1962-11-28

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today in the British House of Commons Prime Minister Macmillan announced that an invitation had been extended to me to meet with him on the occasion of his visit to the Bahamas in December. I had asked him whether he would visit Ottawa and give the Canadian government his views generally on the world situation, and he advised me that in view of his projected visit to President de Gaulle and the nearness of Christmas it would be difficult for him to accept. However, he informed me that he would welcome me in the Bahamas on December 21 if this could be arranged. He pointed out that this meeting would permit of a useful exchange of views.
I have discussed this matter with my colleagues and it has been agreed that I should accept and meet with him on this occasion.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will all regret that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does not find it possible to come to Canada on the occasion of his forthcoming visit with the President of the United States. I believe the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be meeting the President for the fourth time somewhere in North America. We in this house and Canadians generally will certainly note with satisfaction the invitation which has been extended to the Prime Minister to meet with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. We presume that the invitation which has been extended by the latter also includes an invitation yet to come from the President of the United States. We all recall with satisfaction the important and fruitful visits which Mr. Mackenzie King and his successor Mr. St. Laurent had with Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower. These confrontations proved of great value to the countries concerned and undoubtedly made their contributions in turn to peaceful developments in the world. We will hope that such a meeting as the Prime Minister has mentioned will have nothing but good results for the countries concerned and for the peace of the world.


Mr.  A. B. Palferson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all wish the Prime Minister every success as he accepts this invitation and confers with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I believe these opportunities which present themselves from time to time are not only of value but are of importance in the continued maintenance of the very best relationships with Britain and also with the United States. So on behalf of this group we wish the Prime Minister every success at this conference.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are sorry that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will not be able to visit Canada this time, and hope this will be possible at a later date. I am sure, however, we are delighted that an invitation has been extended to our Prime Minister to meet with Prime Minister Macmillan and we hope also with President Kennedy. On behalf of our group, and I am sure this is shared by all groups in the house, we are glad he has been invited, we are delighted he has accepted, and he will go to that conference with our good wishes and our good will.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, I would like to commend the government and all those responsible for the simultaneous publication of the French and English versions of the Glassco report.


Mr. Speaker:: This is in order. I feel I can tell the hon. member that his remarks are in order.
(Text):



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Dumont: 1.	Was a proficiency certificate awarded to the firm responsible for building the west side of the federal Department of Transport's wharf in Quebec city, which is now crumbling into the river after six or seven years of existence?
2.	Does the Minister of Transport favour the construction of a tunnel between Levis and Quebec city and, if so, what is the amount of the grant that the government would extend?

Questions


Mr. Halpenny:: 1. It is not up to the Department of Public Works to award proficiency certificates to anyone. The abovementioned wharf was built by the Department of Public Works for the Department of Transport and was completed in 1957 by the contractor, in accordance with the specifications. Since then, a landslip has caused the structure to subside somewhat, but the wharf is still in constant use.
2.	Any announcement of the government's intended policy in this connection will be made in the usual way.
(Text):


PROFESSIONAL FULL TIME CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many professional full time civil servants were employed during the month of December 1961 in the following departments or agencies: justice, commissioner of penitentiaries, Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	What percentage of total employees were professional in each of the aforesaid departments or agencies?
3.	What was the breakdown of professions in each department or agency?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: 1. Department of Justice, including legal branch, investigation and research branch, restrictive trade practices commission, bankruptcy, national parole board, supreme and exchequer courts, N.W.T. and the Y.T., 116; Commissioner of penitentiaries, 50; Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Two professional full time civil servants were employed in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the month of December 1961. In addition 31 professional members of the force were employed during the same month.
2.	Department of Justice, including legal branch, investigation and research branch, restrictive trade practices commission, bankruptcy, national parole board, supreme and exchequer courts, N.W.T. and the Y.T., 29.4; Commissioner of penitentiaries, 1.8; Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Of the total number of civil servants employed in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 0.15 per cent were professional and of the total number of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 0.5 per cent were professional.
3.	Department of Justice, including legal branch, investigation and research branch, restrictive trade practices commission, bankruptcy, national parole board, supreme and exchequer courts, N.W.T. and the Y.T.: Lawyers, 72; Librarians, 5; Psychologists, 3; Economists, 7; Social workers, 14; Chartered accountants, 4; Education, 2; Theology and philosophy, 3; Arts, 2; Commerce, 4.

Commissioner of penitentiaries; Lawyers, 1; Physicians, 4; Psychiatrists, 1; Psychologists, 15; Criminologists, 1; Sociologists, 1; Social workers, 3; Chaplains, 18; Engineers, 1; Agriculturists, 1; Nurses, 4.
Note: Of the above, 3 employees are civil servants in that their positions are classified under the Civil Service Act. All others were appointed under authority of the Penitentiary Act.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Civil servants: Engineers, 1; Chemists, 1. Members of the R.C.M. Police: Dietitians, 7; Scientists, 6; Chemists, 15; Engineers, 2; Pharmacists, 1.
Note: In addition to the professional full time civil servants and members of the force listed above one civil servant and 51 members of the force have graduated from universities.


R.CJVI.P. INVESTIGATIONS-INJURY TO REPUTATIONS
Mr. Matheson: 1.	Have complaints been received since December 31, 1957, respecting injury to reputation of persons arising out of R.C.M.P. investigative functions?
2.	Has any procedure been developed to rectify such injury in appropriate cases?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. Yes.
2. The R.C.M.P. has always investigated thoroughly any such complaints. If it has developed that any inadvertent injury to personal reputation has been occasioned through R.C.M.P. investigative functions, immediate steps are taken to rectify the situation.


PROTECTION FOR R.C.M.P. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS
Mr. Matheson: 1.	Do persons who serve Her Majesty as agents of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police enjoy any protective status while engaged in intelligence or security operations?
2.	Is provision made to compensate such agents for injuries received in the performance of duty?
3.	Is provision made for pensions to families of such agents who may lose their lives while on duty?


Thomas Miller Bell: I have to advise the hon. gentleman that it is considered contrary to the public interest to give specific answers to his questions.


*ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Rinfret: 1.	Since July 1, 1957, how many royal commissions have been appointed by the federal government?
2.	Under what names have such commissions carried on, or are carrying on, their inquiries?
3.	What has been the cost of each of the commissions which have submitted reports since July 1, 1957?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is 15.

The answers to questions Nos. 2 and 3 set out the various commissions and their costs. With the leave of the house, instead of reading the list I should like it to be placed on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answers be printed in Hansard as though read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The text of the answers above referred to is as follows:']
2 and 3. Royal commission on energy policies, $414,557; royal commission on price spreads in food products, $290,224; royal commission on Seabird island Indians, $2,506; royal commission on railway problems (transportation), $555,946; royal commission on the Great Slave lake railway, $46,920; royal commission on treaties 8 and 11 as they apply to Indians of the Mackenzie district, $8,245; royal commission on coal, $99,166; royal commission on the motor vehicles industries, $57,841; royal commission on certain activities of station CHEK-TV, Victoria, B.C.,	$4,720;
royal commission on government organization, $2,677,469; royal commission on Canadian magazines and other periodicals (publications), $136,121; royal commission on banking and finance; royal commission on taxation; royal commission on pilotage; royal commission on health services.


MULGRAVE, N.S.  WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Stewart: 1.	What improvements to the wharf and facilities at Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, are to be made under Vote 74, Department of Transport?
2.	Has this work begun and, if so, when will it be completed?
3.	Are any other improvements at Mulgrave provided for in 1962-63, and, if so, what improvements?


Mr. McBain:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	None. Improvements to the freight handling facilities deferred by the railway pending a study of the general area to determine the best location for freight operations and the facilities required.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.


AIRSTRIP FOR DOMINION HELICOPTERS LTD., KING TOWNSHIP, ONT.
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale): 1.	Has a departmental investigation been carried out as to the suitability of the location of a single airstrip on the heliport property of Dominion Helicopters Limited in King township, county of York, Ontario, and, if so, what was the result of such investigation?
2.	Will the customary departmental approval of the proposed airstrip in advance of construction be granted prior to December 1, 1962?
Questions
3.	Has the Minister of Transport or any other minister, received any communication from Mr. Henry Borden, Q.C., of King township, Ontario, as to the location of the airstrip referred to in part 1, and, if so, was such communication oral or in writing?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1. Yes. The site was found to be technically suitable for development but objections were received from local property owners regarding the development of an airstrip in that location. In view of this, no action has been taken by the Department of Transport regarding the issuance of an airport licence.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes, orally.


JOINT DRUG TESTING AUTHORITY
Mr. Badanai: Has the government given any consideration to the possibility of creating a joint authority with the United States which would regulate the testing and approval of all new drugs, such as is being done in Europe, to prevent the distribution of unapproved drugs across national boundaries?


Mrs. Casselman:: No official action has been taken between the two governments but there is and has been close co-operation between the departments of government concerned in the interchange of information relating to new drugs and to reports of undesirable side effects or other dangers. In a more general context, however, it should be noted that in May of this year, Canada co-sponsored a resolution approved by the world health assembly, in which the director general was requested to study the feasibility of increasing international co-operation in this field, under world health organization auspices. The study is now in progress, and will be followed closely by Canada's representative on the executive board.


LIGHTHOUSE BUILDING, POMQUET ISLAND, N.S.
Mr. Stewart: When the crown assets disposal corporation advertised for sale and removal the lighthouse building on Pomquet island, Nova Scotia, was it stipulated that the purchaser was to fill in the cellar excavation?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Advertisement bore the
notation that the buildings were being sold "for removal and restoration of sites" and invitations for offers stated that "within 60 days from the date of sale the purchaser shall demolish and remove the buildings and all materials and leave the sites clean and tidy after levelling to the original elevation of the ground any excavations or mounds resulting from the original construction or the demolition".

Questions


C.M.H.C. MORTGAGES BOUGHT BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Garland: Were any of the mortgages sold by C.M.H.C. in its sixth offering acquired by one or more of the Canadian chartered banks and, if so, what are the details of the transactions in each case?


Mr. McCleave:: On Wednesday, November 21, the Minister of Public Works informed the house of the results of the sixth offering of N.H.A. insured mortgages in general terms. It would not be in the public interest or in the interests of the purchasers to make public the details of the transactions in each case. The object of the auctions is to stimulate the development of a market in which mortgages will be sold and purchased. Those eligible to bid are approved lenders including chartered banks, and members of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada.


RESUMPTION OF WORK ON GAP FILLER RADAR INSTALLATIONS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did the government at any time issue instructions to close down gap filler radar installations now constructed or issue work stoppage instructions with respect to others that were under construction between radar stations on the original Pine Tree line or other radar line and, if so, how many installations were closed down and how many installations came under the work stoppage order?
2.	Is it now the intention of the government to reopen the closed down installations and to recommence work on the installations that came under the work stoppage order?


Mr. Harkness:: 1. Construction was not completed at any gap filler site and, therefore, no gap filler stations were closed down. However, work was stopped at 25 sites.
2. The resumption of the gap filler program will depend on the R.C.A.F. construction program to be submitted in the 1963-64 estimates.


FOREST PRODUCTS RESEARCH BRANCH PROGRAM
Mr. MacRae: To what extent does the research program of the forest products research branch of the Department of Forestry reflect the needs of wood-using industries, particularly with respect to adapting their operations to meet changing conditions and to maintain up to date operations?


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Last
year an advisory committee of industry on research was set up on a national basis so that representatives of the timber industry from coast to coast could meet with officers of the forest products research branch to discuss the research needs of the various timber industries. Suggestions from industry for research were discussed at two meetings held during 1962, and agreement was reached on the problems requiring the most urgent

attention. It is interesting to note that 96 suggestions for possible studies were made by industry and considered at the spring meeting of the committee.


* ROYAL COMMISSIONS APPOINTED
Mr. Fane: 1.	How many royal commissions were appointed by the federal government during the period November 15, 1948, and June 17, 1957?
2.	Under what names were such commissions carried on?
3.	What has been the cost of each such commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part one is 21. There are a large number of items covering figures and costs which, by leave of the house, might be placed on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The items above referred to are as follows:]
Cases where revocation of citizenship is under consideration, no record available.
Transportation, $468,853.
National development in the arts, letters and sciences, $287,101.
Floods in Red river valley, Manitoba, $8,644.
Fire damage to towns of Rimouski and Cabano, P.Q., $4,789.
Rents payable on leased lands in townsites and subdivisions in Banff and Jasper national parks and minimum value of buildings which may be erected therein, $822.
Claims arising out of world war II (Mr. Chief Justice Ilsley), $8,095.
South Saskatchewan river project, $151,165.
Staking of areas and application for permits re exploring petroleum products by Sun Oil Co. and California Standard Co., $1,358.
Claims arising out of world war II (Mr. Chief Justice Campbell), $684,850. (Paid out of war claims fund and not out of consolidated revenue fund).
Criminal law relating to defence of insanity, criminal sexual psychopaths, $78,746.
Quartz mining and placer mining in Yukon Territory, $3,625.
Agreed charges under part IV of the Transport Act, $19,183.
Patents, copyright, trade marks, $42,172.
Humber river valley flood, $1,000.
Coasting trade in Canada, $247,461.
Long term prospects of the Canadian economy, $1,303,819.
Broadcasting in Canada, $328,509.
Dispute between Canadian Pacific Railway and brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen, $139,979.
Financial position of Newfoundland, $38,148.


JEANNE MANCE HOUSING PROJECT, MONTREAL
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	What is the amount of loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the "Habitations Jeanne Mance" of Montreal?
2.	What was the cost of acquiring the houses which were demolished in the area?
3.	How much was paid for the clearing of the land?
4.	What was the cost of the reconstruction of the area, including redevelopment expenses?
5.	How many dwellings have been built?
6.	To date, what is the total cost of the project?
7.	What has been the contribution of C.M.H.C.?
8.	What is the duration of the contract?
9.	How many dwellings were rented in 1961?
10.	What was the total amount of the rents collected in 1961?
11.	What was the operating profit or deficit of the project for 1961?
12.	In case of an operating deficit, what is the amount guaranteed by C.M.H.C.?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. The housing project was not financed by way of a loan by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The corporation, on behalf of the federal government, contributed 75 per cent of the capital costs and the city of Montreal 25 per cent.
2.	Information regarding the cost of acquiring "houses" only is not readily available, however, the cost of acquiring all of the buildings in the area plus incidental expenses amounted to $6,833,406.
3.	The cost of demolition was $185,918.
4.	Cost of acquisition and clearance of the site, $7,019,324; *Cost of 'Les Habitations Jeanne Mance' housing project $10,063,809. Total $17,083,133.
*Note-Some minor additional expenses will be incurred in respect of some work still to be completed.
5.	796 housing units.
6.	Answered by (4) above.
7.	C.M.H.C. on behalf of the federal government has contributed $3,509,662 under section 23, National Housing Act to the acquisition and clearance of the area. In addition, the corporation has contributed $7,547,857 representing 75 per cent of the cost of the housing project under section 36, N.H.A.
8.	The agreement between the federal government, the provincial government, the city of Montreal and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for 'Les Habitations Jeanne Mance' creates a partnership for the project and is not subject to a time limitation. The capital costs of the project will be amortized over a period of 50 years for purposes of computing the extent of any annual losses.
9.	The number of units rented during 1961 was as follows: January, 474; February, 522; March, 613; April, 694; May to December, 796.
10.	$458,589.05.
27507-3-133
Questions
11.	$373,627.84 deficit.
12.	Operating losses are shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the city.


BONDS ISSUED AND REDEEMED
Mr. Cook: 1.	What amount of bonds was issued by the government during the past five years?
2.	What amount of bonds was redeemed by the government during the past five years?
3.	What have been the total interest and commission charges, together with other expenses incurred, for the sale and redemption of the said bonds?


Mr. Graffiey:: 1 and 2. Statistics on the amount of government of Canada direct and guaranteed bonds issued and redeemed during the past five years is contained in the Bank of Canada statistical summary supplement, 1961, page 90 and the Bank of Canada statistical summary, October 1962, page 629.
3. Details of the total interest and commission charges, together with other expenses incurred, for the sale and redemption of government of Canada bonds, are included annually in part I of the Public Accounts of Canada as follows:
Appendix No. 6-Interest on public debt.
Appendix No. 7-Amortization of bond discount and commission account.
Appendix No. 8-Cost of issuing new loans.
The latest published figures available are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961.


U.S. EXEMPTION ON TOURIST PURCHASES
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Is the government aware that, under a new ruling by the customs bureau in the United States, individuals from the United States no longer have to be in Mexico at least 24 hours to get $100 duty-free allowances on articles brought back into the United States, whereas, in Canada, American citizens must be out of their country 48 hours to get the exemption on purchases in Canada?
2.	Will steps be taken to place Canada in the same position as that other North American and friendly state, Mexico?


Mr. Green:: 1. Yes.
2. The United States customs bureau does not come within the administrative responsibility of the Canadian government. The government is, of course, always interested in securing the most favourable arrangements possible in matters of this kind.


SALE OF P.O. DEPARTMENT SCOOTERS
Mr. Denis: Did the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation receive, to be offered for sale, vehicles of the carrier tricycle or scooter type belonging to the Post Office Department and, if so (a) how many (b) how many have already been sold (c) what was the sale price of each of them (d) what did the Post Office Department originally pay for them?

Questions


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Yes.
(a)	56.
(b)	52.
(c)	and (d)-
Quan-	Reported Sale Condition
tity	Make	Cost (each)	Price (each)	1	Cushman	$1,275	$377	Used1	Cushman	1,275	357	Used1	Cushman	1,275	310	Used1	Cushman	1,275	307	Used1	Cushman	1,275	277	Used3	Cushman	1,275	267	Used4	Cushman	1,275	200	Used6	Cushman	1,275	126	Reparable4	Cushman	1,275	101	Reparable2	Cushman	1,275	81	Non reparable2	Cushman	1,275	75	Non reparable1	Cushman	1,275	51	Non reparable11	Cushman	1,275	50	Non reparable38	2	Gamelin	$1,375	$105.50	Reparable3	Gamelin	1,375	100.00	Reparable2	Gamelin	1,375	85.00	Non reparable3	Gamelin	1,375	81.31	Non reparable1	Gamelin	1,375	79.00	Non reparable3 14	Gamelin	1,375	76.00	Non reparable


FLOUR EXPORT
Mr. Laing: What has been (a) the value (b) the number of barrels, of flour exported (all grades) from Canada in each year since 1950?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Exports of wheat flour (old classes 495 and 500, new classes 62-65, 62-67 and 62-69) during the period 1950-1961 were
as follows:		
Year	Barrels	Value1950	10,095,002	$ 93,838,5901951	12,078,671	113,854,3971952	13,246,269	116,054,5311953	11,144,214	102,160,4431954	10,074,061	88,029,2511955	8,600,710	74,441,6731956	8,582,515	71,549,0191957	7,609,588	61,174,9661958	8,789,397	69,398,3401959	8,459,175	64,903,0791960	8,048,709	62,238,9401961	7,635,221	60,713,129


MICROWAVE HOPS FOR COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEMS
Mr. Dube: Has the board of broadcast governors jurisdiction over the establishment of microwave hops to serve community antenna television systems (CATV) and, if not, does said jurisdiction rest solely with the Department of Transport?


George Ernest Halpenny: The board of broadcast governors has no jurisdiction over the establishment of microwave hops to serve community antenna television systems (CATV). The said jurisdiction rests solely with the Department of Transport.


PROVISION BY GOVERNMENT OF SABIN VACCINES
Mr. Harley: In view of the Sabin vaccine reinstatement and the small risks entailed in the use of the trivalent vaccine, is the government providing Sabin types I and II for normal distribution and use?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Specific programs for the use of Sabin-type live oral poliovirus vaccines are determined by the provincial departments of health. Federal assistance up to 50 per cent of the cost of securing supplies of these vaccines for provincial immunization programs continues to be available to the provinces within the terms of the national health grants.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS, QUEBEC
Mr. Legare: 1.	What are the names of the members of the arbitration board of the unemployment insurance commission at Riviere du Loup?
2.	How many appeals were heard by each of the following offices of the commission during 1959, 1960, and 1961: Riviere du Loup, Rimouski, Forest-ville, Baie Comeau, Sept-Res, Causapscal, and Matane?


Mr. Hales:: 1. The names of the members of the board of referees of the unemployment insurance commission at Riviere du Loup are as follows: Chairman-Mr. P. E. Ouellet. Employer panel representatives-Mr. L. E. Marquis, Mr. M. Schmouth. Employee panel representatives-Mr. Leo Desjardins, Mr. R. Gagnon.
2. The number of appeals heard by the board of referees and originating with each of the offices given is as follows:
1959	1960	1961Riviere du Loup	25	49	48Causapscal	25	18	54Forestville	12	9	13Matane	8	27	44Rimouski	35	32	52Sept-Iles	28	29	33Baie-Comeau	2	12	14135	176	258
The figures for 1959 in the foregoing differ from those given in a former reply because this board of referees during that year heard 13 appeals that originated in other offices, under a temporary arrangement.


AIR SERVICE, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Lamoureux: 1.	Is the government giving further consideration to the possibility of continuing the subsidy on Pacific Western Air Lines prairie service.
2.	Has the company informed the government that it will not be in a position to continue this service unless a subsidy is received?
3.	Has the government requested T.C.A. to take over this service and, if so, has T.C.A. agreed to assume responsibility for the service?


James Alexander McBain: 1, 2 and 3. This question was answered in the statement made by the Minister of Transport in the house on November 27, 1962.


PREMIUM ON HOGS
Mr. Stewart: 1.	On what date was the quality premium on hogs reduced from $3 to $2?
2.	What changes in policy led to this reduction?
3.	Does the government plan to restore the premium to the earlier level?
4.	What criteria are used to distinguish between grades A, B, C, and D; when were these criteria established: and are they still regarded as generally satisfactory?


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. September 4, 1962.
2.	The policy was based on the premise that all Canadians and all segments of the economy should bear some share of the government's efforts to reduce the budget deficit. Since hog prices were at a fairly high level and since the support price was raised last year by roughly $1.50 per hog, it was considered that this would impose the least burden on this type of producer.
3.	There has been no change since a reply was made to a similar question on October 15, 1962.
4.	Criteria used to distinguish grades are, weight, type, length, fat and quality. These were established by regulation August 28, 1958. While some difference of opinion exists as to the relative weights applied to each of these criteria, in general they are considered to be satisfactory. The department studies carcass grading standards on a continuous basis with a view to making changes in these criteria and their relationship as information becomes available.


FEED CORN, HALIFAX ELEVATOR
Mr. Stewart: 1.	How many bushels of feed corn were in the Halifax elevator on September 29, 1962?
2.	How much of the average withdrawal of 26,000 bushels per week of high energy grain was for purposes other than the manufacture of feed?
27507-3-133J
Questions


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: 1. At the close of business on September 29, 1962, there were 54,602 bushels of corn in store the Halifax elevator.
2. Board of grain commissioners' statistics disclosed the changed stock position week by week, thus indicating the withdrawal volume, but such statistics do not disclose purpose or destination of corn withdrawals.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, MONTMAGNY-L'lSLET CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Cook: What works, if any, are to be carried out by the Department of Public Works in the fiscal year 1962-63 in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Location	Project Total Cost
L'lslet	Wharf repairs $4,900
(completed)
Isle aux Grues	Wharf repairs 1,000
(completed)
St. Jean Port Joli Wharf repairs 4,500 (completed)


VANCOUVER, B.C.  TRANSFER OF R.C.A.F. INSTALLA- TION ON FALSE CREEK
Mr. Berger: 1.	Did the Minister of National Defence or anyone on behalf of the minister or his department, or did the Royal Canadian Air Force or anyone acting on its behalf, make any agreement or undertaking, either orally or in writing, during the second world war, to the effect that the R.C.A.F. installations located beneath the Burrard street bridge on the south of False Creek, Vancouver, B.C., would be transferred or leased to the Vancouver parks board or some other agency of the city of Vancouver for parks and recreation purposes, following the cessation of hostilities?
2.	Was any such agreement or undertaking made or given at any time following the end of the second world war up to the present time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: 1. There is no record of any such agreement or undertaking.
2. No, but the city of Vancouver was permitted to use approximately 16 acres of this R.C.A.F. land for park and recreational purposes under a leave and license agreement made on December 1, 1958. This arrangement was terminated on May 31, 1962 and replaced by a 20 year lease, effective June 1, 1962, that covered a total of approximately 21 acres of the R.C.A.F. land.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRIDGE, JEMSEG, N.B.
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	What is the total estimated cost of the trans-Canada highway bridge at Jemseg, Queens county. New Brunswick?
2.	What proportion of this cost will be paid by the government of Canada?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. $1,632,162.94.
2. Fifty per cent.

Questions


WIDOWS' PENSIONS OF LESS THAN $8 PER WEEK
Mr. Mather: How many widows of civil servants are in receipt of pensions amounting to $8, or less, a week?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in the answer I have tabled today to question 838, asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and made an order for return, is available the answer to this question. I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would be willing to withdraw the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary states that in the answer to a previous question filed today the answer to this particular question is available, and would the hon. member then withdraw his question.


Mr. Mather:: Then I withdraw the question, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and question withdrawn.


COLOMBO PLAN AID TO INDIA
Mr. Matheson: 1.	What specific projects or plans for aid to India have been either cancelled or reduced as a result of the cut-back in Colombo plan aid?
2.	Since November 1, 1962 has the government given consideration to (a) restoring Colombo plan aid as it affects India in its entirety (b) providing new civil and military aid to India?


Howard Charles Green: 1. The form and content of this year's Colombo plan program in India has been discussed with the authorities of that country, but final decisions cannot be taken until parliament has dealt with the Colombo plan vote, after which allocations will be made to individual countries.
2. (a) The Prime Minister informed the house yesterday that the Indian needs are now being studied, (b) Some assistance in this category has already been granted and announced by the Prime Minister.


PURCHASING POWER OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the relative purchasing power value of the Canadian dollar in the years 1949 to 1962?
2.	What was the effect of these purchasing power variations in respect to the value of the old age pension dollar?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. Information is not available on the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. However, if the question is intended to relate to the money spent on consumer goods, the inverse of the consumer price index (1949 = 100) might be satisfactory.
[Mr. McCleave.l
Year		$
1949		1.00
1950		.97
1951		.88
1952		.86
1953		.87
1954		.86
1955		.86
1956		.85
1957		.82
1958		.80
1959		.79
1960		.78
1961		.77
1962	(10 months)	.77
2. No separate series is available specifically for the old age pension dollar.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Denis: For each of the last ten years, and for each province (a) how many tenders were called for transportation of mails (b) how many contracts were changed?


RETURN FLIGHT TO REGINA BY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PLANE
Mr. Argue: 1.	Did a D.O.T. plane recently take the Minister of Agriculture to Regina and, if so, when?
2.	What were the names of all other passengers on the flight?
3.	When was the return flight, and what were the names of all passengers on the flight?


James Alexander McBain: Return tabled.


INTERIOR CONTRACTING CO. LTD., PENTICTON, B.C.
Mr. Howard: With respect to each of the amounts of money paid to Interior Contracting Co. Ltd. of Penticton, B.C., as enumerated in sessional paper No. 232, which ones were (a) paid pursuant to the process of tenders, bids and contracts being held and (b) paid without such a process being held; and, with respect to those paid pursuant to the process of tenders, bids and contracts, what was the nature and date of each such contract?


REWARDS FOR INFORMATION ON OFFENCES AGAINST P.O. DEPARTMENT
Mr. Denis: 1.	When was the system of rewards for information, leading to the arrest and conviction of persons having committed various offences against the Post Office Department and the mails, established?
2.	During each of the past five years (a) what were the amounts paid in the form of such rewards (b) to how many persons have these rewards been paid, and (c) how much did each receive?


ARMED FORCES RETIREMENTS ON SUPERANNUATION
Mr. Laing: 1- How many members of the armed forces have been retired on pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?
2.	Of those retired, how many draw pensions of
(a) over $1,000 per year (b) over $3,000 per year (c) over $5,000 per year and (d) over $7,000 per year?
3.	Is there at present an actuarial deficiency in the Canadian forces superannuation account and, if so (a) what is the amount of such deficiency and
(b)	does the government contemplate a charge to budgetary expenditures to eliminate the deficiency?


RADAR BASE, NEYS, ONT.  DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What has been the disposal of the material on the site for the radar base at Neys, near Marathon, Ontario?
2.	If the material has been moved, where has it been put, who moved it, and what was the remuneration for moving it?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Chevrier:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any legal opinion or opinions given by the Department of Justice or any other counsel consulted concerning the jurisdiction of the B.B.G. or its ruling about the Grey cup broadcast.
George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, legal opinions are privileged communications and are not normally produced. However, in view of the fact that in this instance the C.B.C. has itself made public part of the opinion given it by the Department of Justice, therefore the tabling of the legal opinion from the Department of Justice in this instance would not constitute a precedent for the tabling of legal opinions provided to government departments and agencies. Therefore the government is prepared to accept the motion in this instance. This action is based on the particular circumstances, and is not to be regarded as a precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservations of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Dupuis:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, options, contracts or other documents in the possession of any department or agency of the federal government in connection with the purchase of land for the construction of a public building at Beauceville.
Motions for Papers
Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Speaker, may I, with the unanimous consent of the house, move this motion for the hon. member for St. Jean-Tberville-Napierville?


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the request that has been made. Is it agreed?
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, if this is No. 46, it is acceptable subject tc the usual reservations-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is No. 46. We are backtracking. Is it agreed that the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) shall have leave to put this motion in the place of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any objection to the production of the documents called for in motion No. 46?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I understand not, Mr. Speaker, subject to a reservation I was about to state; but I think there was exception to the fact that another hon. member was standing for the mover of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The practice, I am informed, is that unless there is objection to the production of the documents there is usually no objection to an hon. member moving on behalf of another hon. member who is absent.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Well, then, perhaps I should say that this is acceptable, with the usual reservations as to interdepartmental and intradepartmental correspondence being privileged.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Rouleau, on behalf of Mr. Dupuis, seconded by Mr. Robichaud, that an order do issue to the house for a copy of all telegrams, etc., according to item 46 of the order paper.
Is it the pleasure of the house to pass this motion subject to the reservations set forth by the parliamentary secretary?
Motion agreed to subject to the above-mentioned reservation.
(Text):



ELECTION EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES, 1962 ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Peters:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the election expenses-(form 61) of each candidate in the general election of June 18, 1962, as made pursuant to section 63(1) and 63(12) of the Canada Elections Act.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Halpenny: This motion is acceptable, but I might put in a cautionary note that the material will take a long time in being produced.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Knowles:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the pension plan covering employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Maiheson:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any letter or letters from the Canadian association of university teachers to the government since January 1, 1962 respecting security investigations as they presently affect association members.
Thomas Miller Bell: Stand.


Mr.. Chevrier:: On behalf of my hon. friend from Leeds-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that in the circumstances a request to stand is equivalent to an objection to another member moving the motion; therefore the motion will stand. Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the second translation of the French version of the Gill report on unemployment insurance yet ready?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: have not been advised that it is ready.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he can tell us how many months or weeks have passed since the translation into French of the Gill report was first undertaken?


Michael Starr: I shall have to check into that and reply to my hon. friend later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister let us know tomorrow?
CTranslation):



BENEFITS TO WORKERS RETURNING TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the 

Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us whether steps are being taken so that our Canadian loggers who must work in the United States, because they cannot find work in Canada, may receive unemployment insurance benefits when they return to Canada?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. M. Drury (St. Antoine-Westmount):: In view of the production yesterday of the second volume of the Glassco commission report, has the government appointed a minister with special responsibilities to examine this report and make suggestions as to its implementation, or is it going to float in the general ambit of a cabinet review?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman was an authority on the last part of his statement when he was in the position of deputy minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we could keep the Sunday curves down to a minimum.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest the best course we could follow in this connection would be to revert to motions after the conclusion of questions. I might refer to this subject then; it is rather too long for an answer on orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Prime Minister indicated a desire to revert to motions at the end of orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the lateness of the hour perhaps I will wait until tomorrow and deal with it on motions, and not ask the house to revert now.



BRITISH REACTION TO ONTARIO &quot;BUY CANADIAN&quot; CAMPAIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Sformonf):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Have United Kingdom authorities through the Canadian high commissioner in London or through other channels expressed concern to the government about the Ontario government's current "Buy Canadian" campaign?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am sorry, but there was so much talk over in that section of the house that I could not hear the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some sympathy with what has been said by the minister, because while certain of the members were speaking on motions I found that, depending on what section of the house they stood in, it was difficult to hear them because of the side noises that could be heard.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to ask whether the United Kingdom authorities, through the Canadian high commissioner in London or through other channels, have expressed concern of the government about the Ontario government's current "Buy Canadian" campaign.


George Harris Hees: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
It is reported today in Le Devoir that an offer to work without pay, for a six-month period, has been made to the government, and to the president of the Canadian National Railways by a Montreal accountant, Mr. Gaudry. Could the minister tell the house if he intends to consider this offer which would allow him to save six month's pay?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that the hon. member realizes that asking a minister to comment on some event or on some newspaper opinion is out of order.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, this is not an expression of opinion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have ruled the question to be out of order.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has his department been informed of a proposal made by Mr. Gaudry, an accountant from Montreal, who is offering to hold a high office without pay at the C.N.R. for a period of six months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to point out again to the hon. member that in the experience of all members of this house there are
Inquiries of the Ministry hundreds of persons offering their services without pay to the C.N.R.


Mr. Gregoire:: I rise on a point of order. Are there really hundreds of persons who offer their services without pay to the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will ask me, I can give him several names.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that the premier of Ontario has been prodded into action by the Ontario Liberal party in the matter of medical care insurance, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will announce without delay this federal government's policy with regard to medical care insurance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when these questions are prefaced they always demand an answer in so far as the preface is concerned. Apparently they did not have the same problems when the hon. gentleman was minister of health or those who preceded him, as for 22 years they did nothing. In so far as the substance of the question is concerned, may I say that the government will make its announcement when it is appropriate to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question, if I may. May I ask the Prime Minister if the fact that the chairman of the royal commission inquiring into health services in Canada, Chief Justice Hall of Saskatchewan, has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada means that we may expect the report of the royal commission on medical care insurance, initiated by the federal government, before the date suggested by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, namely July of 1963?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the fact that Chief Justice Hall has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada will in no way change the situation. However, I am hopeful that we shall be able to receive a report at an earlier date than otherwise was anticipated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then there is some hope in my first question.

Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED DANGER FROM RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCE ON WATCHES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on press reports of dangerous radioactivity from certain kinds of watches. Has the minister undertaken any measures to ensure the safety of Canadians who may be exposed to radioactive rays emanating from radioactive substances on luminous dials of pocket or wrist watches?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize the fact that his question should be placed on the order paper.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I say-


George Harris Hees: Sit down.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: May I say with the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Sit down; Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Parkdale.


Edmund Tobin Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest of respect may I say that I consider the question I have asked to be of sufficient importance and urgency to require an answer from the minister. Might I point out further that such a question has required action from other governments, which have discovered that the facts which I have brought before the house are of sufficient importance to require action.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter of urgency in being able to ask a question on the orders of the day is for the determination of the Chair. The subject matter may be quite important; however, I would draw to the hon. member's attention the necessity of urgency to obtain information at this particular time. That is the salient point. Another thing to be considered is the fact that it is for the Chair to determine the urgency of the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on the point of order and bring to your attention the fact that the question involves a serious matter of health. It has been established in another country that radioactive rays of this kind can be very detrimental to health and to the human body, and in this country as well there is some inference and certainly


some reaction. It seems to me that if there is a question of urgency at all within our rules, this is one which falls within that purview.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect to the hon. member, I cannot recognize the fact that the city of New York has put into effect a certain ordinance as giving the subject matter sufficient importance that we should ask questions about it on the orders of the day.



FLUORIDATION-INQUIRY AS TO POSITION OF DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question, notice of which I sent to him earlier today. In view of the current interest of the Canadian people in many municipalities in fluoridation, I should like to ask the minister whether the Department of National Health and Welfare recommends the fluoridation of communal water supplies as an effective and safe method of diminishing dental caries.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my department's role in this public health field does not extend to the making of recommendations. Departmental officials have conducted certain studies involving communities whose water was fluoridated by natural and artificial means, and from time to time we have simply presented the statistical findings.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in connection with the answer he gave a few minutes ago as to the fluoridation of communal water supplies. Did he not state in former years that he was in favour of the fluoridation of domestic water supplies, and has he changed his opinion in that regard?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member has posed his question in the form of an argument or inviting an argumentative answer, and that is not quite in keeping with our practice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which notice has already been given to him. In view of the fact that the public accounts and the Auditor General's report thereon for the year ended March 31,

Inquiries of the Ministry
1961, were tabled in this house on January that flows from the settlement yesterday of 31, 1962, may I ask the Prime Minister if the crisis relating to the C.B.C.-B.B.G. I it is the intention of the government to refer should like to ask the Secretary of State to the public accounts committee the public whether the government has any intention of accounts and the Auditor General's report taking steps to clear up the general jurisdic-thereon for the year 1961 in order that they tional problem inherent in the dispute by may be examined by the committee and thus an amendment to the Broadcasting Act during maintain continuity of the committee's work? this session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was chairman of that committee, and I know of his interest in the subject. The committee will be organized at the beginning of next week, we hope, and those particular matters he has mentioned will be a subject of reference to that committee.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, before doing so I should like to say that we welcome the visit of one of his most distinguished emissaries to Ottawa today. Can the minister tell the house what actual developments the government are awaiting before they will be in a position to put the Columbia river draft treaty before the house or a committee of the house?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, discussions have been going on recently between the governments of Canada and the United States and the government of British Columbia on an informal basis. Until agreement is reached between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia, it would be premature to put the treaty before a committee.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have a supplementary question. Am I to understand that this is a question of an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada, or is it a tripartite agreement to which the minister is referring?


Howard Charles Green: No. There is already an agreement between the government of the United States and the government of Canada subject, of course, to ratification, but it has always been necessary to have an agreement as well between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT TO BROADCASTING ACT THIS SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question


George Ernest Halpenny: When it has been decided, Mr. Speaker, it will be announced in this house.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the department's intention to cut down drastically the icebreaking services in the St. Lawrence river at Montreal and downstream this winter shipping season?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Has the minister taken note of the protests of the Atlantic ports that these icebreaking extensions in the St. Lawrence are subsidizing their own ruin?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier in the session that we are going to apply the same icebreaking rules that we applied last year, and there are no changes contemplated at the present time. Notices to mariners have been published, and they are exactly the same as last year.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Palterson@Fraser Valley: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister comment on the statement made by the Deputy Speaker of the house, as reported in today's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, to the effect that the minister endorses the ultimate objective of the world federalists of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to have an interview yesterday with representatives of the world federalists of Canada. They brought to my attention several recommendations and suggestions, particularly in the disarmament field, which are very close to the government's position on
2104	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry these very serious matters. They also dealt, of course, with their ultimate objective, which is the establishment of an orderly and peaceful world. With this long range objective I agree, of course, and I think everyone in the house agrees. However, I pointed out that there are many difficulties in the way of early achievement of any new system of international order.



PAKISTAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but as he is not with us at present I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government received any representations or communications from the government of Pakistan regarding Canada supplying arms and other materials to India?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I speak now from memory and off the cuff, but I do not think there have been any such representations. I should point out in connection with the basis upon which the question apparently is asked that India has undertaken that any defence materials that are supplied to her will not be used at any time against Pakistan.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and welcome him back from our home province. Should those of us who might be interested prepare to direct our questions relating to public works to another minister in the near future?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may set his mind at rest that whatever may be the future of my career, no one will ever ask a question of him as a minister in this house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the government has seen fit a moment ago to produce the legal opinion of the deputy attorney general 

with reference to the jurisdiction of the board of broadcast governors in a certain matter which has come up in the house before, is there any reason why the government should not produce the legal opinion concerning the imposition of $200 million in taxes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will just look at standing order 39 I think he will see that he is inviting an argumentative answer when he asks "what is the reason why or why not". With the greatest respect I think he will see that not only can a question not be argumentative but an answer cannot be argumentative, and that is what he is going to get.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question in this way. In the light of a previous answer given today on a notice of motion for production of papers, will the Prime Minister on behalf of the government produce the legal opinion concerning the imposition of $200 million in taxes?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances connected with the production of the legal opinion today were explained by the Secretary of State, in that a portion of that opinion was revealed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In so far as the production of legal opinions is concerned, the hon. gentleman, as a former occupant of the treasury benches, is fully aware of the fact that it has always been held as a general principle that legal opinions are not obtainable in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that all legal opinions have not been refused to the house? Is the Prime Minister not aware that Mr. Guthrie on several occasions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -and Mr. St. Laurent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With the greatest deference to the hon. member, I think he is offering information to the Prime Minister rather than seeking information from the Prime Minister.


Peter Francis Martin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that I have offered information, but will you not agree that under the circumstances it was necessary to offer the Prime Minister this advice?

(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which, this time, concerns the whole house.
It is not often that all members of the house are involved in a question of privilege but this time it is not only the members of this house who are insulted but the whole Canadian people.
Not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, a delegation -and I wish to inform the house about this situation-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows that he must indicate at once his motive for rising on a question of privilege.


Raymond Langlois: On two occasions, our parliamentary delegation to NATO was falsely accused. We allowed the matter to pass unnoticed the first time, that is yesterday. But again today, we are being described as incompetent "wolves", people who take off their shoes during meetings and who pick their nose. This is an insult to the Canadian people.
I therefore ask the house to take those facts in serious consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Raymond Langlois: The newspaperman who wrote yesterday's article is Mr. Charpentier and today it is a Mr. Guy Cormier from La Presse who takes the liberty of making such remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Can the hon. member specify the paper's name and the date?


Raymond Langlois: In the first instance, it is an item in La Presse of November 27, and in the second, an article published in La Presse of November 28.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how a newspaperman can take it upon himself to tell parliamentary delegates how they should behave when he himself was so intoxicated that he was asleep on the seat of the plane's toilet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member and all hon. members in this house that they cannot identify anyone in the galleries. If that rule of conduct is not followed, the necessary steps will have to be taken.
I wish to remind the hon. member that matters of libel must pertain to the personal behaviour of hon. members or their conduct as members of this house. If, however, there
Inquiries of the Ministry are newspapermen who, in the columns of their newspaper, comment on the general quality of our delegations, it cannot be said that their remarks concern each member. Nevertheless, it may sometimes be useful to go to the source.
In the circumstances, I do not believe there is cause to raise a question of privilege involving all members of the house.
Finally, if a newspaperman has related certain unsubstantiated facts in an article, then the hon. member may tell the house that such and such a fact, as reported, is false, and nothing more.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, this concerns the whole Canadian delegation, and not just one person.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept that opinion. The hon. member has made his representations, but I do not believe there is a question of privilege.
The newspaperman has made some comments on a certain delegation, and I am not going to repeat what I said earlier. If some of our colleagues have been attacked personally, but not as members of this house, I fail to see a question of privilege.
If, however, the facts have been misrepresented, that is something else, and one may state that the facts, as reported, are false. But it must be a matter of facts and not of opinions.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege or on a point of order. It does not matter which one.
It is the same question of privilege. The newspaperman in question attacks not only a member of parliament but the whole Canadian delegation. Consequently, I feel that Liberal and Conservative members should be informed of what those reporters are saying since they may wish to refute their allegations. I submit that Mr. Charpentier should be called before a parliamentary committee to be rebuked for having written such a tendentious article.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that I have heard the opinions of the members who raised the question of privilege, and bearing in mind their point of view, I shall make a ruling tomorrow.


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, would you accept that the article be tabled and submitted to the committee on privileges and elections, besides being referred to you for consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: If an hon. member tables the articles in question, we will follow the usual procedure. I cannot tell the house what attitude it should take.
210G	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board As far as I am concerned, I have stated that I would give further consideration to the question. But if hon. members wish to table the article, they are free to do so.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I will see to it that the article is tabled within fifteen minutes.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour? Have there been any new developments in the stand of the government on the imminent lay-off of 2,000 Canadair workers-500 have already been laid off and an additional 1,500 will have been by Christmas-and has the government taken any step to prevent the dismissal of so many Canadair employees?


Mr. Speaker:: An answer to that question was given yesterday.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether the recent statement by the hon. member for Villeneuve on nuclear weapons reflects the new government policy in that field?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, although he is relatively new in this house, should recognize that his question is out of order.
(Text):



NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 27, consideration in committee of the following	resolution-Mr.	Nowlan-Mr. Chown in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a national economic development board and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the board and for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of certain expenses of the members thereof, to provide further that the board may engage the services of such advisers and staff as may be necessary to enable it to 
[Stage Direction]
carry out its duties and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks last night I mentioned the need for more secondary manufacturing industries in Canada. Such industries are important because in them lies our best hope for correcting the imbalance of trade which now exists and, as I also mentioned last night, in those industries lies our only real hope for correcting the unemployment insurance situation, to prevent the fund from becoming exhausted and to put our people back to work.
There are many other good reasons why we should do everything we can to encourage and promote secondary manufacturing industries. The wide range of essential supplies that were produced in Canada during the war years, together with the high quality of those supplies and the smooth transition from a wartime to peacetime economy, plus the high percentage of manufactured goods included in our exports shortly after world war II, show what can be done to expand our manufacturing industries when a government has good advice and is prepared to follow it.
I might say that as a result of my own experience during the war, and in the years immediately following it, I am convinced that Canada can emerge as the creator of an increasing flow of manufactured goods of high quality and design if we go about it the right way. Here is where a national economic development board could play an important part, but it can only play this part if it is properly constituted and is encouraged t& think and plan without too much government interference. If these conditions are met, then such a board has great possibilities.
Naturally, until we see the bill, it is impossible to go into any detail about the measure which the minister contemplates introducing as a result of this resolution, but we on this side of the house certainly agree with the minister that our economy needs momentum and that any board which has a reasonable chance of bringing this about should be encouraged.
I spent the ten most interesting and challenging years of my life associated with what is now one of Canada's major industries, the chemical industry, during the period of the greatest growth of that industry in the history of Canada. As a result of that experience I am convinced that with intelligent planning and the right support from government, both the chemical and other secondary industries have a great future ahead of them, especially from a long range viewpoint and, as a young country, we should be thinking of these things from the standpoint of the long range position.

National Economic Development Board
It might be opportune at this time to mention a few facts about which people outside the chemical industry have little knowledge. In the year 1961 goods to the value of approximately $6.7 billion, one third of the gross national product, were produced by Canada's chemical process industries. This, of course, includes not only the products of the chemical plants and the oil refineries but also the products of many of the milling operations which extract metals from our ores, and also products of our synthetic textile factories and other major industries.
Along with that fact one should keep in mind that the annual consumption of chemicals and allied products by Canadian industry stands at approximately $1.4 billion per annum, and it has been reliably estimated that such consumption will increase fourfold in the next two decades. At present we have 60 major plants producing chemicals in Canada as compared with only 25 or 26 smaller ones, with a very limited range of production, operating before world war II. By major plants I mean plants that represent an investment between $2 million and $130 million, and it is noteworthy that 30 of these new industries, more than half the industries we now have, were built during the period 1942 to 1956, and most of them between 1945 and 1956.
During that period we did have effective economic development boards of a kind, functioning in Canada. We had our wartime industries control board; we had our wartime prices and trade board, and from 1945 to 1950 we had the advisory board of the department of reconstruction and supply, which was brought in to take care of that period of transition. Later we had an advisory board when the Department of Defence Production was established following the outbreak of the Korean war.
We have factories now which turn over, to our secondary manufacturing industries, chemicals to the value of nearly $1.5 billion per annum, and in addition to that we export chemicals to the value of $200 million per annum. But, Mr. Chairman, while we are producing a wide range of chemicals, none of which were produced in Canada 20 years ago, we still import approximately $500 million worth of chemicals every year and, as industrialization increases, we shall have to import more and more unless we act quickly to solve this situation.
One of the most significant facts about Canada's chemical industry is the amazing development in the field of petrochemicals which took place during the period when we had what I have referred to as these economic
development boards of a kind. This development took place when we had efficient and experienced advisers recruited from industry, commerce, the universities and the professions by that great organizer and planner, the late C. D. Howe. These men were brought in from outside to do a difficult job, and they did a magnificent one. I am quite sure that the minister's new cabinet colleague, the minister without portfolio, will agree with me in what I have just said. He will agree that these business and professional men, with that organizing genius behind them, were not only largely responsible for the amazing job we did in production during wartime years but to no small degree they were also responsible for the amazing and tremendous development that took place during the 10 or 12 years immediately following the war. For instance, Sarnia, a quiet town in southwestern Ontario before Pearl Harbour and relatively unknown except for its once famous football team, the Sarnia Imperials, has now been converted into an industrial metropolis of over 60,000 people. Today we have a series of integrated petrochemical plants built at a cost of approximately two thirds of a billion dollars. Not one of those plants existed at the time of Pearl Harbour, and relatively few of them existed when the war ended in 1945.
These new factories in Sarnia today are all busy. They produce not only the four or five kinds of rubber that are essential to a wartime or a peacetime economy, including latex for chewing gum, but they also produce a very wide range of chemicals, plastics and other products that were never before made in Canada. The wartime rubber plant that was designed to produce approximately 40,000 tons of rubber per annum is today operating at a level of approximately 200,000 tons per annum. It employs 2,500 men and women, and approximately 70 per cent of its production is exported to 40 or more different countries.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, as part of a well planned program a group of integrated chemical plants in the Sarnia area employs an additional several thousand people producing polystyrene, the lightest and cheapest plastic known; they produce polyvinyl chloride, a plastic which is widely used in the manufacture of artificial leather; they produce polyethylene, the versatile and increasingly popular packaging material; they make antifreeze, fiberglass, carbon black, tetraethyl lead-that is the anti-knock compound in our gasoline-and several other products, none of which was made in Canada prior to 1946.
2108	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
We are among the largest per capita consumers of antifreeze, tetraethyl lead and carbon black in the world, yet prior to 1946 we imported all our carbon black, tetraethyl and antifreeze compounds. This program came about as a result of intelligent planning and encouragement that was given by the government and those who offered advice at that time. It is also equally significant that these products which I have mentioned, polyethylene, carbon black, antifreeze, cellulose, potash products and sulphur are now being produced in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec. There are great possibilities in these four provinces in spite of transportation difficulties. It might be worth while to point out that, though some of these plants are located thousands of miles from southwestern Ontario most of the products that they now produce on a commercial scale are made by companies whose interest in Canada and in establishing secondary manufacturing industry in this country was stimulated by what happened in the Sarnia development, and many of them describe themselves as satellites of the Polymer Corporation.
I would like to say something more about this crown corporation. I have not been associated with it for 12 years, so I can speak quite freely. It is an outstanding example of the part that government can play in creating more secondary manufacturing industry in this country. I am a firm believer in the free enterprise system. Wherever it is reasonably possible to do so, private enterprise should be given the opportunity to develop our resources and build and operate the mills and factories where our raw materials are converted into finished products. But at times-and I know this from sad experience-a project is too big for private corporations to take the risk and then, if properly advised, the government must step in. When you try to get several competitive firms together, as was the case in Sarnia, to work in a common enterprise, an integrated enterprise, to use common facilities, common utilities, governments occasionally have to take the initiative and get into business themselves.
Polymer is surrounded by ten major private corporations, many of which, as I have said, are satellites and are an integrated part of the operation that centres around Polymer. Polymer is a very good example of the kind of action governments sometimes have to take. I think the two outstanding examples in this country are Trans-Canada Air Lines and Polymer. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, but not without great significance, they are good examples of what Liberal governments have


done in the past and are prepared to do in the future if circumstances warrant.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to move on to another field. We have in Canada all the raw materials that are needed for a really great chemical industry, a great secondary manufacturing industry. We have oil, gas, coal, potash, gypsum and other mineral supplies. We have enormous beds of salt and salt brine. What many people forget and what intrigues many people who are interested in establishing business in this country is that we have rivers and lakes in many parts of this country that are capable of supplying the enormous quantities of clear water that are needed in large scale chemical operations. The committee would be surprised to know that one of the reasons that entered into the choice of Sarnia as the site of this wartime operation was the water supply that was available, because even in those days this operation used more water in the course of a day than the whole of the cities of Montreal or Toronto. Those are assets that, when you get into large scale secondary industry, should not be overlooked.


Mr. Herridge:: That is one reason why we must save the Columbia.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I agree with the hon. member on that. There is merit in saying that the waters of the Columbia must be safeguarded. But in spite of this vast variety of richness and resources the growth of the chemical industry in Canada has slowed down badly in the last few years. The industry has not grown in the way it did between 1941 and 1956. But more disturbing than the lack of growth, Mr. Chairman, are trends in industry that are easily discernible to anyone who takes the trouble to do some research. For instance, in the United States today over 3,000 petrochemicals are produced commercially and that number is increasing at the rate of roughly 10 per cent per annum. But in Canada, in spite of the enormous growth to which I have referred, we produce only 50 different petrochemicals. The contrast is vivid. Again, unfortunately, there has never been any large scale development of the secondary coal tar chemical industry in Canada. Primary distillates such as pitch, tar and creosote and a few more partially refined products such as phenol have been made, but only in rare cases have these primary aromatics been synthesized into dyes, drugs or other chemicals.
Fundamentally, the problem of the chemical industry is one of size and ability to keep pace with the rapidly increasing rate of technological development. In many cases an economical production unit is oversized for the Canadian market, and where technical

knowledge is controlled by parent companies in other countries, and where those parent companies have made substantial investments in those other countries, there is a tendency to expand production in their principal areas of influence rather than to produce in Canada. The delay in the production of antifreeze, tetraethyl lead and carbon black are excellent examples of this trend or tendency. These delays have been bad for Canada and they highlight the importance of a clear thinking, farsighted economic development board. They also provide good examples of sets of circumstances which justify the government's stepping in if private industry is inclined to procrastinate.
The national economic development board, if it is to do a real job, must cultivate the attitude that many more chemical and other products could and should be made in Canada, rather than go along with the frame of mind which too often takes the opposite view. We Canadians must broaden our economic thinking with regard to the final needs which expanded secondary industry in Canada can supply. There is plenty of space for more secondary products in our automobile industry. I have seen it happen. Synthetic rubber made in western Ontario has supplanted other products to the value of millions of dollars. The same is true in the building industry. In fact, most of the things we eat, use or wear present possibilities for the development of secondary industry in this country if we go about it in the right way.
I firmly believe that a concentration of Canadian ingenuity and effort is needed on the particular problem of scaling down, or building plants of a size that would permit production of many needed products in this country. For example, greater use of the dyes and other materials used by our dyeing and tanning trades, by our drug industry, by our paint and varnish industry, would permit production of many new products in these and a wide range of other fields, provide employment in Canada, cut down on imports and improve our trade balances.
It used to be that smaller and smaller plants implied steadily mounting unit costs, largely because of the labour factor; but we have several instances where it can be established that automation is actually helping to provide an answer to this problem. I venture to say that automation will provide even more of an answer in future, if the new economic development board helps create the right environment, the right conditions.
Lastly, as I said at the outset of my remarks, we should begin to aim more often at supplying not just Canada but the world with our secondary chemicals and other
National Economic Development Board products made in Canada from Canadian materials. We can seek out many things which can be produced economically on a scale that will enable us to compete in world markets with larger nations, if we put our minds to it. We can succeed in doing it. Hence, the need for an economic development board. Hence also the need for a department of industry, to which the Liberal party is also committed.
I look forward with interest to seeing the actual bill. If it comes within the ambit of the conditions and hopes I have expressed it will be good for Canada and I am sure every member of the house will support it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the resolution we are now discussing is the prelude to a bill to set up a national economic development board. This constitutes the obeisance which the government is now making in the direction of economic planning.
It has become very popular these days to talk about economic planning. Most of us can remember that a few years ago anyone who advocated economic planning was branded as a visionary, a revolutionary, and even as dictatorial. Economic planning was equated in the minds of many people with regimentation and control. It was said that economic planning would wreck free enterprise and give rise to a totalitarian state. Now everyone is trying to get into the act. Everyone is talking about economic planning. Mr. E. P. Taylor and the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce are doing so. The Liberal party has now become the champion of economic planning. And here is the Minister of Finance making his own bow toward the idea of economic planning by introducing the resolution which is before us.
I submit that nobody needs to expect a medal for recognizing, at long last, the fact that we ought to do something about planning our economy. The phenomenal results which have flowed from economic planning in the Scandinavian countries, in western Europe, in the state of Israel, have all indicated to most thoughtful people that we in Canada should give consideration to the whole question of planning the economy. At the same time, I want to suggest that no one should be taken in by the sudden conversion of some people, groups and political parties to the idea of economic planning. Many of these recent converts have simply borrowed the vocabulary of planning for their own political purposes or because it enables them to sound progressive. I suggest that this kind of conversion represents only the theft of a word, not the acceptance of an idea.
The Minister of Finance has introduced this resolution which is to be followed by a bill to set up a national economic development
2110	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board board. Like most members, I look forward with interest to seeing the bill itself. There is nothing in the resolution which suggests that this board will constitute an agency which could carry out effective economic planning. It is too much like the productivity council and the manpower consultative service, which make a bow in the direction of economic planning but give no indication of a serious intention to do the kind of economic planning which is necessary if this country is to be put on its feet economically. The economic growth which has been experienced in western Europe and which demonstrated the effectiveness of economic planning has caused the old line parties to pay lip service to this idea. But the more I listen to their statements the more I am inclined to think they have no serious intention of exercising the kind of control over monopolies and gigantic corporations which we must have if economic planning is to be effective.
I wish to point out that economic planning means a great deal more than gathering statistics. It means more than putting out economic forecasts or drawing up piecemeal plans. It does not just mean the announcement of economic goals or even using public investment to fill in the gaps left by private enterprise. It does not mean merely giving tax incentives to business in order to persuade them to do certain things which the government would like to have done. These are parts of economic planning. However, if it is to be effective, economic planning must mean a great deal more.
It should not be forgotten that we already have economic planning in Canada. However, the planning which is being done today is corporate planning in which corporations and groups of corporations plan their own segments of the economy for the purpose of getting the largest possible return on their investments. The decisions as to whether or not these companies will expand their operations or contract them; whether they will lay off employees or take on more; whether they will make large scale investments in one form of activity or another or none at all are dictated not by the public good but by their own personal gain. The decisions which they make have a very direct and vital effect upon the community where they live and upon the health of the Canadian economy as a whole. That was why I was disappointed when the minister, in his opening remarks, as recorded at page 2076 of Hansard said this:
Generally speaking, there is a good deal more direct government intervention and government participation in the economic and financial markets in those countries-
The minister there was speaking of western Europe and the Scandinavian countries.


-than there is in Canada, more, I suspect, than Canadians would want to have prevalent at this time and, I would hope, in the future.
I think this is a fairly clear indication that the minister's idea of the scope and function of the national economic development board will be, as he said, to gather certain data; to investigate and analyse and report on certain prospects and possibilities in the Canadian economy; to study methods and measures which will stimulate the development of Canada; to look into new projects and measures and make recommendations to the government. However, the board as well as the government apparently is strictly committed to keeping out of any massive intervention in the economy as indicated by the minister's statement.
I would point out to the committee that the real choice we have in Canada is whether we are going to have corporate planning such as we have now in which corporations plan in their own interest in order to maximize their profits-and no one blames them for that-or whether we are going to have planning in terms of the public good, done by those who are responsible to the elected representatives of the people.
I was interested in seeing in the Globe and Mail of October 25, a letter from professor B. S. Keirstead of Toronto university. I think he put the matter very succinctly. Professor Keirstead said this:
Corporation planning is not designed to serve the public interest, but rather to further corporate profit. The classical economist, in the great days of competition, could argue that the one interest would serve the other, but in these days of giant and non-competitive corporations can we really agree that "what is good for General Motors is good for the nation"? Again, great corporations make plans which may be, frequently are, in conflict. Is there to be no referee, armed with input-output tables, to bring these conflicting plans into harmony?
I submit that the real choice is whether we are going to have planning by gigantic corporations motivated by a desire for profit or whether we are going to have democratic planning in the public interest by those who are responsible to the elected representatives of the people in the parliament of Canada and in the legislatures of the provinces.
We believe that there should be a planning agency. I would suggest a minister of the crown both for the chairman and the deputy chairman. We believe that such a planning agency would have on it skilled and technical personnel including investment experts, monetary experts, economists, engineers and statisticians. We believe that there would be attached to it an advisory economic council

in which business, labour, agriculture and other primary producers and consumers would all be adequately represented.
I wish to point out that in Sweden, which has probably blazed the trail in democratic economic planning, the role of the economic advisory council has been most effective. Hon. members who have read Dr. Gunnar Myrdal's book, "Beyond the Welfare State" will recall he points out that the work of the economic advisory council has been so effective in agreeing on tying wages to productivity, and on other basic problems, that Sweden has not had a major labour dispute in 21 years and that there is less labour legislation today in Sweden than there is in Canada, as many of the basic conflicts have been resolved at the planning stage.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should be very glad to tell my hon. friend about Saskatchewan if he wants to know some time. A good deal of effective planning has been done in that province. I shall be glad to tell my hon. friend about it if he wishes to know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I heard him aright, he said that he conceived of this council as something responsible to a minister. Does he think the minister should be in another place?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not only do I think that the planning agency should be responsible to a minister but it should be chaired by a minister. I think that the chairman and the deputy chairman should be ministers of the crown sitting in the House of Commons, answerable to members of the House of Commons and elected by the people.
I believe this, as I think this planning agency must be more than merely an advisory group making recommendations. I think they should be preparing plans for submission to the cabinet and that those plans, in so far as they effect federal matters, should then be presented to the parliament of Canada. As the minister pointed out, we are in a federal system and planning the federal segment of our economy alone would mean, of course, that we would be only partially successful in stimulating our economy. Therefore there must be participation not only by the major economic groups but also by the provinces.
There are a number of ways that the provinces could be tied into an economic planning program. One would be to have an annual prime ministers conference with
National Economic Development Board a permanent secretariat and a department of federal-provincial relations so as to coordinate the work of the federal and provincial planning agencies. There could also be set up regional planning boards on which the provinces would be represented along with the federal government. In this way the central planning agency working with the economic advisory council would be able to prepare plans for submission to the cabinet, with those matters which pertain to federal jurisdiction coming to parliament and going on to the departments affected while those matters which require provincial participation would be dealt with through the regional boards and by the provincial planning organizations.
If planning is to be effective, it seems to me absolutely vital that the agency must be one that is tied in directly with the cabinet, with a minister on that board responsible to the cabinet and responsible to the House of Commons. It is absolutely essential that in the planning process the major economic groups be represented and have a voice in formulating plans which they themselves are going to help carry out. It is imperative that the provinces, through regional boards and through a federal-provincial relations department, should have an important part in working out plans in a country which is not only federal in character but which is also binational, bicultural and bilingual.
It is sometimes said, Mr. Chairman, that planning will curtail freedom. On the contrary, we believe it is the unplanned economy that curtails freedom. In the unplanned economy major decisions are not made by the average citizen or by his parliamentary representatives. They are made by a relatively small group of men who sit on boards of directors of a few large corporations and financial institutions. The people generally in this country have very little to say about how their economy will perform or what it will produce. These things just happen and it is beyond the capacity of the average citizen to do anything about it.
If the people had the right to choose, I think they would prefer to see our financial, natural and human resources so allocated as to raise our standard of living. I think they would give a much higher priority to investment in education, medical care, housing and other socially desirable projects. I even dare to think that they would be much less favourable to some of the mammoth investments we are now making in advertising soaps, deodorants, longer tail fins and striped toothpaste.
I submit that we in the parliament of Canada are deluding ourselves if we think
2112	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board that we can plan our economy effectively without government intervention in the allocation both of our financial and material resources. As our economy is now constituted, major economic decisions must be made from day to day. These decisions can be determined in the marketplace by the free play of economic forces. This means that the choices will be made by the heads of a few large corporations. Many of the individuals making these choices do not even live in Canada, and these choices are made solely in the interests of the corporations concerned. The other alternative is to have these decisions arrived at through a planning agency in which all major economic groups are represented and then submitted to the people's representatives for approval and implementation. I submit that if democracy is to survive, surely the latter choice is the only one which is really open to the people of Canada.
We in our group believe that economic planing should have three main goals. The first is full employment. In a country which has been able to solve so many of its technological problems, surely it is not impossible to plan the economy so that there is full employment for all able-bodied persons willing to work. Man's modern technology has done amazing things even in the last decade. I submit that we must not only be concerned about the moon race and the missile race but the time has come when we must also be concerned about the human race; and the human wastage which comes from having idle men in a nation which has so much that needs to be done.
The second economic goal which we should be setting for ourselves from the point of view of economic planning is the promotion of economic growth. In the business section of yesterday's Globe and Mail there is a very disturbing report written by Ronald Anderson. The heading is, "International Recession Feared As Commodity Prices Decline". I do not read it for any enjoyment but I read it because I think all members should take cognizance of some of the economic indicators and what they may portend for the future. The article reads in part as follows:
Economic analysts are not predicting blue ruin, but they are disturbed about a number of unfavourable trends. Commodity prices still are edging downward in world markets, and the price softness is spreading to more products. A survey in the United States showed consumers are becoming more cautious and are scaling down spending plans. Britain, despite export strength this year and an easier money policy, still is worried over her flagging economy. Economists in western Europe are reducing their forecasts of prospective growth. Many industrial countries report a falling off in orders for new capital goods.


He goes on to say:
The signs of a drop in capital investment follow a warning last month by Per Jacobsson, managing director of the international monetary fund, that the world is approaching a critical stage where excessive productive capacity and a possible fall in investment could precipitate a period of deflation.
"Supply has caught up with demand," Mr. Jacobsson said, "and as productive capacity continues to increase, a downward pressure on prices may well be intensified in a wide range of products-raw materials, semi-manufactured, as well as finished manufactured products."
The western world, he predicted, may in the near future face a situation in which it is necessary to take measures to counter a relaxation in business activity and to promote expansion. His prescription for recovery included expansionary monetary policies and a close rein on wages and other costs of production. In addition, he recommended a higher degree of co-operation among the various countries in monetary, fiscal, economic and trade matters, in an attempt to cushion the shocks which might soon be felt if the more unfavourable trends in the world economy became intensified.
Monetary expansion, while it is a standard prescription for countering recessionary tendencies, is at present under severe limitations imposed by balance of payments problems in several countries.
I think that these economic indicators on the business barometer point out very clearly that one of the major goals of economic planning should be the increase of production, putting idle men and idle capital to work developing idle and unused resources.
The third goal we see in a planned economy is to provide for participation, participation by which planning will be democratic and in which the making of economic decisions will be vested in the representatives of major economic groups or regions, representatives of the people in parliament or in legislatures, rather than having those decisions made solely by small groups without any responsibility to anybody except themselves. When a large company, for instance, buys out canneries throughout British Columbia and western Canada and decides to close those canneries and to bring in cans from the United States and use the label of their Canadian subsidiary, this is a decision which puts hundreds of men out of work. It is not a decision that is made by Canadians; it is not made by the people involved. It is made by a small group. When a large company in the maritimes decides to close a coal mine and bring some of its coal in from West Virginia, this decision affects the life of the whole community. It is a decision which is made by a small group that is irresponsible.
When an automobile company decides to move some of its operations from Windsor to another part of Ontario, this affects the life of the community and affects hundreds of workers. It is this kind of decision which we maintain can only be arrived at democratically if we have some type of planning.

The essential difference between this party and the old line parties is that planning, as it has been outlined by the Minister of Finance and as it is talked of by the Liberal party, is not really planning at all. It is rather the gathering of economic data, the making of economic forecasts and studies and the setting of some desirable economic goals. If we are going to have effective planning, if we are going to put plans into operation, we must have the power to intervene in the economy. We must have the power to intervene, first of all, by setting up a national investment board to direct investment into those economic activities which will produce employment and which will increase production. If decisions have to be made as to where capital will be allocated, surely we cannot leave decisions like those to the free play of the market. Surely, those are decisions that have to be made in terms of the public interest rather than in terms of private profit.


The Chairman:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the committee permit me to mention the other thing which I think is important?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Will the committee give unanimous consent to extending the time of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I just want to say that the other agency which should be used in providing for this type of intervention would be an economic development fund which would give the government the power to make money available either to private enterprise for the development of certain resources or the processing of our primary products, or to a co-operative organization for the development of new industry, or for investment in the public sector. I was very much impressed with what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre said, and I agree with him. When it is demonstrated that private enterprise is not able to develop certain industries, to promote economic goals in certain areas, then we should not hesitate to use public enterprise for that purpose. The Polymer Corporation to which he has referred is a very good example. The Eldorado mining development is another example. What the British have done with the coal and steel development in Wales and the hydro development in northern Scotland are indicative of what can be done by public ownership and public investment. Therefore, we contend that unless we are prepared to make our plans effective, unless the government is prepared to give some direction to
National Economic Development Board investment, and to set up a very large development fund which will make government funds available to private enterprise, cooperative enterprise or public enterprise, we are not really going to have effective planning.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that everyone now is in favour of planning. What we have to decide is what kind of planning it is going to be, who is going to do it and in whose interest it is going to be done. Canada has to make the choice; either we are going to plan or we are going to perish. But planning, if it is to save this country, and if it is to provide full employment and promote economic growth, must be effective planning. That means planning should be done by a government which is prepared to put its plans into effect, to intervene where necessary in the economy with the object of raising the standard of living of the Canadian people, providing jobs for Canadian citizens and increasing Canada's wealth and production from year to year.


Mr. Woolliams:: Will the hon. member permit a question at this stage? I did not want to interrupt him. I noticed when he was speaking, towards the end of his remarks, his reference to public investment seemed to be fairly narrow and he appeared to believe in freedom of enterprise. May I suggest to him that his philosophy in that regard has changed somewhat since he was electioneering as premier of Saskatchewan in 1944.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I am permitted to answer that question, Your Honour, I would be glad to do so. I campaigned for the job of premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. If the hon. member takes the trouble to look at the first speech I made in the Saskatchewan legislature he will see where I said we proposed to develop a mixed economy, that whatever could be handled by private enterprise and co-operatives would be operated by them and we would assist them and co-operate with them, but what could not be handled by private enterprise and the co-operatives would be handled by public enterprise. This we did when in office. The distribution of gas, bus transportation, and air transportation were all under public ownership. I shall give my hon. friend a list of the things in the federal economy which, if they cannot be handled effectively by private and co-operative enterprise should, in our opinion, be operated by public enterprise.
(Translation) :


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Chairman, the principle of this resolution for the setting up of a national economic development board is so good that I wonder why it was not submitted to the house before now.
2114	HOUSE OF
National Economic Development Board
Yesterday, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) claim part of the credit for this resolution which is being brought down by this government, alleging that he himself had suggested the establishment of such a board in 1960.
I was so much the more surprised that I was aware of the reputation of the member for Essex East before I came to this house, and I wondered how it was that he had not thought of such a resolution before 1960. We must remember that in the 22 years previous to 1957, under the Liberal government, no such resolution was ever submitted-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Liberal government was a government of action.


Jean-Paul Cook: -to the house. Would it be that these hon. members only have good ideas when they sit in opposition, or is it simply because of the little attention they give to the problems which exist in the country?


An hon. Member:: Both.


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Chairman, the principle of the resolution is very good, even excellent. However, in order that this board can really operate in the interest of the country it will be necessary, that the hon. members study very carefully the four following points:
1.	This board should not have to supervise boards which already supervise other boards.
In the last several years, a great many boards were set up but, in many cases, their usefulness fell far short of our expectations. This board will have to examine all the possibilities so that, one day, we may have true economic development in our country, as the Canadian people wish.
2.	The government will have to take into consideration any recommendation or suggestion made by the board. In past years, several boards have made recommendations and suggestions to the government, under both the Liberals and the Conservatives, but the government paid no heed in most cases. That is probably why we have so many problems on our hands nowadays.
3.	In my opinion, the board should report regularly to the house. In addition, members must have the opportunity of asking questions to the government concerning the administration of the board and the work it does. The government should not reply to hon. members the way it does when they ask questions concerning the C.N.R., the


C.B.C. or any other government agency. When we dare ask questions about such agencies, it is impossible to get an intelligent answer, one which would be informative for the people.
4.	Mr. Chairman, that board should not be established merely for the purpose of offering another place of retirement for defeated candidates, or to reward some deserving party activities.
The required qualifications to become a member of that board should be anything but of a political nature. All its members should really possess the qualifications required of them in order that, for once, we may have a board really established for the purpose of helping the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, when we have succeeded in having those four points accepted by the government, then, and only then, shall we be able to say that we have a board established for the exclusive purpose of coming to the assistance of all areas of our industry. I should like to point out here, Mr. Chairman, that this board is called "national economic development board" and not "national economic planning board". There is quite a difference.
We have seen planning in Russia, in Cuba, and we know where it has led the people of those countries. We have seen some measure of planning in Saskatchewan and today we note that the number of inhabitants in that province is diminishing day by day.
I am not totally against planning, and some points raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were quite right. But we must be careful about the kind of planning which will be done by that board, in order that the Canadian individual may have all the freedom he wants and that private enterprise may have all the latitude and initiative it needs, as it must be in Canada.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hasn't the government got any business? Surely the government has some legislation to present now.


Mr. Churchill:: Yes, that is quite true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Particularly in view of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. It would be embarrassing if the government did not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are 31 items here. I wonder which one you would prefer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear what the minister just said, but in view of what the Prime Minister said yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Order. The Speaker is in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill (for the Minister of Finance), moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-87, to provide for the establishment of a national economic development board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house; agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was just observing before you took the chair that we had a lecture yesterday from the Prime Minister indicating that the government had a program all ready. We have now finished this business. There should not be any delay, and we would ask the leader of the house to present the next item of legislation without any delay at all. It is obvious that the minister is embarrassed and that there is no legislation ready for us to consider.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have been put in a rather humiliating position as the result of the action of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is just trying to make a mockery of parliament again, as he has done on so many occasions. He could not contain himself-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -for Your Honour to put the motion, and so on, and he was jumping to his feet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have 23 items of business on the order paper and I am very grateful to the house for passing this resolution now, because people who wish to speak on second reading will get full opportunity tomorrow to do so. In the 15 minutes remaining to us this afternoon I think we might continue with the second reading of Bill No. C-83, respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment.
Coal Production Assistance Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there was no notice whatever given of this measure last night. The government claims it is a very important measure, and I suggest that some of the relatively unimportant things on the order paper be taken. I would suggest, for example, that the measure respecting the Newfoundland savings bank be taken. Since the Minister of Finance is not here, I would be very glad to do it on his behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister will call that item, I will be very glad to see that it is explained. I know exactly what it is about.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is engaged in a very important meeting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing more important than parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am quite prepared to take some of these smaller items which I called a week ago-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We would not object to the third reading of the measure respecting the Food and Drugs Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -but I would point out that the fact an item was not called the day before does not mean it cannot be called now. It is within the power of the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We would be quite happy to go ahead with item No. 2 on the order paper, the Customs Tariff.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -to call the items in the order in which it chooses to call them. I have suggested one. If that one is not suitable, we could call No. 10, in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, which is the second reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is he here?



COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister has something to say about this, or his coach?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, this bill
proposes certain amendments to the existing Coal Production Assistance Act. Before going
2116	HOUSE OF
Coal Production Assistance Act into detail on the purpose of the bill, it may be helpful to review briefly the development of this act. It should be noted that recognition was given in 1949 to the recommendations of the royal commission on coal in 1946, that the Canadian coal industry and particularly the maritime section, needed improvements in their methods of mining and of coal preparation if they were to maintain a fair competitive position.
The government of that day introduced a bill providing an amount of $10 million to be loaned to coal producers in the Atlantic maritime provinces for the improvement of their methods. I would refer hon. members to the debate on this proposal as reported in Hansard for December 1, 1949 where the matter was fully discussed. As a result, the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act was passed and is presently chapter 173 in the revised statutes. The act defines the purpose of the loans, the amount and timing of repayment, as well as other administrative details. It also provided that no loans could be made after October 31, 1959.
By the end of 1958 the amount provided had been almost entirely placed as loans to producers. It was also evident that there still remained a need for such assistance not only in the maritimes but also in western Canada. An amending bill was introduced in June of 1959 providing for an increase of $10 million in the funds available, an extension of the limitation on loans to October 31, 1964 and for the application of the policy to all coal mines in Canada. Since the provision of funds was involved, the first and the major debate on the proposal was on the resolution and is reported in Hansard for June 30, 1959. There were other measures included in the proposals affecting an existing loan to which I will refer later. The amendments were adopted and are embodied in chapter 39, 7-8 Elizabeth II, assented to on July 18, 1959. The amendment changed the title of the legislation to the Coal Production Assistance Act.
The measures proposed in the present bill deal with four different aspects of this legislation and it may help hon. members if I deal with each of these separately. The extension of the assistance to western Canada introduced a difficulty that was not apparent at the time of the amendment. The act provides that loans shall be repaid by semiannual payment of 30 cents per ton on the coal produced in the preceding six months. The amount of 30 cents was fixed upon in the original development as a reasonable part of the saving that mechanization would produce and that could be used for amortization of the loan. The projects assisted at that time produced coal of values from about $8 to


$9.50 per ton and these values had a bearing on the realization of savings. After the extension of the act to western Canada, representations were made that in the case of coals of lower value, such as lignite, mechanization, while capable of improving output, did not produce as large a monetary saving. This relationship between the value of the lower rank coals and the amount of repayment is recognized in the present bill and clause 1 provides for lower rates per ton of repayment in the case of coals of lower rank.
Second, it has occurred in the past, and may also occur in the future, that during the term of repayment of a loan for a specific project the borrower may find that a further amount is needed in order to complete the project or an additional project found necessary by changing circumstances. Under the present act, repayment of such an additional loan is concurrent with payments on the first loan. In other words, the borrower is required to pay 60 cents per ton although the savings realizable from the second loan may be minor or non-existent since the second loan may only be intended to complete or complement the first loan. It is being provided in the present bill that this situation be corrected by permitting deferment of repayments on the capital of the second loan for a period of three years if such deferment is considered advisable.
Third, the Department of Justice has advised that a section should be added to the present act providing for the definition as offences of any cases of misrepresentation in connection with the obtaining of funds, or misuse of funds loaned, and for the application of penalties. It was suggested that the relevant section of the Small Businesses Loans Act was a good precedent. This advice has been taken, and clause 2 of the bill makes such provision. There is one respect in which this differs from the procedure followed in the Small Businesses Loans Act, namely that the maximum penalty has been increased from $1,000 to $5,000. This increase has been recommended by the dominion coal board on the ground that the companies producing coal and entering into loan agreements are generally in better financial circumstances than small businesses.
Finally, provision is made in clause 3 for relaxation in the terms of repayment of two loans made to the Avon Coal Company Limited, a coal producer in the Minto area of New Brunswick.
These are the main provisions of the bill. As hon. members will see, the measure provides for substantial assistance to coal producers but it does not modify the original

act in any substantive way inasmuch as it does not extend the maximum term for repayments but, under certain conditions, it makes repayment easier. This legislation is in line with recommendations made by the dominion coal board and it is also in line with the views of the coal operators. I believe that is a summary of the principal provisions of this bill.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich -mond):: I regret I was not present to hear the complete statement of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on introducing this bill. It is a bill to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act, a measure which in earlier days had a different name.
Hon. members may recall that shortly after the second world war the government of the day appointed a commission to investigate the needs of the Canadian coal industry. One of the recommendations made to the government arising out of that inquiry was that provision should be made to enable the coal operators to undertake extensive mechanization of their mines. That commission, as hon. members may also recall, was headed by Mr. Justice Carroll who had previously been a member of this house. Following his service in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and following the presentation of this report, he returned to the House of Commons in 1949 as the member for the constituency of Inver-ness-Richmond.
Mr. Justice Carroll and those who collaborated with him in that report felt, at that time, that the main requirement of the coal industry, especially in Nova Scotia, was funds to allow the mines to be mechanized as they had been in the United States, with such marked results in the lowering of production costs. It might be healthy to recall how dangerous forecasting can be, because at that time, with the implementation of the recommendations of this report in the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act it was felt that a major stride had been taken toward a solution of the difficulties of the coal industry. Under that original act, the sum of $10 million was made available to the coal operators of the maritime provinces for mechanization purposes.
Following the grant of a very large loan in the amount of six or seven million dollars to the main operator, an extensive program of mechanization and tunnel development was laid out among various mines by the Dominion Coal Company. It is a matter of record, however, that the high hopes held out for this mechanization program have not been realized. It is also a matter of record that the loans granted to the coal operators under this legislation would not have been available
Prairie Farm Assistance Act from any other source. I heard the president of the Dominion Coal Company, the late Mr. Forsyth, say on one occasion that the Dominion Coal Company would not have been able to secure such loans for the mechanization of the mines of Nova Scotia from any other source.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being now five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as appearing on today's order paper, namely notices of motion.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of providing comprehensive income payments to farmers in time of crop failure by giving consideration to amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so as to provide: (a) an increase in the schedule of payments as follows:	(i) an increase in the
maximum payment from $4 per acre to $8 per acre; (ii) an increase in the present $3 per acre payment to $6 per acre; (iii) an increase in the present $2 per acre payment to $4 per acre; (b) an increase in farmers' contributions from 1 per cent to 2 per cent; (c) an increase in the maximum cultivated acreage on which payments may be made from 400 acres to 600 acres; and should give consideration to the provision of other appropriate amendments required to assure adequate income support in time of crop failure.
He said: I wonder if we might have this motion seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Teillet)?
If this procedure is allowed, as you have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, it is evidence that improvements in prairie farm assistance have very general support. Of course, that is most appropriate since the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was brought in by a Liberal administration back in 1939. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act over the years has served prairie farmers in large parts of the prairie area very usefully.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question before he gets into his introduction?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member make a note of the fact that it was through the co-operation of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) that his motion is coming ahead today?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is fine. I shall be very happy to do that. I wish to acknowledge the fact that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, at my request and in order to meet my convenience, obliged by allowing his motion to stand today so that we might go ahead with the present motion under

Prairie Farm Assistance Act discussion. I wish to say that the motion of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale is an important one and deserves the full support of the members of the house whenever it is taken up.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, in essence asks that the prairie farm assistance payments be doubled and that the levy or contribution which farmers make toward this objective, presently at 1 per cent, might be increased to 2 per cent. There is a further provision indicating that, in keeping with the general increase in farm acreage, perhaps now is the time to consider making this provision available not only to what one might call the small farm but to farms of a more medium or average size. The whole purpose of putting this motion before the house is to get from the members consideration and, I would hope, support for an extension and an improvement in this act. Over the years farmers have contributed into the act approximately $127 million and payments out of the treasury have totalled approximately $260 million. Hence in a very real way this is a kind of fifty-fifty partnership between the farmers themselves and the government in providing a measure of crop failure protection in time of crop failure.
We have the Unemployment Insurance Act which provides for certain benefits when workers are unemployed. That, too, is the kind of fund as to which provision is made whereby, when the worker makes a contribution, the government also makes a contribution. In our opinion, this kind of legislation is far better than handouts or social aid or any type of temporary gesture as it is based in law. It is permanent; and the law itself, together with the regulations, provides the basis for making awards.
It is perfectly true that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act does not serve all parts of the prairies in exactly the same way, because of different crop conditions. This is the kind of act which applies and provides the greatest benefits in the arid section. I refer to the Palliser triangle, an area that very often has repeated crop failures. It has cost the federal treasury over the years something in excess of $6 million. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare this $6 million to the $40 million in acreage payments or to compare that $6 million to the amount paid by the federal government towards the storage of grain when there are large surpluses. It will then be seen that this is comparatively a smaller sum of money. Even with these proposals, if they should become law, the contribution by the federal government would be much less under this act than it is under the other measures to which I have referred.


This particular proposal would provide for an increase in the $4 payment to $8, an increase in the $3 category to $6 and an increase in the $2 category to $4 per acre. By increasing the total number of acres on which payment can be made a farmer would be able, in time of crop failure, to receive a sum of money to a maximum of $2,400. This is a substantial sum of money. However, in relation to the cost of farming and in relation to the gross income from a farm when there is an adequate crop, it is certainly in keeping with these important changes.
This legislation does not go the whole way. We need a type of crop insurance for areas which have fewer crop failures. However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the window dressing and in spite of all the exaggerated claims for crop insurance introduced by this government, it still applies to but a tiny fraction of the farmers on the prairies and to an even smaller fraction of the farmers across Canada. Until amendments are made to the Crop Insurance Act, it will not work as, under that act, the producer himself, together with the provincial governments, is asked to pay almost all of the cost. The federal government say they will pay a projected 20 per cent of the premiums into the crop insurance fund. However, under crop insurance, if there were a series of widespread crop failures in any province in which farmers generally are insured under the act, the provincial government would be put into bankruptcy.
We in this party have suggested that before crop insurance can be fully effective, two important amendments must be made. We have suggested that the 20 per cent itself must be increased. After all, the federal government accepts a charge of some 50 per cent of the cost under prairie farm assistance. We feel that to go from 50 per cent under prairie farm assistance down to 20 per cent under crop insurance is a backward step and that the government should be prepared to assume a larger proportion of the cost than 20 per cent.
We suggest that the federal government's contribution should be increased. We suggest that the federal government should be prepared, in consultation with the provinces, to work out a system of reinsurance so that when there are widespread crop failures there will come out of this reinsurance fund the additional moneys necessary to provide payments and so that they will not have to be put forward, as is the situation now, directly and entirely out of the resources of the provincial governments.
Crop insurance applies to only a fairly small fraction of the farmers in Manitoba. If my information is correct it applies to probably about 2 per cent of the farmers in the province

of Saskatchewan. It has not been an act of which the farmers in that province have been able to take advantage in any large proportion. If there should be a widespread crop failure, it would put most of the burden on the provincial treasury of that province. The same situation would apply in Alberta and also in Manitoba. We therefore need to consider not only improvements in prairie farm assistance. We feel it is time that another step forward should be made. We feel that it is time also to consider the companion legislation, namely the Crop Insurance Act, in order to make these two vital amendments if the Crop Insurance Act is to apply to any more than just a handful of grain producers in this country.
This resolution asks the house to consider these specific things to which I have referred. It also suggests that other appropriate amendments may be required in order to assure adequate income support in time of crop failure.
Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act there is provision for certain types of acreage payments defined under the act. We have heard a lot about acreage payments. We have heard a lot about the $1 an acre payment with a maximum of $200. We heard a lot about it in the election campaign from the Conservatives. We have heard nothing about it since the election. They have been completely silent on their policy with regard to acreage payments. The Prime Minister went back and forth across the country, and in one public meeting after another he said, "Acreage payments have become part and parcel of the policy of the government". According to the Canadian Press, the Prime Minister indicated on May 31 that "special acreage payments will be put on a regular annual basis". This statement was repeated at public meeting after public meeting.


Mr. Jones:: You opposed acreage payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: We voted for them.


Henry Frank Jones: You said they were the worst possible type of payment that could be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now talking about certain payments made under some particular act which the Chair has difficulty in finding to be the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I was wondering how he could relate the two because his motion definitely concerns the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Hazen Robert Argue: My motion asks for the consideration of other amendments to provide adequate income support. I was leading up to making a plea to the government for consideration of a further change in this act because of the statements and commitments that have 27507-3-134
Prairie Farm, Assistance Act been made by the government. They said they were going to put acreage payments on a permanent basis. We think that under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act consideration should be given to placing acreage payments on a formula basis with proper rules, so that farmers will know they are entitled to these payments on a given basis. We are suggesting now that it is time the government informed the house and the country whether what they said was just more Tory promises, more Tory window dressing, or whether the Prime Minister is going to fulfil the definite commitment to make these payments on a regular, annual basis. Before the election it was "vote for us and you will get it every year", and after the election no mention has been made of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Notwithstanding the eloquence of the hon. member, I still fail to find any relevance as to the point he is now discussing with amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If he will consult his motion, he will see that the only act mentioned is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He refers to amendments to it and indicates a few, and also refers to the provision of other appropriate amendments. Since there is only one act referred to, I can only assume in interpreting the motion that the amendments referred to are amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Therefore, perhaps he will come back a little closer to that act.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we would not be fussy whether the legislative action that was promised with regard to acreage payments was undertaken by way of amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act or was carried out by means of additional and separate legislation. The point is, of course, that acreage payments were promised and nothing has been done, and the farmers are waiting for some word from the government whether it is going to fulfil its definite commitment. The motion we are discussing asks for certain-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. In his argument with regard to appropriate amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act including acreage payments, is he suggesting that his party would support an amendment to that act to provide such payments?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the government will put before the house a policy that will fulfil its commitment to the western farmers, I am sure it will receive the full support of this party. We do not think that haphazard handouts based on no policy at all are an adequate way to deal with what the Prime Minister

Prairie Farm, Assistance Act has called the two price system. Let the government act. We in the Liberal party request the government to bring in its legislation and fulfil its firm commitment to western Canadian farmers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You never answered my question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. We ask the house to give consideration to this particular proposal. We also think that further consideration should be given to the act and to its administration. There are a lot of employees under this act who have to make assessments before payments of this kind can be made, and in the administration of the act the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) has brought together and established probably the toughest political machine that western Canada has ever seen. I have it from some very good people who work for the administration that they have been told in no uncertain terms that unless they will go out and carry on political organizational activity for the Tory party they will be fired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is utterly false.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What about Jimmy Gardiner?


Hazen Robert Argue: Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act the Minister of Agriculture has a tough, Tory political machine.


Henry Frank Jones: This is what they used to say about Jimmy Gardiner.


Hazen Robert Argue: This machine is working in all parts of western Canada where the act applies, and I suggest that the act should go before a committee of the house so that we can consider some of the ways in which it is being administered. I also have information on another point which I should like cleared up. I should like to be able to ask the officials whether they have three types of lists provided by certain Conservative members of parliament. My information is that they have three types of lists of recommendations for the job of inspector. One list contains the names of all those who write in and ask for a job. The second list contains the names of the political partisans recommended by these members-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is shameful.


Hazen Robert Argue: The third list contains the names of the partisan people who are in fact to get the appointments.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful attack by the hon. member on people who are serving this country properly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: These people are defenceless. They cannot speak for themselves.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us have a committee. Members are not defenceless.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is why I am defending them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to hon. members that if they want to speak they will have the floor. Since the interruptions seem to be general I am not going to indicate any particular persons, but again I would caution all members in this regard. The hon. member has two minutes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: I have two minutes and I am taking those two minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have just witnessed a shameful attack upon people who are serving their country in the administration of this legislation. They are doing a very fine job and they cannot defend themselves in this house. I feel that the hon. member for Assiniboia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -has broken the privileges of this house by what he has said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question of privilege is very narrow and it affects the privileges of members of the house. The matter of whether an hon. member has gone too far or not far enough with regard to people who are not here is not a question of privilege and is a subject matter which an hon. member can take up, I am sure, in replying in the debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, what I have been saying now is no attack directed at the good people who are operating prairie farm assistance. It is an attack on the minister, an attack on a government that says to these people, if you are going to work for us you have to do a political organizational job for the Tory party or we will fire you. I suggest that is a misuse of this legislation.


Mr. Ricard:: Bring in sworn statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now, Mr. Speaker, I think any of us who have been born and raised on a farm the same as my good friend who just sat down and other members of the House of Commons, are

Prairie Farm Assistance Act always very sympathetic to this type of and when you have a hailstorm this act makes
legislation or any suggestion for amendments to improve it for the benefit of the farmer. I think we have to go back for a few moments and analyse why this legislation was introduced by the Liberals in 1939. At that time western Canada had successive crop failures. Drought had crippled the farmers economically. This was part of the legislation introduced at that time, along with other legislation on the statute books, by both Liberal and Conservative governments. We want to be fair in that regard.
However, I believe we should not lose track of the fact this legislation was not introduced as crop insurance but was more of a relief measure to combat the drought that had hit the western Canadian farmer. I do not want to get into an argument with my good friend from Assiniboia this afternoon, but he talks about the workers under prairie farm assistance doing organizational work or whatever he wishes to call it. I am sure he must have had a nightmare, and when he had that nightmare he must have been looking at the old files of Jimmy Gardiner. There is a member of parliament sitting in this house who has told me on several occasions that he was employed on prairie farm assistance work under Mr. Gardiner. He was told, "When you are not working on prairie farm assistance you are to be organizing for the Liberal party". No doubt that is the file the hon. member for Assiniboia got into. Of course, he never could have looked in that file if he had not moved from this corner to where he is sitting now.
I do not believe there is a statute on the statute books that gives more headaches to the administrators and to the members of parliament than this one, because the act is based on the eligibility of certain blocks and certain acreage returns. This kind of a law makes bad exceptions from time to time. Western members of parliament, and I am sure those around me will agree with me, receive letters from our constituents saying: Mr. Jones and Mr. Black received payments and we have not received any, even though we appear to be in the block. Of course, this is the kind of legislation with which we are dealing, and it does make bad exceptions from time to time. As a member of parliament from Alberta, I want to deal with some of the problems we face before I deal with the resolution itself.
As hon. members know, there is a strip of land along the foothills which is known as the hail belt of western Canada. Hail is not like drought because it follows narrow strips. This act is based on 12 section blocks 27507-3-1344
bad exceptions. There may be two or three farmers hailed out in one area, but of course if they are not in the eligible block then they do not comply with the law and receive no payments under prairie farm assistance. I think when we are amending the act, I am going to have something to say about that. There may be some suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia which should be included in the act. However, I am going to suggest we make an exception for hail.
I repeat, when you have a dry area on the prairies, you generally have a large number of farms in that area that have been dried out and the yield is below the eight bushels so you can get within these blocks and comply with the law. However, as I say, when you have a hailstorm there may be only one, two or three farms that are damaged. These farmers cannot comply with the law. Their financial problem is just as tough as it would be if they had suffered from drought. You can take a trip this afternoon from Calgary to Drumheller and you will pass through one of the finest farm districts in Alberta. However, one of the worst hailstorms went through that area this year and I doubt if this strip of land will be able to comply with the act. This is something that should be considered in the future when we get into the problem of amending this act.


Hazen Robert Argue: A very good suggestion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to hear my good friend the hon. member for Assiniboia agrees with me. This is the first time he has agreed with me since the day we graduated from the University of Saskatchewan. I think perhaps the basis for qualifying under this act should be the individual farm itself. Hail does not discriminate against the efficient or inefficient farmer. I am sure there are farm members who would agree with me that sometimes poor crops are due to inefficient operators, but when it comes to a hailstorm the hail does not discriminate between the efficient or inefficient operator. These people have always been left on the outside.
This brings me to a significant point so far as Alberta is concerned. Except for the hail damage, these people to whom I referred very seldom qualify under the act. There is a large group of farms along the foothills surrounding Calgary and Edmonton that very seldom have crop failures as the result of drought. However, over the years these farmers have been contributing through this 1 per cent levy on all grains that are delivered. They have contributed this 1 per cent, and yet they have received no benefit under the act. This is the first point I want to discuss when we consider increasing the levy from 1 per

Prairie Farm Assistance Act cent to 2 per cent. As the hon. member for Assiniboia said, the levy is a co-operative effort between the farmers and the government and it also involves co-operation between some farmers and other farmers. In other words, if the levy is the result of co-operation amongst the farmers themselves, this amendment might go too far and discriminate against those farmers who have been continually paying the levy over the years but who have received no benefit from it. When the levy is set at 1 per cent, it might not be too bad, but at 2 per cent it might be quite serious.
Here is another question. If we were to implement the suggestions made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, both today as a Liberal member and in former years as a member of the New Democratic party, would 2 per cent cover the cost?


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a question of privilege -as a member of the C.C.F. party.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I do not know, but I thought the hon. member ran for leadership of the New Democratic party. I do not know if I am wrong in that regard, but perhaps I could ask the new leader of that party. He was there at the convention. I was not invited.
In any event, coming back to the problem, I may say that over the years this financial assistance has totalled more than a quarter of a billion dollars, and it has been contributed half by the government and half by the farmers. There have been a number of amendments to this measure introduced by this government. When the hon. member for Assiniboia strikes out at us as if we had done nothing, I think I should put on the record a few of the amendments we have introduced. I am not suggesting that the hon. member and other hon. members did not make some suggestions with regard to these amendments.
The first one with which I want to deal provides that sections of land having a yield of 12 or more bushels of wheat per acre are removed from both payment and computations to determine category of award. This will enable the making of payments to the farmers who suffered a loss more in proportion to their loss. This was important because at one time the people who lived in an eligible block, even though the block complied, might get 30 bushels to the acre, a yield greater than the eight bushel average, and those below that average were getting payments under this act. As I have indicated this situation was changed in 1958.
I have a copy of some of these changes here and I am just going to read them because I can do it in less time. The six section limitation as to the size of blocks for both the exclusion of high yield areas in eligible


townships and the payment of low yield areas in ineligible townships has been repealed. In future any section of land having a yield of 12 or more bushels will simply be excluded from payments, and any one or more sections in an ineligible township having a yield of eight or less bushels will be paid if they are contiguous to an eligible township. The effect of this, of course, is that it also reduced the size, and the sections that bordered on the eligible area were also included. At one time you had to have a block of six sections.
The third amendment was that the regulation excluding from payment farmers having other full time occupations has been repealed. In future anyone farming land will qualify for award regardless of other occupation. That amendment was introduced in 1958 when the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) was minister of agriculture.
The section of the act excluding from award all crown lands which had not been sold or granted until after 1940 has been repealed. This was considered discriminatory and in future all such lands will qualify. This affects our early Canadian friends, the Indians on the reservations, and there are two of them in the Bow River riding, namely, Morley and the Blackfoot reservation at Gliechen. They paid the levy under the act but they never qualified until this amendment was passed.
I shall digress for a moment to say this was a good act; it was brought in by the Liberal government, but many changes were made in it by the present government, and properly so. I think all this legislation dealing with farm problems is rather like children growing up. There are certain changes which must take place in order to make the legislation work.
The fifth amendment was that the minimum size of an isolated area that suffered a loss of crop was reduced from 18 sections to 12 sections. The big trouble there was when there was a township with 18 sections, if a few people on one side of the 18 sections brought in a crop over 18 bushels then all of them did not qualify.
We broadened the act so that now there are more payments going out to farmers than ever before. The sixth amendment is that in townships where less than 10 per cent of the seeded area is sown to wheat it will now be possible to use the predominant coarse grain crop as the index in determining eligibility. In the past only wheat could be used, regardless of the acreage sown. I remember in an area called Cochrane, in the Bow River riding, where they do not grow wheat, one year one farmer had eight acres of wheat and because it went to 25 bushels the act did not

apply as all the other farmers had sown barley, and because the rains came at a different time they lost their crops. Now where less than 10 per cent of a seeded area is sown to wheat that has broadened the act so that it can cover flax and barley and rye.
The seventh change that was made was with regard to flax and rapeseed which have now been made subject to the 1 per cent levy. They were exempt from the levy although the growers of such were eligible for award, and now they are contributing the one per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Assiniboia has left his seat in the house. I guess he could not stand to listen to the list of improvements made by this government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was in the chamber.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, he must have left it because I did not see him.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was in the chamber all the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
knows what is a question of privilege. One cannot get on the floor just by rising on a question of privilege.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member should tell the facts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the hon. member is in the house now because I hear the sound of his voice, but with some difficulty.
The eighth change that was made in the act was that the payment of the award will be paid in future in one lump sum in December, or as soon as possible thereafter, and so payments come to the farmer at a time when they can do him some good. These are some of the changes which were made in the act by the Conservative government, and I say we have to move a little cautiously when we are thinking of amending it. At the time those changes were made they were endorsed by the hon. member for Assiniboia, but if we were to go so far as to change the act in the way he suggests it might interfere with another branch of agriculture in reference to rehabilitation. There are lands in Alberta and Saskatchewan where, if we enlarged this act in the way the hon. member suggests, they would remain in the production of grain when they should get out of it if at all possible. It would interfere with the program presented in the last parliament by the Minister of Agriculture, and more assistance might be harmful to the whole economy of the farmers wherever they may be situated.
There is one other thing I would like to mention in reference to my hon. friend when he attacks us on agricultural matters, and
Prairie Farm Assistance Act especially when he talks about acreage payments. When they were first introduced in the house he was the man who called them "peanuts". But now three successive payments have been made, and when he was campaigning in 1962, on behalf of the new party he now represents, he did not call the payments peanuts because he knew the farmers appreciated them.
The acreage payments were made by this government and they were based on a two-price system. We consume approximately 45 million bushels of grain per year, and $1 a bushel was the basis for the two-price system, yet the spokesman for agriculture in the Liberal party stood in his place today and said there was no scientific or economic basis for the acreage payments. That was the basis and that was the foot in the door of the two-price system.
All these proposals must be studied very carefully before they are implemented. As I said before, when the hon. member attacks us he uses the same words as he used to use when he was sitting with the C.C.F. party. I have said this before but it is time it was repeated, that we cannot forget, when dealing with the hon. member for Assiniboia, that he said the farmers-
-will never forget that it was the Liberal party, by the removal of price control and by its tragic loss of overseas markets that placed agriculture in its present position.
"I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to defend on the public platform, if he can, the dismal failure of 22 years of Liberal administration to meet agricultural problems ..."
Yet he patted his chest today and said this was one good act brought in by the Liberals. Let hon. members read Hansard and they will find this in it. He said:
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to defend on the public platform, if he can, the dismal failure of 22 years of Liberal administration to meet agricultural problems as well as his own record in this regard both as a member of the former Liberal government and as leader of the Liberal party.
He also said:
The Liberal party is not going anywhere because its leader, Pearson, does not know where he is going.
If the leader of the Liberal party does not know where he is going, all I can say is that he will not know where he is going if he listens to the hon. member for Assiniboia who changes his tune every time he speaks.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to say a few words on this motion which suggests some amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. As I understand it, it is asking for a 100 per cent increase in the maximum payment, from $4 per acre to $8 per acre. It is asking for a 100 per cent

Prairie Farm Assistance Act increase in those categories that are now paid $3 an acre, that they be increased to $6 an acre, and it also asks that the awards that are made at the rate of $2 an acre be increased to $4 an acre. Obviously all of these are 100 per cent increases. Along with that the motion asks for a 100 per cent increase in the contributions paid by the farmers who sell their grain.
I think that this is consistent; but when the hon. member for Assiniboia comes down to the matter of the maximum number of acres that would be eligible for payment, he is only suggesting a 50 per cent increase, from 400 acres to 600 acres. I think this too is reasonable because basically what the act was designed to do-and I give credit to both governments which administered it- was to make some cash available to farmers in the area that is covered by it, when they are faced with disaster from drought or from loss of crop due to any other reason.
There are one or two things that I do not quite understand with respect to the statements made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. One was this. He suggested that there had been a contribution from the treasury of something like $260 million over the past 24 years since the act was brought in.


Hazen Robert Argue: What I said, Mr. Speaker, if I remember the total figures, was that the total payments to producers were approximately $260 million. The farmers' contribution was $127 million; so that the federal government's contribution would be just over $130 million. Therefore it was about a 50-50 proposition.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have before me the annual report of the Department of Agriculture for 1962 and on page 56 it says the total payments under the act since it was introduced in 1939, up to March 30, 1962, amounted to $313 million. The next paragraph says that the 1 per cent levy on grain marketed from 1939 to February 28, 1962, yielded $129,970,000. I did some calculations, and this leaves approximately $182 million, which is the difference between the collections and what has been paid out. I agree with the statements that were made earlier, that if you spread this $182 million over nearly 24 years it is a rather small contribution by the government, when you consider that in many cases it would not even provide enough money to pay the expenses, for the farmer to get his crop in the following year.
To get back to the main part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I think we should recognize that the awards under this act have not been changed for a long time-I refer to the maximum awards-and at the same time the farmer's costs of production have increased


tremendously. For example, in a newspaper article appearing in the Medicine Hat News on November 22 I find this:
David L. MacFarlane, professor of agricultural economics at Macdonald College, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, says Canada's agriculture industry has fared badly compared with the financial progress in other sectors of the Canadian industry during the post war period.
Writing in Viewpoint, a publication put out by the Canadian Credit Men's Association Ltd., Professor MacFarlane says the Canadian farmer is receiving prices which just equal those of 1949 and that while his cash income is more than 20 per cent higher, it buys 15 per cent less.
He says that since 1949 net income of farmers has actually declined by more than 25 per cent measured in current dollars and by almost 50 per cent in real terms.
I think this is justification for the government and all hon. members of this house to reconsider the maximum awards under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I am pleased to see that this motion calls for a doubling of the contribution by the farmers who are in a position to receive this assistance when it is necessary. I certainly think it is right and proper that they should make a substantial conribution to this program. It has been pointed out that the government does make contributions to unemployment insurance and to many other sectors of the economy, but at the same time they do collect some premiums and I think this is in keeping with that spirit.
The hon. member for Bow River made some suggestions about additional amendments that should be brought forward. He suggested that the awards should be made on an individual basis. I have some correspondence here, Mr. Speaker, that would indicate this is already being done. For example, I have some correspondence from one of my constituents at Scandia, who complained because he had been left out of the awards that were made in that area. Mr. Wallewein writes to me and says:
It seems grossly unfair that because of a human error .. . we should not be allowed assistance when our crop was as poor or poorer than most farmers in the district.
He asks this:
Just exactly what can the purpose of the act be, if an error cannot be rectified?
I am not going to read all this letter, Mr. Speaker, because there are other things in it, although they are related to this question. But the fact is that he was left out. This is the reason given to him by the officials of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I will read only the second paragraph of the letter:
In this regard we would like you to understand that all awards made in township 15-15-W4th-
212S

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
Which is the one under consideration:
-were based on yields and acreages submitted by each individual applicant, and to accept changes at this late date would greatly contuse the matter in which these awards are made.
I had a little more experience with this act in 1957. That was before the Conservatives were responsible for it. At that time a very serious hailstorm swept across the Medicine Hat constituency. A number of farmers received P.F.A.A. and some did not. There was not a sufficient lowering of yields in that year to qualify on a broad basis because of drought. But when we pieced together the sections that were paid and the ones that were rejected it almost looked like a checkerboard, and to date I have not been able to find out what formula was used for paying one particular section and rejecting payment for a section right alongside it, when the hailstorm covered the whole area.
I just do not understand it. I have written to the department to ask for a detailed explanation of the formula they used in that particular case, or which they use in any case, and it is still not clear why they reject certain sections. I am not going to be so outspoken as the hon. member from Assini-boia and suggest that politics are involved, because frankly I do not believe they are. But they could be, and some people think they are. However, the fact is that I have never had a satisfactory explanation for the system adopted, that of paying one section and refusing to pay a farmer right beside that section under these hailed-out conditions, when we know that hailstorms do not respect one section any more than another. I think the farmers in this area are entitled to a detailed, clear explanation of how they are going to be paid, what qualifications are necessary, and why some of them are rejected. In August, 1961 the Department of Agriculture published a little pamphlet about P.F.A.A. Inside, under a paragraph headed "Basis for payments" it says this:
The average yield of wheat in a township or block of sections is the basis on which payments are made. If the average yield is eight bushels per acre or less, then all farmers within that area- with the exception of those on sections where the yield is 12 or more bushels-receive payment.
The next paragraph is:
The smallest isolated block of sections eligible for payment is one third of a township (12 sections) provided such a block is rectangular in shape.
I am satisfied that from the viewpoint of the practical application of this act this is not the formula used in determining whether one farmer should be paid or the application of another rejected, and I think this letter
I have from the officials clearly indicates that that is not the way they arrive at a decision in this case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I may rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member did say I had suggested that this was paid on an individual basis. What I said was that you had to be in the eligible block of 12 sections, with a section that might join on to that. I never suggested it was paid on an individual basis. The recipient must be in an eligible block. That is my point, and I must correct the statement which has been made as soon as I hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. These are not really questions of privilege and 1 must draw the attention of the house to the fact that corrections may be made at the end of a speech. One cannot just rise and take over the floor on a question of privilege. There is just a little too much of that. These points can be corrected in due course. Those people who know whereof I speak, might take note.


Mr. McIntosh:: I wonder if the hon. member who is now addressing the house would tell us the date of the letter he received.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, May 15, 1962.
All I was saying was this: the hon. member for Bow River suggested there should be amendments which would allow awards to be made on an individual basis. This pamphlet, which is supposed to explain to farmers on what basis they will be paid, states there must be a block of 12 sections. I am saying that this letter clearly indicates that in one area, at least, they did make a payment on an individual basis. I will read the words again:
In this regard we would like you to understand that all awards made in townships 15-15-W4th were based on yields and acreages submitted by each individual applicant.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but he must be within the 12-section block.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I wonder if the hon. member would mind giving me the details of this particular case. I will be happy to look into it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall be glad to do so. I wish to say, in fairness to the officials, that after I contacted them they agreed to make a further investigation with respect to this application.
The point I am making is that there is confusion as to what formula is used in accepting or rejecting applications which come in even from the same area. I say, in kindness, to the department, that I wish they would follow a consistent policy and let the farmers know what that policy is.
In closing I wish to say that inasmuch as the cost of production in farming throughout

Prairie Farm Assistance Act Canada, and certainly in the area covered by P.F.A.A., has gone up tremendously since the last increases were made in these payments, I think this is a good resolution, especially in the light of the principle that those who are able to receive aid should double their contribution. There is one other point. Though the hon. member for Bow River has suggested there are many farmers who have paid consistently into this fund without receiving benefit from it, I wish to state that there are many farmers in western Canada who have received awards under the act but who have never sold a bushel of any kind of grain to pay anything into the fund. This act is not perfect, naturally. I think the government might also consider some changes in the regulations which would require all those who are in a position to receive awards to make some contribution.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: I should like to comment on one or two aspects of this resolution. I was shocked to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia say that the present Minister of Agriculture and the party to which he belongs are engaged in that game which, I was told previously by the same hon. member, Jimmy Gardiner engaged in, and that this agency is being used as a political machine in western Canada. I hope there will be no continuation of this and, indeed, that there may not be much truth in it.
I was wondering if the hon. member for Assiniboia has given consideration to the number of occasions on which certain farming areas are given assistance under P.F.A.A. It seems to me that in paying out such large sums of money to this segment of agriculture -about $19 million a year, which would be increased to $38 million on an average by the proposals-


An hon. Member:: Six million dollars.


Hazen Robert Argue: About $7 million from the government.


William Arnold Peters: It has cost Canada since this scheme came into effect in 1957, $128 million, which means that $32 million was contributed by the farmers on the basis of the 1 per cent levy while the federal government paid in about $95 million. That gives an average of about $19 million or, under the resolution we are now discussing, $38 million a year.
Certain areas have received these payments many times. I note that 701 awards were paid
20 times to the same area, and I suggest this is an indication we should consider exactly what is being accomplished by the act at the present time. While it seems to me necessary to support the argument that farmers should receive assistance in the years of crop failure, it is not my purpose to maintain on submarginal land farmers who without this provision would not receive payment at all.
It is interesting to look over this list and see the number of times repeat payments are made-in some cases every year since this act came into existence. It seems to me attention should be directed to this particular part of the resolution; the hon. member may be able to assure us that this is not intended as a substitute for ARDA or some of the other proposals for establishing economic farm units and a viable economy in the agricultural field by limiting submarginal operations which are of little value to the farmers and people of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire of the leader of the house what we shall be doing tomorrow, and ask whether we may have an indication of what we shall be doing from now until the end of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, we will take second reading of the bill based on the resolution which was passed earlier today dealing with the national economic development board. Should that be completed we would proceed to consider Bill No. C-64 amending the Coal Production Assistance Act, Bill No. C-83 concerning industrial change and manpower adjustment, and Bill No. C-70, an act to provide for the safety of persons employed in federal works, undertakings and business. That will be the work for Thursday.
As for Friday, I am not certain what the business will be. It will depend on the progress we make tomorrow. However, I think it likely that we shall go on with the estimates on Friday, which is rather a normal practice, and take those of the Department of Agriculture, which might be completed that day. Tomorrow I hope to be able to give to the house an outline of the business for the balance of the period prior to the Christmas adjournment.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 29, 1962