at any time for the purpose of financing the sale of up to six million long tons of Canadian wheat and barley under the long term agreement between the board and the corporation.
I ask the house to note this. The second question I asked was:
If so, by what statutory authority was such guarantee or credit arrangement made?
Note this answer given by the Minister of National Defence:
The guarantee was given under section 11 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and the authority to make the undertaking was given to use the powers vested in the crown by section 54 of the British North America Act.
I think it will be relevant, since we sometimes in this house do not look at these things, if I read section 54 of the British North American Act. It reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
It will be noticed, Mr. Speaker, that that section has no applicability to the subject matter at all and no relevance whatever. The answer is that in so far as the guarantee of payment of this wheat board sale, the marketing of this vast quantity of wheat,
Canadian Wheat Board Act with which, as far as I understand it, all hon. members of the house are in accord, is concerned, this section has nothing to do with it. The section says that the government has to come to the house for approval of expenditures, but once again the government did not come to the house, before making this commitment on behalf of the treasury.
The order in council is interesting. I was able to worm a copy of the order in council out of the government by having a motion of the house passed compelling its production.
I	got it, or at least a copy of it. It is not the complete copy, but I take it the original is in order, with the date it was signed. I received what purports to be a copy of it. This order in council is very interesting. It does not deal, of course, with the interest charged under this contract. That is another thing about which we can find nothing. But it does not make any reference to section
II	of the wheat board act as the authority for its passage. Of course, it is perfectly obvious why it does not. It is because section 11 of the wheat board act does not contain any such authority; it gives no such authority whatever. Therefore the government is in a position of having passed the order in council committing the taxpayers to a $100 million guarantee without the authority of parliament.
Our legislation has been very careful to give the House of Commons control over the expenditure of money, and the course for the government, a very proper one was to submit the commitment to the house for approval- I think it would have at once obtained the support of the house-and to disclose to the house relevant facts about the contract. I respectfully suggest that this is why the government did not see fit to follow the proper constitutional course and submit this guarantee by it to the house for approval in one of the three or four ways in which it could have done that. It could have done it under the export credit legislation by bringing that act in for amendment and disclosing the reason for getting the larger amount of money required; it could have done it by a simple vote in the estimates; it could have done it by an amendment to this particular bill. But before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I want to read section 11 of the wheat board act so that we will have on record just what it says. It says this:
The governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance, on behalf of Her Majesty, to guarantee on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, repayment of advances made to the board, and interest thereon, on the security of grain held by the board or otherwise, by any bank incorporated under the Bank Act for the purpose of carrying on its operations under this act, or to make loans or advances to the board on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.
2192	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act
It will be seen that nowhere there is the authority to guarantee credit to a foreign country to pay for a commodity that the foreign country is buying in Canada. It will be seen that it does not give such authority at all. It is no wonder that the order in council does not follow the usual procedure of orders in council in giving its authority in the early part of the order as drafted. The draftsman, had there been any such authority, would of course have followed the obvious practice of stating his authority right in the order in council itself.
There are two or three matters that perhaps could be pointed out in this connection. If the government is going to pursue this kind of policy in handling the wheat board, they are going to break down the wheat board and destroy confidence in it. The wheat board has developed support in this country and does at the moment enjoy the confidence and respect of those concerned with it, not only the producers of grain who are using it as their marketing agency but other people throughout the country who are concerned with the economy of the country and who attach, as the minister correctly stated, major importance to the marketing of wheat in the total economy.
It seems to me that the government should in this bill, when it is among other things correcting what it calls typographical errors in the explanatory notes-I will have some questions to ask about the typographical errors, as they are described, at the committee stage-when it is making that kind of correction it surely should have brought forward, as it was obligated by law to have done last year, an amendment that would provide the authority for this guarantee that has been given. Of course, when that is done it requires the government to disclose those parts of the transaction that are relevant to its consideration by the House of Commons. That can easily and properly be done without in any way jeopardizing those competitive parts of contracts of sale that it is not usual to disclose. There is no difficulty about the matter at all other than this abnormal and improper desire on the part of the government to conceal from this House of Commons the parts of the deal with communist China that are relevant and proper for this house to consider in this commitment of public funds to the extent of $100 million without the approval of this House of Commons.
It would seem as if here, once again, the government has, with all its record of carelessness in money matters since it took office almost five years ago, committed another grave irregularity and another failure to disclose to the house and bring before the house for its approval those matters that belong 

exclusively to the house, namely its right to approve the expenditures of public funds.
As far as that particular transaction is concerned, the interest charged, and other relevant matters, I do not doubt that the house would have approved the granting of credit on an appropriate basis or the insuring of payments to the producers on appropriate terms. I do not think there is anyone here who would have done otherwise than was done in the case of all these sales where there has been a credit risk and it has been considered advisable to sell on credit. It seems to me that this is a matter for which the government must answer.
I cannot for the life of me understand the reason for the secrecy with regard to the date of the signing of the agreement. That has always been given in the past when there have been similar agreements. As a matter of fact, there was a great fanfare when the contract was announced. There is one aspect of this which mystifies me: in answer to a question which I asked, information was volunteered which, in my opinion, would certainly be useful to competitors-for instance, the quantities to be shipped in each month up to the end of May, 1962. A shrewd commercial agent could learn a good deal from this which would be of use in bidding for further sales. As I say, I am mystified as to why the government should have given this information, which had not been requested, while refusing to give the other information concerning the rate of exchange which had been used in computing the total value of the sales-information which is relevant and necessary for a proper consideration of this matter by the House of Commons.
I am glad to say that the government agrees with the previous government that the wheat board legislation is, in general, good legislation and that it should be extended for a further term of five years, as was done a couple of days before the change of government- as a matter of fact, shortly before the dissolution of the last parliament. I would expect that after this bill has been dealt with there will be dissolution followed by a change of government in accordance with that precedent.
I am sure of that; but perhaps it is not strictly relevant to the bill we are considering, however inviting it may be to discuss the subject at this time.
I should like to ask the minister in closing whether, in addition to dealing with the points I have raised, he would give us some explanation before we reach the committee stage of the consequences of the principle of the amendment contained in clause 5 of the bill which ostensibly corrects an error in the previous act. I should like the hon. gentleman

to give the house any information which is readily available concerning the consequences of that mistake in the earlier legislation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: We are
again happy to have an opportunity of discussing one of the major Canadian marketing boards, certainly the greatest one the Canadian farmers have. In doing so, I should like to say we are unhappy that the Minister of Agriculture is not with us; we hope he makes a complete recovery and is able to return to his duties soon.
We are pleased to note the report of the minister that Canada is now in a more favourable position than for a number of years inasmuch as we have been able to reduce our surplus of wheat, a surplus which was considered to have been very large at its peak of more than 700 million bushels. Now, the minister says, we are down to a carryover of only 300 million bushels. Western farmers may be interested to learn that the minister of agriculture in Ontario, speaking about grain in Ontario the other day, pointed out that we might have been guilty of the sin of expecting that our surpluses in western Canada would continue to pile up and that we might have under-estimated the quantity which should normally be held over. He suggested that it might be necessary to hold much more grain than we have held in the past. The present situation has made it necessary, in Ontario, to buy grain; conditions have made it necessary to import grain, and eastern agriculture is looking with some reservations upon the limiting of the surpluses which were considered inevitable for a long time to come. I think we may find that in the next year or two there may have to be an increase in production in those areas which are capable of increased production. We may find ourselves in the happy position of producing more wheat, since the government is going to sell that wheat.
I, personally, would like to congratulate the government on the amount of wheat it has sold. I do this indirectly because, really, it is the wheat board itself that we are congratulating. A member of this committee interrupted another hon. member a few moments ago to point out that the government was not controlling the wheat board. That is true. It is a credit to the wheat board organization and its directors, a credit to the western farmer and, I think, a credit to the governments of Canada, whether this one or previous governments, that we should now have reached a stage after 25 years at which the wheat board itself is capable of going across the world, making advantageous sales and getting co-operation from the administration to allow it to receive currency which the
Canadian Wheat Board Act trading nations are able to tender. I think that is a very good thing. The wheat board has over the years developed to a point at which it commands a great deal of respect. It has also undertaken a great deal of responsibility.
I think it would not be out of place to draw attention to some of the advances made by the Canadian wheat board in the 25 years of its existence. As we all know, this is a government marketing agency. It is an agency established by parliament to market on a national and international basis all the grains specified in the act. When the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced the other day that we had participated with 57 countries across the world in establishing a new international wheat agreement, he was, I think, indicating to everyone in this country that here was a national marketing board which had come of age and which was now a prime factor in the agricultural economy of Canada. In the light of this I cannot but wonder how the members of parliament, a week or two ago, could have taken the action they did in this house and made the references they did in relation to all the national marketing boards.
This is the only major one we have tried and it has been successful. This is a socialistic type of marketing board. There are 230,000 grain producers belonging to it. Each gave up a certain amount of the free enterprise spirit to operate under the quota system which in the short term on many occasions has proved not to be advantageous. It has been argued that because of the quota system, because of the international wheat agreement and because a long term agreement had to be worked out by the board the farmer in one year may not have received as much as he hoped to receive. The farmers have to regulate themselves to a large extent by establishing quotas of production. That is essential under any marketing board we establish. Those who belong must realize they have to put something in in order to take something out. I believe the farmers of western Canada deserve to be congratulated for co-operating among themselves in establishing the board and making it successful.
I would be remiss if I did not on this occasion congratulate the present hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale as well as the former member for that riding. Since coming to the house I have heard much talk about rapeseed and have concluded it must be important in that area. Before the present hon. member from that constituency was elected to this house the previous representative also talked about the importance of rapeseed.


Mr. Rapp:: Just once.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


William Arnold Peters: I believe those two hon. gentlemen have been influential enough to bring about the inclusion of rapeseed as a grain under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The present hon. member is also to be congratulated for having introduced his famous bill which incidentally was passed by the Senate within the last few days. He has played an important role in having rapeseed recognized as a major commodity under the terms of the board.
This is a socialistic venture in which the people of western Canada have engaged. They did so for the same reason all people engage in this activity, not because they particularly want to but because they have to. They wanted more for their friends and for themselves and so they co-operated in this respect.
I have in my hand an interesting study published by the Saskatchewan wheat pool concerning orderly wheat marketing through the Canadian wheat board. Many people in eastern Canada should examine why and how the board developed. This should be prescribed reading for members of parliament. We have heard in this house more discussion about western Canadian wheat and cereal grains than we have had about all other agricultural problems put together; yet many people do not realize how the board came into existence. I will read several quotations from this study dated December 1960 and I urge all hon. members to examine it at the first opportunity. The study deals with such subjects as a 25 year history of the board and goes further back in Canadian agricultural history to deal with subjects such as "Farmers in Business", "Farmer-owned Elevators" and "The First Canada Wheat Board, 1919-1920". Reading from the paragraph under the latter chapter heading:
The Canadian government took complete control of the Canadian wheat crop in 1917 by establishing the board of grain supervisors and closing the Winnipeg grain exchange. The board bought all wheat produced in Canada at a fixed price and managed its movement to Europe to help win the war. The board continued its operations in 1918-19.
It is interesting to note the reason why this was done-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member in the interesting review he is making of the history of this act to remind him that this is an amending bill which does not bring into debate the whole Canadian Wheat Board Act but only the principles involved in the amendments which, as I look at them, are somewhat restricted. I would think the hon. member is going rather far afield when he attempts to review the decisions of this house in previous parliaments

in respect to wheat board legislation, unless they are involved in the amendments which are now before the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I say a word on the point of order Mr. Speaker? I think perhaps Your Honour was not paying close attention when the minister introduced this legislation and gave a review of marketing under the act which really had nothing to do with the bill at all, and himself introduced and appeared to be inviting a general debate on the whole subject of the wheat board. It seems to me, the minister having set us that example, at least the official spokesman for each of the parties in the house should be accorded a similar attitude, although I quite agree on technical grounds what Your Honour said is perfectly correct.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I also be heard on the point of order? Clause 6 of the bill has the effect of removing a certain limitation period that is in the existing act. The effect of that clause is to extend the entire act as it relates to wheat for a further period of five years. If that clause were not in the bill the Canadian Wheat Board Act would terminate this year so the whole act, in effect, is at issue under that clause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: I note that part II is to be
extended for five years and also part IV which relates to the board's regulation of interprovincial and export trade in wheat to which the minister referred. However, I agree that one does not wish to be unduly restrictive in the initial speeches of the spokesmen for the various parties. Nevertheless, I do not wish to make it impossible for me to restrain the debate as it proceeds.


William Arnold Peters: I thought we should review the act because I suspect there are a number of western members who will vote against this bill. One hears rumours about a certain bill on the order paper, an act to quieten doubts that have arisen concerning the constitution of and the exercise of powers by the Canadian wheat board and for the resolving thereof (Canadian wheat board).


Mr. Ormiston:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Timiskaming is anticipating discussion of a certain motion that is to come before the house and is doing so in violation of paragraph (d) of rule No. 149 of Beauchesne.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member give me the reference?


James Norris Ormiston: Page 127 of Beauchesne, rule No. 149, paragraph (d).


Mr. Speaker:: Not the reference to Beau-chesne but to the bill he has in mind.


James Norris Ormiston: Bill No. C-61.


Mr. Speaker:: As a matter of principle, of course, the hon. member for Melville is quite correct that it would be totally improper to debate another matter standing on the order paper unless the principles of that measure are necessarily involved in this particular bill. From what the hon. member for Timis-kaming has said about it, it appears it is quite a distinguishable subject and should not be raised now.


Mr. Argue:: May I say just a word or two on the point of order. I agree that it is out of order in one debate to refer specifically in anticipation to another debate. However, I think it would be in order to say that there is a body of evidence, of which this is a part, indicating a concerted attack against the principles of orderly marketing under the Canadian wheat board. There are evidences of this attack in this session as there have been in previous sessions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is an unfounded allegation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has nothing to do with the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what the hon. member for Assiniboia has referred to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nor is anybody else.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to allow the hon. member to proceed.


William Arnold Peters: Canadian Wheat Board Act wheat in the world; that if they wanted it, they knew where we were; that we had always been here and that they could come and buy it. I am certainly happy to know that the Canadian wheat board did not take this position. They decided that the only way in which to sell it was to get out and sell it, and they have done very well. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has this to say:
In the highly competitive international wheat market of today, any price reduction offered to gain a temporary advantage over a competing exporter will almost certainly set the ceiling for subsequent sales. No exporter is going to allow another to undersell in the market. In this situation, what some groups refer to as "price flexibility" can mean only one thing, that is "price cutting." And price cutting is not an effective way to sell more wheat.
These are only a few of the many factors which go into the daily pricing of Canadian wheat. It is a fact that the price the wheat board has maintained is much higher than prices prevailing during any other period of big surpluses.
Admittedly, the price of wheat is not high enough to compensate the western farmer for his present high costs. But, without the wheat board as a single selling agency, there is no doubt that the price would be much lower and the farmer in much greater trouble.
I believe that the history of the Canadian wheat board has been sufficiently important that it should be supported not only in western Canada but also in eastern Canada. Not only do I believe that it should be supported, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that a leaf should be taken out of its book, where with 25 years of experience the operations of a national marketing board have been successful, and that we should establish for all commodities this type of legislation.
The Canadian wheat board has certainly set a pattern. I hope I am wrong in assuming that there are some resentments against this type of co-operative enterprise on the part of primary producers themselves. But I know that the government, looking at the record of the board this year and the fact that we had been able to reduce the carry-over to what is considered by some less than a necessary reserve, will realize that we have gone a long way in our marketing legislation. I hope that all the western members, even though they be of the Conservative party and believe in free enterprise, will give their whole hearted support to the continuation of a five year tenure of the Canadian wheat board.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a few short remarks on Bill No. C-75, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Western farmers will appreciate very much these amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In particular they will be interested in the new paragraph (e) of subsection 1 of section 2 which provides that

" 'grain' includes wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed".


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government was forced into it.


Reynold Rapp: This amendment has been a long time coming, but I should like to congratulate the government for introducing it. However, western farmers will be disappointed to a certain extent that mustard seed was not included. Under the present system mustard seed cannot be included because it has no statutory definition as to grade under the Canada Grain Act. If my Bill No. C-15, which I put before the house a couple of weeks ago, had been adopted this situation would have been changed and the government could have included mustard seed in this amendment in Bill No. C-75.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: It should have too.


Reynold Rapp: Up till now mustard seed can only be classed as commercial grade, but if my bill had been adopted it would have been given a statutory definition as to grade. This is very important because mustard seed is a very important grain and there is a future for it. There is a tremendous market for mustard seed in the United States as there also is, of course, for rapeseed. If the bill before us is not approved too soon there may still be a chance to include mustard see,d under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I understand that in the other place last Friday Bill S-19 to amend the Canada Grain Act was introduced. This is exactly the same bill as I had before the house a few days ago.


Murdo William Martin: And it was because of the argument on your bill that they were compelled to take that step.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the hon.
member's enthusiasm for mustard seed but may I say that the decision that the house took, if it took a decision, is not subject to review now. Nor are debates in the other place referred to in debates here. Furthermore, if the hon. member wishes to pursue discussion of the clause he mentioned there will be an opportunity to do so in committee.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order, it may be that the hon. member and I are perhaps a little more moved in this matter than the government or other hon. members are. He and I have been working for this for some time. If I may say so with great respect, it seems to me it is open to a member to say that a bill might have been more adequate if it had included something which has not been included. That is all the hon. gentleman is doing.

He has mentioned what has taken place in the other place, and I made the observation that this had happened as the result of a bill he introduced here, seeking to suggest to the government that it should accept a responsibility which up till that time he alone had had the courage to assume. I should think, Mr. Speaker, that if Your Honour's knowledge of this subject were that of the hon. gentleman and perhaps one or two others you would understand that the matter is germane.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member has invited me to modify my opinion, I shall go so far as to say that, although discussion of the bill of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale is out of order and discussion of what the other place is doing is also out of order, if he wishes to discuss the principle of the inclusion of rapeseed he is at liberty to do so.


Reynold Rapp: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and when the bill is in committee I will deal more extensively with the new paragraph (e) as found in clause 1 of the bill.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this Bill No. C-75, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Those of us who are from the eastern part of the country have many things to say about this bill. This evening, however, I will limit myself to a few comments on the feed grain market, with which eastern Canada is especially concerned.
In my opinion, this market, which constitutes an asset for eastern Canada, should be protected, representing as it does some 100 million bushels of feed grain.
Last year we suffered from a shortage of grain following the regulation imposed by the Canadian wheat board which had stored grain for export in eastern warehouses. Now, this grain shortage caused a substantial increase not only in the price of grain but also in the transportation costs of the grain which came to us by rail instead of by boat. The price of grain increased so much that the production of hogs and chickens was reduced and the eastern farmers suffered real hardship.
I believe that the best market we have for feed grain is the domestic market. The government cannot protect this market because it has no long term policy in this regard, only a day-to-day policy. It is somewhat like the dairy industry policy. We have surpluses, while we lack grain to feed our cattle.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I should have liked to quote figures to show what damage this government is causing to our eastern farmers, but unfortunately I do not have my notes with me. I shall soon have the opportunity, no doubt, of coming back on this subject to prove that the present government's policy concerning the feed grain market is harmful to our farmers.
I have another criticism to make about the government's grain policy. It has to do with transportation. There is a grain transportation subsidy policy which we mean to keep-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes further, may I ask him what in this bill would permit any discussion of transport policy? It seems to me the discussion has been wide enough without going further beyond the scope of the limited provisions of the bill which relate to the wheat board and certain aspects of the wheat board. There is nothing about transportation.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I think the grain transportation subsidy policy comes under the Canadian wheat board, at least indirectly. However, what I wish to say is that farmers in the east suffer from the government's policy and from that of the Canadian wheat board.
On many occasions grain dealers and farmers in the east have held meetings following which recommendations were made to the government. In particular, they made one which was not accepted, and that was the one concerning the appointment of a commissioner from the east to the Canadian wheat board. In fact, it is only this afternoon that an answer was given to a question I had put on the order paper and which reads as follows:
How many vacancies have occurred since 1957?
Give the name, address and qualifications of those appointed to fill such vacancies.
I was given the answer that the two commissioners who resigned since 1957 were not replaced by a representative from eastern Canada, although the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) had promised last year that a representative from eastern Canada would be appointed to the Canadian wheat board.
Surely, a commissioner from the east could have made very sound suggestions, to the benefit of our farmers.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Besides, a recommendation was made in favour of the appointment of a commissioner to control transportation and supply of western grain. If the government had accepted that suggestion, we would probably not have the problems-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member, if he understood what I said before, would not want to return to the question of transportation. This is not a general debate on agriculture and wheat production in all its aspects. This bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and continue certain parts of that act, but not the whole of the act. I have tried not to be too restrictive by interfering with the hon. member when he was referring to the composition of the wheat board which, in my opinion, was out of order. Certainly, it would not be in order to deal with the problem of the transportation of grain under this act. There will be other opportunities to discuss this and I would ask the hon. member to observe my ruling.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the transportation of grain but about the appointment of a commissioner who would look after the distribution, in an adequate manner, in eastern Canada. A commissioner could make suggestions to the government with regard to the distribution of grain, regulate the stocks in eastern silos, as well as the transportation of western grain to the east.
We know that the free market that exists in the United States is a threat to or a handicap for the eastern farmer. In the United States, the grain market is free, which enables the American farmer to pay a price much lower than the one the eastern farmer has to pay, and then to come and compete with our products on the eastern markets.
Thus, we noticed, last year, a considerable increase in imports from the United States, due to the lower costs of the American farmer compared to that of the Canadian farmer.
The policy of the present government has impoverished the eastern farmer to such an extent that he can no longer make a profit in stock-breeding. Furthermore, the large companies are going in for integration and want to replace the farmer.
Today, we can notice that the farmer in eastern Canada goes in for stock-breeding on a limited scale. Hog-breeding and broiler chicken-farming are affected to a large extent, and there is even today integrated breeding of slaughterhouse cattle.

Mr. Speaker, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the policy of the Conservative government needs to be revised, not only to protect the eastern farmer, but also to prevent the exodus of the farmers who, every year, swell the ranks of the unemployed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


Samuel Boulanger: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell the house whether he wants us to maintain the Canadian wheat board or do away with it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not at all what he said. The hon. member was not listening very well.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the hon. member.
In my opinion, there never was any question, within the Liberal party, of doing away with the Canadian wheat board. In fact, if it exists today, it is thanks to the Liberal party.


Mr. Cresiohl:: There is the answer.


Samuel Boulanger: Moreover, I could add that the Conservative government is destroying now everything the Canadian wheat board did under 22 years of Liberal administration. (Text):


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house I am sure will receive general approval from all parts of the house since its main provision is to extend the life of the Canadian wheat board for a further period of five years. This is the type of orderly marketing system that has been built up over the years with the support of western producers and the approval of the parliament of Canada. This is a compulsory system for the marketing of grain, but it has the support of the overwhelming majority of western producers. In order to substantiate this statement, Mr. Speaker, I need only point out what whenever farm organizations have discussed the Canadian wheat board they have gone on record as supporting the Canadian wheat board and, further, they have gone on record in asking that the provisions of the act be extended.
The operations of the Canadian wheat board are provided for in the Canadian

Wheat Board Act, but the whole cost of the operation and maintenance of the wheat board is paid by the grain producers out of the sale price of the commodities handled by the Canadian wheat board on their behalf. From time to time, as further payments are announced by the minister in charge, it is sometimes felt that these payments come out of the federal treasury. When the cost of maintaining and operating the wheat board is discussed sometimes it is felt, and it is said, that these costs are paid out of the federal treasury.
The fact of the matter is that all of the operating costs of the Canadian wheat board are borne by the producers themselves, even pensions provided for the Canadian wheat board as well as their salaries. This is clearly demonstrated in the bill now before us, which provides for a further expense to the producers by providing for group life insurance plans and group medical plans for the employees of the wheat board. I am sure that this is the kind of provision that would recommend itself to the producers, but it demonstrates again that the producers are paying the whole of the operating costs of the wheat board.
Very often I think the producers themselves do not understand the efficiency of the wheat board's operation. When the wheat board has come before the agriculture committee of this House of Commons they have been able to demonstrate time after time that their operations are exceedingly efficient. As a matter of fact the total administrative costs of the Canadian wheat board have over the years been under one cent per bushel of grain handled. I think this is a very clear demonstration of the great efficiency of the wheat board.
There are some very large costs attached to the operations of the board for which the board pays the bill. These are the operating costs of the elevators, the storage and handling costs; but the cost of the wheat board machinery itself is less than a cent a bushel. I think that producers generally are most happy to be able to pay this very small charge and to receive the great benefits that flow from this central pooling operation and the control that flows under this act.
Mr. Speaker, there is what I call a small amendment; not that it is not an important one, but it is small in relation to the whole operation of the board, namely to include in the definition section the word "rapeseed". I would suggest that the government should have made the provision for the inclusion of mustard seed. As the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale said-I think we should shorten that constituency to "H.M.T."
Business of the House
because these names are getting rather cumbersome-"To make it effective you would have to amend some other acts". But surely that is no reason for not starting with this act; and then to make the provision for mustard seed fully effective it is necessary to amend other acts. Then the government can proceed in a regular fashion by amending the other complementary acts so that the full effect of providing for the addition of mustard seed in the Canadian Wheat Board Act would be brought about.
In recent weeks the Canadian wheat board has demonstrated the contribution it can make to orderly marketing in Canada and to the orderly marketing of grain in the world markets. The Canadian wheat board was represented at the international wheat council which discussed and made provision for a further international wheat agreement. While wheat agreements may from time to time not have within them all the provisions that some of us would wish, nevertheless this is the kind of further extension of the system of orderly marketing that commends itself to the western grain producers, and I believe will commend itself to the parliament of Canada.
Some improvements in the international wheat agreement have been obtained in part by the good work of the Canadian wheat board representation at that conference; but, Mr. Speaker, these concessions were in my judgment of a modest type. Initially they hoped to get an increase in the maximum world price of 25 cents a bushel. I think there are arguments why the increase [DOT] should be more. They had to settle for an increase of only 121 cents. Part of the reason, I think, for this concession, or this moderate settlement, was the fact that emerging nations have put forward a case for grain prices as low as possible. I think there is a great deal to the suggestion that in the marketing of grain in the world today there should be a clear division between commercial sales and sales of a non-commercial nature and that we should now have two types of international agreement, one to provide for commercial sales and another to provide for an orderly manner of distribution of grain in the non-commercial markets of the world. If this were done, then I suggest it might well be possible to get the kind of increase in the price of wheat for which producers have been hoping for many years.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the house leader what the order of business will be for tomorrow, and is there any change in the business for Wednesday as announced to the house last Friday?

Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the intention tomorrow is to continue with legislation, the bill pertaining to the Veterans' Land Act, followed by this one dealing with amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and then the second reading of Bill No. C-38 dealing with financial and other statistics.
Those three items might not consume all the time of the house tomorrow. I am expecting a bill from the other place dealing with an amendment to the board of grain commissioners act, which could be considered; and we have available, if the house is voracious for business, the resolutions in the name of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Justice has reminded me that we also have available the resolution in his name dealing with an amendment to the Judges Act, which will be taken right after we deal with the statistics item.


Lionel Chevrier: What about Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We may take up the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the electoral boundaries commission. I leave that open for consideration. That is the announcement with regard to tomorrow and Wednesday's business.


Lionel Chevrier: I have just one further question I wish to put to the house leader. In the
light of what was said on several occasions, and again today on the orders of the day, is the house leader giving consideration to the statement made by the Prime Minister and himself earlier about the further supplementary estimates No. 4?


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the final sup-plementaries for this session, I am keeping those in mind; but on reviewing eight earlier sessions from 1950 to 1957 I found that the supplementaries took only part of a day, or two days at the outside, so I thought there was ample time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are wrong there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are wrong this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Trying to put it down to the opposition: arrogance, arrogance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A new form of closure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Closure of the worst sort. An arrogant ministry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Remember the earlier
debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 27, 19G2