1962-12-05

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Mandziuk.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) on November 30 asked whether all the correspondence between the government of Quebec and the federal government concerning university-grants had been tabled. At that time I said that I would have the question looked into. I now ask leave to table the correspondence additional to that which was previously tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, the Prime Minister asks to table certain documents as requested by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT TO REDUCE SALARY OF PRESIDENT Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):	Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), may I have the unanimous consent of the house to introduce a bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act (salary of president)".
Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent unanimously to the hon. member introducing the bill in the absence of the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but there is no unanimity.


Mr. Gregoire:: Are there any "nays"?


An hon. Member:: Yes, there are.
(Text):



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
provide for free transportation on the railways of Canada for senior citizens.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, this bill confers upon old age pensioners an advantage in the nature of a fringe benefit. This is a bill to extend to those receiving old age security and old age assistance the same right to free transportation on Canadian railways that members of parliament at present enjoy. Those persons would be eligible to apply for free transportation, and there would be no means test.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-96, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there are two rather obvious omissions from the bill of rights. The first is that at the present time this house has not direct control over the election of its own members. The second is that naturalized Canadian citizens are not on a basis of complete equality with natural born Canadian citizens. The whole purpose of this bill is to make it clear that when a vacancy in the representation in this house has been notified to Your Honour the chief electoral officer, who is an officer of this house, and the chief electoral officer alone will have the power to determine when the election will be held, so that it will not be possible for the executive to delay these elections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other is to make sure that no other statute of Canada will impose on a Canadian citizen who has been naturalized, who has been given Canadian citizenship, any kind of disability that is not borne by a native born citizen of our country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard) (Questions answered orally are indicated moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-95, to by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Malheson: Which of the 44 recommendations contained in chapter XIV of the Fauteux commission report submitted on April 30, 1956, (a) have been implemented in full (b) have been implemented in part (c) are now under active consideration?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: (a) Numbers 6, 19, 34, 39, 42.
(b)	Numbers 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37.
(c)	Numbers 4(a), 23, 27, 31, 38, 40.
Recommendations numbered 3, 7, 9 and 11
are directed to either the provincial authorities or the courts and are not the responsibility of the federal government.


HOUSING LOANS, CHATEAUGUAY DISTRICT, QUEBEC
Mr. Laniel: 1.	How many loans have been authorized from March 1957 to June 18, 1962, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the district of Chateau-guay (constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry) including those made by the corporation itself or by private enterprises under the National Housing Act?
2.	What proportion of such loans was secured by a fire insurance policy issued through the insurance firm known as "Les Agences d'Assurances Sala-berry Inc."?


Mr. McCleave:: 1. Number of N.H.A. Loans- District of Chateauguay, Constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry, March 1957-June 1962.
No. of Loans
Approved lenders	1,596
C.M.H.C.	1,347
Total	2,943
2. The borrower in each case selects the insurance agency from whom the required
(a) and (b).


TOTAL N.H.A. LOANS APPROVED
[Stage Direction]
insurance is obtained, and the corporation's records do not contain any information on this matter with regard to loans made by approved lenders, nor any permanent record with respect to the original policy on direct loans.

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
Have some senior officers of the Hoyal Canadian Mounted Police been granted pay increases within the last month and, if so, to what ranks were these increases granted and how large were the increases?


Mr. McGee:: Yes. Adjustments were granted to the following ranks in the following amounts:
Sub-inspector, $380 per annum; Inspector, $160 per annum; Superintendent, $520 per annum; Chief superintendent, $300 per annum; Assistant commissioner, $750 per annum; Deputy commissioner, $750 per annum.


HOUSING ACT LOANS AND SALES
Mr. Scott: In each of the years ended December 31, 1958, December 31, 1959, and December 31, 1960, in each province (a) how many housing loans were made under the National Housing Act (b) what was the total amount of such loans (c) how many approved purchasers of houses built under the National Housing Act earned (i) under $2,000 per year (ii) between $2,000 and $2,999 per year (iii) between $3,000 and $3,999 per year (iv) between $4,000 and $4,999 per year (v) between $5,000 and $5,999 per year (vi) between $6,000 and $6,999 per year (vii) between $7,000 and $7,999 per year (viii) between $8,000 and $8,999 per year (ix) between $9,000 and $9,999 per year (x) over $10,000 per year?


Robert Jardine McCleave: OR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS*
For the Years 1958, 1959 and 1960
Province	1958	1959	1960	Loans	Amt. ($000)	Loans	Amt. ($000)	Loans	Amt. ($000)Nfld	3,727	253	2,949	104	1,153378	37	445	57	574N.S	8,654	1,004	11,239	608	6,820N.B	9,079	896	9,194	563	5,903Que	107,150	8,042	92,171	6,664	74,273Ont	390,525	22,074	265,412	11,390	139,043Man	31,624	2,784	32,162	1,550	18,540Sask	26,486	2,687	30,841	1,518	16,653Alta	112,361	8,057	95,422	3,871	46,270B.C	81,592	5,200	61,426	1,642	19,333Yukon	
i	10	16	174	32	377NWT	168	14	176	6	76Canada	
65,879	771,760	51,064	601,611	28,005	329,015
* Data do not take account of cancellations.

(0).

Questions


NUMBER OF N.H.A. BORROWERS AND PURCHASERS IN SELECTED INCOME GROUPS
[Stage Direction]
1958*
Under	$2000-	$3000-	$4000-	$5000-	$6000-	$7000-	$8000-	$9000-	$10,000	Area	$2000	$2999	$3999	$4999	$5999	$6999	$7999	$8999	$9999	and over	totalCanada	... 5	98	4,081	14,659	11,171	6,633	3,284	1,672	806	1,739	44,148
* Provincial breakdown of the data are not available for 1958.

[Stage Direction]
Area	Under $2000-	$3000-	$4000-	$5000-	$6000-	$7000-	$8000-	$9000-	$10,000-	Total$2000 $2999	$3999	$4999	15999	*6999	$7999	$8999	$9999	and over	NHd	... - 2	50	70	50	37	19	8	2	17	264P.E.I	... - 2	4	8	5	2	3	1	1	7	33N.S	... - 13	126	282	222	111	79	30	17	37	917N.B	... - 32	216	323	193	132	67	24	11	38	1,036Que	... - 27	695	2,462	2,610	1,899	1,168	670	284	539	10,354Ont	... 3 85	2,252	10,770	8,772	4,866	2,432	1,259	500	1,077	32,016Man	... - 12	445	1,181	734	438	212	131	48	137	3,338Sask	... - 7	278	751	668	530	256	155	53	177	2,875Alta	... - 15	824	3,502	2,566	1,561	789	403	229	458	10,347B.C	.... - 5	374	1,940	1,816	1,100	513	224	138	284	6,394Yukon	. . . . 	-	5	3	3	3	1	-	1	16NWT	-	-	4	1	2	1	1	-	9Canada	... 3 200	5,273	21,294	17,643	10,680	5,543	2,907	1,284	2,772	67,599NUMBER OF	N.H.A. BORROWERS AND PURCHASERS IN SELECTED INCOME GROUPS	1960	Area	Under $2000- $3000-	$4000-	$5000-	$6000-	$7000-	$8000-	$9000-	$10,000- Total$2000 $2999 $3999	$4999	$5999	$6999	$7999	$8999	$9999	and overNfld	-	4	29	39	19	17	8	5	3	4	128P.E.I	2	17	18	8	3	4	2	-	1	55N.S	9	97	226	139	99	46	20	6	10	652N.B	7	117	206	84	78	52	21	15	24	604Que	17	559	2,261	1,702	1,054	559	294	137	298	6,882Ont	25	768	4,362	3,742	2,154	1,119	551	269	397	13,386Man	2	137	654	344	189	109	45	19	37	1,536Sask	9	221	692	324	212	74	54	30	50	1,666Alta	9	342	1,773	1,196	712	336	167	73	134	4,742B.C	... 1	4	127	766	709	423	184	73	41	51	2,379Yukon	... 	-	-	9	6	5	4	4	1	5	34NWT	-	1	1	2	-	-	-	4Canada	... 1	88	2,415	11,007	8,275	4,946	2,495	1,236	594	1,011	32,068

Mr. Mackasey: 1.	Who has been appointed commissioner of the national centennial administration?
2.	Have the eight directors of this centennial administration been chosen?
3.	What are the salaries of the commissioner and deputy commissioner?
4.	Has the administration had any meetings and, if so, how many?
5.	When does the administration intend to make grants to provinces or organizations for the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada?
6.	What decisions have so far been made in order that the centennial be observed throughout Canada in a manner in keeping with its national and historical significance?

Questions


John George Diefenbaker: The answers are as follows:
1 and 2. The government is still giving consideration to these appointments, covering as they do provincial and federal representatives, also representatives of the various organizations. As far as questions 3 and 4 are concerned, they therefore are not applicable.
5 and 6. I shall make a statement on these matters after the appointments of the commissioner and directors are announced.
(Translation):


OTTAWA DISTRICT, HARBOURS AND RIVERS ENGINEERING BRANCH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Legare: 1.	What are, for the harbours and rivers engineering branch of the Department of Public Works, the limits of the district of Ottawa?
2.	How many English speaking and how many French speaking persons are resident in the said district?
3.	Is the chief engineer of the said district a unilingual officer?
4.	Does the department intend to make any change in this situation?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. The limits of the district of Ottawa consist of the electoral ridings of Chapleau, Villeneuve, Pontiac-Temiscamingue, Gatineau, Labelle, Glengarry-Prescott, Russell, Stormont, Grenville-Dundas, Carleton, Lanark, Leeds, Kingston, Prince Edward-Lennox, Hastings South, Hastings-Frontenac, Renfrew South, Renfrew North.
2.	According to the dominion bureau of statistics, there are 645,019 English speaking residents and 377,010 French speaking residents in that area.
3.	Yes, but his assistant is bilingual. Ten out of 14 members of the technical staff are bilingual.
4.	Though there is always room for improvement, the present situation is considered satisfactory.
(Text):


INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGED HARMFUL DRUGS
Mr. Harley: 1.	What are the investigative procedures carried out by the food and drug directorate re drugs suspected of having harmful effects?
2.	In the steps the directorate takes in these matters (a) who initiates the investigation (b) who carries it out (c) how is it assessed, and by whom?
3.	Does the government maintain any liaison with similar food and drug directorates in other countries and, if not, would the government consider setting up liaison?


Mrs. Casselman:: 1. The investigative procedures used by the food and drug directorate regarding drugs suspected of having harmful effects depend on the nature, extent and source of the report received on the harmful effects of the drugs. It is the practice to refer

such reports first to a member of the professional staff of the directorate with knowledge and experience in the drug field on the harmful effects reported. This in turn may lead to a search of the scientific literature, inquiries from or consultation with scientists in the government, in other countries, in pharmaceutical firms, or in scientific organizations.
Where the reports indicate the necessity for inspecting the facilities of the pharmaceutical manufacturer, this is carried out by the inspection services of the directorate. Where laboratory studies are indicated the problem is referred to the laboratory services of the directorate for investigation.
2.	The investigations are initiated under the authority of the director and are assigned to members of the professional staff of the food and drug directorate considered to have the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to study the problem. The results of the investigations are assessed by the professional staff in consultation with the director or referred to an advisory panel on drugs.
3.	There are frequent conversations and interchange of information respecting problems in the drug field between the technical staff of the food and drug directorate and the food and drug administration in the United States, the ministry of health in the United Kingdom and in Australia, and similar government agencies in other countries.
Liaison is also maintained with the groups in the world health organization concerned with the international pharmacopoeia and the biological standardization of drugs, and the food and drug directorate is represented on panels and committees of organizations concerned with the establishment of official compendia on drugs in the United Kingdom and the United States.
In his statement to the House of Commons on October 26 the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that the Canadian delegation to the world health assembly held last May initiated and co-sponsored a special resolution designed to promote greater international co-operation in the drug field and particularly to secure regular exchange of information on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical preparations. The international type of liaison envisaged in the resolution is considered a very effective method of dealing with the subject.


UCLUELET INDIAN RESERVE, B.C.   WORKS CONTRACT
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has a contract recently been awarded for the construction of certain works at the Ucluelet Indian reserve in Ucluelet, B.C., and, if so, what is the

Questions
nature of these works, and under the auspices of what department or departments are these works being constructed?
2.	What are the names of the bidders for this contract and the amounts of their respective tenders?
3.	To whom was this contract awarded?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. No, although tenders have been received.
2.	Mr. I. Ossinger, Port Albion, B.C.,
$13,076.20; Thom Gibson Contracting, Tofino,
B.C.,	$16,445; McLellan Contracting Co.
Ltd., Alberni, B.C., $16,450.
3.	Not applicable.


SHIPMENTS OF WHEAT TO ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Eihier: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture received representations concerning the limited shipments of wheat from western Canada to wholesalers and flour mills in eastern Ontario and western Quebec?
2.	Have steps been taken to provide increased supplies?


Mr. Pigeon:: 1. There have been no representations received concerning limited shipments from western Canada of the milling grades of wheat for consumption in eastern Canada. With regard to feeding grades of


Mr. McBain:: (a), (b) and (c).
Year of	Acreage
acquisition	involved
1942	285.35
1943	109.94
1947	110
1949	30.39
1951	328
1952	72.54
1954	1,586.53
1957	2
1958	10.09
1959	7.82
1960	1
1962	474.78
wheat there have been some representations received indicating concern as to the supply and availability in eastern Canada.
2. There is an adequate supply of the milling grades of wheat in eastern Canada. With regards to feeding grades, the Canadian wheat board has been giving priority to shipping the lower grades from the country elevators to the lakehead and throughout the fall season they have had on continuous offer ample supplies of feeding wheat, in the form of sample wheat lots, in the terminals. There have been no problems inasmuch as the board always had enough feeding grades at the lakehead when the boats presented. Eastern buyers have the responsibility of purchasing this wheat and moving it to eastern positions to meet the demands of their customers.


VANCOUVER AIRPORT
Mr. Laing: In connection with land acquisitions for Vancouver international airport at Sea island, by way of purchase or expropriation what was (a) year of acquisition (b) acreage involved (c) average price per acre paid?
Average price per	acre
$	755 (includes buildings)
609	"
440	"
721	"
755
1,356
3,900
1,858
5,000	(subdivided residential lots)
5,000	"
3,680 (city of Vancouver land only)


AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES BY PROVINCES
Mr. Laing: In January 1945, and for January of each year since, what have been average weekly wages paid in each of the provinces?


Mr. Nesbitt:: 


AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES AND SALARIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPOSITE OF NINE MAJOR NON-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, BY PROVINCE, JANUARY, 1945-1962, INCLUSIVE
[Stage Direction]
January	Newfoundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia$	$	%	$	s	$	$	$	%	$1945	n.a.	25.38	33.44	28.60	30.67	33.00	31.31	30.68	33.13	34.701946	n.a.	26.01	31.11	29.74	30.90	32.42	32.42	31.60	33.87	34.671947	n.a.	28.16	33.57	32.58	33.56	36.00	35.45	34.89	36.01	36.901948	n.a.	28.54	33.96	34.88	37.27	39.87	38.25	37.14	38.18	41.001949	n.a.	33.14	38.56	39.04	41.09	44.13	41.98	41.09	44.66	44.791950	39.95	33.36	39.54	38.87	42.13	45.57	42.82	42.27	44.34	45.561951	41.45	35.96	40.97	41.56	45.67	50.07	46.35	44.89	48.69	50.361952	48.53	36.51	44.47	45.23	51.14	55.59	50.68	49.68	53.52	57.121953	52.06	44.37	48.74	49.08	54.41	58.91	53.74	52.71	57.50	61.651954	54.90	44.80	49.45	50.15	56.26	60.75	56.05	54.96	59.93	62.601955	52.43	46.27	50.36	52.21	57.76	62.61	57.27	56.98	62.05	64.821956	54.20	47.74	52.68	54.07	59.94	64.94	59.05	58.96	64.92	67.331957	59.44	46.74	55.40	57.51	64.16	69.39	62.46	63.84	68.80	71.091958	61.67	52.71	58.44	57.63	66.64	72.08	67.87	66.48	71.56	73.591959	60.73	54.62	59.26	59.47	69.65	75.46	68.01	68.34	74.78	77.901960	65.46	57.49	62.73	62.52	72.31	77.98	70.74	70.61	77.32	82.011961	71.08	57.94	63.62	63.49	74.27	79.96	72.24	72.52	78.67	83.831962	72.69	59.20	65.13	65.23	76.84	82.23	73.87	75.11	80.68	86.22
n.a.-not available.
2334	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Mr. Laing: In respect of the sale of houses in the Fraser-view veterans housing project in Vancouver, (a) was straight line depreciation of 2J per cent per annum computed in fixing the price of these properties to the veterans (b) was C.M.H.C. instructed by the Minister of Public Works at any time that the sale prices to the veterans were to be based on actual cost and not on current market value and, if so, how is the price of $10,600 for a 5-room bungalow with basement computed (c) are identical houses being sold in the veterans project in the city of Vernon at prices as much as $2,500 less, and if so, on what computation (d) when did C.M.H.C. return to the government the 2 per cent money advanced for the construction of this project?


Robert Jardine McCleave: (a) Straight line depreciation of 21 per cent per annum was computed for the purpose of determining the corporation's book value of the properties. The sales prices for houses in the 1948-49 veterans program were established on a basis that nationally would recover the full outlay of the government in the over-all program of approximately 12,000 units. On establishing prices for the individual projects in each municipality, consideration was given to the original costs of construction, age of the houses, their present market value and their location.
(b)	No. As indicated in (a) above, the sale prices took into consideration both the corporation's costs and the current market value.
(c)	Yes. The same house types have been sold in the city of Vernon at prices less than the sales prices in the Fraserview project. The considerations influencing the sales prices in the Vernon project were the same as expressed in (a) above.
(d)	The corporation repays debentures under section 37 of the National Housing Act over a 40 year period. In addition, where a house is sold principal repayments of the debenture debt are accelerated annually to the extent of the amount of principal received by C.M.H.C. as a result of sale.


SPRUCE BUDWORM CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 983
Mr. MacRae:: 1.	What contributions did the federal government make to initiate spruce budworm control operations in eastern Canada?
2.	Have the control operations yielded substantial benefits?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: During the entire period of the budworm outbreak, which started about 1949, officers of the Department of Forestry have carried out surveys to delineate areas of high hazard, where
Questions
control operations would be needed to prevent serious timber mortality. They also carried out intensive biological studies and provided technical advisory services to the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Quebec, and to forest industrial associations in the two provinces.
The federal government paid one third of the cost of control operations in New Brunswick since 1953. Over the past ten years the federal government paid approximately $3.8 million to the cost of the control program.
The spraying operations prevented serious timber mortality throughout the huge infestation area. Without this direct intervention severe timber mortality would have occurred over an area of at least four or five million acres, and a fire hazard of extreme proportions would have been created.


COLUMBIA RIVER
Mr. Davis: Has the Canadian government or any of its agencies made inquiries about the sale of a portion or all of Canada's share of Columbia river treaty downstream benefit energy in the United States and, if so, what was the result of these inquiries in terms of the volume, the duration, and the price of the surplus downstream benefit power which Canada might sell to utilities in the United States?


Mr. Green:: As indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his reply on November 27 last to a question by the hon. member for Kootenay East, representatives of the federal government have been participating in talks with representatives of British Columbia and the United States on a noncommittal basis. Two such talks have been held and another meeting is scheduled for mid December.
^FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR INTERPROVINCIAL ROADS


Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received any request from the minister of highways of the province of Alberta for federal assistance in the building of interprovincial roads?
2.	Was any federal assistance granted for interprovincial roads?
3.	What is the federal government's national highway policy?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, for trans-Canada highway and under the roads to resources program a connecting road from Alberta to the Northwest Territories.
3.	Present policy provides for federal assistance in the construction of the trans-Canada highway, roads to resources projects and approved interprovincial and international bridge projects.

Questions


NET FARM INCOME
Mr. Maiheson: What is the net income in fixed dollars, for each year commencing 1956, (a) for all Canadian farms (b) for a grain farm (c) for a dairy farm?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: (a). There is not available any one index or composite of indexes which take into account all the purposes for which the net income is used and, therefore, a satisfactory estimate of farm net income in terms of "fixed" dollars cannot be calculated.
(b) and (c). Data concerning farm income and expenditures are collected on the basis of all farms and are not available by type of farm.


*PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: For the electoral district of Skeena, how much money by the Department of Public Works (a) has been spent in each of the fiscal years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 (b) was to have been spent pursuant to the estimates for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1963 (c) is to be spent pursuant to the revised estimates and supple-mentaries thereto for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963?


Robert Jardine McCleave: (a) 1957-58, $284,166; 195859,	$320,568;	1959-60,	$794,161;	1960-61,
$760,071; 1961-1962, $142,103.
(b)	$1,365,000.
(c)	$1,290,000.
(The above figures do not include an average of from $20,000 to $30,000 spent each year on numerous minor repair and upkeep jobs for which the exact figures could not be obtained without devoting an unreasonable amount of time and effort to it.)


FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER SALMON SPAWNING STREAMS
Mr. Howard: 1.	What authority does the Department of Fisheries have to deal with companies or persons whose logging operations result in salmon spawning streams being clogged with debris, and has this authority been exercised in the Queen Charlotte islands at any time during the past ten years and, if so, what action was taken, against whom, at what time, for what reason, and what resulted therefrom?
2.	What authority does the Department of Fisheries have to deal with companies or persons who remove gravel from salmon spawning streams and has this authority been exercised on the Queen Charlotte islands at any time during the past ten years and, if so, what action has been taken against whom, at what time, for what reason, and what resulted therefrom?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1. Section 33, subsection 3, of the Fisheries Act, which reads as follows:
(3) No such person engaging in logging, lumbering, land clearing or other operations, shall put or knowingly permit to be put, any slash, stumps

or other debris into any water frequented by fish or that flows into such water, or on the ice over either such water, or at a place from which it is likely to be carried into either such water.
Departmental policy is to advise offenders of this authority and the penalties provided, with a request for co-operation, which is normally forthcoming. In the past ten years no prosecutions have been necessary on Queen Charlotte islands, although numerous warnings were given, amongst which were removal of debris from Dana inlet creek in 1959, Copper river, Hannat creek and Terundle creek in 1962, all followed by observance of the provisions of the act.
2. Section 30 of the Fisheries Act provides that the eggs or fry of fish on the spawning grounds shall not at any time be destroyed.
The problem has been dealt with by asking companies or persons to limit operations to other areas or to times when eggs and fry are not present. The department is aware that in free periods gravel is stockpiled, as on the Mammon river. This has an undesirable effect and accordingly other means, such as use of dry backwaters, are suggested. In some areas adjustment is easy, for example on the Deena river the company involved was persuaded to use gravel from the intertidal zone.
In recognition of the possibility of serious effects on the Yakoun, one of the largest rivers, and now being considered for logging development, the co-operation of the company and the British Columbia forest service is being enlisted to avoid overremoval.


* COLUMBIA RIVER
Mr. Ryan: Is there any confirmation or endorsement in writing of the Columbia river basin treaty by British Columbia or its representatives, by correspondence, initialling of documents or otherwise?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is a long answer. Perhaps it could be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: How long is the answer?


Howard Charles Green: Two pages.


Mr. Speaker:: In the light of the length of the answer, perhaps it might. I do not want to make suggestions, but there are two things that can be done. Either the answer can be taken as read and appear in Hansard if it is not too long, or it can be made an order for return tabled herewith.


Howard Charles Green: Possibly it could be taken as read.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have it appear in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it to be taken as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	The progress report of the Canadian and United States delegations, dated September 28, 1960, was signed by the negotiator appointed by the government of British Columbia, Mr. E. W. Bassett, deputy minister of lands and forests. This report was tabled in the House of Commons on November 18,
1960.
2.	At a meeting of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee on January 3 and 4, 1961, a statement was placed on the record confirming British Columbia's intention to proceed with the implementation of the treaty as negotiated, which was then in final draft form. This statement was agreed to by the British Columbia representatives, including Hon. Ray Williston, minister of lands and forests and water resources, Hon. R. W. Bonner, attorney general and minister of industrial development, trade and commerce, and Mr. Bassett.
3.	Mr. Bassett also signed the final report to the governments of Canada and the United States, made at Ottawa on January 8, 1961, and tabled as an appendix to Hansard of January 19, 1961. This report recommends to the two governments that they sign the treaty as drawn by the negotiators.
4.	As indicated by the Minister of Public Works on November 30 last, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Kootenay East, a letter dated January 9, 1961, was written formally to Mr. Williston, enclosing an official copy of the treaty recommended by the negotiators, advising him that such treaty would be signed in Washington, giving him the date, and stating that this would be done on the understanding that, unless word to the contrary was received, the treaty as drawn had the approval of the government of British Columbia. This letter was acknowledged by Mr. Williston by letter dated January 12, 1961, and no suggestion of objection was raised. This correspondence was tabled on September 7, 1961 (sessional paper No. 180F).


COLUMBIA RIVER
Mr. Ryan: 1.	Did the federal government prepare the first draft of the Columbia river basin treaty and, if not, by whom was it prepared?
2.	What are the names and positions of all negotiators of the said treaty?


Howard Charles Green: 1. Each of the negotiating
teams started with its own draft. On the Canadian side the draft had been prepared jointly by the federal and British Columbia
Questions
representatives. The final text of the treaty resulted from negotiations which took these and later drafts into account.
2. The negotiators who signed the report covering the treaty were: Hon. E. D. Fulton, Minister of Justice; R. G. Robertson, deputy minister, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; E. W. Bassett, deputy minister of lands and forests, British Columbia; A. E. Ritchie, assistant under secretary of state, Department of External Affairs.
In addition, at various stages of the treaty numerous other financial, engineering, electric power and legal experts from both federal and provincial governments participated in the negotiations.


STUDY OF DISEASE MALVARIA
Mr. Mather: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare information on the disease "malvaria" as identified by Doctors Hoffer and Osmond of Saskatchewan and of its relationship to alcoholism, schizophrenia and mental retardation and, if so, does the department intend to study treatment of the disease with a view to ascertaining whether beneficial results may accrue to the afflicted in those categories?


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Yes, a letter was received from Dr. A. Hoffer enclosing a reprint from the Canadian Medical Association Journal of an article by Doctors Hoffer and Osmond entitled "The Association Between Schizophrenia and Two Objective Tests".
The authors "suggest that these procedures be further evaluated as diagnostic tests for psychiatric illnesses". Dr. Hoffer also stated in his letter that he will soon publish a very comprehensive report in the Canadian Public Health Journal. The department's decision regarding any study of this subject would therefore follow the further evaluation and the report.


COLUMBIA RIVER
Mr. Davis: Was the Canadian government represented at the recent talks between the government of British Columbia and the authorities in the United States concerned with the implementation of the Columbia river treaty and, if so, by whom?


Howard Charles Green: The federal government has been represented by: R. G. Robertson, deputy minister, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; A. E. Ritchie, assistant under secretary of state, Department of External Affairs; J. F. Parkinson, economic adviser, Department of Finance; G. M. Mac-Nabb, water resources branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Questions

(Translation):


GRANTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF MAPLE SAP PAILS
Mr. Boutin: 1.	In what year did the government adopt the policy of providing grants to farmers for the replacement of maple-sap pails?
2.	How many farmers have taken advantage of the legislation?
3.	What amount of money was spent for that purpose?
4.	Was this policy abandoned and, if so, in what year, and does the government intend to reinstitute that policy in the near future?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: 1. In 1940 the government commenced participation in a cost shared program with the province of Quebec to assist in the replacement of maple sap buckets. One-third of the cost of replacement was met by each of (a) the producer (b) the provincial government (c) the federal government. The record keeping and accounting was handled by the provincial government.
2.	Not available.
3.	The federal share of the assistance between 1940 and 1955 totalled $2,932,447.78.
4.	Yes, in 1955. The reinstitution of the program is not being considered at this time.
(Text):


FOREST INVENTORY SURVEYS
Mr. Coales: Has federal government assistance been available to the provinces for the carrying out of forest
inventory surveys since 1951, and, if so, what benefits have resulted from such surveys?


Hugh John Flemming: The inventories have provided the provinces with the basic information necessary for sound forest administration and management. The provinces have utilized the information in establishing sustained yield areas on which a calculated annual production of cellulose can be maintained in perpetuity.
In many areas of Canada the inventory surveys have demonstrated a forest potential capable of sustaining major forest industries and an influx of industry has occurred into areas where, hitherto, forestry was of lesser importance, such as certain parts of the interior of British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia.


INCREASE IN FARM COSTS
Mr. Clunis: With 1952 as the base year, what was the percentage increase in cost to Ontario farmers each year since 1956 of (a) farm machinery (b) replacement parts for farm machinery and (c) commercial fertilizers, weed killers and pesticides, respectively?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In answering this question, the dominion bureau of statistics has interpreted cost to mean farmers' total outlay arising out of quantity and the cost per unit of commodity purchased. The percentage changes in these estimated outlays for the items specified are as follows:
		Farm		
		Machinery		Weed
Farm	Replacement	Commercial	Killers &Machinery	Parts	Fertilizers	Pesticides1952=100	1956	83.4	103.2	125.6	113.71957	76.1	113.2	125.4	119.11958	83.7	113.6	137.5	123.21959	98.3	130.0	155.9	152.51960	96.0	142.3	149.2	162.11961	99.1	148.0	174.7	200.8


SPRUCE BUDWORM OUTBREAK, EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Fairwealher: What is the present status of the spruce budworm outbreak in eastern Canada and, will chemical control operations be necessary in 1963?


Hugh John Flemming: The outbreak is no longer active in northern New Brunswick and the adjacent part of Quebec. Consequently no control operations will be necessary in these areas in 1963.
In central New Brunswick, budworm populations remain at hazardous levels in about one dozen localities, aggregating some 360,000 acres. This is the smallest acreage of hazard-
ous infestation that has been experienced since 1952. Spraying operations should be carried out in 1963 to reduce the budworm population on these 360,000 acres. No other aerial spraying operations against the budworm are anticipated in eastern Canada.
(Translation):


MORTGAGE RESERVE FUND, C.M.H.C.
Mr. Cole: 1.	What is the amount of the reserve fund at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation accumulated through premiums paid by borrowers?
2.	Is this reserve invested in securities?

Questions


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. By October 31, 1962, the credit of the mortgage insurance fund amounted to $99,647,387.
2. An amount of around $14.5 million of this credit represents real properties purchased following the settling of claims. An amount of about $3.7 million represents mortgages resulting from the sale of mortgaged properties purchased. The rest is invested in Canada bonds or guaranteed by Canada, according to the requirements of the National Housing Act.
(Text):


FOREST FIRE PROTECTION
Mr. MacRae: What assistance has been or is being provided the provinces under the federal-provincial forestry agreement respecting forest-fire protection?


Hugh John Flemming: The
agreements have provided federal financial assistance to the provinces for the purchase of capital goods required for the prevention, detection and suppression of forest fires, including the charter of aircraft and vessels required for protection purposes.
As an example of the extent of this assistance, the provinces have since 1957 purchased with federal aid 57 fire towers, 1,453 radios, 867 motor vehicles, 24 bulldozers, 47 muskeg tractors, 799 power pumps, 4,732 hand pumps, and over 3 million feet of hose. In addition, 100 buildings have been erected and for the charter of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, an amount of nearly $3,560,000 has been shared in. Many minor items of equipment have also been purchased.
(Translation):


DORVAL AIRPORT
Mr. Marcoux: What companies are authorized to carry passengers from the Dorval airport to the city of Montreal and were these companies invited to submit public tenders?


James Alexander McBain: Murray Hill Limousine Service Limited, in accordance with a franchise granted by the Quebec transportation board, the controlling provincial authority over services of this sort, and in accordance with an agreement entered into with the Department of Transport. Because of provincial jurisdiction over franchises, federal calling of public tenders would not be appropriate, but there is regular consultation with the airlines with a view to providing service in accordance with their requirements.
(Text):


MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS OF ONTARIO FARMS
Mr. Clunis: 1.	In the period 1956 to 1962 inclusive, what was the total number of Ontario farms which were subject to mortgage in each year?
2.	What was the total mortgage indebtedness owing on Ontario farms in each of the years 1956 to 1962 inclusive?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 1. In 1958 the estimated number of Ontario farms with mortgages was 49,306.* Statistics are not yet available for the 1961 census year; for other years, no information is available.
2. In 1958, the estimated mortgage indebtedness on Ontario farms was $244,623,000.* For other years, see answer to question 1.
*Source: 1958 Farm Survey Report No. 1: Expenditures, Receipts and Farm Capital, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


APPROVALS BY EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Laing: Since November 1, 1962, what is the (a) description of export (b) name of exporter (c) value of export, of all approvals made by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: (a) Exports made during the month of November are not reported to the corporation until the month of December and details will not be tabulated until late in December.
(b)	All discussions and correspondence in connection with policies are to be treated by both sides as confidential in accordance with the contracts of insurance, therefore, the corporation cannot divulge the name of exporters.
(c)	Answered by (a).


ACTION ON REPORT ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Mr. Brewin: Has government consideration been given to the recommendations of the report of the committee on juvenile delinquency of the social planning council of metropolitan Toronto of September, 1962, and, if so (a) what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out any of the recommendations (b) in particular, has the Minister of Justice called, or does he intend to call, a dominion-provincial conference to advise him on the revision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (c) has the Minister of Justice considered, and, if so, what action is proposed in regard to the legislative changes recommended in the above report (d) has consideration been given to the establishment of an institute for the study of crime and delinquency, as recommended in the said report?


Thomas Miller Bell: The Minister of Justice appointed a departmental committee on juvenile delinquency to advise him on this subject in January, 1962. This committee has been travelling across Canada, receiving briefs from and holding discussions with authorities in every province which

Questions
works in or is familiar with the field of juvenile delinquency. Two meetings were held with the social planning council of metropolitan Toronto on October 15 and 16, at which time the report of the committee on juvenile delinquency of the social planning council of metropolitan Toronto was received and discussed. That report will be considered by the departmental committee when it comes to prepare its own report, which will be handed down by the end of April, 1963.


* FRENCH CANADIAN MEMBERS, C.N.R. DIRECTORS
Mr. Gregoire: Are there any French Canadians among the directors of the Canadian National Railways?


James Alexander McBain: Yes; Mr. J. Louis Levesque, Mr. Guy Charbonneau and Mr. Gilbert Ayers.
(Translation):


FRENCH CANADIAN MEMBERS, C.N.R. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Gregoire: Has any consideration ever been given to the appointment of a French Canadian to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways and, if so (a) when (b) who was considered for such appointment (c) what was the substance of the decision made in each case?


James Alexander McBain: Messrs. J. Louis Levesque, Guy Charbonneau and Gilbert Ayers are, at present, members of the board of directors of the C.N.R. They were appointed by the government for a term of three years starting on October 1, 1961.
(Text):



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Berger: 1.	Is the publication, called Canadian Intelligence Service emanating from Flesherton, Ontario, an official publication of the government of Canada?
2.	If not (a) has the government received any protests concerning the use of this title for a nongovernmental publication (b) has the government any control over the use of such titles by non-governmental publications (c) does the government endeavour to discourage the use of such titles by non-governmental publications?


N.H.A. LOANS THROUGH C.M.H.C. OFFICES, TORONTO AREA
Mr. Cameron (High Park): 1.	How many National Housing Act loans have been processed through the Toronto branch, Scarborough branch, and Weston branch office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1962?
2.	What was their total value?
3.	How many loans were processed in 1961, 1960, and 1959?

4.	What lawyers handled these loans for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in each of these years, and what were their fees?


PRIVATE AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT BY PROVINCES
Mr. Laing: In each year since 1950, what has been the volume of (a) private capital (b) social capital, invested in each of the provinces?


FORT NELSON INDIAN RESERVE, MUSKWA, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Upon what date was the land acquired for the settlement of the Fort Nelson Indians near Muskwa at or near mile 295 of the Alaska highway, and is there a military camp or establishment at that location and, if so, how many men are stationed at it?
2.	Were some or all of these Indians previously living on or near a so-called traditional reserve named "The Old Fort" and, if so, how far distant is "The Old Fort" from the present settlement near Muskwa?
3.	Who initiated the proposal to move these Indians and upon what date was that proposal made?
4.	During the time that he was superintendent of the Fort St. John Indian agency, did Mr. Galibois, by himself or in conjunction with any other person, buy, stake, or otherwise gain control over any land on or near the so-called traditional reserve and, if so, has the government reviewed the circumstances under which the land was so purchased?


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION CONVENTIONS
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Since 1919, how many conventions adopted by the international labour organization has Canada approved and what were they?
2.	What international labour organization conventions have not been approved, and what are the grounds in each case for withholding approval?
3.	Has the Canadian government invited provincial government representatives to act as delegates to international labour organization conferences?
4.	If so, when, and who were the delegates and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Hales:: Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, DORCHESTER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Boutin: 1.	In the 1962-63 estimates, what federal public works were provided for Dorchester constituency?
2.	What are the federal works presently proceeding in Dorchester constituency, and what is the amount of money involved in the execution of these works?
3.	Has the Prime Minister received representations concerning the cancellation of public works projects in Dorchester constituency and, if so, what was the nature of such representations and by whom were they made?
4.	Does the government intend to act on any representations received recommending the cancellation of any public works in Dorchester constituency?

Motions for Papers
PROPERTIES RENTED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, REPLACEMENT OF NORTH FRASER HARBOUR VANCOUVER	COMMISSION

Question No. 1,036-Mr. Laing:
In the city of Vancouver (a) how many properties are leased or rented by the government of Canada and all its agencies (b) in 1961, what total rents were paid on all the properties and (c) in 1961, what total rent was paid by the C.B.C.?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	How much has been spent since April 1, 1957, in each fiscal year, on research into Indian affairs?
2.	What research projects have been carried out since April 1, 1957?
3.	What steps have been taken as the result of these research projects?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Malheson:
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.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: There is no objection, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence relative to duties imposed on imported fish feed exchanged between the ministers and/or departments of finance and national revenue, and persons and/or organizations since January 1, 1960.
Mr. Graffiey:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for agreeing to stand his motion in the absence of my minister.
Motion stands.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the government and persons or organizations relative to the establishment of a local advisory committee to the Vancouver harbour master.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the government and persons or organizations relative to the establishment of a Fraser river port authority, or an enlarged New Westminster harbour board, to replace the existing New Westminster harbour board.
Motion agreed to.
Motion No. 53-Mr. Douglas:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the government and persons or organizations relative to the establishment of a Fraser river port authority, or an enlarged New Westminster harbour board, to replace the existing north Fraser harbour commission.
Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Speaker, my office has explained to the hon. member's office that the replacing of the North Fraser harbour commission is not being considered and that there is no correspondence on the subject. In the circumstances maybe the hon. member would wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Douglas:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT ON FORT ST. JOHN INDIAN AGENCY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any reports of conditions at the Fort St. John Indian agency and in particular the situation at Prophet River since January 1, 1962.
Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member most co-operatively has agreed that this motion may stand.
Motion stands.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Pickersgill:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all communications received by the government or any member thereof since July 8, 1961 regarding the recommendation of the joint committee on Indian affairs that "Indian affairs should be the subject of a dominion-provincial conference in order that such matters may be transferred to provincial jurisdiction as may be mutually acceptable to the Indian people, provincial and federal authorities"; together with copies of any replies made thereto.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the consent of any provincial authorities will be required. Subject to this and any privileged communications, I have no objection to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations indicated by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
2342	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Trade and Commerce is he in a position to make a statement to the house on the effect on Canada's oil policy of the proclamation by the President of the United States, which I understand was made over the week end, bringing Canada within the limits of a new United States oil import control system?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to make such a statement at the present time. We shall be meeting officials of the United States government here in Ottawa on next Thursday, the 13th, for discussions, and there should be something to report at the following meeting of parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether the Canadian government was consulted before this step was taken in Washington?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we were not consulted. To my knowledge no definite action along this line has been taken yet. These matters will all be discussed with us when the United States officials come here to Ottawa, but it is my understanding that no action has as yet been taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us whether the quotas which are proposed are in excess of the usual imports of Canadian oil into the United States?


George Harris Hees: It will not be until after the United States officials arrive here for these discussions that we shall know just what the proposals are or how they would affect Canada. Then the whole matter will be discussed between the representatives of the two governments.
(Translation) :



WORLD FAIR, MONTREAL    ESTABLISHMENT OF CROWN CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux Montagnes):: My question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister tell us if an agreement has been reached by the federal, provincial and municipal governments with regard to the establishment of a corporation that would be responsible for the 1967 world fair, to be held in Montreal?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I wish to say that the lawyers of the three governments in question are studying the bill that will be introduced in this house.


We hope that they will soon come to an agreement, because we wish to submit the bill to parliament as soon as possible in order to put into operation everything needed for the world fair.
(Text):


Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal):: This is a supplementary question. I had a similar question to address to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In his reply the hon. gentleman used the words "as soon as possible". May I ask him if by the use of those words he meant within the next few days or within the next few weeks, because according to the minister's own statement speed is essential.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: In answer to that question, we hope to have everyone in agreement concerning the terms of this bill within the next few days, and in that case there should be no delay in getting on with this measure. I share the desire of the hon. member that this crown corporation should be formed at the earliest possible moment in order to get things moving.



FEDERAL EXHIBITS AT NEW YORK AND CANADIAN WORLD'S FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John H. Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of this government to enter an exhibit at the New York world fair and at Canada's world fair?


An hon. Member:: Paul Martin.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): I hear the suggestion that we exhibit the hon. member for Essex East, but I think that might be too startling for those who attend. Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Honey (Durham):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps in his absence one of his colleagues or one of the parliamentary secretaries can answer. In view of the present critical situation resulting in the closing of markets for the sale of flue cured tobacco in Ontario, can the minister advise if the government will enter into an agreement under the provisions of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act for the marketing of flue cured tobacco produced in the province of Ontario in 1962?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to consult Hansard and see the ruling made with regard to a similar question yesterday asked by the hon. member for Essex South.


Russell Clayton Honey: On a point of order, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: On this matter of the determination of the importance of the question, the ruling of the Chair is made.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture may I ask his parliamentary secretary whether any changes are contemplated in the government's policy regarding tobacco marketing.


Mr. W. K. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, whenever a change of policy is made it is announced in the house in the usual manner.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I have rephrased the previous question and I should like to ask it of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the request of the Ontario flue cured tobacco growers marketing board, dated October 24, 1962, for an agreement under the provisions of the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, been approved or rejected by this government?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) applies in this case as well.
(Translation):



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, who has been informed of my intention to ask it.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, during a hearing of the inquiry into the activities of the seafarers' international union before Judge Norris, a French speaking witness was accused of obstructing proceedings because he insisted on giving evidence in French?
Would the Prime Minister have any comments with regard to this matter, in view of the bill of rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that it would not be in order to comment on developments before a court of justice.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the question is not in keeping with standing orders.


Maurice Rinfret: If I may, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Dupuis:: On a point of order.


Maurice Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, the question does not deal with the inquiry commission as such, nor with its subject, but simply with this procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Neither procedure nor comments by judges or witnesses can be accepted as matter for questions on the orders of the day.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister have any comments to make following the visit, some time ago, of University of Ottawa students or could he tell us what he replied when they asked him for adequate French Canadian representation at the C.N.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not proper, on the orders of the day, to ask questions concerning events of that sort.



POSSIBLE LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the agreement between the Canadian National Railways and the truckers' association in the province of Quebec lead to the dismissal of
C.N.R. employees, in the province of Quebec?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this agreement was not signed for that purpose.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, following the demonstration which took place this afternoon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Roland Léo English: I rise on a question of privilege Mr. Speaker.
2344	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
I must say that some time ago all political parties were called together in order to protest against the lack of French Canadian representation on the C.N.R. board of directors. I was among those who protested. That matter was to be discussed regardless of party affiliation. However, I note that certain members attended the demonstration and even addressed the demonstrators. Consequently, it is my duty to protest, because they acted as the standard bearers of that group.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that Conservative members also attended that manifestation.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Roland Léo English: Out of the six speakers, there was only one-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that in addition to the rules, certain practices are in force in the house, and that they must be adhered to.
As to the point of order, the hon. member has explained that he did not take part in a certain manifestation, and the matter should rest there.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: have a question to ask the Minister of Finance, a copy of which has been sent to him. In his absence, however, may I direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Would the hon. gentleman advise whether the government is contemplating revoking the living allowance paid to members of the R.C.M.P. and armed forces stationed in Newfoundland?


William Heward Grafftey: My answer is that the question is based on straight conjecture and if-I underline the word "if" -any decision were made in this regard it would be announced in the normal way.
(Translation):



SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State.


Is the minister aware that there are now some twenty vacant positions in the bureau for translations?
(Text):


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: I shall make inquiries about this matter.
(Translation):



ALLEGED ERROR IN TRANSLATION OF FRENCH QUESTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with question 1,042 which was answered a few moments ago. I think I should have put the question in both languages, thus implementing true bilingualism myself for the question, as it was asked in French, was as follows:
Y a-t-il des Canadiens franeais au seln du consell d'administration de la compagnie des chemins de fers Nationaux du Canada?
While in English, it reads as follows: (Text):
Are there any French Canadians among the directors of Canadian National Railways?-
which is not the real translation.
(Translation):
The reply was given according to the English translation rather than the French original. Therefore, I ask that the question be put back on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall have to check if the translation of the question has to be corrected. I do hope that, within a few days, so that such incidents and, if any, such errors will not happen again, we shall be able to submit to the house a program showing in what language the questions have been asked, and those questions would be answered in the same language.
Meanwhile, I would tell the hon. member that a minister may give his answer in the language of his choice.


Mr. Priiiie:: Was the question asked in French or in English?


Gilles Grégoire: It was asked in French, Mr. Speaker.


Léon Balcer: The question was answered in French.


Gilles Grégoire: The answer was given according to the English version, which does not have the same meaning as the question asked in French.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no use arguing. I take the question with reservation and we shall see to it that an amended answer be given if necessary.

(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for St. Mary in his capacity as chairman of the committee on privileges and elections, and ask him, in view of the importance of some of the matters which have been referred to it, when that committee will be meeting.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I do not
know whether I am in order in answering this question, but the subcommittee on the agenda has met and will inform the members of the committee when the sitting will be held. At that time we shall report on the procedure, at this first meeting.



MEETING OF PARTY LEADERS TO PREPARE AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on November 27 the right hon. gentleman stated that he intended to call the leaders of the different parties together to discuss an agenda and ways and means of speeding up the work of this house, and on November 29 he again gave the house his assurance that this would be done as soon as the leader of the Liberal party returned, would the Prime Minister inform the house when he intends to call such a meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: There have been negotiations and discussions going on between the leader of the house and the representatives of the various parties. The results of these negotiations have been transmitted to me, and I am asking that the leaders gather together tomorrow morning at 9.30.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based in part on the reply of the Prime Minister yesterday with regard to the possession by Canadian armed forces of nuclear weapons? Will the minister explain his reported statement to a Vancouver student audience that Canada may be forced to arm with nuclear weapons?
27507-3-149
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I made the same statement there that I made to the Voice of Women organization here in this building a few weeks ago; I am not sure whether or not the hon. member for Essex East was among those women. At that time I said that no guarantee could be given by any government of Canada to the effect that there would never be nuclear weapons in Canada. It would depend on world conditions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
hon. gentleman if, when he addressed the women who constitute this organization, the Minister of National Defence was present?


Howard Charles Green: No, I was doing the speaking to those people on that occasion.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Can the
minister inform the house whether his statement to the Voice of Women and to the students in British Columbia represents a change in the policy of the government opposing nuclear weapons in Canadian hands?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Can the minister tell the house whether the government has decided in what circumstances it would require nuclear weapons?


Mr. Speaker:: That is quite hypothetical.


Howard Charles Green: I think this is hardly the occasion for a debate on this question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister having to do with an article appearing on the front page of this morning's Gazette headed "Incompetence of some M.P.'s Ottawa Shock". Is the defeated Conservative member John Pratt rewriting his own biography in order to become the new leader of the Conservative party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair heard the question, but the Chair will tell the hon. member that according to the rules of the house his question was most improper.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the house when he will be in a position to table the answer to question No. 403 standing in my name, which appeared on the order paper on October 22 and was passed as an order for return one month ago today?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking from memory, but I think this has been answered, and the order for return was tabled quite a long time ago.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A supplementary question. I wish to advise the minister that as of two o'clock today it was not filed, and I would ask the minister to see that this question is at once answered.


Léon Balcer: I will be very pleased to do so.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I gave him this morning. Would the minister advise the house as to the credit balance, as of November 30 last, in the unemployment insurance fund account?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will know that questions of a similar type have not been accepted on orders of the day. They are asking statistical information, which the hon. minister is not expected to have at hand.
(Translation):



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming). Does the minister think that all R.C.M.P. officers on duty on parliament hill should be bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out that such a question cannot be asked on the orders of the day.
(Text) :



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. M. Drury (SI. Antoine-Wesimouni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of an answer he gave today which indicated that the commissioners of the

national centennial administration had not yet been appointed. Since it has been some time since the legislation was passed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -could we hope for an appointment before Christmas?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we hope to have these gentlemen on the payroll very shortly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister, as head of the government of Canada, not think he owes a serious reply to the question put by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, instead of the insolent and irresponsible reply he made a few mo^ ments ago?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With the greatest
deference to the hon. member for Essex East, I think with his experience he knows that the latter portion of his question was quite improper. There is no case for an hon. member to comment upon the nature of a reply given by any minister.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Under those circumstances the remarks of the hon. member in that regard were quite improper, and I think he knows it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen may not like it, but I am going to speak in spite of this obstruction from the government benches.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the hon. member will speak on the point of order as to the propriety of commenting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to make my own remarks on the point of order, and in my own way, and then Your Honour may comment upon them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have noted what Your Honour has said. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to an important event in the life of this nation, namely the occasion when we shall celebrate our centenary. That question having been addressed to the Prime Minister, the head of the government, it did not warrant from him the

flippant answer which he gave. If words I used in description of this situation offend Your Honour's interpretation of the rules, I gladly withdraw them. However, I am sure Your Honour will understand the provocation.


Mr. Speaker:: I am satisfied that the hon. member has withdrawn his words. While we all recognize that perhaps the nature of a question or a reply may be out of line, nevertheless it is quite the practice of this house that one cannot and does not express those feelings.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. My question is based on one which I posed to the minister on November 29 with respect to certain recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission. At that time the minister indicated that he had not yet had the recommendations of the commission, and I am wondering whether he can indicate whether he has them now.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the answer I gave on the previous occasion. I might add that these reports of the commission go to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the first instance.


Frank Howard: Then might I ask a supplementary question and address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask him whether he has on hand or has received the recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, somewhat as a cooling off interlude I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I apologize for not having given him notice of it. Can the minister inform the house whether there have been any discussions whatever between officials
27507-3-149J
Inquiries of the Ministry of this government and officials of any provincial governments with respect to the possible location of a second trans-Canada highway?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that question takes in a great deal of territory. I have not searched the files. However, I think the answer to that question would be yes. I should not care to go further than that. There have been discussions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was the government consulted as to its future requirements in Canada House prior to its recent sale to Americans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question should go on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have given him prior notice. It is further to the question which I asked of the minister on Monday and to which he then replied. Will the minister advise whether he has now received a report from the board of transport commissioners following the inquiry which has been conducted into the chlorine gas accident which occurred in Cornwall on Friday last?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a preliminary inspection of the car was made at Cornwall by officers of the board and others. As a result of the disclosures during this inspection, the car is being removed to Montreal where the necessary facilities are available to enable a more thorough inspection to be made. The board is not in a position to indicate the result of the investigation at the moment.



COPYRIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Now that he has had an opportunity to settle into the responsibilities of

Atlantic Development Board that office will he advise the house whether he is preparing for consideration by the house a new copyright act during the fiscal year which will conclude at the end of March next, in accordance with the promise given by his predecessor that one would be introduced for consideration at this session?


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this matter is under consideration.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


Hugh John Flemming: the second reading of Bill No. C-94, to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board.


Mr. Speaker:: Will hon. members who are going to leave the chamber please do so in order that the Chair may recognize anyone who is going to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister anything to say?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, on the motion for second reading of the bill to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board I wish only to thank hon. members from all quarters in the house for the interest they have all taken in the bill and the comments that have been made, some of which were constructive in character.
I do not believe that any points have been raised to which I at this moment wish to make reference, although I believe some observations have been made which would lead to a somewhat detailed discussion of a somewhat political nature if I were inclined to do so. I do feel that the subject and the possibilities of this board are sufficiently important and sufficiently extensive that, without any particular loss to this house so far as information is concerned, I might just pass them by.
The principle of the bill now before us for second reading is well known. The comments that have been made in the house in connection with the special situation of the Atlantic provinces are likewise, I believe, of general acceptance. My opinion is that we are asked by the motion to approve the principle and I doubt that there is very much objection to such approval of the principle.
I do not think that we in the maritimes should emphasize the disabilities with regard to which we may be having some difficulty in an economic sense. It has always been my opinion that we who are fortunate enough
[Miss LaMarsh.l
to have been born and lived in those provinces down by the sea should emphasize the advantages we have rather than emphasizing to an undue degree the disabilities of living in a fringe area of a great nation. I think we can do much better for ourselves if we adopt such an attitude, always keeping in mind, however, that the special privileges and rights inherent in all agreements made previously with the central government should be brought to the attention of the central gov-* ernment from time to time.
Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) put on record certain specific questions which he asked me to answer.
I am quite prepared to answer them but I venture the observation that this would lead to nothing except a discussion of a political nature in which he and his party would come off second best. That is my feeling. Therefore, with that in mind I do not propose to remind him of certain things. He has been a member of the house since 1953. He is a veteran of the house. I do not know how much pressure he brought to bear on the government of which he was a supporter when they were in office. I do know something of the results that were achieved, and those results were practically nil. I will give him full marks for his effort but I am sure he will have to acknowledge that the efforts of the government which he supported and which held office prior to the present administration were not productive of results to any great degree.
I know that some members will say: Oh, yes, but we had the equalization grants, and so on. I emphasize that the real principle which we are debating at the present time and in regard to which I am offering these comments is that there shall be a board established with certain duties devolving upon it. Those duties, I submit, and I am sure those who have read the bill will agree, are of a very broad and flexible nature, and so they should be. Some hon. members have suggested, and I believe that to a certain degree at least this was recommended by the commission on Canada's economic prospects, that a board or commission should be established and a certain fixed amount of public funds should be placed in their hands for disposal, but to me that is an abrogation of the principle of responsibility. I do not feel that any parliament should delegate powers of that nature.
But what are we doing under this legislation? We are providing the machinery by which an examination may be made of any promising situation existing in the Atlantic provinces. That is exactly what we have not had up until now. No one knows better than some members of this house the many trips to Ottawa made by representatives of each of

the provinces in the eastern part of Canada for many years now for the specific purpose of bringing certain things to the attention of the authorities. In that regard I would say that generally speaking, regardless of the political complexion of the government which has brought these matters to the attention of the central government, they have all had a degree of merit and have deserved consideration.
But after you get through the maze of departmental activity in Ottawa and finally find the proper department, you possibly run into a situation that again presents a difficulty not easily to be surmounted. This all adds up to a tremendous loss of time and the greatest of difficulty. Then these representatives return to their respective provinces and become engrossed in their day to day duty. I am speaking of men in public life now.


Mr. Nicholson:: Will the minister permit a question?


Hugh John Flemming: Yes,
indeed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the maze not be added to if we continue to have these economic development boards? We will have one for the Atlantic provinces, another nationally and in addition the extension of the national productivity council.


Hugh John Flemming: My answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is definitely in the negative, and I will try to explain to the satisfaction of my hon. friend and the house why I say this. In my view there are many promising situations, some of which I skipped over quite lightly yesterday. If a board is set up as envisaged by this legislation and if that board has certain fixed duties and responsibilities, even though they are flexible and even though they are broad, there will be some assurance that if proposals have been proven to be economically sound after investigation and are finally put before the central government, as I would hope some such proposals would be, they will have received a thorough examination and the department concerned or the government or cabinet, call it what you will, will be confident that they have had a certain degree of examination and will be prepared to deal with them in a minimum of time. That is the reason why I answered categorically and quickly to the question asked by my hon. friend, who I know is interested in the maritimes and has not asked the question to embarrass me or anyone else.
Now, Mr. Speaker, referring again to the matter of investigation, I may say it is envisaged that this body shall have authority to engage the services of experts in certain
Atlantic Development Board fields who may be available in Ottawa in the various departments, and there are many of them, or this body may employ consultants and engage anyone they think has specialized knowledge concerning the particular matter under investigation. I am very certain that the fact they have that kind of power delegated to them is going to place them in a position where they will be able to act quickly, and with a minimum loss of time investigate any promising situation which, after careful examination, they feel is deserving of consideration.
Within the last 24 hours, I have received quite a few telephone calls. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they have come from every one of the Atlantic provinces. These people did not call for the purpose of saying what a great thing the Atlantic development board act would be. Generally speaking, they said, when do we get the board established and when will we be able to bring to the board's attention these promising situations? In my opinion, this was a very healthy sign signifying the ultimate success of this board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion is that the bill receive second reading. I do not believe there is much more I can say at the moment that would be very illuminating. The principle of the bill is involved here and I believe all members of this house are in favour of the principle. I do not think there is any question about that. However, I would not say that there might not be the odd section that might not be capable of amendment because I think that it takes the combined knowledge of everyone to think of everything. I am rather of the opinion, therefore, that there may be some sections that we might properly consider amending slightly. As a matter of fact, I have one such amendment in mind at the moment.
Since we are talking about the principle, and since we are talking about the general idea that we want to do something, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to forget everything that has happened prior to 1962 or even prior to December 5, 1962. Let us go forward with this bill. Let us consider it in the light of the possibilities that may be embodied in the bill, the things that it may accomplish. If we devote our time to finding fault with the bill and finding fault with each other or engaging in a political hassle, which is not uncommon in the maritimes and other parts of Canada, then I have no doubt that we might consider the activities and results of this board may not amount to a great deal. If we make up our minds that we are not going to worry about who gets the credit for it but we are going to go ahead to ensure that this board will be able to investigate situations and finally come up with solutions

Atlantic Development Board which may be of benefit to our part of Canada, then that will be a good thing to do and will produce beneficial results.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I have to say on second reading. I would hope the house would agree unanimously on the principle. I think all hon. members do. Then, we can go into committee and discuss the various sections of the bill itself. It would be my hope that discussion might be expedited as much as possible, with due regard for the rights of every member to express his opinion, to express his interest and to suggest improvements, as long as those suggestions are based on the general idea of wanting to be helpful and not obstructive. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should remind the house that, although hon. members were not cautioned previously the minister, in speaking on second reading, closes the debate. I am sorry, I take it he opened the debate on second reading. I apologize to hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to open my remarks in a way that I did not intend to do. I do not believe that Your Honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ever needs to apologize to the house. We do appreciate the ready way in which you always acknowledge any slight slip that there may be. We also appreciate the tolerance and good spirit with which you conduct the proceedings whenever you occupy the chair, either in the house or in committee.
I listened with great interest to the debate in committee yesterday, and I listened with interest to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Flemming) or the Minister of Forestry, I do not know which he prefers to be called. This afternoon, he was being his most seductive. He is always pretty good when he is seductive, but he is not always seductive. I have seen the minister in this house when he was rather combative and it may be that before this debate is over he will not be quite as seductive as he was at the beginning.
We do appreciate the spirit in which the minister, not some of his colleagues in the house, has proceeded so far this afternoon and I shall attempt to speak in as dispassionate and objective a way as I can. There is one thing I should like to point out at the very outset-


Mr. Martineau:: The sugar-coated pill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister of mines could just stay underground until his turn to speak comes, I think it might facilitate progress. I should perhaps remind the minister
tMr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton).]
of mines that since I have unlimited time his interruptions will not interfere in any way with my freedom of speech.


Mr. McGrath:: When it comes to digging holes he can take a few lessons from you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for St. John's East seems to have been exceedingly uncomfortable during the last two days. Perhaps if he could just calm himself and possess his soul in patience he would have an opportunity, later in this debate, to deliver the second half of that eloquent speech of which we heard the first half last night.
As I was saying, sir, the evidence of our co-operation is that although the minister said the bill was well known the fact is that no member of the house had any opportunity to know anything about the bill, except the minister and members of the ministry, until one o'clock today. I sought to get it early this morning, knowing I was going to speak in this debate, but I was told it would not be available for distribution until one o'clock. My first impulse was to protest to the house leader and suggest that some other business be taken up; but then I thought, as it turned out rightly, that it would not be very hard to absorb all that was in the bill between one o'clock and the time the house sat at 2.30. Therefore I made no protest and I am not making any now; but I would like to remind hon. members that a few days ago, when discussing the business of the house, the Prime Minister said as reported at page 2009 of Hansard:
The legislation is available. We are ready to present it. If hon. members do not think so just let them pass this supply and pass these bills one after the other, and they will get them fast.
This is one bill we did not get fast, and it is not the only one; and I think it would be a good thing if an effort could be made to arrange business in such a fashion that all hon. members who wish to participate in a debate would have the bill in time to read it and develop arguments based upon it.
The minister made one or two observations to which I would like to refer in reply, but only in reply, before I deal with the content of the bill itself. He made an appeal today, as he did yesterday, for non-partisan consideration of the bill. Well, sir, I make no apology for not responding to that appeal. However, I think I know what the minister really meant. He meant a temperate and reasonable discussion.
But the essence of parliamentary government is that we do have parties and the parties do stand for something and do differ. I must say personally I deprecate the suggestion that is so often made that, because there are

political differences, which are the very essence of British freedom, that there is something wrong about that. I make no apology for differing with the government about certain things and I have never, that I can recall, taken any exception to anyone who differed with me. I may have felt sometimes those who differed were foolish but I never doubted they had a perfect right to differ.
The minister also made an appeal that we should forget everything that happened before December 5 and in view of the speeches that were made-I except the minister's own speech-by other hon. members on the opposite side of the house last night, I am not surprised that the minister would like us to forget what happened yesterday; and I think some of the hon. members who participated from the other side of the house might be happy also. I am not going into any detail about anything any of them said.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because I am responding to the appeal made by the minister, for whom I have more respect than I have for the honourable and excited member for St. John's East. The minister asked us not to go into these things and I agree with him that long and arid debates about what happened in 1935 or in 1953, 1957 or even in 1960, are not going to get us very far, but I do think the minister would not expect, as a reasonable man, that certain statements of alleged fact would be unnoticed, and there are one or two of them which I certainly intend to notice.
The minister referred to my hon. friend from Gloucester and to some of the things he said. He referred to the fact that my hon. friend came into the house in 1953. That is a rather sensitive point with me because so did I, and whatever my hon. friend from Gloucester may have done to try to bring the situation in the Atlantic provinces before the government, if he was not successful, I am more to blame than he is because he was just a member of parliament and I was a minister. Therefore anything the minister applied to the hon. member for Gloucester I take as applying to myself; and I am not ashamed at all of what happened.
In those years the minister was the premier of the province of New Brunswick, but in his present capacity as Minister of National Revenue he has said that the results achieved by my hon. friend from Gloucester, and other hon. members who at that time were supporting the government, were practically nil.


Hugh John Flemming: May I
make a correction?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.
Atlantic Development Board


Hugh John Flemming: I said the considerations of a special nature were practically nil.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is trying rather skilfully to get out of a situation the dangers of which I think he recognizes. Of course it can be argued that the whole principle of equalization was not a consideration of a special nature for the Atlantic provinces, because it was also of great importance to the province where I was brought up and spent half my life, the province of Manitoba. To no province was it of greater importance than to the province of New Brunswick because, as the minister well knows, there was no other province, not even Saskatchewan, except perhaps in its very worst days, that had a lower tax potential and therefore benefited more from the application of the principle of equalization than New Brunswick did.
The principle of equalization, which was applied for the first time in 1957 as a result of the legislation of 1956, resulted in the greatest single increase in tax transfers that ever took place in the whole history of these various transactions.
I was very pleased to hear the excellent observations made yesterday, and I thought made very well, by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) who I think all of us would agree, whether we agree with him politically or not, is one of the most promising of the new members of the house, and I do not use "promising" in any invidious sense. I say I am proud to have been a member of a government which introduced that principle of equalization, which we thought would remain in force unitl some better system could be devised, but I would hate to belong, as the minister does, to a government that scrapped it.


Hugh John Flemming: We made an improvement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says they made an improvement. Well, I am not going to enter into any debate, but the minister knows very well that the only way in which they covered up the fact that they had scrapped the principle of equalization was by making an increase in the Atlantic provinces grant which temporarily obscured the other point, but did not obscure it for Saskatchewan as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) well knows, and also did not obscure it for Manitoba. I have sometimes wondered, especially after reading Maclean's magazine today, whether perhaps it was not Manitoba they had really in mind and whether some hon. members on the treasury benches-and I am not accusing the
2352	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board minister-who devised the system for Manitoba might not have thought a little knife in the back of the premier of Manitoba would not do him any harm. That, I recognize at once, while of great interest to you and me, Mr. Speaker, is not very relevant to the bill and I can assure you that I do not intend to pursue this line.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is all so cheap.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if we could arrange for the timing of the interruptions of old faithful so that I could pause in order that they might have their full effect on the house.
The minister said something else about which I want to say a word. He said that with the exception of the tax equalization there was nothing else he could think of. I believe that statement should not be allowed to go unchallenged. It was fairly well answered last night by the hon. member for Gloucester after the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who is the most helpful member to us on the other side of the house, had asked one of those questions which gave an opportunity for an answer, and I will draw that answer to the attention of the minister.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not mind helping the hon. gentleman because there is nobody around here who needs help more than he does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not only do I agree with the hon. gentleman, but I owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. Ever since we first sat in this house together he has been helping me along and I appreciate it.


An hon. Member:: He is going to help you right out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, that could be, and thank God for being in a country where that is possible if the electors decide it. As to some of the decisions the electors made on June 18, some of the hon. members opposite are smarting under them to this day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it is relevant to the bill, yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is relevant to the bill. In fact, I was about to ask the hon. member when he was going to begin discussing the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as soon as I have finished discussing the points raised by the minister. I said I would deal with the minister's observations first. I have practically concluded what I had to say about them. Then I will go on to the measure itself. I just want


to say this-and this will deal, also, with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) en passant. I would remind the minister that in the period from 1953 to 1957 a number of very great works were carried on in the Atlantic provinces. I do not think any better decision was ever made by the Department of National Defence than the decision to put camp Gagetown in New Brunswick. I know something about why that decision was made. There were many other places where, from a military standpoint, it might just as well have been put, but it was placed there because it was known it would help the economy of that province and it has, to a marked degree, as anybody who visits the city of Fredericton or the city of Saint John knows. During that period the Canso causeway was built and the effect of that causeway on the economy of the whole region, as the hon. member for Invemess-Richmond pointed out the other day, is only now beginning to show itself. I predict that in time it will be one of the great monuments to the wisdom of the Canadian people in developing all parts of their country.
I am going to say something now which, no doubt, will be surprising to hon. members opposite. I think it is unfortunate that the government to which I belonged, the former Liberal government, and Liberal governments before that did not, in the field of defence production, do the same as they did with respect to camp Gagetown, by developing production facilities in the Atlantic provinces. I think, looking back on it, we could have done better for our country than we did, had we done that. I do not hesitate to say that, because we on this side have never claimed perfection; we have never claimed we have accomplished everything.
There is one other thing I cannot forbear from mentioning, since my hon. friend from Gloucester and I are both associated in this indictment, and that is the establishment of unemployment insurance for fishermen. That is a measure which the hon. member for Gloucester and I probably had as much influence in persuading the government of that day to enact as any two members of the house. I do not say we had more influence than others, but I do say we had as much. It was acclaimed by all parties in this house when it was enacted. Some of us have apprehensions that there is in the minds of some hon. gentlemen opposite a notion that it should be scrapped, but anyone who knows anything about the difficulties we have had in the maintenance of income in the Atlantic provinces during these last five years knows what a welfare bill there would have been for all the provincial governments if it had

not been for the unemployment insurance payments which had been made in the last five years.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is utter nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the hon. member for St. John's East go from Cape Bonavista to Twillingate and tell the fishermen that unemployment insurance for fishermen is utter nonsense, and see what kind of reception he gets. I invite him to do that at any time. However, I must not pursue that any further. There are many other things I might say but I mention those because they are measures with which my hon. friend from Gloucester and I were closely associated.


Mr. Barnett:: May I ask the hon. member a question? It has to do with unemployment insurance for fishermen. Does the hon. member not think it might have been better if the measure to which he has referred had been called by the government of that day a welfare measure rather than an insurance provision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not. I do not know any single subject about which I feel more strongly than I do about this. The fishermen do not want welfare; they want jobs, and they want to be on unemployment insurance so that when they stop fishing, if there are any jobs available, they can get those jobs and get more stamps. If there are jobs for them to go to they will not collect the unemployment insurance. The tragedy of these last five years has been that when the fishing season was over there were no jobs for them to take and they had to live on unemployment insurance. But when there were jobs available they took them.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is very far from the bill in question and I suggest he would be more in order if he returned to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not agree more with the hon. gentleman. It was not I who strayed from the bill. It was the minister who did that by suggesting as part of his argument that nothing had been accomplished in those years and, I must say, I yielded to the temptation offered by the question of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) because it raised a subject about which I feel very keenly.


Mr. Rapp:: The hon. member said there was a need for seasonal unemployment payments to be made to fishermen. Was there not the same need in respect to seasonal farm labour, and why was that not brought under the provisions of the same bill?
27507-3-150
Atlantic Development Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you would permit me to answer that question I would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. But in view of the point of order raised by the minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should interrupt to observe that I am having some difficulty and that I appreciate the difficulty the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is encountering because of certain interjections and questions which force him, to some extent, into a position where his observations cannot remain relevant to the bill. If hon. members would co-operate by making their comments apply directly to the principle of the bill, as is proper on second reading, it would be much more helpful in expediting its passage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I will answer the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), for whom I have always had the highest regard, privately on some other occasion, or perhaps I will be able to speak on his motion the next time it comes up.
Now, sir, I want to make one observation, and one only, about the debate on this bill. On behalf of the Liberal opposition I am authorized to say that we are prepared, in order to expedite the enactment of this legislation and also of a number of other measures which are on the order paper, to be satisfied with having two speakers from our party on second reading of this bill-and I make this offer specifically with respect to this billon the understanding that the excellent suggestion made by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) the other day will be carried out by the government, and that this bill will be sent to a standing committee. I would suppose that the appropriate committee would be the banking and commerce committee, but it could be sent to whatever committee the government wishes. There it could be carefully examined and the officials could tell us what is going to happen after this board is set up.
I quite agree with the minister that that is really what is important. Merely enacting this measure and having a board is not going to get us very far. It is particularly important in relation to the other legislation, which has suggested in the minds of many hon. members that there may be a good deal of overlapping and duplication between these various agencies which the government is proposing and some of the agencies which have already been set up.
So, sir, I say that we are prepared to have only two speakers on second reading of this bill, on the understanding, of course, that the government supporters do not put up more than two speakers, and on the understanding

Atlantic Development Board that the bill is not brought here in committee of the whole until it has first had careful examination by a standing committee. Then, of course, it will come to the committee of the whole where any hon. member who wishes to deal with the clauses can do so. However, I feel that a measure as important as the minister has told us this one is going to be, certainly ought to have the kind of careful examination that really is not possible in committee of the whole in this house, particularly at a time when there seems to be a general disposition in the house to try and speed up legislation. It is with a view to assisting the minister and the government in getting this measure enacted expeditiously, and in getting the best possible measure enacted, that I make this suggestion. Perhaps the minister can indicate in due course what view the government takes of that suggestion.
Now I come to the bill itself, and I must say that I read it with the greatest disappointment. I think that all those in the Atlantic provinces who read this bill and who understand its purport will also be very much disappointed. I say that because this bill does not do what I think all of us had been led by the speech from the throne and the program of the government before June 18 to feel the government intended to do in this matter. To put it bluntly, sir, we expected an executive agency, and all this is is another advisory body. I say that is not good enough.
Before anyone asks me: "Are you going to oppose the bill?", I am going to say this. I am going to say that I was brought up on the principle that nothing in this world is perfect, that the perfectionist generally gets nothing, and that half a loaf is better than no bread. I do not think that this bill is even half the loaf which was promised: I think it is only a crust. But I think it would be foolish to reject even the crust, and for my part I would certainly not join in rejecting it on second reading. It might well be that when we get into committee and have a chance to consider the matter, it would be found, as the minister has said, that this bill is not regarded by the government as perfect and we could make some improvements in it. I do not think it would ever be acceptable, but it would make it more useful than it would now seem to me to be.
Now, sir, if one may judge from what one has read about it in advance in the press, it would seem that the bill is more or less the product of a mutual back scratching match between the publisher of the Atlantic Advocate and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), who lavish the most exaggerated amount of praise upon each other,

which in most cases is rather empty of content. But there is another journal in the Atlantic provinces which calls itself an independent newspaper, and which I think is an independent newspaper. Although I do not think anybody would accuse it of being a supporter of the Liberal party, it is a newspaper for which I have very high regard indeed. That newspaper is the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, and on November 19 it had this to say about this very bill:
If the promised Atlantic provinces development board is to be a federal advisory commission (as now appears to be the case), two conditions will have to be met before its effectiveness can be assured.
1.	A policy of making public its recommendations, possibly at the same time that it forwards them to the government, will have to be followed not only to "prove" the board's independence of the governments of the day, but to establish in public opinion its credentials as an effective planning agency.
As I read the bill-the minister may say that I have misinterpreted it-the board is to report only to the minister; it is not to report in any public way at all. This editorial goes on:
2.	To the same end, the policy of appointment to the board will have to be not merely barren of party considerations-
Apparently the Halifax Chronicle-Herald does not realize that the Atlantic provinces have completely run out of defeated government candidates without employment, because it seems to fear that some of them will be appointed to this board, and it is warning in advance, perhaps, that even the colleagues of ex-provincial premiers are people who might be appointed.


Hugh John Flemming: We did
all right in the by-elections this week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I do not imagine the minister will appoint actual members of the legislature. I was suggesting that the Halifax Chronicle-Herald was worried about appointing not those who are members of the legislature but those who might once have been. I am just endorsing the prescription of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald in this matter. This article continues:
2. To the same end, the policy of appointment to the board will have to be not merely barren of party considerations, but sensitive to the fact that the Atlantic provinces is not a homogeneous region, economically and socially. Not a few varying interests will have to be represented on the board if balanced suggestions are to be expected from it.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister, who is perhaps in appearance less partisan than some of his colleagues, would, if this legislation is adopted consult the governments of the Atlantic provinces before this board is appointed about the kind of appointments

which will be made. I do not say that the minister would have to give anybody a veto at all, but I do hope that he would consult the Atlantic premiers with a view to having the maximum possible amount of agreement that the best possible people will be appointed. It does not seem to me that that is an unreasonable suggestion.
This newspaper says that if certain conditions were met the board might be of some considerable use. However, this is the warning the Chronicle-Herald gives and this is the warning that I give. I think it will be echoed in the minds of many people in the Atlantic provinces:
Certainly, if these conditions are not met,-


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a rule against reading editorials at length?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is not reading at length.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is reading at length from an editorial which purports to be from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking on the point of order, I would suggest that the hon. gentleman might use his leisure hours by reading Beauchesne, as the rule about reading editorials or any other comment is with regard to comment on a debate that is in progress. This editorial was written some days before this measure ever came before us. In fact, it was written on November 19. There is another rule, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that in reading an editorial one must indicate either his concurrence in those views or his dissent from them and make them part of his own speech. I have no hesitation whatsoever in indicating my approval of this editorial.


James Aloysius McGrath: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this, if the hon. gentleman insists on reading. There is a rule of this house against reading speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Members from the same province should support one another.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I did last night.


An hon. Member:: What page is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue with the reading of this editorial:
Certainly, if these conditions are not met, the board could become a useless thing, or worse, a deadening buffer between succeeding governments of the day and the legitimate aspirations of the people of the Atlantic provinces.
It is not unimaginable-
I would draw the attention of the minister particularly to this last paragraph.
-that, in the hands of undistinguished appointees and operating on the periphery of public attention,
27507-3-150J
Atlantic Development Board the board could even become a vehicle through which any government could explain successive failures to act on our behalf.
I must say that I am rather apprehensive about the emphasis that has been given by the minister in the house, and by certain commentators outside the house to the suggestion that the first big question to be submitted to this board is the Chignecto project.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to misquote me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not wish to misquote the minister.


Hugh John Flemming: I did not
say it was the first. It was the Prime Minister who, speaking on another occasion, had said that among the things to be considered was this project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so. However, it was the only one that the Prime Minister singled out for attention.


Hugh John Flemming: That is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I admit that he was in Moncton or some place nearby at the time. I am also a politician. I would not blame the Prime Minister too much for not referring in Moncton to the South Saskatchewan dam. Of course, the difference is that the South Saskatchewan dam is being built and the Chignecto canal is going to be referred to still another board. After five years of Tory government, after three elections when they promised to do it, it is going to be referred to still another board as among the most pressing things. As far as the Chignecto canal is concerned it rather looks as though the Halifax Chronicle-Herald is right and that this is to be another high class and expensive funeral. I hope that is not the situation. Considering the way in which that project has been treated, one cannot help having the impression that may be what is intended.


Hugh John Flemming: Would
the hon. member like to add, "by various governments"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, by various governments. I agree. You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that amuses me most about the present government is this. I had hoped the minister, who has not been there as long as have some of his colleagues, would not have joined this club. There is only one reason the present government ever gives to justify anything it does and, above all, one reason is given for justifying anything it has not done. It says, "The Liberals did not do it either". I thought, as did the voters who voted in such large numbers in 1958 for the
2356	HOUSE OF
Atlantic Development Board Tory candidates, that they were going to get something different from what they got from the Liberals. However, according to the hon. gentleman, all they are getting are excuses for failures to act. Always the same excuse is given, "Well, you didn't do it in 22 years, so why should we do it?"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is straying far from the principle of this bill which we are now studying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps you did not hear the interjection.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Does the hon. member's reference to broken promises illustrate the fact that there is no essential difference between this government and the former government?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the question is out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question may have been out of order, Mr. Speaker, but since the hon. gentleman put into my mouth words that I did not use at all, may I say this. I never said anything about promises, broken or otherwise. His question is quite irrelevant. However, with respect to the Chignecto canal, I say it is obvious that it has not been built by a Liberal government or by a Conservative government. It has not been built at all. It begins to look as though it is going, as I said earlier, to be given a high class funeral.


Hugh John Flemming: Is that what the hon. member hopes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I will tell you what I hope. I hope that it is built. This is-


Thomas Miller Bell: Have you got to read it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not have to read it. However, I wish the words to be precise as they are not my words. I do not mind paraphrasing myself. However, unlike many hon. gentlemen opposite, when I am quoting somebody else I prefer to quote accurately. I commend that procedure to many hon. gentlemen opposite. This happens to be a leaflet that was distributed by my party in the last election. It refers specifically and precisely to this subject and here is what it says:
Build the Prince Edward Island causeway,-
Which apparently has now become, in the hands of this government, a pauseway.
-if the still uncompleted studies establish its feasibility.


Then next:
Press on with the detailed studies of the Chignecto project and, if they prove its feasibility, undertake construction.
I hope they do so.


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Hugh John Flemming: Is that the same way the hon. gentleman felt when his government was in office and when a committee in 1950 came before the government of the day asking for the Chignecto canal? Was that the influence he had at that time over that government? Was his opinion the same then as it is now? The results were entirely nil.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not happen to be a member of the government in 1950, and I am going to follow the excellent example given by the minister and not go into a whole lot of ancient history. I have admitted that the Liberal government did not build it or that it did not get on with it. I admit that fact right away. I do not know what there needs to be any more argument about. But for five years there has been a government in office that promised to build it, which the Liberals never promised. This is the real point.


Hugh John Flemming: When did the present government promise to build it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: And they never even carried on the studies.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question. When did the present government promise to build it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister is right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quite right. He is making a very careful differentiation. The present government did not promise it after it became a government. It was just the leader of the present government who promised it in the election of 1957, while he was still in opposition. That, sir, is precisely the difference between the leader of one party and the leader of another. Mr. St. Laurent would never promise to do it. The present Prime Minister did promise, and now we are going to give it another funeral.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister did not promise to build the Chignecto canal.


Hugh John Flemming: Don't quote from that document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I suggest is that the hon. member look up the promises that were made in the election campaign of 1957 and he will find that the Prime Minister promised, if it was feasible, to build it, and for five years-


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, the hon. member has changed his phraseology now to "if it is feasible".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there was to be an
investigation and for five years the investigation was delayed. We all remember the farce when the former minister of public works, who no longer is in this house, was here and he was asked about these studies. We remember that other farce when the minister of public works who is no longer here-


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be and I hope I am not taken as trying to be superior, but may I ask when the debate will come back to the subject of the Atlantic development board? This is a purely political exchange.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman does not think there should be political exchanges in parliament, what kind of exchanges does he think there should be?


David Lewis: Relevant ones, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the point of order, surely the rules of the house apply equally to all hon. members, and the hon. member has been clearly out of order since he started. He is not speaking to the principle of the bill.


Mr. Chevrier:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point has been raised by the hon. member on two occasions but Your Honour has not ruled on it. However, since Your Honour rose there have been a number of questions from the other side of the house from the minister and others which have put the hon. member who is now speaking in the position of having to reply to them. There is no doubt that when such questions are put the hon. member surely has an opportunity to reply. In any event, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for York South, surely this house is the place where political discussions can go on even though they do go somewhat beyond the sphere of the motion before the house.
I submit this to you with deference, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think all members are anxious to contribute toward helping the government with this legislation. All members seem to be anxious this afternoon about the political programs of each party, but I am
Atlantic Development Board sure all hon. members will try to listen very quietly to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I ask the hon. member for the second time to discuss only the principle of the bill before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand it, the principle of the bill is to set up a board for the development of the Atlantic provinces, and if the Chignecto canal, in the opinion of the hon. member for York South, is not one of those projects then, of course, I am out of order.


David Lewis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I said nothing of the sort. So long as the hon. member discusses that I think it is in order. May I also say while I have the floor-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York South can have the floor later to answer remarks made by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, but at this time the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor.
^ Mr. Pickersgill: I hope the hon. member for York South will make his point and tear my speech to pieces in his own good time. I am sure, inasmuch as he is a very much more accomplished controversialist than I am, that he will do an excellent job in doing so. As I was saying before this diversion took place, the Chignecto project is one that I certainly do not object to having the board consider, if the investigations are not yet complete. I think it is too bad they are not yet complete, but if they are not yet complete the board should, of course, consider it.
But what I did express apprehension about, and I want to express it again so that my point will be clear, is that if too much time is taken with this project with a view to rolling it over until after another election, the board may not get on with other things about which there may be a good deal less controversy, and I hope that will not happen. That was the point I was seeking to make when other hon. gentlemen, not myself, raised a number of points about the matter.
In my view there is another very important reason why the people of the Atlantic provinces will be greatly disappointed with this bill. We all remember that beautiful spring day in 1957 when the whole Atlantic region was going to be transformed, not by the minister who is now presenting the bill but by many hon. members who are sitting over there and by some who are no longer sitting over there.

Atlantic Development Board
I refer to their famous Moncton meeting when they provided a charter for the Atlantic provinces and when they promised a national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces about which nothing whatever has been done and about which we are now told a beginning is going to be made after the board is established. This was their second promise:
Industrial decentralization by placing a more equitable share ol defence contract expenditures within the Atlantic provinces-


James Aloysius McGrath: Which has been fulfilled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In response to repeated inquiries on the estimates of the Department of Defence Production every year it has been shown by the statistics that this has not been done.


James Aloysius McGrath: It has been done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue:
-by the establishment of crown corporations-
As my hon. friend pointed out last night, the only crown corporations there are in the Atlantic provinces were established before this promise was made.
-by encouraging private enterprise to locate in the area-
I presume that is what this board is calculated to do, but what has been done in the last five years and why was it not done after these promises were made and a mandate was secured to carry them out? That is the question I ask.


Hugh John Flemming: A lot
was done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the real and fundamental disappointment will come because of another of these promises.
Capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
That promise was made five years ago. It will be six years in a few months since that promise was made and nothing whatever has been done about if. When we read the speech from the throne in September we thought that at last this was going to be done, but then we got this bill and there is not a suggestion of anything to be spent except the princely salary of $3,000 for the chairman and a little money to be appropriated later by parliament to carry on certain of the board's research work.
Now, sir, that is why I say there will be real disappointment with this bill. I am going to make a few brief suggestions about what this board ought to undertake. I regret again that it cannot do anything except study these problems, but I am going to recommend two or three things it should study. First of all-


James Aloysius McGrath: It should study the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I doubt if that would be very profitable.
The first and most important subject of study-hon. members may think I am slightly biased in this matter-should be the modernization of the oldest of Canada's industries, the fishery. There is no industry that has any greater need of the same kind of program that the government is seeking to bring about for agriculture under ARDA-


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely, he must realize the premier of Newfoundland has the solution of the problems of the fishing industry with his great fisheries manifesto that he announced before the last provincial election and which, incidentally fell flat on its face.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member talks about the great fisheries manifesto which fell flat on its face, but apparently the hon. gentleman was not in Newfoundland paying attention during the election because the leader of his party in Newfoundland endorsed that whole program and put it forward as the program of his party as well. I think we can say that that program was unanimously approved.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: I think this is not the place to discuss provincial matters. I realize that the hon. member asked the question but his question was out of order and so was the answer. For this reason, I ask the hon. member to come back to the subject of debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has made a completely false and inaccurate statement.


Mr. Robichaud:: Where is your privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has said that I have made a false statement. Anybody can examine the records. Mr. Greene made a speech about the fisheries development program during the election campaign which was almost precisely the same as the speech made by the premier of Newfoundland. I approve of both of them. They both involve a program which is partly federal in character.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: I know quite well I am not in good voice, and apparently the hon. member did not understand the remarks I made a few minutes ago relating to provincial matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I am saying is that this problem of the fisheries should be studied and it should be given a high priority because we are in very grave danger of losing this industry altogether as a result of the tremendous invasion of fishing vessels from across the Atlantic. There is nothing more important or more urgent at the present time than the modernization of the fishing industry so that Canadians can make their living from it. We should be very thankful that the provincial governments are willing to co-operate with the federal government in something which is primarily a federal matter.


Mr. Crouse:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I should not permit any more questions. I have taken more time than I intended, largely because of these interruptions. I do not believe it is quite fair to other hon. members to do that, much as I would like to do so. I do hope that when the government of Newfoundland, or the government of any other province, comes here to Ottawa to discuss this problem, this board will have been set up and will undertake to study the modernization of the fishing industry at once.
Then, the problem of coal is certainly, I believe, a most urgent problem. I do not intend to go into the details of this matter. I do not intend to refer to the alleged quotation given by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) last night or to enter into any controversy with him. He said the Liberals said the coal would be left in the ground. This government has actually left it in the ground because the production of coal has diminished every year since 1957, and diminished drastically. I hope that we can arrest that diminution. I hope we can start production on the upgrade again. I have never concealed the fact that I would like to see far more power produced from this coal. I would like to see that power made available at very low cost, or even at no cost, for new secondary industries especially in the Cape Breton and Pictou county areas. It seems to me it would be a quite reasonable thing to do to try to get a more equitable distribution of industry, particularly in an area where we have the trained working force instead of trying, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) would do under his bill, to move the labour force somewhere else.
The next problem is that of transportation, the age-old problem of the Atlantic area. Here, sir, I commend to hon. gentlemen opposite and I commend to the board a program which we have been putting forward consistently since 1958. In order to overcome the special
Atlantic Development Board disabilities in transport of the Atlantic area, the federal government should pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces and should also provide financial assistance for completing trunk highways in all four provinces to assist the movement of heavy traffic to and from central Canada and the United States.


James Aloysius McGrath: What was your policy prior to 1958 on this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: if the minister does, because it would tend to be off in a corner somewhere. That is not what we want; but we do want a cabinet committee composed of ministers primarily concerned with these matters and closely associated with the board, with the Minister of National Revenue as chairman of that board. I do not think that would require a new message from the crown. I am not suggesting that the minister, as chairman, should get the extra $3,000. That might go to someone else.
I hope the minister will not consider that the adoption of the principle of this bill would prevent its being changed in committee to implement the recommendations I have made. I suggest that the minister talk these matters over with his colleagues. This measure will not be coming up for discussion tomorrow and he might be able in the interim to consider whether these suggestions-which he will concede I am not making in any partisan way, whatever may be said of my other observations-would further the purposes of the bill.
I am not questioning the intentions of the minister, or indeed of anyone else, but I have a very grave fear that even with the best intentions, contact between bodies such as this board, once they are set up, is not closely maintained with ministers. All ministers are busy. I know that. They all have much to do. The ones who are worth while have too much to do, and as the less pressing things press less they get less attention. We do not want this board to be some kind of new waste paper basket for the awkward problems from the Atlantic provinces. We want something dynamic that will be an agency of change. The board itself will not change anything. It is what the board will recommend and the way it can bring its proposals to bear on the government that will bring about change.
In closing I appeal very strongly to the minister to accept the suggestion we have made that the bill be sent to one of the standing committees so that those hon. members who are most particularly interested, and who can sit on a committee, will have an opportunity to go into it thoroughly and do what the minister asked us to do, to do our best within the limits of what the government will agree to. We have to operate within those limits, but we can do our best to make this bill as good a bill as we possibly can.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before the hon. gentleman concludes may I ask him a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. gentleman put forward many projects which he would like

to see undertaken by this board. Is he not aware that on November 26, speaking of the proposed Atlantic development board, the president of the Atlantic provinces economic council said:
The initiative for a development program should come primarily from the provincial governments.
Does he agree with that statement by the president of APEC?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. gentleman needs to worry about plenty of initiative coming from the premier of the province he and I represent.


James Aloysius McGrath: That does not answer the question.


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that expectation is 80 per cent of realization. I am afraid today is a very sad day for the Atlantic provinces because we have to change the wording of that old formula and say in this particular case expectation has been 100 per cent of realization because we have tried to be constructive, we have tried to be non-political, we have tried to put forward constructive suggestions, but apparently all to no avail. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul):: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion for production of papers.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENT

Robert Norman Thompson: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the setting up of a department of federal-provincial affairs under the direction of a full-time minister.
He said: In rising to speak on this resolution, I believe we have before us one of the most important items we could consider relating to the general efficiency of government and the observance of the spirit of confederation which originally brought the provinces together to form this great country of Canada.
One of the most disturbing elements on the Canadian scene is the developing or continuing lack of a national spirit-that spirit which brought Canada into confederation. At a time when we should be strengthening the bonds of confederation it would seem that our governments, through policies of indecision and through the insidious usurpation and infringement of provincial rights, are weakening the province's unity. As our way of life becomes more complicated and
Dominion-Provincial Relations as the development of the country fosters programs which of necessity transcend provincial boundaries it is absolutely essential that the closer co-operative working relationships which are obviously required between the national government and the various provincial governments be as harmonious and correlated as possible.
An example of this is the Columbia river project. This involves the treaty whose negotiation the Liberal government blocked in 1955-a treaty which was formally signed in 1960, just prior to the retirement of President Eisenhower, and which has yet to be ratified. The negotiator and the spokesman for the government at that time was the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) who was then the minister of justice. I believe the hon. gentleman was more successful as minister of justice than he was as a negotiator with the provincial government. Anyway, I could never quite reconcile how a minister of justice could be concerned in dealing with a hydroelectric development project. Perhaps a redeeming feature of this situation is that through his dabbling in provincial affairs the hon. gentleman has given himself some background for his new prospective role. In my opinion, however, the Columbia river project would have been much further advanced had these negotiations been directed by a government minister whose direct responsibility would be to deal with such matters. This same principle applies to many different types of projects. Among them could be included irrigation projects, a nationl power grid, the national highways program, international highways such as the Alaska highway and the proposed Maritime-Montreal turnpike as well as the question of standardized electoral techniques.
I think that in considering this subject we should revert to the principles that brought us to confederation. Basically, these were founded on an agreement between the provinces which resulted in the formation of our country, Canada. The trend today is to attempt to cure economic ills, not by the use of mechanisms of our constitution but by special and often ineffective federal action. I think one of the reasons we fail to achieve close co-operation and harmony in the working of our government at the provincial and federal levels is simply that we are getting away from the spirit of the British North America Act which specifically defines the responsibilities of the two levels of government. It is my opinion that we are less in need of amendments to the British North America Act than we are of a return to the basic principles which are expressed in it. I feel also with respect to the appointments of the many boards, royal commissions and
2362	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations special government agencies which now abound in this country and which are being added to by legislation already before this house, that unless we do have in the federal government a special department concerned with the overlapping of what could be conflicting areas of responsibility, we are not going to reach, through those boards and commissions, the objectives upon which we mutually agree.
We have been speaking in this house this afternoon about an Atlantic development board. This is to be a national board and obviously it will have very close relationships with the Atlantic provinces economic council. It will also overlap considerably with the area of responsibility of the national economic development board and of the national productivity council. To avoid confusion and to increase efficiency, a department of government specifically set up with the responsibility of dealing with such questions involving both the dominion and provincial governments would certainly appear to be most desirable.
There are any number of instances which could be quoted of occasions upon which the federal government has been at cross purposes with the provincial governments. We can recall what happened in connection with the Newfoundland loggers strike, the relations between the federal government and the province of Quebec over university grants and even in connection with co-operative programs of hospital finance and the fair allocation of federal government appointments to Quebec citizens. There is also the question of equalizing taxation on private utilities with that imposed on public utilities, a problem which so often relates to provincial governments but one whose correction rests entirely within the hands of the dominion government. I am reminded that just a few weeks ago this matter was discussed here in the house. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) said he could not consider action at that time because he would not want to be interfering with a provincial election. Yet this question of the taxation of utilities which are continuing to operate through private enterprise is a real problem, and one which is not being handled in a satisfactory way by the federal government.
All this makes difficulties for provincial governments. I could go on to cite a number of other cases of this kind but it would simply bring us again to our main point, namely that there are many problems today arising between the two levels of government whose solution could be facilitated if only there were a single federal government department charged with specific responsibility for this field of activity.


There are other fields in which liaison between federal and provincial governments is far from perfect. There is, for example, the question of the allocation of tax fields. This is in itself a very important question and there is a great deal to be done before satisfactory arrangements can be completed. Then there is the question of the uniformity of certain types of legislation arising simply because our country, expanding as it has, faces problems which cut across provincial boundaries. With regard to this, I think the federal government has a certain amount of responsibility, at least to provide for the appropriate liaison and to see that the development of the country as a whole as well as in the provincial areas goes ahead as it should.
Another matter which might be mentioned is the question of electoral procedure in this country, which is far from uniform. This is not an appropriate subject for legislation by the federal government but, certainly, uniformity is something which the federal government could facilitate if there were a closer understanding between provincial and federal governments. There is the problem of social welfare standards. There is the problem of agricultural policies which are at variance with each other simply because we have not reached a stage of correlated integration of policies between the provinces.
I think that in all of these matters if there were a department of government, with a minister, a deputy minister and a proper administrative set-up, certainly many of these problems could be minimized and brought to pass much more efficiently. There is the question of policy relating to the development of our natural resources. We recall the "resources for tomorrow" conference, and I think that anybody who took part in that conference will agree that one of the difficulties which faced the conference was the lack of proper preparation, as well as the lack of proper follow-through on some of the decisions reached. Again, a specific department of government would be able to handle these problems much more effectively than they are handled at present. These are matters which we see, and there are other particular needs for co-operation which will be of more importance in the future. We need very urgently in Canada a definite highway development policy. In connection with that, we need certainly many changes in our transportation policy. These involve the provincial governments as well. These changes apply both to rail and to highway transport, and also to air transport. Here again a much closer co-operation and effective working together is very important at this time.
The trend in Canada today-we have seen this in the house during these past few

Dominion-Provincial Relations
days-is towards federally-appointed boards. Rather than to impose the will of the federal government upon the provinces, as is done very often through these boards, it would be much better and would pay much greater respect to our constitution to bring about a closer spirit of harmony in establishing the necessary machinery to make effective the recommendations of these boards. Our proposal in bringing forward this resolution at this time is that there should be a department of federal-provincial affairs under a full-time minister. His responsibility would be one of co-ordination, of regional orientation, so that we would not have the undignified spectacle we frequently see in Canada of two levels of government, and sometimes three, engaging in mutually contradictory policies, without the fruitful result which we expect through the action taken, while at the same time costing large amounts of taxpayers' money.
There are many examples I could cite to support this argument. In the United States the government, which is a federal government in many respects similar to our own, has its secretary of the interior. Coming to our provincial governments, several of them have already realized the need for this very thing, and both in Manitoba and Ontario- there may be others-there are portfolios of provincial-federal affairs. This leads up to the fact that this need is recognized at the provincial level, and they are looking toward something which will tie the ends together at the federal level.
It is worthy of note that we should look at the friction which often occurs between provincial and federal governments, bearing in mind that many of these problems can be ironed out without the name calling and the buck passing which is associated all too frequently with federal-provincial affairs at this time. I think in this regard of a number of statements which the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) has made with regard to the development of the British Columbia power issue. Again, I wonder what is the responsibility of a former minister of justice in getting himself involved in this very matter anyway. It lowers his own status, which he should be maintaining as minister of justice, and it involves him in matters which are actually none of his business. In the United States, who is the man responsible for heading up these negotiations? He is the secretary of the interior, and rightfully so because that is his responsibility.
But again, behind all of this I would say that there is the basic issue of democratic government itself in Canada. More and more power assigned to boards means less and less
power to elected representatives, who frequently have responsibilities under the constitution trenching in on the same field. One of the dangers which threatens democratic government in Canada today at any level is where the responsibilities of elected representatives, through the processes of democracy, are assigned to appointed boards and committees. This is not in accordance with my understanding of the basic principles of democracy. It develops the situation, which is becoming all too common in our midst, of bureaucracy at government level, and I think that the second phase of the Glassco commission reports brings this very clearly to our attention. Bureaucracy is the very negation of democracy. It frequently adopts lines of policy which even this house cannot completely keep under control from day to day. An example of this in recent days has been the dispute between the board of broadcast governors and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My proposal here tonight is a means of giving the provinces a chance to be heard on major policy decisions of the federal government, and even to get action on many matters which are neglected, of which resources and transport policy are two of the most conspicuous. We believe that government closest to the people is the best government, and this proposal is worth 10,000 boards in getting effective government action in accordance with the real wishes of the Canadian people on a hundred matters on which they are dissatisfied at the present time.
In a matter of five years we will be celebrating the centennial of our country. The preparations for this centennial are something which concerns everybody in Canada, as well as government at every level. The experiment which is Canada-the bringing together of people whose background represents two great nations, and adding on top of them many new Canadians of different ethnic backgrounds-is an experiment which, if it should fail, would rock the very foundations of our hopes for peace. If we cannot succeed and cannot bring this aim to a great climax at our one hundredth anniversary, then what hope is there in this world for peace? I am convinced that the experiment which is Canada can be a living proof of what can be done to bring peoples together so as to form a spirit of national unity, which in this case will provide the great strength which potentially is ours in Canada, but which will prove that democratic government is the answer to our governmental needs, even in an age such as we are part of. Therefore I commend to the members of this house that they give very careful consideration to the basic purpose and intent behind this resolution, in the

Dominion-Provincial Relations hope that we could impress upon the government at this time that one of the most positive actions it could take would be to set up such a department of government for the purpose I have just briefly referred to.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few brief words of approval and gratification for the proposal which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has put before us. I say gratification because for the last nine years the members of our party have put forward in this house similar measures, and it is very encouraging to us, sir, to find that other parties are now thinking along similar lines.
We endorse the principle the bill establishes. Actually, it would have been surprising that we would not do so as I think the bill is almost non-political. The need for the action proposed is so apparent and the remedy put forward so logical that it would be strange if we found much opposition to the action either in this house or in the country. It is true that in the founding convention of my own party this clause appears in our program:
Immediately following confederation a federal minister was given special responsibility for relations with the provinces. It is time to revive that post. The New Democratic party aims to create a federal-provincial relations department to maintain and extend co-operation with the provinces and to co-ordinate and act as a special secretariat for joint committees and councils.
It is true that appears in a political program. However, it is likely that similar ideas appear in other political programs. As I say, the matter is hardly political. Particularly in this house where we see every day measures which come before us and with which we are asked to deal, I do not think there could be much opposition to the step proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer. When we deal with matters of finance, industry, agriculture, labour or health, it is apparent that these matters go far beyond the constitutional authority which we have under the present arrangements in Canada. We deal here with the results of economics and those economics have no provincial boundaries. The economics of the farm, the factory or the home are at once interprovincial and federal. We cannot separate them and we cannot deal with them properly on a separate basis as we have been trying to do for so long.
It is true that we have in Canada three levels of government, namely federal, provincial and municipal. But actually we have one people. When I say we have three levels of government I should like to suggest to hon. members to consider what seems to me to be almost a fourth level of government which is coming about and I think being made

apparent through the very needs of the constitutional situation. That fourth level of government is the interprovincial one. We now have every year meetings between the leaders of the provincial governments where they come together and discuss joint problems. The reason they do this is that there is no appropriate machinery at the provincial-federal level such as that which is proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer, and which would offer a basis for handling such consultations.
When my grandfather came to this continent, Mr. Speaker, in 1887 it took him two weeks to go across the continent. Today I think I can do it in four hours. In his day it would have taken two weeks for a picture to be taken and transported across the country. Today the same thing can be accomplished in a matter of minutes or seconds. Those two points may illustrate the great changes, economic and social, which have taken place in the country, and which we should also take steps to meet on a constitutional and administrative basis.
I think the proposal to create a federal-provincial ministry with a specific minister to deal with the class of matters in which the federal-provincial relationship is involved is necessary at this time. I hope the matter may be brought to a vote. In order that others may speak, I will not further take up the time of the house, except to urge that the matter be supported.


Mr. L. E. Kindi (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house, has as its purpose the setting up of a department of federal-provincial affairs under the direction of a full time minister. Many provincial governments have made an approach, through the press and through direct representation to the federal government, to have representation and more say on certain matters emanating from the federal picture which affects them within the provinces. As to whether the setting up of a new department to handle this matter, even though it has only as its limitations the question of co-ordination, is one of the matters which I believe would need to be approached in a very careful manner.
I do not believe that the mover of this resolution had in mind the setting up of a department that would be a fifth wheel. However, in all probability it might grow into just that very thing. In other words, the only person or persons in the federal government who know anything about, for example, health problems are the people who deal with those problems in the health department. If someone else is co-ordinating these matters pertaining to health, they in turn would need to work through the health department if any

intelligence were to be put into the negotiations between federal and provincial people. One could go on down the line and draw a parallel with a vast number of programs which are carried out between the provincial governments and the federal government. In setting up a department in order to bring federal and provincial governments closer together, you might be destroying the present relationship which exists between the department in the federal government taking care of those problems and the department in the provincial government where the similar problems from a provincial point of view are being taken care of. In other words, those two departments have a working relationship. They understand one another. They are in constant communication. Where there are matters that are to be handled by the two governments, it is the people who are concerned in these respective departments that get together and discuss those matters. If you were to set up a minister whose job it would be to look after federal-provincial relationships, unless his duties were thoroughly defined and unless he kept within those limitations there would be, before long, instances in which he would be in the hair of the existing departments handling those matters.
Let us go on to a second question. I wish to speak for a few minutes about the magnitude of the problem as between say the federal and the provincial levels. I should like to spend just a few moments in examining that magnitude as between the federal government and for example the province of Alberta. The federal government contributed to the province of Alberta 44.4 per cent of the money which it spent during the fiscal year 1959-60. Those are the last available figures from the financial statistics of the provincial governments issued by the dominion bureau of statistics.
To go back a step, I should like to point out that the gross revenue of the province of Alberta in 1959-60 was $332,755,000 which included conditional and unconditional grants from the federal government totalling $147,970,000. Unconditional grants amounted to $59,009,000 and conditional grants amounted to $88,961,000. The figure of $147,970,000, which is the sum of the amounts for conditional and unconditional grants, represented 44.4 per cent of the money spent by the government of Alberta during that particular year, and that money came from the federal treasury. To put it another way, well over $1 out of $3 came from the federal government.
It might be well to put figures on the record to show that there has been a tremendous increase in these grants over the past
Dominion-Provincial Relations few years. The contribution of the federal treasury in 1956-57 was $89,685,000 while in 1959-60 it was $147,970,000. In other words, there has been an increase from 1956-57 to 1959-60 of $58,285,000 in the revenue which the province of Alberta has received from the federal government, and that took place since this government came into office.
We are often damned and criticized for deficit financing, but this deficit has come about as a result of the generous conditional and unconditional grants made to the province of Alberta and other provinces. But the figures I have given might well be analysed by all those who have a desire to criticize this government for its generous contributions to support programs administered by the provincial governments.


Mr. Caouelle:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the speaker is completely out of order at this time. We are not trying to put a specific province on trial at this time, either the province of Alberta or the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario. I feel that the hon. member should keep in line with the motion which has to do with the setting up of a federal-provincial affairs ministry by this house. He has given us figures concerning Alberta and has said that Alberta was supplied with this money by the federal government, and so on. I do not think he is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the hon. member may have made certain references that had a slight political overtone I had the impression, and I think I am correct, that he was indicating the trend toward increase in the period of four years in respect of the moneys contributed by the federal government to his own province as an example in order to show the greater relationship between the federal government and the provinces. If I am correct in that, I think that is a point in favour of the resolution and I do not know that it is wildly out of order. As long as it is limited to that and we do not get into a sort of political record speech, I think the hon. member may continue his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is just a political discussion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for having raised his point, although let me say to him that in checking me with regard to whether or not I am on the beam he had better keep on the beam when he is talking. Furthermore, I was right

Dominion-Provincial Relations on the beam because I am talking about the money that this government has given to the province for provincial programs.


David Réal Caouette: On another point of order, in my view the money that the federal government has been spending-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -is money coming from the provinces of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has his right to speak. There will be a rotation of speakers. He has full right to speak and to argue the points that are being put forward by the hon. member. I think the motion is a fairly narrow one and we should limit ourselves to dominion-provincial relations and the necessity of a ministry, but examples may be given as to any increase there has been in dominion-provincial relations.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, when I am talking about the programs of this government and the money spent I am talking about federal-provincial relations, and that is what this resolution deals with. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. member for Ville-neuve would have the nerve to get up and interrupt me in the midst of my speech. May I say to him that the thing for him to do is to go out and pay his rent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I have a few points-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Macleod will recognize that his remarks are quite out of order and quite uncalled for.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I have dealt with the point.
We will now come back to the motion and we will keep personal remarks off the record.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I ask Your Honour to ask the hon. member to withdraw the words he used, that I have not been paying my rent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a place to backchat and we will observe the rules of the house. I have declared the remarks of the hon. member to be quite improper and we will leave it at that.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me close with a few statements concerning the cost of setting up a new department of government. If such a department can contribute to good relations between the federal and provincial government and if it can accomplish something in addition to what is already being accomplished then perhaps you can build a case for it. On the other hand,
if it is to be a fifth wheel and accomplish nothing, but get in the way of existing agencies of government, then I think probably you could build just as good a case against it.
Now, nothing has been done by the provincial governments about establishing a department of federal-provincial affairs, at least not in the province of Alberta. In so far as the federal government is concerned, if any particular problem arises it is always handled by the department concerned and, through the minister, by the cabinet. The same procedure is followed at the provincial level. With all due respect to the mover of this motion, all I can say is that he must have had something in the back of his mind that he wanted to get across to the people, in addition to what he said in respect of the resolution.


Robert Norman Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or a question of privilege?


Robert Norman Thompson: I am rising on a point of order. I do not believe the hon. member has the right to impute motives. Certainly, if he cannot stay on the topic before us he had better sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I failed to recognize in any of the remarks the imputation of an improper motive. I do not know that anything in the back of one's mind is necessarily improper.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I must say that the leader of the Social Credit party is very touchy. He must have had something in his mind that was detrimental, although I did not impute it to him. May I say that the establishment of a department such as is proposed in this resolution may have something to recommend it, but it needs to be given very close scrutiny.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I shall strive to bring the debate back to the level where it was during the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), that is a higher level than during the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.
Since confederation, there have been great autonomists, particularly in the province of Quebec. To name only a few, there were Messrs. Honore Mercier, L. A. Taschereau and Duplessis and the present premier, the Hon. Jean Lesage. One can see therefore that only a few years after confederation, there was already some friction between the central government and the provinces. Without those difficulties, we would not have had the great

men who fought against the federal government at that time. It would seem then that provincial rights have been threatened since confederation. On the other hand, confederation would not have been possible if the provinces had not received assurances that their rights would be respected. I remember that, barely two years ago, my chief, the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Pearson), suggested that a department be set up to deal exclusively with federal-provincial affairs.
I recognize that, in some areas, that suggestion was very badly received, whereas it was much better received in others. Some claimed for example that when it came to interpreting the constitution, the Minister of Justice was the one to do so, and that the appointment of another minister would result in duplication of responsibilities. Others said: When we come to Ottawa to secure grants, we go to the Minister of Finance and not to a minister of federal-provincial affairs.
I am convinced that if we had a department of federal-provincial affairs, it could continually discuss the situation with the provincial ministers. Besides, Ontario and Manitoba already have such a ministry; the premier of the province of Quebec said that he was thinking of setting up such a department. In fact, the heads of those departments would report to their respective governments on the discussions they would have together.
Besides, some steps have already been taken to unify opinions in the various provinces. At the call of Premier Jean Lesage, all provincial premiers met three years ago in Quebec to consider their problems in regard to the federal government. Another meeting was held in Charlottetown last year and this year it was in Victoria. This shows that there are continuing problems, problems which have been getting worse particularly since 1931, when the Westminster statute was signed. We have seen the development of these problems since the war because of Canada's expansion and the responsibilities it had accepted toward the outside world. The federal government needed increased revenues, and so did the provinces because of their continued development. But now, both levels of government have seen that it is impossible for each level to tax individually because the population cannot accept further increased taxation. There had to be an agreement between the various provinces and the federal government in order to know definitely in what field one level of government could levy taxes and in what field the other level could do so.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I admit it is impossible to come to a solution overnight, because there are great difficulties standing in the way.
We know that the Liberal party has developed an equalization plan in order to allow the federal government to give more to the underdeveloped provinces, to those who are in greater need of assistance. In Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, which are immensely rich provinces, that problem does not exist, because their revenue is adequate and they do not seem to have any concern about the poorer provinces.
I think it was the desire of all federal governments to help more particularly those provinces who needed greater assistance. But, in some quarters, there was reluctance to welcome such an arrangement. Consequently, in order to correct the situation, we should set up an agency which would constantly study each problem in the light of its inherent difficulties, which would allow the government to be able to make wise decisions.
Let us take, for instance, the problem of highway transportation. The MacPherson commission suggested that the railways should not enter that field. Highway transportation originated because of a lack of foresight on the part of railway companies; it developed these come under provincial jurisdiction.
The MacPherson commission actually said to the railways: Go ahead and keep away from that. Those are problems that could be discussed between the provincial and federal governments, so that both parties may benefit from it.
There is the matter of the Columbia river that seemed to be settled a long time ago, but which is cropping up again today.
Relations are strained between the federal government and the British Columbia government, regardless of the party in power.
All those matters could be settled if we had a body which would look into those problems regularly and report its findings to the government. The cabinet might be able then to find a way of correcting the situation once and for all, after hearing both parties.
Besides, the government will soon propose the repatriation of the constitution. How are we going to repatriate the constitution if we have had no time to study it and put it in order?
The constitution is far from being perfect. It has to be repatriated, we admit it. But before this is done, it would be necessary that organizations co-operate in considering changes to be made to ensure protection for the minorities, the welfare of the poorest
2368	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations provinces in Canada as well as the settling of problems that will inevitably arise. Now, this cannot be accomplished if federal and provincial governments do not have representatives who work together to study this problem before our constitution can be repatriated. I think that the resolution is very simple that there is no reason for us not to pass it; there even is no reason for us to criticize it because all that the member for Red Deer is asking is that we study this matter immediately.
The government is asked to study this project. That is nothing unusual because it has been said that this government is the most studious we have had since confederation. It has been operating by boards since it took over. Therefore they could keep on studying as they have done and try to find some ground for understanding between the provinces in all federal-provincial matters.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should at once accept this resolution, but we should not ascribe its mover with any intentions he has never had.


Mr, Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), which proposes the setting up of a department of federal-provincial affairs, under the direction of a full-time minister, is of the utmost importance for the good administration of our country, because it aims at eliminating all the problems that arise from the fact that the federal government trespasses on provincial laws and privileges and at restoring justice within the limits set by the Confederation Act of 1867.
The centralization implemented in such a hateful way by the central government at the time of the Liberal administration was a source of continuous friction between the provincial states and the federal state, especially with regard to taxation.
Under the Conservative administration, the situation has remained almost unchanged.
On the other hand, since it was always quite difficult to settle the overlapping responsibilities between the federal and the provincial levels because of the lack of coordination, this project of establishing a department of federal-provincial affairs would provide a way to find the required solutions in the best interest of the federal and provincial governments.
As a Quebec representative in this house, I know how often our province and its


people were unfairly treated1 by Liberal administrations during 22 years and afterwards by Conservative administrations because they said that Quebec was a province like the other provinces. Quebec is not a province like the other provinces. It is different from the others in many ways and particularly in its character, its French speaking population, its education system, its religious institutions, its social organization, the philosophy and habits of its people, etc., all of which is the heritage of 355 years of French Canadian history.
It is abnormal, for instance, for the federal government to impinge upon the rights of the provinces, and that is why the equalization system which was advocated by the Liberal party is not the answer to the fiscal problem of the provinces. If the provinces have the rights to which they are entitled, there is no need for them to have an equalization system.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) said a few moments ago that if that department were established, it would in effect destroy any good relationship between the federal and provincial health departments. That is not the purpose of this proposal.
He also said that the federal government gave back to the province of Alberta 44 per cent of the levies. I would point out to the hon. member that that money had been first levied by the federal government whereas it belonged to the province.
Far from wanting to promote federal interference in provincial affairs, this motion has been introduced for the purpose of settling the matter.
(Text):


Mr. F. F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) on his motion and his presentation of it. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) has put forward very convincing reasons why we should not have such a ministry set up, but I as a new member still feel a ministry of federal-provincial affairs could be co-ordinated within the cabinet.
Since the Conservative government came into power in 1957 we have seen increased federal grants made to provinces and municipalities. Let us take a look at a few of the things the government has done for provinces and municipalities. With the assistance of the Minister of Labour money has been granted to every province for the building of technical

and vocational schools. The government has also taken a great interest in universities, and in this field is working with the provinces.
In almost every capital project undertaken by provinces, the federal government has been asked to contribute financially. National and provincial parks are tied together, and the trans-Canada highway involves the provinces and the federal government. Recently the government made large grants available to hospitals, matching grants from the provinces, and had it not been for these grants there would be a grave shortage of hospital beds.
Any hon. member who has sat on a municipal council recognizes that in the future municipalities must receive more aid from provincial governments and the federal government if they are to give the people the services they require. In my constituency of Peterborough-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I take it that tomorrow we will go on with the business which was announced by the house leader on Tuesday evening and, I understand, again last night. Perhaps the house leader would indicate what else we will do on Thursday and Friday.


Mr. Churchill:: I think for the orderly progression of business we should complete tomorrow debate on the Atlantic development board, which is very close to completion, and then carry on with the national economic development board. I doubt very much if there would be time for anything else. If there
Business of the House
should be a last 15 minutes or so we would take items standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not objecting to this but I am simply asking for information. Was there not some statement last night that we would go on, as the first item of business tomorrow, with the national development board?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. On two occasions I said that on Thursday we would call the national economic development board but I did not say it would be the first item on Thursday. I am sure the house, which has not objected to the Atlantic development board, would like to complete that bill, which perhaps can be done in an hour or an hour and a half, and then we would go on with the economic development board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the national productivity council amendments come up?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not here last evening but I took it from my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate that what I said earlier was accurate. I find from what appears at page 2328 of Hansard that this is the case. This is what was said:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister also indicate whether it is still the intention of the government on Thursday, regardless of what progress is made, to go on with the national economic development council legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no indication there that it would be the first item called, but it certainly will be on the program for tomorrow and my hope is that we shall get to it by four o'clock or 4.30.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 6, 1962