1963-12-19

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say just a word about the sitting today, in line with what I said at the close last night. I indicated at that time that I would endeavour to find out at the opening today whether the house would be agreeable to sitting through the luncheon and dinner hours in order to expedite the consideration of estimates, and I indicated that there would be no legislation brought forward today by the government. I would just like to find out, if I could, whether that would be agreeable to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the suggestion of the Secretary of State. Does the house agree to the suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any good purpose would be served by sitting continuously. In the first place, I think it is most unfair to staff, translators and reporters, to ask them to take on the almost unbearable burden of working continuously from eleven o'clock in the morning until, in all probability, midnight or after; because I cannot see any prospect of our adjourning at 10.30. Also, as far as members are concerned, I do not think we will save any time. I think that by exercising a little self discipline we will get as much work done if we rise from one o'clock until 2.30 and from six o'clock until seven o'clock, and then if necessary we could extend the hours at the latter part of the day.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: We are prepared to go along with the suggestion of the house leader. In fact we have been prepared for a long time now to meet any of these requests. The success in getting legislation and estimates through the house up to this point has been due very largely to the co-operation of the official opposition. I wish I could say the same-


An hon. Member:: Let us give him a hand.
28902-5-389


Gordon Minto Churchill: -for some of the other small parties in the house. We are quite prepared to go ahead with this idea and wind up the business of this session. It is not too difficult at this stage of the game to sit through the lunch hour and dinner hour. I think from the standpoint of the staff it would be better for them to have their work completed by Friday of this week rather than to be here on Saturday.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: We are
prepared to go along with the suggestion that has been made by the government house leader. It seems that we could arrange to get lunch some way or other. It would appear that most of the debates that are necessary have been pretty well completed. We would be prepared to go along with any suggestion that would expedite the passage of the business.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is quite acceptable because we are having a special meeting at one o'clock and we cannot be here between one o'clock and half past two.
We would be quite agreeable to sit a little later tonight to make up for the lunch period.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestion that has been put forward and the comments that have been made on the suggestion, I think there is one other word that should be said. I agree with the position taken by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I think we will do just as well by recognizing the normal hours plus an extension later in the evening if we need it, and we can do just as well in that way as we can by cramming things through.
I should like to say to my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that his suggestion that his party has always been co-operative and we have been difficult is not borne out by the record. The only time this session that it was necessary to achieve an extension of the hours by a motion and by dividing the house was on October 17, when the Progressive Conservatives objected to and tried to thwart the proposal made by the Secretary of State. We have

House of Commons
negotiated these extensions, and we are prepared to negotiate today as to the use of the time. I suggest that the application of Christmas good will would be better than trying to force things through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The accusations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have to be answered. If you examine the record you will see that time and time again the business of this house has been obstructed by opposition from the New Democratic party. They have refused to sit an extra few minutes night after night when we could have completed the various estimates.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has no right to use the term "obstructed" when referring to this group. I would remind you that we have co-operated wholeheartedly throughout the session. I would remind the hon. gentleman that he, along with some of his colleagues, took two hours on third reading of the centennial bill trying to defend a position that was indefensible. I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre he is not now the government leader of the house, a position which he occupied with the diplomacy and finesse of a bull in a china shop.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to wish all members a merry Christmas.

On the orders of the day:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to rise on a question of privilege. It is based on the false statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he misled the house by suggesting that on October 17 this party opposed the extension of the hours of sitting of this house. That is not the case at all, and it is deplorable that a senior member of this house should make a statement of that nature.
I base my question of privilege on the fact that on that date I said we were in favour of extending the hours. I suggested extending the hours by five and a half hours per week instead of five. I suggested that later this session we would be sitting Wednesday nights, Friday nights and on Saturdays, and I hinted that we would dispense with some of the supply motions. Unfortunately, although I asked the house leader to consult with us on the matter, at that time, inexperienced as he was, he refused that consultation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South

Centre has no right, even at Christmas time, to suggest that I made a false statement. The record is quite clear. The amendment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on October 17, while it proposed more hours of sitting for the week, proposed less time for government business than the motion proposed by the Secretary of State. That is one point.
The other point is that the record is clear, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre called "On division" on the motion moved by the Secretary of State. I do not know how much clearer the record has to be, even for my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is typical evasion. The hon. member should cross the floor of the house and join the Secretary of State and the other ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Frequently during heated debate words are used extending beyond what might be a polite meaning. I am sure that was the case here.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee on procedure and organization-Mr. Speaker.
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Baldwin.
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Matheson.
Second report of special committee on food and drugs-Mr. Harley.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a series of questions to the Minister of Justice in regard to one John Wasylen-chuk of Vancouver, who has been directed to be taken from Canada under extradition. I do this because of a statement made by the Liberal leader in British Columbia, Mr. Perrault, to the effect that the Minister of Justice signed an order for the extradition of this man and, to quote what the press said, he did not know what he was doing when he signed it, that he would have signed his own death certificate.
I ask the minister, did he sign an order directing the extradition of this man several days before the habeas corpus proceedings taken by him were decided upon; what was the date of the signing of the order by the minister; what was the date when the judgment was handed down? Furthermore, did

the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, following the signing of the order, make an attempt to stop extradition by phoning the warden of Oakalla prison yesterday, and by phoning the border officials to prevent the extradition?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions which have been put and I shall be pleased to answer them, but first I think I should give to the house the situation as it exists.
Under date October 25, 1963, the government of the United States requested extradition of John Wasylenchuk, who is charged with the crimes of robbery and murder in connection with a bank robbery in the western district of Washington, pursuant to the extradition treaty with the United States to which Canada is a party. Wasylenchuk was brought up before Mr. Justice Hutcheson of the supreme court of British Columbia for a hearing in the nature of a preliminary inquiry pursuant to the treaty and the Extradition Act. On November 14, 1963 Mr. Justice Hutcheson reported to me that he had committed Wasylenchuk for extradition pursuant to the act. He stated that the evidence before him included evidence submitted on behalf of Wasylenchuk with a view to establishing an alibi as well as evidence connecting Wasylenchuk with the alleged offence.
Next, habeas corpus proceedings were then taken on behalf of Wasylenchuk before Mr. Justice Ruttan, also of the supreme court of British Columbia, and under date of December 11, 1963 I was advised by the district registrar of the supreme court that such application had been refused. I accordingly signed an extradition warrant for Wasylenchuk's surrender to the United States authorities pursuant to the Extradition Act. It was sent out on Monday, December 16, 1963 to counsel in Vancouver acting for the United States authorities, and I understand Wasylenchuk was removed to the United States under such warrant yesterday.
In answer to one of the other questions by the right hon. gentleman, several days did expire, as he intimated in his question, between the habeas corpus proceedings being taken and the signing of the warrant. It was not until after the habeas corpus proceedings had been taken and the matter had been discussed with my officers that I signed the warrant.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask this question. Was the warrant signed by the minister signed before the judgment was handed down in the habeas corpus proceedings?
28902-5-389J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that is no; it was signed afterward.


John George Diefenbaker: Then would the minister also answer whether his parliamentary secretary yesterday made these communications? I ask because Mr. Perrault is reported to have stated that the Minister of Justice promised a full review early this week in a telephone conversation-


Lionel Chevrier: I did not get that.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice early this week promised a full review in a telephone conversation. Following that alleged telephone conversation to which Mr. Perrault has made reference, did the parliamentary secretary yesterday endeavour to stop the extradition in the manner in which I have indicated?


Lionel Chevrier: Insofar as a telephone conversation is concerned, I can tell my hon. friend that I did have correspondence with Mr. Perrault in which he set out some points. I replied to him that I had investigated all the points that had been raised and following advice from the officers I had no alternative but to sign the extradition warrant.


John George Diefenbaker: One other question has not been answered, regarding the minister's parliamentary secretary. Did he make an attempt to stop the extradition by telephoning the warden of Oakalla yesterday, and by telephoning the border when he found that this man was en route to the border, in order to stop the extradition?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend knows I was absent from the house yesterday, and I have not had an opportunity to discuss that part of the matter with my parliamentary secretary. I should like to have the opportunity to do so before making any reply.


John George Diefenbaker: He is of age. Let him answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is not a minister yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice if, when he signed the surrender order for John Wasylenchuk, he was aware of the fact that he was on parole. In view of the fact that under section 11 of the Parole Act a person on parole is still deemed to be serving a sentence, and under section 24 of the Extradition Act no person who is serving a sentence can be extradited, would the minister not consider that his surrender order was illegal?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker. That matter was carefully gone into, both the section of the Extradition Act as well as the section

Inquiries of the Ministry of the Parole Act, and the legal advice I have received is that although a man is on parole he is still subject to extradition under the treaty and under the act. Otherwise a man who was on parole could leave the jurisdiction, go into the United States, commit an offence, come back and not be extraditable. The converse would be true with regard to a citizen of the United States who came into Canada under such circumstances. In my view the treaty which has been entered into between the two countries envisaged such a situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister this question. Is he not bound by the Extradition Act, section 24 of which says very clearly that a person cannot be extradited if he is serving a sentence for some crime other than the one for which extradition proceedings have been taken?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not agree with that interpretation of the section. The section does not say that, and the advice I have received from my officers is to the contrary. As I said earlier, my advice is that although the man is on parole he is still subject to extradition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. In view of the fact that Wasylen-chuk claims he was in Burnaby in 1954 at the time the offence was committed for which he is being extradited, and that any alibi he may try to establish will have to be established through witnesses in Burnaby, is any arrangement being made by the Canadian government to see that he has ample opportunity to call witnesses and to get the necessary funds to convey witnesses to the United States in order that he may receive a fair trial?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the circumstances are with reference to the alibi, although in the statement I made earlier I pointed out that this had been considered by one of the judges. But I can tell my hon. friend that in so far as I am concerned I would be prepared to do everything possible in order that he may obtain a fair trial.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that there has been communication between the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary, instead of asking for secondary evidence I would like to put the question to the parliamentary secretary. I ask him whether yesterday he made an attempt to stop the extradiction of Wasylenchuk by telephoning the warden or telephoning to the border.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker,
I would not like to make any statement at this time without a full opportunity of discussing this with the minister, a fuller opportunity than has been possible since the minister gave his answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the parliamentary secretary not deny this? If he does not deny it, under what authority did he go behind an order that was made?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the answer I gave the right hon. Leader of the Opposition a while ago he would at least have given me an opportunity of discussing with my parliamentary assistant what happened in my absence yesterday. But that conversation did not take place, and I am not in a position to deal with it. I would like to make sure that the information which I give to the house is factual, and that I cannot do until I have had an opportunity to discuss it with him.


John George Diefenbaker: I noticed the two in conversation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister, when he is looking into this matter and making a statement to the house, to also clarify the statement he made earlier to me; because section 24 of the Extradition Act is quite clear. It says:
A fugitive who has been accused of an offence within Canadian jurisdiction, not being the offence for which his surrender is asked, or who is undergoing sentence under a conviction in Canada, shall not be surrendered until after he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or by expiration of his sentence, or otherwise.
It seems to me that is, for legal terminology, unusually explicit. I hope the minister will clarify this point because it would seem, on the face of it, that the surrender order which he signed is clearly illegal.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is simply repeating the statement which he made earlier. When I do anything in the Department of Justice I accept the advice of the legal officers and, unfortunately, not of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I must repeat what I said to him a while ago, that the advice I was given in so far as this section is concerned was that it did not apply under the circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All I am asking the minister to do is, when he makes his statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have had quite a full discussion, and I think the Minister of Justice seized the point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will Your Honour not give me a chance to say what I was going to ask the minister to do?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the time to make an argument. We have discussed the matter on two occasions this morning.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not making an argument, Mr. Speaker. I am just asking a question. I am asking the minister a question and saying that as a member of the house I have the right to some explanation from him. The mere fact that he tells me his law officers have advised him is not sufficient. I am asking the minister whether he will be kind enough to tell the house, when he makes his statement, how he reconciles the opinion which was given to him by his law officers with section 24 of the Extradition Act.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there will be any difficulty about that, Mr. Speaker, and if the hon. member will just hold his patience, perhaps tomorrow I will be able to make a statement on the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence, both of whom have been in Paris. Are they now in a position to give the House of Commons any statement following the NATO ministerial council meeting?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my estimates will be coming up in a very short time, and I thought I might take advantage of those estimates to make a report on the ministerial meeting.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question of which I have given him notice.
Would the minister report to the house on the interview he had in Paris with the assistant to the president of Sud-Aviation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while in Paris, I tried to get in touch with General Puget, president of Sud-Aviation, but since he was out of the country, I was able to have a very satisfactory and very friendly telephone conversation with the general manager of Sud-Aviation, Mr. Giusta.
I told him that the decision taken by T.C.A. to purchase DC-9 aircraft had been determined exclusively by the very special requirements of operations within our country in the field of air transportation, and I expressed the sincere regret of the Canadian government that this incident had taken such proportions and that legitimate interest, on both sides, might have been affected without, of course, the excellent relations between the French government and the Canadian government being involved.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Would the minister tell us whether he has read an article written by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in which he stated that the French ambassador in Canada had not been very diplomatic?
Would the minister give us his opinion on that point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that article.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On last November 20, I asked him a question about a bill introduced in the legislature of the state of New York to prevent the importation of Canadian bread in that state. At that time, the Prime Minister replied that he would inquire. Well, I have here a copy of that bill which provides that 50 per cent of the shares of a private concern or company doing business or selling bread in the United States must be held by Americans. This particular section of the bill ends with these words:

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This act shall take effect immediately. [Translation]
Does the Prime Minister and his government intend to make representations to the

Inquiries of the Ministry authorities of the state of New York to prevent such discrimination against Canadian exports?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a report yet from my inquiry, but I will try to get it during the day and reply to my hon. friend tomorrow morning.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, allegedly made yesterday by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Vancouver to the effect that the United States negotiators on the Columbia river treaty have insisted that payments by the United States for downstream benefits be placed under federal government control rather than that of the government of British Columbia, will the minister explain the effect of this demand upon the outcome of negotiations? Furthermore, has British Columbia agreed to the setting up of a federal trusteeship to administer this fund to some $400 million?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, my attention was directed to the story which appeared in one of the morning papers. I may say that I do not believe the headline is warranted by the circumstances with which I am familiar. As to the contents of the article, I believe the right hon. gentleman will appreciate that these negotiations are now under way. There is to be a meeting with British Columbia and the United States tomorrow, and I would not want to say anything at this time that would prejudice these negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: Those laudable words should apply to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. He is the one who made the statement, and I ask did the United States negotiators insist that payments for downstream benefits be placed under federal government control; because surely parliament is entitled to know what a minister of the government spreads in other parts of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very grateful to the right hon. gentleman for clarifying his earlier question.


John George Diefenbaker: You follow suit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have asked for a report from my colleague, who is not in the capital at the moment, concerning precisely what was said. I am sure the right hon. gentleman, with his great experience in negotiations, would not expect me to say anything further.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister's answer, stripped of unnecessary verbiage, that parliament is to be denied information that ministers give outside the house?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman and I are in full agreement as to the rights of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No wonder the NATO conference was confused.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question in connection with the minister giving information outside the house, information that has been denied us for months. Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet receive a telegram from C. P. Neale, general secretary treasurer of the Vancouver and district labour council, expressing concern at the possibility of ratification of the Columbia river treaty?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have received that telegram. I have received a number of telegrams, and one of them suggests that perhaps it had been urged on me as a result of suggestions made by my dear and hon. friend.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a supplementary question, if what the minister is reported as saying in Vancouver is proven correct, will the minister then inform the house of the terms of this treaty?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Well, Mr. Speaker, the government certainly has no intention of withholding from the house information to which it is entitled. We have given a clear indication of this all along. Whether the information was in fact given at all by my colleague, will be clear from the report which I have already told the right hon. Leader of the Opposition I hope to have today or tomorrow.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have another supplementary question. If it is proven correct, will the minister elaborate on the statement made by the minister of northern affairs in Vancouver, before this session ends?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a hypothetical question and I can add nothing more.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he now has the statement on the publications matter which he indicated two weeks ago would be delayed for several days, and I particularly ask him whether he is considering any form of Christmas present for the hard pressed magazine publishers of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to my hon. friend that I hoped to be in a position to make a statement on this matter, but since I made that promise to my hon. friend there have been certain other developments, including evidence I have received from certain quarters, which may delay the statement for a few days. But I still think there will be a chance before the house adjourns.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. 1 ask this question of the minister because there seems to be some doubt in the minds of many native Indian people regarding the progress of Bill C-130 regarding the disposition of Indian claims, which was introduced the other day. I would like to ask the minister whether it is clearly the intention of the government not to proceed with this bill this session but to hold it over so that public discussion and examination can take place.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I may tell the hon. gentleman it is clearly the intention of the government to withhold the legislation until all concerned are notified. A mailing list is presently being prepared so that the Indian bands and the associations interested in Indian affairs will have a chance to look at the bill, consider it, and make their representations to the government.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I wonder can the minister advise the house what effect the legislation will have on pending litigation. I believe there is a case pending in the Calgary area with reference to the Blackfoot band at Gleichen, involving over $1 million in claims. What effect will this
Inquiries of the Ministry have on pending legislation; because this is important to that band at the present time?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would permit me I must admit in all humility that I am not completely au courant with this particular claim he has referred to, but I will be pleased to discuss it with him at his convenience.



REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR 1966 QUEBEC FESTIVAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choquetfe (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or in her absence to her parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that a committee has recently been formed in Quebec named the comite des jeux d'hiver interprovinciaux, and considering the recommendation made by the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport, I would like to ask whether that committee is going to get the very important grant of $500,000 which has been requested.


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's temporary absence from the house I will be glad to take this question as notice and bring it to her attention.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to bring the house up to date on the further negotiations which he stated recently were going on between the national aeronautics space agency of the United States government and his own department in regard to the proposed nimbus meteorological satellite tracking station for Victoria county, Nova Scotia.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much I can add to the answer I gave some days ago. We are still waiting developments because of the changes in scientific discoveries in this field.



NORTH SYDNEY-NEWFOUNDLAND  MAINLAND FERRY TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: On December 9 I posed a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Transport, who was unavoidably absent. The Secretary of State, who was acting minister, very kindly replied that he did not believe a definitive reply could be made until the Minister of Transport was back in his seat. The question related to the mainland terminus of the second ferry to Newfoundland. Now that the minister is back in his seat, and in the spirit of the season, could he give that definitive reply; and will that reply indicate that the present government has confirmed the action of the previous government in designating the port of North Sydney as the mainland terminus of the proposed new ferry?


George James McIlraith: I am not aware that the previous government had designated the terminus. In any event, the matter is still under consideration and I cannot give a definitive reply.


Robert Muir: May I ask a supplementary question. If the minister would check the speech from the throne he would find confirmation of my statement. Would he kindly advise what his colleague the Minister of Labour meant when he stated to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on December 16 that the Canso strait was ruled "out" in the guessing game but "in" was North Sydney. I do not understand it.


George James McIlraith: I have not seen the press release.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister received any complaints or representations concerning the decision to change the C.B.C. Toronto station CJBC to all French programs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for asking this question, because it enables me to say that I was just shown an extract from the Toronto Star of yesterday which says;
No complaints have been received by state secretary J. W. Pickersgill. who answers to parliament for the C.B.C.
It does not quote me as having said that, and I have heard that there was dissatisfaction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have drawn to the attention of those who have expressed the dissatisfaction to me, either orally or in writing,

that their views would be brought to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has the responsibility.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister agree with the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), on his side of the house, who stated that French speaking residents of Toronto should provide for themselves a private French radio station, in the same way that a small English speaking minority in Quebec city supported a private English station?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known rule of this house that ministers do not comment on statements made outside the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mine is not a supplementary question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to ask the minister a question. I know he cannot comment on what members who support him have said, but I think it would put this whole matter into focus if he could tell us whether he has indeed received representations from Toronto members of parliament in addition to the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), suggesting that the C.B.C. be asked to review and postpone its decision in this regard. I ask this question because some of us who do not live in Toronto do not always appreciate having to carry the hod for the Toronto area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I had received a certain number of representations both orally and in writing, and that I was bringing any representations I have received to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the many arrangements and negotiations between Canada and the state of Maine for a reciprocal agreement on unemployment insurance, can the minister now say whether the state of Maine has arrived at a conclusion on this matter; and if so, what it is?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise my hon. friend that the unemployment insurance commission of the state of Maine is not prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the unemployment insurance commission of Canada, and my recollection is that this decision was conveyed to the commission some weeks ago. There is no disposition on the part of the unemployment insurance commission of Maine to intervene.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF $2 PER BUSHEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: In the presence of the Minister of Agriculture, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. When can we expect legislation fulfilling the fervent promise of the Liberal party to guarantee the grain producers a floor price of $2 per bushel for wheat?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any representations were made to him recently regarding the need for greatly increased financial assistance for medical research.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. However, I think I had better make inquiries in my office.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the interest shown in the reported application for a charter for the bank of western Canada and the speculation that other applications might follow, can the minister say whether in his current review of the Bank Act he is giving consideration to the removal of the 6 per cent ceiling on interest on bank loans and also the matter of Canadian ownership requirements for banks.
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Bank Act has not yet come up for review. When it does, I have no doubt that both these questions will be fully explored and discussed. In the meantime I think it would not be proper for me to say anything on the subject.
Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



THREE RIVERS, QUE.    REPORTED OBJECTION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: I should like to ask a question in French of the Minister of Transport.

Can the Minister of Transport tell the house whether the difficulties which opposed the interests of the Three Rivers bridge corporation and of the province of Quebec to the interests of his department have at last been smoothed out and, if so, whether people who live in the centre of Quebec may hope to get, as a Christmas present from the minister, a precise and clear statement about the construction of the bridge at Three Rivers?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes or no?


George James McIlraith: I do not know which of the three questions contained in that statement I would answer by yes or no. In any event, it is not a matter of difficulty between the Department of Transport and the Three Rivers bridge corporation, it is a matter of the construction of this bridge being under provincial jurisdiction and the responsibility for navigable waters being under federal jurisdiction. There is a difference of opinion involved in what is required to protect the navigable waters of the river in terms of the proposed designs of the bridge.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Has any progress been made in the study of NATO defence policy which was agreed to at the ministerial meeting last May in Ottawa? If so, can the minister indicate what changes in Canada's contribution to NATO military forces may now be expected?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I think it might be appropriate to say a word or two about this subject when my estimates come back before the committee, which will likely be tomorrow. I may then have an opportunity to give a brief report to the house on the meeting which was just concluded in Paris.



Inquiries of the Ministry BREAD



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question further to the one I directed yesterday to the Prime Minister. Has the Minister of Justice as yet had an opportunity to discuss with his officials possible action with respect to the all too coincidental general rise in the price of bread in Ontario?


Lionel Chevrier: I have noted the hon. member's question, as I have noted the press reports of bread price increases. I have also discussed this subject with the director under the Combines Investigation Act, and I am satisfied that the matter is receiving adequate consideration. As the house knows, the general practice is that no information is given out as to whether an inquiry is being conducted in a particular industry unless and until a report is published.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I raised a question with the Prime Minister with regard to taking the Cold Storage Act out of the deep freeze and reinstituting subventions under it. The Prime Minister indicated that he would speak to the Minister of Agriculture about it. I wonder if we could have an answer today from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday on orders of the day the hon. member for Skeena referred to a question he had directed to the Prime Minister on October 28, as to whether it was the intention of the government to reinstitute the subsidies under the Cold Storage Act for the construction of cold storage warehouses, which were suspended in July, 1962. In reply I may say that this policy is at present under review, and an announcement will be made in due course.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is prompted by a speech he made to the club Richelieu in Quebec yesterday, with many of the non-political parts of which I am in agreement. Would the minister say, in order to clarify this question,

whether in his speech he intended to convey the impression that the concurrent powers of the provinces with regard to matters of immigration were not at all times subject to federal laws and regulations?


Guy Favreau: I do not believe I ever did convey that impression, because the jurisdiction is clearly subject to the basic laws enacted by the federal parliament and may not go contrary to those laws.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works with regard to the Sauble river in the riding of Bruce. Would the minister reconsider his decision to cancel the development project at the mouth of the Sauble river; that is, the proposed dredging program? This resort area serves approximately 15,000 vacationers and possibly as many as 30,000 visitors, who are increasing in numbers each year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would like to put that question on the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Two days ago the Minister of Justice promised to make a statement regarding a complaint which was lodged with him by the international woodworkers of America on December 11 relating to the allegation that R.C.M.P. forces were being used in strike-breaking in connection with a dispute at the Canadian forest products planing mill at Grande Prairie. Is the minister ready to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I did undertake to do that, but unfortunately I was away yesterday. I was not able to contact the commissioner, but I will do that some time today and possibly make a statement tomorrow.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, $1,057,600.


The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply, Department of Agriculture, vote No. 1. Shall the item carry?


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I have but a few remarks to make at this stage, because I do not want to delay the business of the house too much.
Our Liberal friends have made so many promises when they were in the opposition that I cannot let an opportunity slip by without reminding them a few of their election promises and urging them to carry them out.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) reminds me that this being Christmas time, it would be the most appropriate time for the Minister of Agriculture to carry out his promises.
Mr. Chairman, referring to the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963, we remember that at that time, the Liberal candidates were travelling throughout our ridings, reminding the farmers that agriculture was in a stage of stagnation, but that they had all the solutions to their problems.
No wonder the voters were deceived by these fine words; but now they ask them to keep those promises.
I am one of those who now intend to ask those people to keep their promises.
One of the main promises was that eastern farmers would have a minister from the east. We remember that at the beginning of the session the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), now leader of the house, requested the house to do things quickly, in order that we may appoint a minister of agriculture for the east as soon as possible. So it is surprising now to see that his former impatience to proceed in this field has turned into unending delays, since this appointment is even postponed until the next session.
Mr. Chairman, in that field, we are facing two contradictory positions on the part of our friends on the other side, which well indicates the extent of their sincerity when they speak about farmers, for if we go back to April 8 last, we find that very little has been done in the field of agriculture to improve the condition of the farmer.
As soon as they came to power, they introduced a measure which had baleful results, especially for the farmers in my district. As soon as he took over as Minister of Agriculture, the first thing he thought advisable to do was to remove the 25-cent premium per hundred pounds of milk granted to farmers who sold their milk to plants.
We have here an idea of the extent of the damage caused to farmers in my constituency, if we consider that after the Conservative government established that premium, farmers
Sup p ly-A griculture
in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot benefited by the amount of $1,576,222.
As concerns the farmers in the province, the premium represents an amount of nearly $21 million they would have received during the years that measure applied.
It is difficult to understand that people wishing to help the agricultural class find nothing better to do than removing that premium and depriving the farmers, both in my constituency and in the province, of such an essential revenue. It must not be forgotten that at least 40 per cent of the farmers' income is derived from the dairy industry.
They had a right to expect different conduct on the part of the minister.
If he wishes to know what the farmers think of the present government's agricultural policy, he just has to pay them a visit. He will see that his popularity and that of the Liberal government is going down constantly month by month.
Mr. Chairman, you can also have an idea of the Liberal party's concern for farmers when you consider that at the election of last April, 15 farmers were eliminated at Liberal conventions.
In the June 1962 election, Mr. Jean Baptiste Lemoyne had run in my own riding and was reported to be a future minister of agriculture in a Liberal cabinet. When one considers that he was turned down at the convention during the 1963 election campaign, the degree of sincerity of the Liberal party towards farmers can readily be appreciated. I believe that the Liberals lost no time in removing that premium as soon as they came into power so as to punish the rural ridings for supporting the Conservative party.
The hon. gentleman who aspires to become minister of agriculture is somewhat guilty himself because he spared no effort to eliminate from this house a genuine farmer, Mr. Alfred Belzile who had accomplished a great deal here. He was known by all members of the house as a genuine farmer who made a valuable and worth-while contribution whenever agricultural matters were being considered in the house.
I must tell the candidate to the ministry that his attitude was at complete variance with that of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) because when he was asked questions, he did not give the impression, like his successor, that they did not deserve any consideration.
During these last weeks, I directed questions to the hon. minister and he gave the impression that he felt he was too far above the common herd to reply. If he wants a piece of advice for his own information and his own future good, and if he really wants to do

Supp ly-A griculture
something for the farmers, he should have a little more humility and consider himself as part of this world.
Mr. Chairman, during the 1962 and 1963 elections, and also during past sessions when our friends opposite sat on opposition benches, they had answers to all questions and rose one after the other to deplore the lot made to the farmers by the Conservative government.
But it is a recognized fact that the Conservative party and particularly the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) have given the farmers much more during six years of Conservative administration than they had been given by the Department of Agriculture while its activities were directed by the hon. Mr. Gardiner.
Those gentlemen said in their speeches that new leadership had to be given to the milk products industry and steps taken to have milk distributed in the schools. Well, Mr. Chairman, what do you have since those people have come to power? Are they carrying out the policy which they advocated in the past? Absolutely not. We are not distributing more milk in the schools than formerly. Perhaps those people have realized that we were encroaching on a field which did not come under their jurisdiction.
This is further evidence that they should have tackled the problem with more sincerity, that they should have studied it before speaking; thus, they would not have ventured in fields where they are completely lost.
When we were in power, the hon. member for QuAppelle had legislation passed to help particularly, the dairy farmer in the province of Quebec and eastern Canada. In order to promote butter consumption we granted a reduction of 12 cents per pound of butter to the consumer. This has represented a considerable incentive to butter sales and today, this commodity sells much more than formerly.
Mr. Chairman, there is something disturbing in the fact that the subsidy may be withdrawn altogether, as pointed out in an article I was reading a few weeks ago in La Terre de chez-nous. Is anything being done now to condition the farmer and the consumer in that respect?
I think it is my duty, in my capacity as representative of a semi-rural and semi-urban riding, to urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and, if I may, the next minister of agriculture, to use all their energies and influence to have this subsidy maintained and not abolished.
Having said this Mr. Chairman, may I present to the Minister of Agriculture, to the aspiring Minister of Agriculture, as well as

to all my friends in the opposition, my best wishes for the year 1964, but I wish them a short political life.


Mr. Dupuis:: You are the friends in the opposition.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make to give the minister a chance to reply afterwards.
I wish to start by bidding the minister good luck in his new functions.
Then I should like to bring to the attention of the house a brief addressed to the present Minister of Agriculture by the corporation of agronomists of the province of Quebec. Here are a few excerpts:
My dear Minister,
The corporation of agronomists of the province of Quebec wishes to draw to your kind attention the situation of the agronomists who are employed by the federal Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec. Several of these federal agronomists are not fairly classified and remunerated. considering the responsibilities attached to the duties they have to perform.
A little further down, it says this:
Certain functions such as the inspection of crops should be the exclusive responsibility of agronomists with good knowledge of phytopathology and entomology acquired at the university. At one time, the veterinarian responsible for a sub-district earned exactly the same salary as the agronomist of the federal Department of Agriculture in the production service. Today, this veterinarian gets an average of $1500 more in some cases. Yet, the agronomist's responsibilities are quite as important. A salary scale which discriminates against a profession in favour of others coming under the same employer, in spite of equal responsibilities, could not be considered as fair.
This letter that I have not read in full bears the signature of Mr. T. Mongeon, agronomist and secretary general of the corporation of agronomists of the province of Quebec.
I ask the minister and his departmental officials to look into those suggestions, in order that the agronomists in the province of Quebec, and even in other provinces, may be treated as fairly as the veterinarians and a complete review be made so that their professional status may enable them to receive a salary equivalent to those paid in other fields of agriculture throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, the federal Department of Agriculture is one of the most important in Canada, and at the same time one of the most complex.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the present deputy minister, Dr. Barry, who discharges his responsibilities so well.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the associate deputy minister of agriculture, Mr. Chagnon, who is a qualified man familiar with the problems of agriculture, particularly those concerning

eastern Canada, should have wider responsibilities in the federal Department of Agriculture, because the present deputy minister, Dr. Barry, assumes in my opinion so many responsibilities and does so much work that it is impossible for him, even if he so wishes, to give special consideration to all the problems.
I believe it would be in the interest of the federal Department of Agriculture, that is in the interest of the agricultural class, to find a means or method of sharing responsibilities, so that Mr. Chagnon, who has been appointed lately associate deputy minister of agriculture, would share equal responsibilities with Dr. Barry.
It is not my intention to blame anybody in saying this. On the contrary. I have always greatly admired the officials of the Department of Agriculture, but I believe there is reason to divide executive responsibilities at that level.
I should also like to make a few remarks in connection with federal experimental farms. The problems that arise there are not new; they are of long standing.
To correct the situation in the province of Quebec, it is imperative to take the necessary steps to provide the experimental farms with a greater budget and with more agricultural technicians, doctors in agricultural sciences and agronomists.
I know that agronomists are scarce in French Canada at present, because the Quebec government has attracted a large number of them by offering high salaries. In other words, the provincial government has fine agronomists in its employ.
I submit that the Department of Agriculture should give special consideration to the problem so as to find in Quebec agronomists to fill jobs first in Ottawa and, in the second place, at research stations in the province.
I would strongly advise the Minister of Agriculture to ask one of his deputy ministers to go to the faculty of agronomy at Laval University to explain to the students the federal government's need for agronomists, so that agricultural technicians may come and take the place to which they are entitled within the federal Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I come back now to the subject of experimental farms. I have here figures and statistics but for the time being I have no intention of quoting them. However, I should like that special attention be given to the federal experimental farm of L'Assomp-tion. I have here a report prepared by the local chamber of commerce of L'Assomption area. This report was prepared by Mr. Richard
Sup p ly-A griculture
Bordeleau, who is the director of the experimental farm in that area; he is very competent and he has prepared this report with the co-operation of officers of the chamber of commerce in an effort to find a way to fill the vacancies in the federal experimental farm of L'Assomption area.
Let me quote a few excerpts from the resolutions passed by the chamber of commerce of L'Assomption on June 2, 1963.
Whereas the number of stations for agricultural research as of April 1962 represented 21.3 per cent of the Canadian total for Ontario and 17 per cent for Quebec;
Whereas the number of professionals engaged in that research represented to this date 17 per cent of the total for Ontario and 9.3 per cent of the total for Quebec.
This submission of the chamber of commerce goes on along this line and it is an excellent brief. As I said, we ought to try by all possible means to compensate this deficiency, this lack of agronomists at the federal level.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make at this time.
I wish that in 1964, the Minister of Agriculture will be able to implement the brief of the corporation. I would be glad if, later on, the minister would be able to comment on it and tell us whether he thinks that the suggestions to be found in the brief are good.
To conclude, I also ask the government to fully consider the problems of the farmers in the east and in British Columbia. As we have said already, the work to be done is tremendous and the field is broad, but I know that by co-operating and working together, we will succeed in raising the revenue of the farming class in eastern Canada as well as in British Columbia.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to prolong the debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, but I feel it is my duty as a farmer from western Canada to seek clarification from the Minister of Agriculture of some of the policies that were advocated by the Liberals during the election campaign. Now that we are coming to the end of a session and also to the end of 1963 I believe it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to give us answers to some of the questions in which the western farmers are very much interested.
During the time the previous government was in office they were very much concerned about a two price system for wheat, and on three occasions during those years acreage payments were made in lieu of a two price system amounting to approximately $40 million a year. This did not seem to be acceptable so far as the Liberal platform was concerned and they recommended $2 per bushel

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
for No. 1 wheat, with the idea that the difference between the price farmers are now getting and $2 should be regarded as in the nature of a two price system for wheat consumed domestically. We have not heard anything more about this since this parliament started. The government also promised that in addition to a price of $2 per bushel for No. 1 wheat the prices of other grades would be adjusted accordingly, and I should like the minister to deal also with this point.
The second promise the Liberal party made had to do with the initial delivery of wheat. They promised that on the initial quota of 300 bushels a price of $3 or $4 per bushel- I cannot remember which-would be paid. The farmers of the west would like to know what the policy of the government is with regard to these promises. I must say that we have had a good crop and have been able to sell more wheat than in other years. Nevertheless, over the years the farmers have always asked for a two price system for western wheat, and before the session ends we would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture what the Liberal policy is in this regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to take only a few minutes, because I realize everyone wants to get the estimates through as soon as possible. However, I do want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that for some time, over a year, I was denied the opportunity to get reports made by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture with respect to the agricultural potential of the area affected by the proposed high Arrow lakes dam project and also with respect to the effect on agriculture of certain proposed dams in the east Kootenay area. Finally I got a copy of the report on the Arrow lakes quite recently from the deputy minister, Mr. Barry.
I simply want to say that if the economics division of the Department of Agriculture is going to publish reports as inaccurate as this one the people of Canada will have very little confidence in their reliability. This report mentions that there has been no detailed soil survey, and this indicates that the persons who made the report cannot know very much about the agricultural potential of the area. I am not going to read it because it will be dealt with by very informed people before the committee on external affairs when the Columbia treaty is presented to the committee. However, I can tell the minister I have one neighbour about 40 miles north of our	home who	shipped$40,000 worth	of cattle	last	year.	Anotherneighbour 40	miles to	the	south	shipped$37,000 worth	of cattle	and	fruit,	and one
little community which has about 80 acres in

fruit shipped $60,000 worth last year. There are only three areas in Canada where peaches can be grown, the Niagara peninsula, the Okanagan, and sections of the west Kootenay district.
To indicate how inaccurate this report is, I wrote a letter to our retired district agriculturalist and horticulturalist, a man I have known for many years and who has had long time experience in the Kootenays. This is what he has to say with respect to the report: Dear Mr. Herridge,
Your letter along with the preliminary report on the agricultural potentials of the area affected by the proposed high Arrow lakes dam project, received a few days ago. I was glad to hear from you and to receive this report. The report is very inaccurate and misleading in many respects. Where they got the information in this report is hard to say, as they have not given the district a true picture and facts as to agricultural production as a whole covering the area. There is nothing wrong with the soil, some of the best in the province, excellent climate, and water can be had for irrigation if required. Most kind of fruits can be grown in the area and can compete with the best grown in British Columbia. One of the best sections in the west Kootenay district for future development in fruit, field crops, hay crops, alfalfa and raising of livestock. Tree fruit diseases is not a serious factor in this area. New sprays that have been developed in the last few years makes it possible to control these orchard diseases with much less work and sure of success in the operation.
I sure would hate to see this beautiful agricultural valley flooded. We will need the land to produce food and a place to live.
Yours very truly,
E. C. Hunt
I have another letter from the manager of B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, who is preparing a brief and who is appalled at the inaccuracy of this so-called report on the potential of the area.
About a year or so ago I was informed of another report and I tried to get it without success. I wrote to the deputy minister of agriculture on November 26 last but I have not received a reply yet. In that letter I said:
I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the memorandum regarding the effect on agriculture of construction of reservoirs on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers between Luxor and Dorr dams, Department of Agriculture-July 14, 1960.
My complaint is first simply that apparently the departments of the government, or branches of certain departments, are making their reports to fit the political requirements of the government of the day. Now, we want accuracy; we must be fair about this.
My second complaint it that members of this house have been denied this information when members of the press and some other persons have seen these reports. That is what I object to very strongly indeed, and I bring this question to the minister's attention in

the hope that this information in both instances-that is, both reports-will be made available to all members of the house. I also ask that his economics division make a further study of this question, rather than the superficial one they have made in which they admit there has been no detailed soils survey and on the spot survey. I say without any hesitation that this report on the Arrow lakes section from an agriculturist's point of view is no credit to the economics division of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Hamilton:: I do not intend to hold up the first item, but I do think I should ask the minister a precise question dealing with the payments for sheep scrapie. This comes under vote No. 75, compensation for animals, and if the minister would indicate now that he would be prepared to give us the answer to this question then we could let item 1 go through.


Harry William Hays: The reason I suggested that this information should not be made available is that I have quite a bit of experience of what happens when a flock of sheep is slaughtered because of scrapie. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows all that is involved, and the reason for a slaughter policy.
Since 1955 we have destroyed something like 14,000 sheep and 396 individual people have been involved in nine provinces. Usually the owner of a slaughtered flock has sold breeding stock or rams into four or five different provinces, and there is a belief that scrapie is an inherited disease. That being the case the animals which have been sold are followed, and in the interval probably one of them may have been sold to a farmer in Prince Edward Island. That animal is traced and destroyed, and this creates a problem for the man who purchased it because it makes it difficult for him to sell other sheep to his neighbours and sheep breeders. Even though the animal which has been destroyed may have been with his flock just a few days and may not have associated with his other sheep, breeders stay away from that flock for a long time afterwards. There is a stigma on the flock.
If the hon. member wants these names produced we will be glad to produce them, but that is the reason I thought it better not to produce them. There are some 134 people involved in Ontario alone and it was in the interests of protecting these people that I made the answer I did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think my point has been overlooked. In our system of public accounts in Canada it is required that the names of all people receiving money from the crown be listed. I think the minister knows that scrapie comes under the Animal Contagious
Supp ly-A griculture
Diseases Act, and these names must appear in the public accounts. They were there for last year, and I suggest the minister has no alternative but to put them in the public accounts. However, that is not my question. I am simply saying that if by the time vote No. 75 comes around the minister will consider giving this information, then we will not have to go through the process of waiting for a debate on the motion that was moved yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. member a question. Does he say that he gave this information last year when he was Minister of Agriculture?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am simply pointing out that under the public accounts the names of all those people who received compensation under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act are listed. You cannot get around that. I am simply saying that by giving the answer the minister gave in the house the other day he is bypassing parliament.


Harry William Hays: I understand that it is only with respect to those who are listed by special vote that this information is given, and that it has not been given in all cases.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only thing I am trying to assure is that the rights of the house are maintained. The minister has no right to refuse information of this sort unless he can declare that it is not in the public interest to disclose it. I am simply pointing out that if the minister assures the hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe that he will give this information, then we are quite prepared to drop the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope it will not be misconstrued if I intervene, but the minister has not had long experience in the technicalities and perhaps I have had too long an experience. True, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre described me as inexperienced earlier today, but perhaps this matter could be held up for a moment or two to consider what the practice was last year, and the minister has indicated that he is perfectly prepared to follow the same practice that was followed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, on this matter of scrapie we may as well finish the discussion on item 1. I had intended to raise it on vote No. 75. As all hon. members will know, I put a question on the order paper, No. 1,730, several weeks ago asking for exactly the information that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is now seeking; that is, respecting the payment of compensation for the slaughtering of sheep that were diagnosed as having scrapie. I did not realize at the time that

Supply-A gricu Iture
so many breeders had in fact been paid under the act; I did not realize that it encompassed such a large area. As a matter of fact there are 393 breeders in nine provinces. This information is recorded on page 6054 of Hansard.
The reason I requested that the wording of that question be changed was simply to protect innocent breeders from having the value of their herds brought down because they had been named, when they did not actually have their herds exposed to scrapie for a long period of time; and of course, as has been pointed out, there is not complete agreement among the veterinarians even now as to whether this disease is hereditary.
In the question I put to the Minister of Agriculture, which was answered on December 18, I asked him to point out, without giving the names, those breeders who had received compensation more than once under the scrapie slaughter and compensation program. We see there are 13 such breeders. When I looked at the answer I found there was one sheep breeder, No. 7, who received $50,000 in September of 1959, and in July of 1963 he received $24,000. In other words, about $75,000 went to this one sheep breeder. Then further down a breeder is listed as No. 9. We find he has been paid three times, and in those three times he has received $143,000. In other words these two breeders have received about 35 per cent of all the money that has been paid out under the program in ten years of operation.
I think the Department of Agriculture, if they are going to continue this scrapie program-and in view of the information I have I think it should be taken off the list as a named disease for which compensation will be paid-these two breeders should be notified that if they want to get back into the sheep business they do so at their own risk. We have paid them well over $200,000 now. I understand there may even have been difficulty in arriving at the evaluation figures. There may be validity in the health of animals branch making compensation and demanding the slaughter of certain animals in order to eradicate disease, but in my opinion scrapie is a disease which they do not know exactly how to diagnose. As a matter of fact, in the United Kingdom they do not name this disease as something that can be eradicated by slaughter methods, and there is no compensation program. They destroy the actual animals that have the disease but they do not go back through the whole progeny of these animals and destroy them, because they are not satisfied that this is helpful; they are not even satisfied that it is contagious.
I intended raising this matter on vote 75, Mr. Chairman, but I think the time is long

past for our health of animals branch in Canada to get in touch with the health of animals branch in the United States and see if they cannot reach some kind of agreement to take scrapie off the list; because the fact is that this slaughter and compensation for slaughter is destroying the purebred sheep industry in Canada. I would urge the minister to take this action as soon as possible.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member has said in this connection, and we should take another look at the whole program. I should like to advise the committee that this matter is being reviewed in the United States early in the new year, and we will be represented there. I feel very much the same as the hon. member in this regard. We have been giving this program some consideration, and the United States is also giving it a great deal of consideration. In the first instance I understand that in so far as Canada is concerned this program was put in because of a very strong recommendation of the Canadian sheep breeders. They wanted to protect their market in the United States, particularly the purebred sheep market which we enjoy in that country. I concur in what the hon. member has said and can assure him that we will take a look at this program.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. Before doing so I want to pay him a tribute for what Hays Limited, of which he was a member, has done for the purebred cattle industry over the years. I have known these people for a number of years and they have made a great contribution to the livestock industry of this country. I want the minister to know that we Holstein breeders are fully cognizant of the contribution made by Hays Brothers.
I want to ask the minister this question. At the dominion-provincial conference held here, when they were dealing with agricultural problems-and I know the minister's intense interest in the dairy industry-did he place before that conference the promise that his party made during the last federal election campaign, namely to put milk into the schools? I am sure he is as aware as anyone in the house that this would get rid of the surpluses faster than any other known method. I am wondering whether the minister discussed this with the provincial people at that conference.
I know it takes a little time to solve all these problems, but I want to ask the minister a further question about the family farm. I am sure he and his party, and all parties in the house, want to have the family farm retained. What is the minister doing in the

credit line to allow the family farm to carry on its tradition and stay in the family? Also what is being done, or what ideas has the minister evolved, to help those young men who want to come into this field and make farming their life career?
I also wish to congratulate the minister on the idea he enunciated with regard to machinery. He said the small farmer cannot afford to buy this machinery. However, I am a little confused as to how he proposes that the small farmer will get this machinery in order to look after his crop. I know the minister mentioned custom work, but I am sure he is very well aware of the fact that you may have grain or hay that needs to be harvested tomorrow and there may be many other fellows who want to do it at the same time. If we have too many wanting work done in the custom field alone, we will get into trouble; because you may lose your hay or your crop if you have to wait. Can he give us an indication of what he has in mind?
This concludes my questions, and I want to wish the minister a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.


Harry William Hays: I wish to thank the hon. member for Simcoe East. In so far as the school milk program is concerned, I might say we that we first discussed this with the provincial ministers in the spring. At that time it was decided we should gather information in connection with the school milk program in the United States and other countries as well as the various cities throughout Canada. We discussed the question again at some length at both the deputy minister and ministerial level yesterday. I hope we will have something that will be better than we now have.
There are a great many problems connected with the program because education is under provincial jurisdiction. There is a problem in having the milk dispensed properly by the teachers. Then, too, consideration was given to tying a school milk program to a school lunch program similar to the one that was instituted in Japan after the war. There is the question of accommodation in schools, but most of the schools have auditoriums and that sort of thing. I am sorry I cannot give more information at this time, other than to say the ministers would like to see something like this done. I can assure the hon. member the program is not forgotten.
In so far as the family farm is concerned, I have nothing to report as yet. We hope to do so at the next session. It seems to me if we are going to maintain the family farm we must take a look at the costs, and the costs that are pressing upon the farmer today more than any others are the high costs of farm
Supp ly-A griculture
machinery. In some cases the cost of machinery represents almost 50 per cent of the farmer's total investment. The provincial ministers are also interested in this question. Some of the provinces have gone quite a long way in attempting to solve it. We feel, of course, that we must work with them.
There is also an educational program in this connection. I hope we will be able to bring something to the house that will be satisfactory and will help maintain the family farm. If we are going to have the maximum amount of production it seems to me this is the area in which we will achieve production. I think we all recognize this.
There are one or two questions I should like to answer just to keep the record straight.
I should like to give the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot figures which would indicate that the price of milk for manufacturing purposes this year is 15 cents a hundred higher than it was in 1962. In fact it is higher than it has been for many years. We know that we will be continually making improvements, but these figures are for the whole of Canada. On November 29 the president of the national dairy council made a speech which was reported in the London Free Press. This report reads in part as follows:
A shift to cheese production from butter has helped provide the dairy industry with the most optimistic situation experienced in many years, President J. M. Hartwick of the national dairy council of Canada said yesterday.
"It is now almost certain that Cheddar cheese sales in Canada this year will record an alltime high of well over 105 million pounds," he told the annual convention of the central Ontario cheese makers' association.
Up to October 31, output was higher by 18 million pounds than last year-a testimony to the switch in federal price support programming to place more emphasis on Cheddar cheese and less on butter, a chronic surplus item in the past five years.
Mr. Hartwick said butter output meanwhile is down by 11 million pounds. Process cheeses, using about half the Cheddar cheese supply, were selling at a rate about 4 million pounds higher than in 1962.
"Total consumption of all types of cheeses in 1963 will be well in excess of 155 million pounds," Mr. Hartwick said. Per capita consumption on the domestic market this year will reach about 81 pounds, an increase of nearly 4 pounds per person in the last 15 years.
The president of the national dairy council feels this way about the new dairy program which was instituted on May 1, 1963.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, for the enlightenment of the minister I hold in my hand copies of bills from producers which indicate, in black and white, that what they received for their milk since the present Minister of Agriculture took office and eliminated the subsidy is 5 or 10 cents less. I urge the minister

Supply

Agriculture
to record the names I am going to read to him and inquire of these people if my statement is true.
For instance, the minister might write to Mr. Gilbert Bergeron of Ste. Rosalie. He will tell you that he has been paid less for his milk than he was under a Conservative government. The minister might write also to Mr. Raoul Vaughel of Ste. Madeleine, and Aime Leduc of Ste. Madeleine; Mr. Germain Tetreault of St. Barnabe and Paul Emile Tetreault of Ste. Madeleine. These people, Mr. Chairman, will inform the minister what is happening in their own businesses. They will inform him that the price they are receiving for their milk is less. I am only giving a few examples of what is happening in my riding. If the minister wants to be good enough to turn around and ask the hon. member for Stormont, who is sitting behind him, he will receive corroboration of what I am saying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Stormont is in the chair. I wonder if the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and I could clear up this other point.


Mr. Peters:: Do it quickly, because it is one o'clock.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have had conversations with the house leader, and I think as long as we have the assurance as to the right of parliament to get this information that we want, it will be all right. This is the first thing we are trying to establish. Second, we want to get the information for the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. If the minister would give an indication that he is prepared to provide that information by using the technique that we used in answering other questions, that is identifying the breeders by number and by province rather than by name, then I think at this stage we would like to see that information.


Harry William Hays: I will be pleased to do that.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall item 1 carry?


An hon. Member:: No; one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of saying anything on item 1, but after listening to some of the assertions made a few minutes before the one o'clock recess, I feel

it my duty to remind the house once again of something I have referred to on several occasions-at least twice, on May 23 and October 15 of this year. While the minister was absent as well as all the other members of the cabinet, I mentioned that the price of milk in the province of Quebec was lower this year than last year.
During the speech I made on October 15, 1963, I quoted figures from:
Report on milk products marketing, marketing information section, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont.
I said that, in August 1962, according to the figures published by the Department of Agriculture, the price of milk for cheese ranged from $2.85 to $3.05 and that this year, for the same month, it ranged from $2.85 to $2.97. That means a decrease of 8 cents per hundredweight for the farmers and producers in my province. We noticed that decrease in each of our ridings.
Before the adjournment, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) gave the names of the farmers who were getting less for their milk this year than last year.
Again, I would like to repeat what I said last May 23 by showing you, for instance, that a farmer in my riding, Mr. Jean Louis La-charite, living in Petit St. Esprit, Nicolet, received this year $2.78 per hundredweight of milk, whereas he received last year $2.76 plus 25 cents per hundredweight in subsidies.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) wants to make inquiries, he only has to write to J. J. Joubert Limitee, in Nicolet, and he will be told that they pay 23 cents per hundredweight less than last year.
I do not want to put on the record all the payments made by cheese factories that I have with me, but I do want to say this to the house. We are the representatives of rural counties, elected to this house to champion the interests of our farmers. I submit that when an hon. member gets up to put on the record of the house a given problem, which entails losses amounting to millions of dollars to the Quebec farmers, members should at least have the common decency to listen to him, to read his speeches and to study them.
Mr. Chairman, those figures are not the work of my imagination; they have been supplied to me by the Department of Agriculture itself. It was not my intention today to point out again their appropriateness. I thought that we would have the opportunity to raise the question in the committee on agriculture.
Therefore, in view of those facts, I am of the opinion that this question will have to be solved in this house, because the way the committee is sitting now, with 12, 15 and 18 Conservative and only two or three Liberal

members, we realize that those members are not interested in the problems of agriculture in eastern Canada, and we do not trust the Liberal government for the solution of our difficulties.
As I was saying, the price of milk is lower this year. Even if, in August 1962, the price of cheese was 32.2 cents a pound and the subsidy was only 25 cents per hundred pounds, the price of milk was lower, this year, whereas the price of cheese was 35.3 cents a pound and the subsidy, 30 cents per hundred pounds.
If you consider that from nine to nine and a half pounds of cheese can be produced from 100 pounds of milk, it means that there should be an increase of 25 to 30 cents per hundred pounds of milk. Moreover, whereas a subsidy increase of 5 cents per hundred pounds was provided before, we did not get that increase this year.
The other day I asked the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Tremblay) and the Minister of Agriculture to give special consideration to that problem.
We are now at the end of the session, and indeed at the end of the year, and this problem concerning the farmers of my province seems to have been disregarded.
On May 23 last, when I pointed out the difference between the subsidies of 14| cents per pound of fat and of 12 cents per pound of butter, I was told that those figures were incorrect. I still remember that some hon. members even went so far as to contradict me. But today, they must be saying: He was right, those prices are lower.
I should not want to see the estimates of the Department of Agriculture passed by the house without the minister giving us a clear and definite answer on the matter, and not only the type of answer we have been getting since last May: "The price of milk is higher and those who claim that it is lower than it was last year are wrong".
Well, Mr. Chairman, those are the figures given by the Minister of Agriculture which confirm that I was right to say that this year, the farmers are in such a situation on account of the inertia of the Liberal government, and the inaction of the 46 Quebec Liberal members who do not even bother to attend the meetings of the committee on agriculture-we, the 12 to 15 Conservative members, have to wait almost half an hour to have a quorum of 20. We only have to note the attendance in the committee on agriculture to find out that there are only two or three Liberal members, one or two out of 46, while we are only eight Conservative members from the province of Quebec and we are at least three to sit on this committee to discuss farm problems.
Supply-Agriculture
We do not make long speeches nor do we give lectures, but these problems exist and they have to be solved. It is important that this money which belongs to the farmers of Quebec and of the whole Canada goes back to them.
I should also like to mention that this year a 10 cents a pound subsidy is paid on casein, at a cost to the federal government of $2,300,000. The price for casein last year-and no Liberal member is aware, I think, of the casein price last year-was 20 cents on the Montreal market. This year, with the 10 cents a pound subsidy, the casein price is 21 cents a pound, that is an increase of 1 cent a pound to offset the 10 cents a pound subsidy. Now, this means that $2,300,000 go to 13 Canadian casein producers, 11 of whom are from the province of Quebec.
What I am saying about the price of milk used for the production of cheese also applies to the price of milk used for the production of powdered milk.
I should like to remind my Liberal friends once more that when they were in power, in 1953, the price of milk used for the production of cheese fluctuated between $2.23 and $2.40; $2.31 and $2.40, in 1954; $2.21 and $2.48, in 1955 and $2.45 and $2.76, in 1956. But under the Conservative administration, the price fluctuated between $2.73 and $3.00, in 1957; $2.87 and $3.15, in 1958; $2.80 and $3.16, in 1959; $2.85 and $3.12, in 1960; $2.80 and $2.95, in 1961 and $2.85 and $3.05, in 1962.
Following the return to office of my Liberal friends and the promises they had made- such promises as the hon. member for Lotbi-niere (Mr. Choquette) used to make when he went around the province of Quebec saying: "I know about eggs, dairy industry"-the price of milk went down immediately to $2.97, that is a reduction of eight cents per cwt., because the government wanted to save the taxpayers from $6 to $8 million.
Now, eastern farmers, will not even get the income required to maintain their operations, if this situation continues.

I will conclude this statement now, but I should like to hear a reply from the Minister of Agriculture. Let him not simply tell us, as he has told us three, four, five, six or seven times before, that the price of milk is higher. I want to hear him explain why farmers in the province of Quebec are losing millions of dollars this year because the price of milk is lower than it was last year and because the prices of cheese, skimmed milk and all the other milk products should be higher by at least 20 cents or 30 cents a hundred pounds.

Supp ly-A griculture [Translation]


Mr. Elhier:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the statement of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the improvement of costs for milk producers.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) stated, before lunch, that farmers had received 5 to 10 cents less this year than under the previous Conservative administration. I would like to remind him that he should intervene to the bureau of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act concerning the milk producers of his riding.
The hon. member mentioned the Glen-garry-Prescott riding. Since I am the member for that constituency, which is the largest cheese producer in Canada, I should like to point out that according to the reports we have, the average received by farmers since May 1, this year, represents an increase of 10 to 35 cents per cwt. of milk based on a 3-5 testing.
Farmers who own their cheese-dairy received up to 35 cents per cwt. more than during 1962. Others who send their milk to privately owned cheese-dairies received between 10 and 20 cents more than last year.
Those who send their products to large condensed milk concerns even received between 5 and 10 cents more per cwt. than last year.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that if he wants information, he only has to visit the Glen-garry-Prescott and Stormont ridings.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) claims to have prices based on statistics of the Department of Agriculture. So have we. It has been recognized that, as a whole, farmers received between 10 cents and 20 cents per hundred pounds of milk more than last year.


Clément Vincent: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Mr. Ethier:: When I have concluded my remarks, my hon. friend.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want the house to be under the impression that the new policy of the Liberal party is discriminatory towards farmers. I appreciate the fact that it may not be entirely satisfactory, but in my opinion, it constitutes a great step forward in the right direction, and the new policy of the Liberal party will continue to increase the income of our milk producers.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott mentioned me in his remarks, I wish to put a question to him.
According to a statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), the federal government will save $6 million this year, by elimi-[Mr. Vincent.)
nating the premium of 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk; now, who will pay for that saving, if not the farmer?
If the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott can give another explanation, he will have to inform the Minister of Agriculture, who does not share his opinion. And if they differ on that matter there is but one conclusion, namely that the minister does not know what he is talking about or that the hon. member is completely unacquainted with the present situation.


Viateur Éthier: Mr. Chairman, I think that the difference will be made up for by the increase in the support price for skimmed milk and such has been the case in my riding.
When the 25 cents per hundredweight subsidy was abolished, the manufacturers of condensed milk reduced their price by 25 cents per hundredweight only to increase it some three weeks after. In some instances, they have paid this year, in the ridings I mentioned, 5 cents and even 10 cents more than last year. Now, they may have discovered a new process; I do not know.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It still remains that the government has caused the farmers to lose $6 million.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a simple question to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott. What price is being paid at present in his riding for 3.5 milk used in the production of cheese?


Viateur Éthier: Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, certain cheese-dairies pay $3.10 per hundred pounds at present. In the case of cheese-dairies owned by the farmers themselves the price is $3.55.


Clément Vincent: $3.55 at this time?


Viateur Éthier: Yes.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I was asked to give an answer, and the answer is quite simple. I have here the dominion bureau of statistics figures, and these are weighted f.o.b. farm prices based on actual fat tests. In August, 1962 the price of cheese in Quebec was $2.72 and in 1963 $2.76. In Canada the average price in 1962 was $2.66 and in 1963 $2.78. For concentrated milk, which would include ice cream, butter, powder and condensed milk, the Quebec price in 1962 was $2.63 and in 1963 it was $2.72. For Canada the average price in 1962 was $2.60 and in 1963 $2.67. Inasmuch as roughly 90 per cent of all processors in Quebec are co-operatives there will probably be another payment and, if not, there will probably be some sort of capital gain as the farmers own the plants.


Clément Vincent: Does that mean that we have to take the figures of the bureau of statistics instead of the figures of the Department of Agriculture?


Harry William Hays: Our figures just show a range of several factories that were picked out. The figures from the dominion bureau of statistics are weighted figures for both fat and milk.


Clément Vincent: Was that the same range last year and two years ago for the Department of Agriculture?


Harry William Hays: They would be comparable with the dominion bureau of statistics figures.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have a short question to address to the minister. Can the minister explain to the house what Mr. Sorel meant by his statement last October, when he said that the federal government and the Department of Agriculture are neglecting the eastern farmers and not paying attention to their problems?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a couple of questions for the minister, Mr. Chairman. They deal with any policy or intention in the realm of policy that the government may have regarding farm cut pulpwood and bringing it under the agricultural prices stabilization board. This has been a general matter of suggestion. I believe it entered the realm of suggestion a number of years ago when the then prime minister was campaigning in Quebec. I have forgotten the exact date, but I believe he gave an indication at Rimouski that it was the intention of his government to bring farm cut pulpwood under the agricultural prices stabilization board. Nothing actually developed. When the hon. member for Calgary North was minister of agriculture he indicated that there were too many difficulties in the way. His successor had the matter under consideration for some time but nothing was done. I should like to know whether the government has any policy or any intention of trying to bring farm cut pulpwood under the agricultural prices stabilization board.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I understand there are many problems, but I can assure the hon. member the matter is still under study by the stabilization board. No decision has been made yet but they are taking a look at the situation. Other than that I cannot add anything.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am glad to know that. May I say to the Minister of Agriculture that we will want to know more about this study at the next session. There is one point I should like to put to the minister and his officials who may be considering the matter. One
Supp ly-A griculture
of the arguments against doing this has been the fact that the pulpwood market focuses upon the pulp mills and so tends to break up on a regional basis. But it does seem to me that, given the location of the pulp mills in this country, it would be possible to mark out six definite market areas, centering one upon the maritimes, one with Three Rivers as the fulcrum in Quebec, one upon Ottawa, one upon the lakehead or lake Superior region and one upon the west coast. It seems to me that the assistance this would give the farmers would be very great.
The provincial governments of both Ontario and Quebec, particularly Quebec, have been very concerned about the need for farmers to get a decent price. As long as we have the situation where it costs a pulp mill cutting off limits it holds under lease $30 to $40 for wood while at the same time the price paid to farmers ranges from $16 to $25 in the various segments of Canada, there is such a wide spread that we cannot help but feel that if the price were stabilized by the agricultural prices stabilization board it would be of great assistance to people working in this field.
I think one reason there was a disaster at Kapuskasing last year in which three men were killed, and one reason there is conflict rests upon the fact that it has been impossible for the settler to get a good price for his wood. He has been forced into co-operatives that lead to shenanigans, with management set against the union which is operating in a way typical of the old dormitory style camp. It seems to me that a floor price guaranteed by the board in the various parts of the country would do a great deal to remove the antagonism as between the union, management and these settlers, and would lead to a new deal for this particular kind of farmer in the lakehead and northern Ontario generally who has to depend for his very existence on what he gets from the pulpwood cut.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Chairman. We have addressed many questions to the minister and it is his duty to reply. Even if we are obliged to stay awake we will stay here if the minister does not reply to the questions.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the opportunity at this time to express my views on the situation of agriculture in general but especially on the conditions of farmers in eastern Canada, in the province of Quebec and more particularly in the riding of Compton-Frontenac which I have the honour to represent in the house.

Supply-Agriculture
First, I should like to stress the part played by agriculture in our national economy. Without getting into all the details, I would say that, with the exception of the western provinces, agriculture has known better days in Canada.
In 1962-63, the federal government provided $161 million for agriculture. In 1963-64, the estimates of the department have been raised by $11,213,360 for a grand total of $172,221,160. On the whole, that is not even enough to settle several major problems which face our farmers.
It is very difficult, according to our set of values, to reconcile some figures, to account for the fact for instance, that national defence appropriations are nine times higher than those of the Department of Agriculture.
We are given some information about the farmers' situation which leaves us sceptical, because it does not often reflect the actual plight of our farmers. For instance, La Presse published the following item on May 28 last:
In 1962, farmers had a record income. But when the reasons for this 6.6 per cent increase over last year's income are looked into, it is soon realized that western farmers are those who benefited from it. We are happy about this, but the problems of eastern farmers remain unchanged, the solutions offered are often unpractical or still based on the work of three generations to come.
On the other hand, a press release from the association for the expansion and protection of agriculture in eastern Canada incorporated, dated January 1963, bears the following title:
Income of Canadian farms falls during the year.
Let me quote the first paragraph of that press release:
Canada is at the bottom of the list of countries where the farmers' income has decreased last year. According to the annual report of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, the decrease reached 24 per cent. This has brought the net income of Canadian farms in 1961 to its lowest level since 1945. However, the cash income of farmers increased, owing to the sale of the stocks of the preceeding years, according to that report.
Here again, the marketing of those stocks concerns western farmers. To quote another sentence of the press release:
It is difficult to reconcile the sad position of eastern farmers with the fact that our country should be first in agricultural prosperity.
I leave it to the hon. members of the western provinces to enlighten us on the various aspects of the agricultural situation in their region; thanks to the marketing of their wheat in the last two years, western farmers are sitting pretty, while in the east, most of our farmers are going through a very critical period.

The Economiste agricole of August 1963, on page 75, has this to say about farm income:
For the first quarter of 1963, the farm income in Canada reached $654.7 million, as against $596.1 million for the first quarter of 1962, and $661.3 million for the corresponding quarter of 1961. These estimates include cash income from the marketing of agricultural products, payments made by the Canadian wheat board on the grain crops of previous years, prepayments on grain stored on western farms and deficiency payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, but do not include the supplementary payments.
The increase in income during the first quarter of 1963 is due mostly to the increase in proceeds from the sale of wheat, coarse grains, potatoes, cattle, calves and poultry products as well as to larger payments made by the Canadian wheat board on grain crops of previous years. There was also a slight increase in prices for rye, fruits, vegetables, tobacco, and dairy products.
It is quite easily seen that with a few exceptions, the increase radically ignores Quebec farmers and most of the eastern farmers.
The same situation prevails at all levels of farming for eastern farmers, and in particular for Quebec farmers.
Looking for a few minutes at the 18th annual report of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, we note, for instance, that as far as loans for the purchase of farm implements are concerned, Quebec is not among the four provinces which registered a raise in the loans for purchase of tractors. Once again, with the exception of Quebec and Ontario, there was an increase in all provinces of combines financing. For the purchase and financing of several other farm implements, Quebec always has the honour of being in the last place.
As far as loans for farm buildings are concerned, Quebec is conspicuous again, holding the last place. The situation is the same as regards loans for the purchase of cattle.
What is wrong in Quebec?
With your permission, I shall use a few examples taken in my own constituency to illustrate quite briefly the unfortunate lot of our farmers. First of all, Quebec agriculture has always been in a different context and generally does not know the specialization which characterizes western farmers.
Our farmers who are not very prosperous very often do not have the basic credit required nor the necessary security to secure loans. They often need guidance. On that matter, the federal as well as the provincial authorities do not seem to be capable to cooperate, and if the problems are taken into consideration, solutions are viewed in the framework of a regionalism which does not take into account geographic, physical, social and economic characteristics of a given sector in a region.

It is true comprehensive studies on problems are necessary to arrive at a guidance which may be useful to the majority. But, here again, if I refer to Mr. Brownstone, volume 3, page 59, chapter "Land Maintenance and Improvement" in Resources for Tomorrow, I read the following:
Within each government jurisdiction there are problems of a different order. Effective land maintenance and improvement requires integrated, or at least co-ordinated effort from a number of directions. At the federal level, and in many of the provinces, such integration and co-ordination exists (if at all) only at cabinet level. The federal legislative-administrative organization for the use and management of agricultural resources is administered by ten departments. Complete integration may not be possible, but greater integration combined with effective co-ordination is a realistic objective.
However, the fact remains it should be possible for our farmers, and here I refer particularly to those in my constituency of Compton-Frontenac, to obtain the services of consultants to study their particular problems, and to see thereby the production potential and the economic soundness of farms which cannot support the farmers if they do not experience some specialization.
On page 23, dealing with agricultural resources, I read the following:
There is no doubt research on soil sciences, animal and plant genetics and agricultural practices may increase production. The proof was obtained on a large scale.
But our farmers are caught, and they have to live and support their families. The primo vivere is found here as everywhere else. They have to expatriate themselves to the United States where they find work as labourers and lumbermen and they do not even benefit from the unemployment insurance when they come back. That is the pitiful situation of our old regions in Quebec. In Le Devoir of November 28, my attention was drawn to an article:
Mr. Paul E. Lachance stated at Roberval that farmers cannot be at the same time farmers and foresters.
Our forests have always brought additional revenues but for the average farmer, they cannot give him a living and often they prevent preparatory works that should be done in order to make the land produce as it should.
We have great projects in existence, ARDA for instance, which in the long run may give tangible results.
What our farmers need, at least in my district, is to know if, for instance, it would be economical to start hog, poultry or cattle breeding, or else, if on account of special factors, truck-gardening would offer a solution, the blueberry culture could be considered, and our farmers could draw some
Supp ly-A griculture
revenue from reforestation. Those are all possibilities, but, the very idea often makes the individual farmer shrink from fear.
Our farmers should be able to borrow without having to pay interest rates they cannot meet; they should be able to purchase tractors at low prices. When we consider for one moment the money spent for the production of armoured cars and other motorized weapons which after all will never be used in our time, it is inconceivable that the government cannot do anything to provide for the equipment of those who are the very foundation of the country's survival.
Therefore, I appeal to the government to restore the value of agriculture in eastern Canada, to take concrete and efficient steps so that our farmers may earn a decent living and not have to keep trying to make both ends meet. Above all, I ask the government not to get muddled up in piles of dust-gathering reports and red tape which only serve to get everybody mixed up and do not help solve anything in the end.
Members of the cabinet, the situation is alarming, there is a revolt brewing among our farm people, and not without cause. It is more than time to get some action. Our farmers are not asking for favours. They have shown themselves ready to work. What they need is tools and capital, and leadership as well. We are waiting impatiently for a realistic piece of legislation, one which will not give everything to the same people. We agree that it is important that agriculture be prosperous in western Canada but the eastern farmer also has the right to live, not as an overworked second class citizen but in all the dignity he has managed to retain in spite of the fact that the government has neglected him.
The Canadian confederation will cease to be a Utopia the day the plowed fields bear their fruits from the Atlantic to the Pacific and will not just crowd the Rockies, unaware even of the existence of the eastern farmers and, in particular, of Quebec farmers.
As the spokesman for the farmers of the riding of Compton-Frontenac, I ask the government to take action before it is too late. These are not threats but rather the result of findings which are only partly translated by the few ideas I have tried to express here.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, my contribution to this debate will be brief. First of all, I should like to say that I represent a farming constituency, probably one of the finest rural constituencies in the province of Quebec, with the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska.
A while ago, my hon. friend opposite said that we have repeatedly stated on television and through other media that the Liberal party is particularly interested in agriculture.

Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, of all the assertions I made, I have none to withdraw, because the problem of agriculture is really for us the most serious problem, one which gets our very active consideration.
For the information of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) and his colleagues, I must say that during the election campaign, our party promised to appoint a second minister of agriculture, who would be especially responsible for agriculture in the east. And I must say that, despite this commitment, we of the Quebec caucus felt that perhaps we had not gone far enough.
In fact, we brought pressure to bear-and we will continue-on the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), that we may have not only two ministers of agriculture, but the establishment of a second department of agriculture, responsible for agricultural questions in the east.
That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) replied that the question is still under consideration.
Consequently, the Liberal members from Quebec made representations and brought pressure to bear, and we trust that our efforts will soon be successful and give satisfactory results.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, before directing a question to the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to put one to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).
Can he tell the house how many times he attended the sittings of the committee on agriculture and colonization?
Can he tell us also how many Liberal members from the province of Quebec-if they have decided so at the caucus-were selected to attend the sittings of that committee, which has been sitting for a month and a half already?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly interested in this type of competition concerning attendance at the meetings of this or that committee. In my opinion, the important thing is to find an appropriate solution to the real problem.
Besides, I may say to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska that I stood up in the house much more often than he did.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, one can realize the extent to which the Liberal members from the province of Quebec are interested in the problems of agriculture. I believe that if it had been up to them, the committee on agriculture and colonization would not even have sat since the beginning of the present session, for there were never more than four or five Liberals in attendance at the sittings.

And now, here is the question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture-


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: You did not
even continue the sittings of the committee on agriculture and colonization? What have you done on your part? The committee has not sat since 1961. In fact, it was not even established.


Clément Vincent: But when did the house adjourn?

I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make a comparison between the situation in Ontario and Quebec. I am referring to a report on dairy products from the markets information section of the Department of Agriculture. I believe that is a branch of the minister's department. In August, 1962 the price of milk for cheese factories in the province of Quebec was between $2.85 and $3.05; in Ontario during the same period the price was between $2.75 and $3.02. In August, 1963 the price of milk for cheese factories in the province of Quebec was $2.85 to $2.97, a decrease, whereas in the province of Ontario the price was $2.98 to $3.28, an increase of 25 cents to 30 cents a hundred pounds.
Will the minister tell the committee why there was a decrease in Quebec and an increase of between 25 cents and 30 cents per hundred pounds in Ontario?


Harry William Hays: I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said.


Clément Vincent: You have said nothing.


Harry William Hays: I recited the bureau of statistics figures and explained that in so far as subsidies are concerned, all dairymen throughout the country are treated equally. I have nothing to add to the figures I gave to the committee.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
A moment ago, Liberal members from the province of Quebec were accused of not attending the meetings of the agriculture and colonization committee. The committee is supposed to sit at half past three, and that is where we are going this very minute, Mr. Chairman.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the committee that it will be the first time that the hon. member for Lotbiniere attends a meeting of the committee. I think I know the reason why. There is to be a vote this afternoon and the Liberal members insist on overruling the decision taken by Conservative members.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the estimates under consideration.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, this is going to be my last question.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah.


Clément Vincent: I hope you will applaud again after I get a good answer. I have a serious question for the minister, and it is going to be the last one. Is he ready to tell the committee that he will have a special look, not by somebody else but himself, into the problem which exists in my province in connection with dairy prices? If he is able to tell me that he will have a special look at this problem, I am ready to pass the first item of his estimates.


Harry William Hays: I spent about two and a half days with the minister of agriculture for Quebec during this summer. I was in Quebec and we discussed many of these problems. I can assure the hon. member this government is interested in all the farmers of Canada and all their problems. We know they have problems. We know there must be improvement, and we are making what we hope is a start in this way. We will continue to work for them, and I will be glad to go and see the people in Quebec.


Mr. Langlois:: I have one or two points I should like to make in connection with the minister's estimates. One is related to a field about which the minister does not hear very much. I should like also to deal with some of the problems eastern producers are encountering at the moment.
On October 23 the minister sent me a letter telling me that he had given subsidies to the maple sugar producers in Beauce constituency, in my own constituency of Megantic, in Dorchester and in Frontenac. I understand that much of the 1963 crop has not been sold as yet, and some of it is going sour in the storage rooms of farmers or local co-operatives. The maple sugar business would be good if the government would go out and see if they could not get greater markets. At the moment many farmers are closing down their maple sugar business because it is not profitable; in fact at the end of the year they are in the hole to the tune of approximately $1 a tree.
I was at one meeting at which the yearly budget was presented, and it ran somewhere around $5 million. I would not have accepted a budget such as that. During the past five or six years maple sugar producers have tried to ascertain the market price for their product. They know what they are receiving
28902-5-390
Supply-Agriculture
for it, but they do not know the retail price. At the moment the producers receive from $2.35 to $2.50 per gallon for No. 1 syrup. I am sure if you bought that syrup from a store

I am not talking about the immediate vicinity in which it is produced-you would not pay $2.50 for that syrup. There seems to be some sort of control over this market to such an extent that syrup was not bought this year but left in the storage houses to go sour. Then, too, there is no relationship between the purchase price of the syrup and the return the farmer receives, considering the amount of work he has put into it.
I would ask the minister, instead of paying subsidies, to look into the situation and see if he can straighten it out. If the government were not paying subsidies I would not be talking about this here. But look what we are paying by way of subsidies. A lot of sugar businesses are closing down, and production of maple sugar is a typical business in eastern Canada. In fact production of maple sugar elsewhere in the world is rare. It would be a good thing if we got a larger market in Canada for maple syrup. We should stop buying extract which is supposed to be maple syrup. We pay a ridiculous price for artificial syrup; it is dearer than the pure product, yet the farmers cannot sell the real maple syrup produced on their farms. I would ask the minister to take this matter into consideration, and if he has any statement to make I would like to hear it, as would also the producers of maple syrup.
Another point I want to raise concerns the control which is developing over the sale of beef cattle in my area as well as in other regions, from what I have heard. This has developed as a result of brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle. We are attempting to classify cattle in different areas and prevent their transportation from one area to another. A control is exercised in this way by federal inspectors. If they were provincial inspectors I would not mention the subject, but in my constituency federal inspectors have been trying to get all cattle to go to the slaughterhouse instead of to the butcher's shop, thus preventing the butcher buying direct from the producer.
If it is to be the case that sales are to be conducted only in this way, with the meat first going to the slaughterhouse, you will find the price will be fixed by the slaughterhouse, which will have complete control, probably indirect but nevertheless complete, and the farmer will know exactly how much he is getting for his beef and how much the consumer will be paying for it in the butcher's shop. This means the butcher will get a rough deal. The slaughterhouse will control the price and when one buys meat from

Supply-Agriculture
the butcher he will have to pay the price which the slaughterhouse wants.
I should like the minister to scrutinize this point and try to prevent possible control or monopoly in the meat market, a control which is developing at this moment. I would ask the minister, if any of his inspectors are found with their hands in such a business, not to hesitate to tell them in black and white what are the opinions of the minister and his department. Because if the federal inspectors are left to continue such a practice they can control the whole meat market in Canada, in that meat would have to pass through the slaughterhouse, which in turn would control the price of meat, which would result in a loss to the consumer and the producer but a profit to the slaughterhouse. I would ask the minister whether he has had any representations to that effect and, if so, what he intends to do about the matter.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I might tell the hon. member that I have not had any representations about this matter other than his own. If these instances exist we would very much like to know about them, and I would certainly investigate them. I understand that the brucellosis program in Quebec will probably be completed in the next three years. This is a Canada-wide program. Farmers in many provinces who have cattle which are reactors to brucellosis have to send their cattle to a licensed slaughterhouse. That is the law. We have discovered a negligible amount of brucellosis in Quebec, but I will take the matter under advisement.
With regard to the maple syrup industry, they have sent representatives to see me on several occasions. The group which wishes to change maple syrup to sugar so that it can be stored were in to see me; they asked whether they could store it until prices were better. I will also take this question under advisement. They do have a marketing board, but if we can help them we will do so.


Raymond Langlois: Would it help the minister to decide, or would it broaden his opinion if I brought him some letters concerning the situation in the meat market?


Harry William Hays: Yes, I would like them.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I have only one or two points to make, and I will be very brief. On one occasion the minister replied to a question of mine, as reported at page 2450 of Hansard, at which time I inquired about the possibility of paying the support price for hogs and eggs on a quarterly basis. This was one of the promises of the Liberal party and I am sure the minister is

well versed in this subject. On that occasion he felt there was no need for this. This was on July 22 last. However, prior to April 8 there seemed to have been a dire need for this type of payment.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Stanley James Korchinski: If the hon. member is able to convince the minister about this, then this item could carry. Someone suggests it should, and if he can convince the minister that is fine with me. I am wondering why the minister has suddenly changed his opinion. I am not so much concerned about why he has changed it, but I am wondering whether there have been further studies conducted to see whether these payments are possible, and if not, what are the reasons.
The second point I want to raise is in connection with scrapie. I know that listed in Hansard by means of numbers are several farmers who have scrapie among their cattle.
I do not know what, for example, "No. 1" or "No. 2" means, or where these people live. One could be my neighbour. However, my point is that if my neighbour has sheep which are subject to scrapie I should like to know, for the simple reason that I do not want my sheep subjected to the same kind of procedures as sheep with scrapie, and I do not want them wandering through my fences, and so on. There may be a valid reason for not divulging the names of these people, but it seems to me that I as a farmer should be able to protect my sheep from other sheep with scrapie.
I am wondering whether the minister has given the matter enough thought. I am sincere about this, because I think this disease can be spread unless areas in which scrapie is prevalent are listed and made known. There may be no cases in my area, but how in the world can we protect ourselves unless we know?
The department is very reluctant, obviously, to give us information on this. If the department does not want to tell us the amount of money which is being paid that is one point, but the point I am raising is that we should be very careful about this and should inform the municipalities in farming areas of the regions in which scrapie is prevalent, thereby protecting other farmers with sheep in those areas.


Harry William Hays: In connection with the first question, we spent two hours this week discussing quarterly payments at the ministerial level with the ministers of agriculture. The deputies also discussed this question, I understand. I can say that this subject is under review. We do not know whether we should be doing it or not. I can assure the hon. member we are studying it.

In connection with scrapie, let me say that this disease does not appear to be highly contagious. The best authorities believe it is inherited. When an infected animal does move into another flock, the procedure is that the flock is quarantined until the animal is destroyed. But there is no evidence that the disease is contagious.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would the minister not consider designating particular areas where scrapie is prevalent? The authorities are not sure how the disease is caused or how it is spread. They do not really know whether it can be transmitted from cattle to horses or from dogs to cattle. If an area were designated the disease might be confined. Members know that animals affected by foot and mouth disease are destroyed. Surely we should be more concerned about measures which might be taken to control scrapie and keep this disease from spreading. It seems to me that the department is extremely vague on all these points and that it should make more information available.


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to give the hon. member a complete report on this disease.


Stanley James Korchinski: Give it to the house.


Harry William Hays: If the hon. member wishes I will be glad to pass on what we have learned about it. The disease is prevalent in the old country and the United States, and my personal opinion is that the situation is not serious.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before this item carries I should like to direct two questions to the minister. Will he make available the reports on agricultural land in relation to the effect of the construction of the Luxor and Dorr dams, which were prepared by the economics division of his department?
My second question is, would the minister give the committee the names of the officials who prepared these reports in relation to proposed dams on the upper and lower Columbia?


Harry William Hays: I will look at those reports and check into it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You will give them to the members?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Research branch-
20. Branch administration including Canada's fee for membership in the international society for horticultural science and $128,290 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, $1,974,100.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to put a question to the minister.
28902-5-390J
Supply-Agriculture
What does he intend to do in order to fill the vacancies in certain experimental farms, one of them being that of L'Assomption?


Harry William Hays: We are trying very hard to fill all these vacancies.


An hon. Member:: When?


Harry William Hays: We are doing it now.


William Arnold Peters: The other day in the committee we asked some of the officials of the research branch what work was being done in relation to sterilized products. We were referring to sterile milk products, sterile meat and other foodstuffs. A good deal of work has been done in this field in other countries, but we were told that little had been done in Canada.
In the area from which I come sterile milk, sold under the label of Multimilk, is causing a good deal of concern to farmers, because the milk which is used is a surplus product selling at about $2.80 a hundred. It goes into northern Ontario and meets competition from fluid milk at about $5.15 a hundred. So there is a great difference between _ the reward the farmer gets for his share in the production of these two products. I think there would be less complaint if those concerned were bringing in fluid milk from the London area. It would still cause concern, but transportation costs would be an important factor in determining the final price.
If the farm organizations had known the potential of this sterile milk product before it began to enter the area, the farmers would never have allowed it to come in. They would have done the advertising necessary to counteract its sale. They would have been prepared, if necessary, to pool their milk resources and supply a similar product, presumably under another name, as a secondary product. In any case a competitive system would have been established.
I refer in particular to Timiskaming and the surrounding area, because this is the area where the product got its biggest try-out.
I know it is possible to buy Multimilk in Ottawa as well as in other parts of Ontario. There is an argument going on around this product at the present time. The federal Department of Agriculture so far has not been able to decide whether the sterile milk is actually a processed milk product, such as reconstituted whole milk, or whether it is condensed milk and therefore a secondary milk product. This is an important question as far as the farmers are concerned because it means a 100 per cent difference to them in. the prices they receive.

Supply-Agriculture
I presume the minister has some knowledge of this problem. I suggest the farm organizations should at least have been given some information about this process. I am not saying the department should get mixed up with the negotiations in the districts and in the divisions which are being conducted within the industry. Ontario has had more than its share of heartaches in this respect. But it is not too late even now to do something about this situation. The department has been carrying out extensive research with regard to the extension of this sterile product patent to various other foodstuffs, including meat. In the United States a steak can be wrapped in ordinary, clear paper and put on a shelf or a table for two or three weeks, without refrigeration, and at the end of that time the meat is still in a satisfactory condition for human consumption. There are, however, some reservations to be attached to this. The process kills most of the bacteria which cause deterioration. Milk does not turn sour and meat does not go bad. But the process is not capable of destroying all the types of bacteria which may be present, and the product may still not be fit for human consumption.
There is another point which I wish to bring to the minister's attention. Many housewives can go into a store and buy cream- this is quite a complaint recently-that has an additive so the cream does not go sour. But the cream becomes very blue or light in colour. When you pour it into coffee it does not curdle, but the taste is something out of this world and anybody smelling it would probably not bother with cream for some time. This additive is not illegal, but in my opinion some research by the department is warranted because we are now entering upon completely new technological developments in the handling of dairy products.
I was surprised when the director of the research department said that cream with such an additive had not been investigated. It may be that the amount of the estimate is not high enough and more people should be added to that branch. I am sure they are very capable in their field of research, but I think the farmers have the right to be forewarned and to have some advance knowledge of the technological advances that are taking place, because this is vitally important to the operation of their marketing agencies and the method by which they control the distribution of their production.
I am not sure whether the federal government is going to look after this field or whether it is the provincial people, with some of whom I had the opportunity of talking the other day. However, I believe there is an obligation on the federal Department of

Agriculture to do the necessary research so that before any change in the product takes place the farmers will have the opportunity of knowing that such a change can be made.
I am sure you personally, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as you represent a constituency with a very large dairy industry, are aware of the developments that have been taking place in the last few years in the use of bulk tanks and other methods of handling milk. Milk is no longer collected from the farms every day but rather several times a week in the winter and perhaps more often in the summer. This type of milk handling has resulted in very large credit outlays on a fairly long term basis, and the farmers are encountering a great deal of this in the operation of their farms. It seems to me that when a large truck can come into an area and have enough milk under light refrigeration to supply that particular area, this is a hazard that the farmers should have been warned about so they might have been able to do something about it.
I do not imagine this matter can be decided today. I am not demanding that the minister give an opinion on it or express any indication that it is going to be examined, but I strongly urge that the minister at least consider it. It is a new and large field. In my view it is going to play a considerable role in eastern agriculture in the near future, and if the federal government wants to make a greater contribution than it has been making probably the cheapest way they can do so while at the same time providing the most assistance to many farmers would be in the field of research.


Henry P. Latulippe: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). Does he intend to re-establish the $3 premium on hogs.


Harry William Hays: It has never been taken off. It is $3 now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40. Agricultural Stabilization Act, administration, $504,800.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to stabilize the price of feed grain next session?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, the whole matter of feed grain is still being studied. I would not care to answer that question until we have made a complete study of the whole subject.


William Arnold Peters: The minister has now had ar. opportunity of examining the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and some minor changes

have been made. Does the department contemplate the continuation of the program as it applies now, or is there a possibility of extending the stabilization of prices to other agricultural products, one of them being pulp?


Harry William Hays: Any policy that is good the government will not be changing but will be trying to make better. So far as pulp is concerned, we covered that before. I said the matter was under investigation. Does that answer the question?


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can give some indication whether any change in the support price of eggs is under consideration.


Harry William Hays: There is no change. An announcement was made in the house a few days ago as to the 34 cent basis.


Edward Nasserden: I asked whether there was any thought of making any change in the future.


Harry William Hays: I believe the matter has to be reviewed every 12 months. We have just finished taking a look at the egg situation, and I think the floor is 34 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
42. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Coal Storage Act, $76,500.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have a particular interest with regard to this item and it does not involve agricultural products but, strangely enough, fisheries products. At one time the subsidy under this act used to be one third of the capital cost of the particular warehouse under construction. When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was minister the one third subsidy was limited by putting on a ceiling of $50,000. When the austerity program came into being following the 1962 election the subvention was suspended, and we have assumed that no action has been taken since 1962 to give assistance under this item to those wanting to build cold storage facilities.
As I said, my interest is in fisheries products. Since this matter first came to our attention it has always seemed odd to us that agricultural products and fisheries products should be lumped together in the same department and considered by the same set of officials. We submit that conditions with regard to the two types of products are quite different, and that there should be a division of responsibility in considering applications for subventions to build cold storage warehouses. If that were done the Department of Fisheries would have under its jurisdiction the consideration of grants for fisheries products cold storage warehouses and the Department
Supply-Agriculture
of Agriculture would naturally concern itself with agricultural products.
The proposition I put forward now and which we have put forward in past years was supported very strongly by the Secretary of State and others when they sat on this side of the house. I put it forward now not to embarrass the government but only to remind them that we should like to know what consideration has been given to the division of responsibility for the consideration of applications for grants, so that the Minister of Fisheries and his department would concern themselves with applications for grants for fisheries products cold storage warehouses and the Minister of Agriculture would retain his authority in so far as agricultural products are concerned.
Inasmuch as the subventions have been suspended since July of 1962, about a year and a half ago, I should also like to know why there is an item of $76,500 in the estimates for the current fiscal year for subsidies under the Cold Storage Act.


Harry William Hays: To answer your last question, this $76,000 is an old commitment. I think I answered the other part of the question this morning when I stated this whole program was under review. Although I do not think it is necessary, the fishery department in the past has approved of these grants.


Frank Howard: I understood the minister to say he did not think it was necessary for the fisheries department, as was the case in the past. Perhaps I have misunderstood him.


Harry William Hays: Yes, it is not required by the act.


Frank Howard: No, it is not required by the act, but what I am getting at is that they should have prime consideration in dealing with applications.


Harry William Hays: They do have. We refer it to them for approval of the application.


Frank Howard: Then I misunderstood the minister in the first instance and I thank him for clarifying that. He has said this $76,500 is for commitments, I gather, prior to July, 1962. Could the minister indicate how many commitments, for what purposes, in what communities, and the total amounts?


Harry William Hays: There are two items. One is the Tignish fishery co-operative association and the other is the Belleville, Ontario cheese producers co-operative, $50,000.


Frank Howard: Where is the first?


Harry William Hays: Tignish, Prince Edward Island.


Frank Howard: Have no subventions been paid for applications since July, 1962?

Supply-Agriculture


Harry William Hays: The date for Tignish is November 9, 1961, and the other date is January 18, 1962. That is when these applications were approved.


Frank Howard: I have been given to understand that there is a fisheries produce cold storage warehouse in the Magdalen islands. Is that the one to which the minister just referred?


Harry William Hays: No.


Frank Howard: I understand its application came in after July, 1962, and I wonder could the minister tell us what happened to it. Has it been considered, or how has it been dealt with?


Harry William Hays: I think these are applications that are being considered but they have not yet been approved.


Frank Howard: The minister said he thinks they are being considered. Are they?


Harry William Hays: They are, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50. Dairy products division-grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvements Act, $1,073,000.
William Arnold Peters: Is any promotion being undertaken by the department to subsidize the production of cheese suitable for export to Great Britain? There is a shortage of such cheese because fairly large storage is necessary to keep the cheese for six months, as opposed to the pasteurized type of cheese which we in Canada eat, but which has proven unsatisfactory to our European customers, particularly the British.


Harry William Hays: This is something we are studying. I understand we pay a subsidy of two cents a pound on premium cheese and the item here amounts to something under $1 million. Does that answer the question?


William Arnold Peters: No. The problem is that we have two types of Cheddar cheese. We Canadians do not pay too much attention so long as it is cheddar cheese, but the British will not buy pasteurized cheddar cheese. This cheese is usually held in storage for 30 days and has been very suitable for the Canadian market, but a few years ago when the Ontario cheese board tried to develop the export of it they met considerable difficulty, and arrangements had to be made for that board and the Ontario government to pick up a fairly large loss on the product. There is a market for 75 million pounds of cheese of the type suitable to the British taste, but the cheese factory in my area, for instance, which has facilities to handle high flash pasteurized
[Mr. Howard.!
cheese cannot contemplate the extension of storage required for cheese suitable for export.


Harry William Hays: I think I get the question. There is a difference in this cheese, in the pasteurized cheese, and there is even a difference in the fodder cheese. There is a market in Britain for more of the raw milk cheese, as it might be called, the cheese which is produced from milk when the cows are out on grass. I think the cheese board is having a great deal of difficulty making the other cheese as acceptable as raw milk cheese, but I can assure the hon. member that our research people are working on the problem and are trying to find out why there is a difference in these two cheeses. I hope they will soon have some of the answers because I recognize the problem and it would be a great boon if we could export more.


William Arnold Peters: Will the minister keep in touch with the Ontario cheese board on this?


Harry William Hays: Yes, very closely.


William Arnold Peters: This is a problem which is difficult for the Canadian people to understand for the simple reason that they cannot distinguish between unpasteurized raw milk cheddar cheese as opposed to pasteurized cheddar cheese. Both look the same and have the same market, so far as we in Canada are concerned.


Mr. Temple:: Mr. Chairman, if these were the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys I would have no hesitation in speaking about Black Diamond, but since they are the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture I will confine my remarks to cheese in general.


William Arnold Peters: Your Christmas present was appreciated.


Anthony Robert Temple: Thank you. In the first 11 months of this year we produced some 19 million pounds more cheese than in the corresponding 11 month period of 1962, and I think the drive on the part of the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, towards increasing our exports will be quite successful.
There will be an increased burden put on the present facilities for the production of cheese. At present a grant up to a maximum amount of 50 per cent, or X number of dollars, is made available when two cheese companies amalgamate. I know that the producers are grateful for the assistance of this 50 per cent towards the cost of installing cooling equipment in their curing rooms, and for renovating and acquiring new equipment when an amalgamation takes place, but I would like to know whether consideration is

being given to making grants available to a single joint stock company, where there is no amalgamation in the making, or to the provision of substantial loans for an individual joint stock company at a low rate of interest.


Harry William Hays: The curing room grants are available, or have been available, but not the others. I believe I also mentioned this morning that this whole matter is under review at the present time, and we will probably be coming up with some of the answers in a very short time.


Frank Howard: Am I to understand, Mr. Chairman, that subventions payable under the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvements Act have been suspended, or are in a state of suspension at the moment, similar to those under the Cold Storage Act?


Harry William Hays: They were suspended temporarily, but we are taking a look at them now, on merit. We have some applications, and we have accepted some.


Frank Howard: In fact if there is no suspension at the moment-


Harry William Hays: No.


Frank Howard: -it will certainly appear to people in the fishing industry especially that they have been getting an unfair deal. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could be permitted to go back briefly to dealing with the Cold Storage Act subventions. People in the fishing industry have felt, naturally, in the past that they have not been getting a square deal, because the consideration of applications for subvention was under the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps what is of greater concern now is that they will feel more intensely that they have been unfairly treated because the minister has said that in so far as the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvements Act is concerned there was a moratorium on subventions but that has been lifted, and yet the moratorium in reference to the Cold Storage Act-and I assume these acts were both instituted at the same time, namely in 1962, as a result of the austerity program-has not been lifted. People in the fishing industry will feel even more concerned about this. At this juncture, Mr. Chairman, I would urge upon the minister to please, for heaven's sake, give an extra bit of consideration to this particular question-and not just extra consideration, but favourable consideration. I would ask him to listen to the Minister of Fisheries, who knows what is going on in the fishing industry, and let him have jurisdiction over matters concerning fishery products.


Harry William Hays: He does, and last month they were lifted. He has considered some. This is in connection with fish.
Supp ly-A griculture


Frank Howard: Am I to understand now, Mr. Chairman, that the subventions under the Cold Storage Act, in so far as they apply to fish-


Harry William Hays: No, cheese.


Frank Howard: -do not exist any longer; there is no moratorium?


Harry William Hays: I am speaking of cheese factories. The fisheries department are now considering some of the applications in so far as cold storage for fisheries is concerned.


Frank Howard: It is very nice that they are considering them. I am sure the people who applied will be interested to learn that. But why are they considering them if the subventions under the Cold Storage Act are in a state of suspension?


Harry William Hays: I cannot speak for the fisheries department, because the Minister of Fisheries approves those applications. But he has suggested to me that they are now taking a look at applications in so far as cold storage for fisheries is concerned. I would suppose that in the not too distant future they will resolve them. But they are taking a look at some of the applications that have been received. I believe they have two at the moment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Frank Howard: Just before it carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like this matter clarified. I regret that perhaps I did not understand this too clearly when we were dealing with vote 42, but perhaps with the consent of the committee I might clarify the matter now.


Harry William Hays: Would you like the Minister of Fisheries to clarify it for you?


Frank Howard: Yes; but the Cold Storage Act comes under the Department of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the item has passed.


Frank Howard: And, as the Secretary of State has said, the item has passed. The item has passed because we accepted the statement of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to it. But now when we get into item 50, which deals with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvements Act, and I ask a question following the discussion on that item, I find the minister was not at all clear when giving the information under that item. That is why I asked if we could deal with it now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister's suggestion should be accepted. The Minister of Fisheries is ready to go on with his estimates as soon as these are completed, and he will be very glad to give an answer on this point, with which he is thoroughly familiar.

Supply-Agriculture


Frank Howard: I quite agree that the Minister of Fisheries is thoroughly familiar with this point. However, if we could agree to this course of action I am sure we could reach an understanding now, so the Secretary of State will not rise to his feet when we are considering the items of the Department of Fisheries and complain that we should not be concerning ourselves with this question because the item under consideration in the estimates of the Department of Fisheries does not deal with cold storage warehousing. If the Secretary of State will give that undertaking, I will be quite hapy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman did not mean the implications of what he has said, because I do not think he has any ground for saying that any undertaking I have given to him or anyone else has not been carried out.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if the Secretary of State draws this conclusion from what I said, he is drawing the wrong conclusion. I do not wish to imply any motives or anything else to him. I merely at this stage want to make it clear to everybody, not only to the Secretary of State-although I made reference to him as being the one who might raise the question as to whether we were on the right item-just so the committee understands that when we get to the fisheries estimates objection will not be raised that we are dealing with something that is not properly before us. I want that understanding, that is all.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote 50 carry?


Mr. Barneit:: I think it should be pointed out to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the concern of the hon. member for Skeena might arise in part from the fact that we have already dealt with item 1 of the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries. I wonder whether we could reach the understanding in the committee that we will deal with this question under vote 50 of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, which vote has to do with the Newfoundland bait service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it matters under which item it is discussed. Let us have it under vote 50.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90. Livestock Division-Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1963, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $751,600.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, with regard to vote No. 90, I have received, as I am sure the minister has, many representations asking

whether the original intention of the federal government in making available grants to the class A and class B fairs could be extended to the class C fairs, because the class C fairs would appear to be doing more for agriculture than either the A or B class fairs. I do not see the fairs listed here, but one of the A class fairs, I presume, would be the national exhibition. Then there is the royal winter fair, the eastern Ontario agricultural fair. I believe they are B class fairs. C class fairs are those little fairs that are held throughout the agricultural communities across the nation which allow farmers to show farm livestock for exhibition purposes, vegetable displays, farm crafts and the other aspects of farming in relation to what is actually happening in a community. The A and B class fairs in my opinion-and I think this opinion is shared by many people-have gone into the exhibition class and are really trade class fairs now, rather than agricultural class fairs. The problem is developing in my own area where we have a very large C class fair at New Lisk-eard. This has reached the size now where there is constantly a great deal of pressure put on the fair board to include exhibitors who are not in the agricultural field at all; they may be automobile, manufactured goods, natural gas or any other entrepreneur. These people are asking to hold exhibitions there and exhibit their potential and their wares, rather than the agricultural people themselves.
If some consideration were given to these class C fairs, it is my opinion that these agricultural fairs would be the ones to really demonstrate the potential of agriculture in a given area. There are many small class C fairs that do a great deal of good. As an example, there is the Charlton fair in my area. It is very small. I do not know the standard for a class A or class B fair, but I suppose it has some relationship to the number of people who attend. Charlton is a small community of about 700 people, and is a fairly progressive potato growing area as well as other mixed farming.
I use Charlton as an example of what I believe agricultural fairs should do. There was a family a number of years ago who started exhibiting what I suppose were very muddy and misshapen potatoes. The judges who came from other areas to the Charlton fair told this family what the different types of potatoes were supposed to look like. As a result of this the family, by the name of Ryan, eventually was able to win first prize at the Charlton fair. They later exhibited their potatoes at the royal winter fair where they took first prize. Then, they exhibited them at the international world fair and their

potatoes brought to Canada and the little village of Charlton the world championship.
The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that as a result of the education process which takes place through these fairs, people can often develop products that are able to bring awards to Canada and bring esteem to our nation. The hon. member for Cochrane, of course, could tell the same story. Over a period of many years, as a result of exhibiting in small fairs, people in the Cochrane district have been able to develop a wheat crop that has won the world championship. The same process has been repeated with other products.
The point I am making is that when you have people winning these awards who originally exhibited at small regional fairs, this shows the value of the small class C fairs. I am sure the minister is familiar with this problem. I am quite sure he goes to more fairs than I do. I am proud of the fact that I have quite a number of them in my area. I am sure he has seen many class C fairs, the ones in which manufacturers do not ask for space, and in which the farmer exhibits the products he has worked very hard to develop. It seems to me that this is the area in which the greatest gain to the farmer would be derived. The farmers who start exhibiting in class A and class B fairs probably never reach the top. Those who start in class C fairs very often develop products that win awards. These fairs, therefore, are the ones that are the most worthy of support. I should like to ask the minister to really consider this matter.
There are many young people in the 4-H clubs and junior farm organizations who would like to contribute to these class C fairs. These are the ones that the federal government does not assist. I am aware of the fact that there are difficulties involved in the way of grants for buildings, perhaps scholarships, and so on. Perhaps these awards could be given to certain classes who would be entitled to exhibit at a higher level. Certainly, in northern Ontario, there is a great interest in continuing and expanding the class C fairs. I should like the minister to consider this matter very seriously because it seems to me this is one way in which he could help to develop a better type of agriculture both in relation to animal husbandry, plants and grain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
91. Livestock division-special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $140,000.
Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to make a brief comment on this item and compliment the Minister of Agriculture on this grant to the royal winter fair. I am sure the minister 28902-5-391
Supply-Agriculture
knows the great benefits this grant provides through the development and promotion of the royal winter fair, the largest and finest show in North America. Many improvements have been made around the buildings. There is the new entrance and the hall of fame, which the minister had the opportunity of opening this year, wherein the portraits of leading agriculturists in Canada and those people who have done so much to promote agriculture are hung.
If the minister has any doubt about where the money might come from for this grant, I suggest he take a long, hard look at two sections of his department. The first one is publications. I believe there are many publications going out that need to be updated. There is also a great amount of duplication between the provincial departments of agriculture and the federal department in respect of some of these publications. I think this results in a waste of the taxpayers' money. The same situation applies to the field of research. Many experiments that are being carried out by the provinces are being duplicated by the federal department. There needs to be more co-ordination in the experimental work that is being done in agriculture. I would, therefore, mention those two branches to the minister for close scrutiny.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
95. Livestock division-grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $266,200.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to spend a moment on this item of $266,200 which consists of grants to agricultural organizations. It is a worth-while item. I notice that included in those grants is a grant to the federated women's institutes of $10,000. I rise to urge consideration of increasing this grant in the years ahead. I am sure the minister has knowledge of the excellent work that is done by the women's institutes throughout Canada. I have had knowledge of their work for some 53 years, their dealing with fairs, giving demonstrations in small communities and compiling the history of a community. In some cases, they have looked after cemeteries and dealt with legislation. I know that in two or three of the provinces the women's institutes have had a very beneficial influence on legislation related to the ownership of property by women, and their rights. I urge, therefore, that there be an increase in this grant, especially when we realize the shoddy society in which we live and the fact that many people fail to make any contribution of this solid type to the development of our country. Therefore, I believe the work of these women should be recognized by an increase in this grant in the years ahead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
115. Plant products division-agricultural lime assistance, $1,608,900.
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask one question on this item. It is a complicated question because it involves dominion-provincial responsibilities. Will the minister consider, or has he considered, the extension of the subsidy on lime used as fertilizer? There are many areas in which the cost of fertilizer varies according to transportation costs. It appears to me and to farm organizations as well that the fairly farsighted policy regarding agricultural lime, if applied to the use of fertilizer for agriculture, would bring a return to the farmers which in my opinion would probably be out of proportion to the cost the government would incur in making this subsidy. The farmers union of Ontario have asked for this on numerous occasions. The farm organizations themselves have asked for this. Their submission, which I think is a reasonable one, is that lime used in agriculture is only required for specific conditions. Farmers in one area need lime, while others do not. There are other supplements which could be added to the fertilizers on other farms which do not use lime but which would be as beneficial as lime.
I was wondering whether the department had considered the matter and were prepared to make some recommendations to the provinces at the next federal-provincial agricultural conference so as to ascertain what assistance the provincial governments would provide. I believe leadership has to come from the federal government, owing to our subventions, but I think the country would be interested to know the minister's thinking on whether this type of assistance can be extended. As I say, lime applies only to some farms, whereas nitrogen and other chemicals have a wider application and can serve a somewhat similar function on land on which lime would be unsuitable. Would the minister give us his intentions as to that?


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to bring it up at the next conference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners-
130. Administration, $173,500.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, just one or two remarks on vote 130 which deals with the administration of the board of grain commissioners. I want to make an appeal to the minister. There was a recent change in the regulations regarding the definition of an elevator which would qualify for licensing. At the present time the act says:
"Elevator" means any premises into which western grain may be received, or out of which it may he discharged, directly from or into railway cars or vessels-
[Mr. Herridge.l
This definition precludes the giving of a licence by the board of grain commissioners to any off-track storage. At the present stage of railway abandonment I know that my asking for a change in the act is not very popular, because the present definition of the communities with elevators alongside "elevator" certainly strengthens the case for any railway track that it is proposed to abandon, and this provision in the act also strengthens the case for the elevator companies. While it is not very popular to take this position at the present time, I firmly believe that some of the railways in western Canada are going to be abandoned, whether this year or five years from now. I also believe there are a lot of elevators situated alongside railway tracks which could serve a very useful purpose to the neighbouring communities, even if the railway was abandoned. For example, at several places around Medicine Hat almost all the grain coming into the elevator is taken out again and hauled to the mills by trucks. So paying large subsidies to maintain some of these railways, simply on the pretext that they are necessary for the movement out of the elevators of grain, when in actual fact the railway is not even used for that, is to me just a nonsensical approach.
One of the first things necessary in my opinion is to make some small amendments to the Canada Grain Act so that these elevators could remain licensed by the board, even though the railway alongside had been abandoned.
I do not want to labour the point now, but I think it is necessary that the government recognize, and that the board of grain commissioners recognize, that some of these elevators could serve a very useful purpose even when the railway is not there. For one thing they could be gathering points for the farmers in the immediate area, who could bring in small amounts of grain and sell it. On the other hand, if the railway is abandoned -they would have to haul the grain to the mill themselves. When the elevator is full and the time comes for the grain to be shipped out, it is a well accepted practice now to send a fleet of trucks to empty the elevator. But as long as this provision remains in the act, then if the railway is taken away the elevator goes too.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say a few words about grain elevators. I am not an expert on agriculture and I make no secret of it. However, I think that the minister must realize that at the present time, eastern Canada needs some grain elevators

to reduce the cost of feed grain. This need has been felt for several years.
All I want to do this afternoon, is to ask the minister to act as soon as possible and to build grain elevators on the St. Lawrence shores, at the proper location, so that agriculture in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada may take advantage of them. This is an important and urgent problem, and even if the minister is anxious to have his estimates passed promptly, I think that it is still more important to try to solve this problem, and as soon as possible. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
140. Canadian government elevators-Operation and maintenance including authority to purchase screenings. $1,529,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment on vote 140, which deals with Canadian government elevators. There is a terminal elevator in the city of Prince Rupert, built, I believe, in 1926 at a time when the late Mackenzie King was in that area and predicted that Prince Rupert would become the metropolis and shipping centre of the west coast. I may say we still have hopes that the vision which Mr. King had then will come to reality. However, it is a fact that the shipping distance between Prince Rupert and the Orient is quite a considerable amount shorter than it is from the port of Vancouver or New Westminster. The problem is that even though the route is shorter there is sometimes difficulty in getting alternate cargoes in and out of Prince Rupert to make it lucrative enough for shipping companies to quote reasonably competitive rates from the port of Prince Rupert. As I say, there is an elevator there, which has a storage capacity, in round figures, of one million bushels and a working capacity of 800,000 to 900,000 bushels. The elevator was designed in such a way that its facilities could be duplicated, and it has been waiting ever since for this duplication to take place. I have had correspondence about it with the minister.
I have had discussions with officials of the hon. gentleman's department and with officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce with regard to the expansion of elevator facilities in Prince Rupert, but so far there has been no definite commitment that these facilities will be expanded. The minister's predecessor in office gave an indication to the Prince Rupert chamber of commerce that the government did not intend to expand or duplicate elevator facilities in Prince Rupert. I can only hope that the present minister and the present government will take a more 28902-5-391]
Supply-Agriculture
favourable attitude to this question, especially in view of the fact that they are taking all credit for the immense grain sales which have taken place this year and have stated that the port of Prince Rupert, as well as all other west coast ports, will be used to optimum capacity from now on until, at least, next year or next fall.
I only wish to take the time now to ask that serious consideration be given to the representations which have been made by myself, by citizens of Prince Rupert and, again, by the chamber of commerce of Prince Rupert, which has submitted a well documented proposal in this regard. We are vitally concerned that steps should be taken to recognize the fact that Prince Rupert exists and that it is the finest harbour on the Pacific coast of North America, notwithstanding what the people of Vancouver might think. Shipping distances are shorter-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How much shorter?


Frank Howard: It is just not possible to find a more suitable location than Prince Rupert for the establishment of grain shipping facilities. I urge this upon the minister now, so that when the new session begins one of the first announcements he will be able to make is that elevator facilities at this port are to be increased. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could even make his announcement during the interval between the two sessions. I will not go so far as to ask him to make a comment on this subject now, because he has indicated that the question is being studied; but it is one of the items to which I hope he will give serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; land protection, reclamation and development-
145. Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,229,200.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, this item reads as follows:
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; land protection, reclamation and development-
I know that British Columbia is included in that program but I should like to know whether the government intends to extend the coverage to Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces, including Newfoundland, so that all the provinces may participate

Supply-A griculture
to that program since, in my opinion, irrigation is important not only in certain provinces but everywhere in Canada.
Could the minister tell us whether he intends to broaden the policy in that respect?

Perhaps the minister would answer yes, or no. Is it the intention of the minister to extend this policy?


Harry William Hays: We spent a good deal of time on this the other day. We thought the particular items mentioned should probably be included under ARDA, rather than being an extension of P.F.R.A.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, but does the minister intend to change this policy now? I believe ARDA is outside this program.


Harry William Hays: We are giving consideration to the extension of this work under the ARDA program.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is an item included here amounting to $382,100 for forest nursery stations. Is this related to the ARDA program? What is the reason for this item being under the vote we are now considering.


Harry William Hays: I think that is under P.F.R.A. I understand it used to be under research. These trees are used for windbreaks, to prevent soil erosion, and so on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They are directly related to the activities of the department?


Harry William Hays: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Removal of this reforestation item from the estimates of the scientific services was done as part of the preliminaries to the establishment of the ARDA program. We had made an agreement with the provinces to enter upon an extensive program of tree planting, and there had to be an assurance that these trees were coming forward. I would not like this occasion to pass without that being very clear on the record.


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I should like to say a few words on this item. For many years, in the three western prairie provinces, a policy of rehabilitation has been pursued under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and excellent results have been obtained, especially in the past two years, with respect to the development and fencing of community pastures.
I wonder whether the minister is planning to increase the extent of these pastures. A lot of the rough timber could be cleared and the land brought under cultivation, with the result that the land, instead of growing brush, would have the capacity to carry a great many more cattle. If more of this land could

be seeded down its productivity could be greatly increased. With a fence around it, it should be producing good pasture instead of brushwood. This is why I am wondering whether the minister intends to extend these grants so that more acreage can be cleared in these northerly lands and put under cultivation. It would not be so necessary in the south, but we, in the more northerly areas, have already proven what can be done.


Harry William Hays: This is a continuing program of clearing and seeding, and we are hoping that it can be accelerated. If we are to increase our beef production, which we think we shall be able to do in the next ten years, this is certainly an area where this could be done economically. As I say, it is a continuing policy.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. There is a growing demand that eastern Canada should be shown some of the consideration which has been given to western Canada under P.F.R.A. and other agencies. It seems to me that removing this item and placing it under ARDA is nothing but eyewash. We, in the east, may get a few of these projects, but only at the wish of the province.
Farmers in eastern Canada need the benefit of some of these projects which have been developed in western Canada and which have proven to be successful there. I believe that in dealing with eastern agriculture the federal government should not divorce itself from some of the responsibilities it has assumed over the years with respect to the western provinces. I do not intend to press the point further at this time. But I think that the minister and the department should take warning that some of us representing eastern agriculture are not going to be quiet another year on this matter. We are not asking for the discontinuance or curtailment of anything in this regard in western Canada, but we are going to ask for equal treatment in each of these fields in eastern Canada. If the department wants to get along well with us they are going to have to make some concessions.
Personally I am not interested in the department saying these things are going to come under ARDA. If ARDA is interpreted properly by the department, they are going to have to face the fact that is a long term project to convert much agricultural production into other fields of endeavour. I think this is fairly fundamental. It is not a short term but rather a long term solution for agricultural problems. The provisions that are made under this item and following items should also be made applicable to eastern

Canada in the same way they have been applied in western Canada, and the ARDA program should not be restricted to eastern Canada because of certain fundamental changes in agricultural production such as mentioned by the previous speaker in relation to fodder, which have been accomplished under some of these grants.
I should like to have the minister's opinion on whether or not he is prepared to give consideration to the extension on equal terms to the eastern provinces, of some of these projects now under way in the western provinces, which projects are administered and supervised by the federal government and not in co-operation with the provincial government. I believe, as many others do, that there is a field in which co-operation is necessary, but there is also a field in which the federal government can give leadership and I suggest that the experience gained from these projects undertaken in western Canada should be applied to the undertaking of similar projects in eastern Canada. I think the minister should indicate now whether he intends to extend these projects into the eastern areas and whether or not this will be brought about by the time the minister presents his next estimates.


Harry William Hays: In reply to the hon. member may I say I discussed this problem for three hours yesterday with the ministers of agriculture from the various provinces. They are very interested, of course, in the ARDA program, and from the discussion we had I would say they are also interested in including the things the hon. member has been saying the things the hon. member has been speaking about in the ARDA program, because they think this is the proper place for them. This being the case, we have not given any thought to the extension of P.F.R.A. and these other measures into other areas.


William Arnold Peters: Will it also be the intention of the minister to eliminate the P.F.R.A. organization and include this work as an extension of the ARDA program? I am concerned about the fact that certain projects are being carried on in one area that are not available to another area. If the minister, and the ministers of agriculture of the various provinces, have come to such a conclusion, I have no argument with them; but there is a demand for equality in both the ARDA program and the other special projects that are under the control of the federal government.


Harry William Hays: This is a policy that has not been resolved yet. If it is, it will be a government policy that will be announced later.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, this item deals with the South Saskatchewan river project
Supp ly-A griculture
and I have one brief comment. I understand the minister is leaving very soon to go to Regina to attend a conference on the future water requirements of the prairie provinces. I should like to emphasize the vital importance of the problem and to urge the minister to see that the interests of the prairie provinces are protected in any program of water diversion, even with regard to a possible future diversion of water into the Columbia river into the South Saskatchewan river. I hope the minister will assure us of his intention in this regard.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I only want to take a moment or two to raise an objection to something the hon. member for Timiska-ming said. I suggest to him that when he refers to western Canada he should say Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba if that is what he means, because western Canada truly and properly is British Columbia.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member really should not refer to me but to the department, because the department has referred to "irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project". There may be some difference of opinion in the department as to what is western Canada and what is east. As far as I personally am concerned, anything west of Timiskaming is western Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could intervene for a moment not to suggest that the hon. gentlemen skin their own skunks but to see if it would be the wish of the committee, of which I have taken some soundings and I believe it might be, to go on for the next hour in committee in an endeavour to finish the esimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We are in accord.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before complying with the request of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), I should simply like to say this.
I read in the French version of yesterday's Hansard what the Secretary of State said yesterday afternoon about our motions for the production of papers. Upon close scrutiny, one realizes that the Secretary of State did not keep the promises he made last week and that he resorted to some tactics or tricks to prevent the house from expressing its views concerning the tabling of certain documents.
We are willing to forego the private member's hour, but I must point out before

Supp ly-A griculture
that it was very wrong of the Secretary of State to disregard his undertaking in that connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter into a debate with the hon. gentleman about the French translation of what I said. What I said I said in English, and without in any way reflecting upon the translators I think I can only be responsible for the words I uttered and not for words that someone else, however competent, put in my mouth. I certainly had no intention of deceiving the hon. gentleman in any way and if I did I am sorry.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not only in the French version because the same words appear in the English version. I am talking about the French version of the official report because I used that one, but the English version says the same thing.
The Secretary of State had promised us not to transfer those motions for debate but he had more or less allowed us to put them to a vote, which we have not yet been able to do.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, for our part, and especially for the benefit of the absent former minister of trade and commerce, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, we are quite pleased to co-operate with the Secretary of State. May I say that we also agree with the contention of the hon. member for Lapointe.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I would think that generally any suspension of the rules should take place when the Speaker is in the chair but on this particular occasion-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is necessary.


Herman Maxwell Batten: -and due to the fact that all parties have agreed with the suggestion of the Secretary of State, is that suggestion accepted by all?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
165. Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $157,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I simply
want to say that this very important vote represents a most interesting development to large numbers of people in Canada. I am

just going to suggest that in order that the purpose of this act is understood and so that the persons who are interested in it will know what is going on, some literature be published indicating the purpose of the act and giving information with respect to the agreements with the provinces, what is being undertaken and what is proposed for the future. That would be very useful to farmers' organizations.


Reynold Rapp: I would like to ask the minister, have there been many failures or defaults in the repayment of cash advances on grain?


Harry William Hays: I would not know exactly, but I understand they are very small.


Reynold Rapp: Then I would just like to point out that in 1957 when we advocated these free cash advances we were told that the Canadian wheat board would go broke if we gave them.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister indicate what arrangements there are between the provinces and the federal government for the announcing of ARDA projects? I feel there should be a joint release from both the agencies that are participating. The reason I am raising this is because I only learned of the first project in my area during an election campaign, and it took the form of a political announcement. I have been in politics a long time and I see some advantage for whoever is making such an announcement; but if this happens it leaves the door open for members of parliament and others to involve themselves in the preliminary discussions on various projects.
A much better way would be to have the co-operation of the two agencies of the federal and provincial government in making a joint announcement, rather than publishing it in some political journal.


Harry William Hays: I do not think it is being done that way in toto, but the hon. member's suggestion is worth looking into, and I may say I agree with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes and concludes the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank hon. members very much for their consideration of my department's estimates, and I appreciate their constructive criticism.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the next department is entered for consideration perhaps hon. members would like to know the score. Seven departments have now been completed, there are still 15 to go.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
45. Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $1,162,000.
Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, when my estimates were previously considered by this committee on October 24 last I agreed to make a statement on the question of participation by the Soviet union in the conference on north Pacific fisheries. Opinion has been expressed in some quarters, especially by the leaders of the maritime fishermen and allied workers union that the Soviet union should be brought into the convention with Canada, Japan and the United States covering the fisheries of the north Pacific ocean. The hon. member for Skeena brought this subject up in the course of the debate on these estimates on October 24.
First of all it should be pointed out that the Canadian government would be glad to co-operate with the Soviet union in the management of sea fisheries. Canada and the Soviet union are now parties together with the United States and Japan to the interim convention on conservation of north Pacific fur seals. The Soviet union as well as Canada is also a party to the northwest Atlantic fisheries convention, along with 11 other countries. It is hoped that this cooperation in the development of sea fisheries can continue and be further extended.
However, in the fisheries of the north Pacific, in which Canada is interested, these being principally salmon, halibut and herring, a special situation exists, perhaps unique in the world, in that these fisheries have been developed either singly or in some instances jointly with the United States to the point of full utilization, based on scientific management at great national cost over a long period of time.
It was because of this unique situation that the north Pacific fisheries convention between Canada, Japan and the United States provided for the reservation of these fisheries to the nations which have developed them, and Japan agreed voluntarily to abstain from fishing for salmon, halibut and herring of North American origin in the high seas where normally there is freedom of fishing for all nations.
The Soviet union, whose fishing fleets and operations have been greatly expanded in the last decade has so far given no indication that it would recognize the special or unique situation of our fisheries. On the contrary the Soviet union has publicly proclaimed it is against the principle that any nation or group of nations can reserve for their own use the fisheries in the high seas.
Supply-Fisheries
At the 1958 Geneva conference on the law of the sea, Mr. Krylov, a delegate representing the Soviet union, made this statement in the third committee:
The principle of abstention was at variance with the principle of equality of rights and the concept of freedom of fishing on the high seas. In the U.S.S.R.'s opinion no discrimination should be allowed against relative "newcomers" in fishing grounds already being exploited by other states.
This attitude of the Soviet government was further confirmed in an exchange of notes between Canada and the U.S.S.R. in 1961-62. On October 4, 1961 the Canadian government, being apprehensive of the effect on our highly conserved fisheries, of expanding Soviet fishing operations in the north Pacific, sent a note to the U.S.S.R. in which it pointed out the long and painstaking efforts of Canada and the United States in the preservation of the halibut of the north Pacific ocean and expressed the hope that the Soviet union would co-operate in avoiding any damage to this resource by its fishing operations.
In a reply dated February 12, 1962 the Soviet government said that it cannot agree with the attempt by Canada and the United States to question the right of other countries to fish halibut in the open seas and that the U.S.S.R. could not recognize the monopolistic rights of Canada and the United States in the area. The Soviet note added that the Soviet fishing organizations are not at present conducting large scale halibut fisheries in the northern part of the Pacific ocean; that operations are limited to the study of reserves, the habitat and the seasonal migration of halibut. The note ended by stating that should the Soviet government in the future begin commercial fishing in the area it would be ready to co-operate with the governments of Canada and the United States on a just and equal basis in the protection of halibut reserves and in the regulation of its catch.
So far there has been no indication of any change in this attitude of the Soviet government. Therefore, there would be little likelihood of getting the co-operation of the Soviet government in obtaining the protection of our salmon, halibut and herring resources to the extent now obtainable under the convention between Canada, Japan and the United States
Representations are from time to time made by the leaders of the united fishermen and allied workers union which also find their echoes here in parliament that the Soviet union exploits its salmon resources in the same way as Canada and the United States, that is, at the surf line, and the Soviet fishermen do not fish for salmon in the high seas. The same people argue that because of this the Soviet government would support the

Supply-Fisheries
Canadian and United States position: that for the proper management of salmon, high seas fishing should not be permitted. Those who argue that way overlook the fact that the Soviet union and Japan have a separate treaty on salmon fishing in the northwestern Pacific. Under this treaty the right of Japan to engage in salmon fishing in the high seas is recognized, and at the annual commission meetings a quota of Japanese catch of salmon is set for each year. In fact, far from restricting Japanese fishing in the high seas, Japan is restricted to fishing only in the high seas at considerable distances from the coasts of the Soviet union. Therefore the question of Soviet participation is one for consideration by Canada, Japan and the United States. Perhaps the attitude of the Soviet government may change in the future and it will be prepared to cooperate in recognizing the unique situation of our salmon, halibut and herring fisheries, and that these resources, being fully utilized, need special protection under the principle now incorporated in the north Pacific convention between Canada, Japan and the United States, or a similar principle. The situation may also arise where if the Soviet union should exploit stocks of fish which are of concern to us on an economically significant scale and to our disadvantage, we may have to conclude that the best solution would be to bring the U.S.S.R. into the agreement. In such case Canada will consult with Japan and the United States on the matter. At the present time, however, for the reasons I have given, the time is not opportune to initiate any further discussions on the subject.
This concludes the statement which I had in mind in connection with the participation of the U.S.S.R. in the north Pacific fisheries. In their note which was tabled the other day the U.S.S.R. make it very clear that it cannot recognize the monopolistic right of Canada and the United States to exploit the living resources of the open seas in the northeast part of the Pacific ocean.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite evident to everyone that if the minister had had the foresight and interest to make such a statement when his estimates were being considered earlier, perhaps they would have been passed at that time. It is this sort of full declaration of support for the action, or lack of action, of a government that is appreciated by the house and by the country. It has cleared up a number of misunderstandings. All this difficulty developed because of the hesitancy of the minister to fully disclose what was in his mind and in the mind of the government. There was threaded throughout his statement very slight, but none the less they were there, insinuations which could be interpreted by members of
[Mr. Roblchaud.l
the house as being directed toward them. 1 do not want to take that interpretation in so far as I am concerned. I will say, however, that it is a good thing for the country that the individual fisherman and the groups of fishermen find a voice in the House of Commons, for there is no question that the fisheries association finds its spokesmen here in parliament, and I think to bring it into balance it is necessary that all sides of the case are put forward.
I was very interested to read the exchange of notes between Canada and the Soviet union regarding the halibut fishery which was, as the minister said, tabled, not at my request but upon an order of the house, really, even though I initiated the motion. I was likewise interested to see that at the time of that order of the house to table this particular correspondence, an admission was made that there was no such correspondence in existence with respect to either of the five species of salmon which intermingle in the midPacific, or with respect to herring; but only with respect to halibut. I do not want to be accused-although I am sure many people would like to do this; perhaps may even do it regardless of my contention here-of being the spokesman on behalf of the government of the Soviet union or the government of any other nation; but I think, in order to have all the information on the record, we should read fully the note from the Soviet union with respect to the halibut fishery so we can see that not only did the Soviet union contend in that note, as the minister said, that it would not recognize the monopolistic right of Canada and the United States to exploit the living resources of the open seas in the northeast part of the Pacific ocean, but the Soviet union also makes reference to their attitude about conservation.
This is from sessional paper 269, which reads as follows:
The following is a translation of the text of the Soviet ministry's note dated February 12, 1962 and numbered II/2E in reply to the note of October 4, 1961 from the Canadian ambassador in Moscow.
It reads as follows:
The ministry of foreign affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics presents its compliments to the Canadian embassy and with reference to the embassy's note of October 4, 1961 concerning the halibut fishery in the northeast part of the Pacific ocean has the honour to declare the following:
Then it says:
The Soviet government cannot agree with the attempt, contained in the note, to call in question the right of other countries to fish halibut in open seas of the northeast part of the Pacific ocean. The existence of a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States of America concerning the regulation of halibut fishing in the northern part of the Pacific ocean and in the

Bering sea, to which the Canadian government refers, cannot be an obstacle preventing other countries from fishing halibut in the above mentioned region. It is known that, according to the generally accepted norms of international law, high seas are open to fishing by all states. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics therefor cannot recognize the monopolistic right of Canada and the United States of America to exploit the living resources of the open seas in the northeast part of the Pacific ocean.
It is fairly clear that their contention is that the high seas are open to anybody subject, however, to any treaties which may exist. I cannot help but compare the attitude expressed in that paragraph which I have just read with the attitude the United Kingdom took to poor little, insignificant Iceland when it took steps to declare a 12-mile fishing zone, when they put warships and everything else out to protect what Great Britain contended was its right under international law. None the less, that is the attitude expressed in this note by the Soviet union. I think any country which has that attitude and carries it into full effect, without regard to the detrimental influence it may have on other countries, is committing something that is unconscionable. I think, in this regard, while the Soviet union in one sense may be correct in its reference to what it thinks are the accepted norms of international law, none the less the language is far too strong for my liking and carries with it the implication, "If you do not agree with this and if we desire so to fish there, other methods will be instituted to guarantee our right to fish the resources of the high seas". The note goes on to say this:
The government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics always proceeds from the need for international co-operation between states in the matter of the rational conduct of fisheries in order to maintain the productivity of commercial fish in the open seas at a constant level, while permitting the maximum permissible catch.
I do not think there is any disagreement with that statement. I think it is the kind of statement Canada would make, although I would have one reservation about the use of the word "constant" where the note says:
-in order to maintain the productivity of commercial fish in the open seas at a constant level-
I think the desire in all approaches to exploitation and conservation is not only to maintain the productivity but to see whether the productivity can be increased. Therefore with the exception of the use of the word "constant" and the desire to substitute therefor the attitude of increasing productivity, which is I think our goal, this is a statement with which I am sure the Canadian government agrees. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries has, in fact, made precisely the same sort of statement, perhaps not using
Supply-Fisheries
those exact words. He nods his head in agreement, so I take it that is an agreeable statement and that the Canadian government shares the attitude referred to, namely that we should always proceed from the need for international co-operation between states in the matter of the rational conduct of fisheries, in order to maintain the productivity of commercial fish in the open seas at a constant level, while permitting the maximum permissible catch.
Then, I should like to read the last paragraph of the Soviet union note:
At the present time, Soviet fishing organizations are not conducting large scale halibut fisheries in the northern part of the Pacific ocean.
I think the same condition exists today, and they are not engaging in the halibut fisheries.
For the time being, these operations are limited to the study of the reserves, the habitat, and the seasonal migration of the halibut. If in the future the Soviet government decides to begin the commercial catching of the halibut in the above-mentioned region, it will be ready to co-operate on a just and equal base with the governments of Canada and the United States of America in the protection of halibut reserves and in the regulation of its catch.
While the note from the Soviet union starts off on a note of arrogance and disdain for what I consider the legitimate claims of Canada to protect that which we conserve in co-operation with the United States, it winds up in a declaration of co-operation. I think that note should be put on the record so that a clear picture is there for those who want to read it and who will appreciate the situation. I did not feel it would be necessary to read the original note from Ambassador Smith in Moscow to the Soviet union dated October 4, because, in essence, what it says is that "the Canadian government is concerned about your activities in the northeastern Pacific, and we would like you to consider our situation." However, I thought it was necessary to read the note from the Soviet union in its entirety and express my thoughts about it as we proceed.
The Soviet union is not now, so far as we know, as the minister said, engaging in salmon fishing on the high seas, at least not in that area of the mid-Pacific where the salmon from both sides would meet. I think they are engaging in the salmon fishery, but that would be closer to their own shores. I do not believe it really matters a great deal whether or not the Soviet union is in a treaty with us regarding herring, because our herring fishery is a relatively close offshore fishery. If the position of the Canadian government to the effect that we should have a 12-mile fishing limit is adopted and the boundary is drawn in such a manner as to include

Supply-Fisheries
Hecate strait, Queen Charlotte sound and Dixon entrance, then we do not have to concern ourselves too much about inroads that would be made into our herring stock, because they would be almost entirely within our own waters. We would then have to concern ourselves only with those that spawn off the Queen Charlotte islands, and those have been removed from the abstention principle so far as Japan is concerned.
It is our salmon fishery that is of interest and of concern. In regard to the salmon fishery, I should like to quote from a publication entitled "Western Fisheries", for November, 1963. This issue contains a report on the recent meeting of the north Pacific fisheries commission in the latter part of November, wherein the Bering sea halibut quota was reduced by a little more than 40 per cent. There are some interesting references here to this particular question. I should like to read a comment by a United States delegate, namely Mr. Clarence F. Pautzke, commissioner of the fish and wildlife service and head of the United States section. At the opening of the plenary session of the commission he said:
The commission failed to take adequate steps at its last annual meeting for protection of the red salmon runs of North American origin which are exposed to the Japanese fishery west of 175 degrees west longitude.
Perhaps I am guessing now, but I think the reference to red salmon would be a reference to the sockeye species. I continue to quote from the article:
"The Bristol Bay run (in 1963) was smaller than was expected," Pautzke said. "The information available to the U.S. indicates that the Japanese fishery took a large proportion of the run. The run which entered Bristol bay was so small as to cause a disaster in the industry in the United States.
Had the commission taken timely action, the situation would have been better.
This should not be permitted to happen again. The commission must do more than it has in the past if it is to maintain any semblance of responsibility," Pautzke warned.
That is the end of the quotation, but the article then goes on to say:
This was the strongest formal statement to come out of the meeting and reflects the grave fears of the industry in Alaska that the salmon runs of Bristol bay may be facing extinction under the pressure of the Japanese ocean fishery, and the mounting concern for other fishery resources, especially king crab and halibut, which are coming under rapidly increasing exploitation by Soviet fleets.
This article says that the halibut and king crab fisheries are coming under rapidly increasing exploitation by the Soviet fleets. Already the United States people are concerned about the possible extinction of the salmon run in the Bristol bay area as a result of the expansion of Soviet fishing activities,

and the king crab and halibut fisheries are also under pressure. I think that if such is the case it should cause us concern.
There is no question but that the pressure of the population has forced nations to look to the sea for a greater amount of their food, especially protein products. It is quite apparent that the north Pacific fisheries are already under pressure from the Japanese. This gentleman has been expressing his thoughts at the discussion which took place in respect of the attempt to renegotiate the north Pacific fisheries treaty when Japan brought pressure against the fishery stocks of the Pacific upon which we have spent thousands and thousands of dollars in attempting to conserve. The publication "Western Fisheries" makes a reference to the fact that the Soviet union is increasing its fishing activity and it refers specifically to the king crab and halibut fishery. There is no question but that the amount of pressure from the Soviet union will increase as the years go by. The pressure will increase more and more as far as those species of fish which are spawned in our land, and on which we spend countless thousands of dollars over the years in an attempt to conserve, are concerned. An attitude of complacency, an attitude of regret, an attitude of interpreting the remarks of the Soviet union to the effect that it is not interested in international co-operation or conservation on the high seas is not good enough. It is true that the Soviet union's note of February 12, 1962, as I said, was arrogant, disdainful and disgraceful in its first part, where it interpreted the norms of international law as meaning it could not care less about what Canada does in the matter of conservation.
The Soviet union's claim that the right to fish the high seas, while in essence and under international law perhaps correct, in actual fact is, as far as I am concerned, despicable. We know that the Soviet union are masters of speaking with two voices; of saying one thing one time and something else another time. Nevertheless the contention of the Soviet union in the latter part of its note is that it will be ready to co-operate. Let me read the words again:
If in the future the Soviet government decides to begin the commercial catching of the halibut in the abovementioned region, it will be ready to co-operate on a just and equal base with the governments of Canada and the United States of America in the protection of halibut reserves and in the regulation of its catch.
Then in November 1963 "Western Fisheries" says that the king crab and halibut are coming under rapidly increasing exploitation by the Soviet fleets. If that is the case I think it is high time that we got down off our diplomatic horse and dealt man to man and face

to lace with the Soviet union, and say to them point blank: "If you guys are going to fish on the high seas, fish which we spend thousand of dollars to conserve, then you had better get into a conservation treaty with us. We want you to come in with us". We should not wait until it is too late, until the size of the fleet of the Soviet union is such that not only will the salmon runs be subject to extinction, but all other runs as well. The time to move is now. I sincerely hope that the minister gets a little closer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, fights for this action in the cabinet, and takes some steps to deal with the Soviet union in an open and direct way in an attempt to save our fisheries from extinction. That is the matter of prime concern to people on the west coast, particularly the fishermen, and it should be of prime concern to the people in the rest of Canada as well.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to prolong this discussion unduly but I am sure the Minister of Fisheries would be the first to agree that what happens on the high seas in fishing matters is one of the most important matters which can be discussed in the fisheries field. I think the quotation referred to in this communication from the Soviet union, in particular the phrase which says that it is known that according to the generally accepted norms of international law the high seas are open to fishing by all states, is a contention which has been promulgated by many other nations as well as the Soviet union. It is important that we should recognize that that attitude arose at a time when it was assumed that the fish on the high seas were wild fish. I think there is a parallel in the hunting of wild game. If we go to the areas of our own plains in the days when the buffalo roamed, the buffalo were wild game and fair game for all comers. The time has come when Canada should be promulgating new doctrines of international law in respect to fishing on the high seas.
I think we should take a stand which has its parallel in the law of the range, where in effect certain cattle owners put their brand on their herds. I think we should be raising our voice to put the Canadian brand on some of the fish now roaming the open range of the high seas. The time has now come when there should be a new approach in the field of international law to this matter so that it is clearly recognized that the fish which in effect are reared within our borders, and which for the time being are out on the open range, under any proper understanding of international law are our fish. This is a revolutionary doctrine, I think it would be agreed. But I think it should also be agreed that our scientists are doing some rather revolutionary
Supply

Fisheries
things in fisheries and in the field of fish rearing. This calls for a new approach to international law.
The fact that we have these votes in our estimates to support certain international commissions is an indication that we have taken some steps in this direction. But I suggest that at this particular stage we should, through the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, be sounding forth with a much clearer voice than we have been the promulgation of this new concept in respect of those to whom the resources of fish on the high seas belong. I think this is more important to the question of the survival of Pacific salmon fisheries than it is to any other fisheries matter at the present time.
I think it should be evident that the great concern that is felt by almost everyone I have met in the coastal areas of British Columbia who know anything about fish, and the changes made to the north Pacific fisheries treaty annex is basically due to a growing appreciation of the need for insisting that those fish which go from our shores into the high seas temporarily to feed are really Canadian fish.
As the minister knows, I have expressed concern about this matter in a motion which is still on the order paper, and which I doubt will receive very much further discussion during this session of parliament, in respect to the manner in which the government dealt with the amendments to that treaty. My concern about the manner in which they were dealt with is basically due to the fact that I feel it represents an attitude on the part of the government of Canada which fails to recognize how important a public question is the manner in which these treaties are amended. It is not good enough. At a time when we should be seeking to gain acceptance in the international field of a new concept relating to resources of fish on the high seas it is not good enough for us to agree to amend and change treaties in a way which gives the impression it is done under the carpet or under the table.
In closing I submit that this parliament and the people of Canada have still not been informed in any official way that I know of that the treaty has been changed. I can find nothing in Votes and Proceedings about it. I can find nothing in the Canada Gazette. As far as I know, nothing has appeared in any of the official channels through which the government of Canada gives notice that certain actions have been taken. I mention this matter on the discussion of these estimates because I feel it is symbolic of the government's failure to appreciate the importance of what it is doing with respect to these changes

Supply-Fisheries
which are being made in the north Pacific fisheries convention, in particular, and other conventions which, we hope, will be developed so that we may have a new concept and a new acceptance of international law on the high seas, a concept which will in many ways differ to such an extent from that initiated in this document sent by the Soviet union to our government as to be a complete reversal of the attitude which is here expressed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, just a word to call the minister's attention to the situation in which our Gaspe fishermen find themselves. On many occasions, I received complaints to the effect that those fishermen were faced with competition absolutely-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I wonder how the hon. member for Villeneuve can find a connection between his remarks and item No. 45 now under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Well, Mr. Chairman, I keep to the text of vote No. 45 which reads as follows:
Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates.
I feel that it is always possible to tell the minister that it is still important to take into account our Gaspe fishermen who sell their products not only on the domestic market but on the international market.
When I was in Jamaica, I happened to see on the shelves in food stores sardines from Gaspe, bearing the trademark "Galcier", and also from New Brunswick-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There have never been any sardines in Gaspe.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly. Those sardines came from Gaspe and the shores of New Brunswick.
I think that the products we are exporting are of higher quality than those we keep here, in Canada.
Therefore, I call the attention of the minister to the fact that, in the field of international trade, we must take into consideration our fishermen from the shores of Gaspe or New Brunswick, so that they are not subject to an appalling competition from big companies.


Frank Howard: 
Hédard-J. Robichaud: It will be difficult for me to give an explanation of the figures which have been quoted by the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member will realize, however, that such figures may not give a true picture of the situation because only two years have been selected, 1952 and 1961, and in order to give a true picture we should have the catch year by year. It is true that Japan has increased its activity in salmon fishing, especially in the last decade, and this could explain the increase in the catch of salmon by Japan by 264 million pounds. As the hon. member has mentioned, most of this fishing, in fact, probably all, is done on the high seas.
In so far as the advisory committee is concerned, I promised the hon. member when he asked me a question some time ago that I would give a report on my estimates. The advisory committee to the Canadian section of the international north Pacific fisheries commission held its second meeting at Vancouver, November 15, 1963, under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of fisheries, Dr. A. W. H. Needier. Members attending this meeting were Mr. Francis W. Millerd, fisheries association of British Columbia, Mr. Homer Stevens, united fishermen and allied workers union, Mr. Martin Eriksen, Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association and Mr. R. Stanton, Pacific trollers association. Messrs. J. M. Buchanan, J. C. Cameron and Carl Giske, Canadian members of the international north Pacific fisheries commission, the area director, W. R. Hourston, and Dr. W. M. Sprules, special assistant to the deputy minister, also attended.
There was a frank exchange of views regarding problems to be considered by the annual meeting of the international north Pacific fisheries commission, November 18 to 23, especially joint conservation measures on halibut in the Bering sea, measures to prevent trawling for other bottom fish from damaging halibut stocks in the gulf of Alaska, and the continued qualification of stocks of salmon, halibut and herring for abstention by Japan. Progress in the negotiations of a revised north Pacific fisheries treaty with Japan and the United States and the objectives to be sought in continuation of these negotiations were also discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Fisheries
50. Newfoundland bait service, $1,771,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: On vote 50, I agreed a while ago to give an explanation to the hon. member with respect to the subsidy situation. First I wish to inform the committee that this whole matter of subsidy on cold storage facilities is now being reviewed both by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries. We have decided that the proper place to have a thorough discussion of this problem will be at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa during the week of January 20 next. This matter will be discussed at that conference then I think we will be able to make a decision and establish a policy.
In the meantime I wish to advise the hon. member that an application has been received from the Grand Harbour co-operative, Grand Manan, for a subsidy and the application has been approved by the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture. A decision by treasury board is expected soon. It may have been made this afternoon. I have not had any report yet.
Another group has had some communications with my department about a subsidy but they have not decided whether they will make an application.


Frank Howard: I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for disclosing that information to the committee. It would indicate that while there is a so-called freeze on subventions the freeze is quickly thawing, and at least one application has been decided upon favourably. I anticipate one other application coming to the attention of the minister very shortly.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes. In fact, I had a discussion about it this afternoon with the representatives of the group concerned. I would ask my colleague, the Solicitor General, to move:
That vote No. 50 be reduced by $70,000.


Mr. MacNaughi:: I so move.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The explanation is that it is part of an item for the construction of a bait service vessel for Newfoundland. The work has been delayed and we expect that at the 31st of March next there will be some work to be completed in the next fiscal year. Therefore this amount of $70,000 will not be required.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution as amended carry?


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask one question. What happens to the seasonal prevailing rate employees in the other months of the year when they are laid off? If these people

Supply-Fisheries
are receiving unemployment insurance it might be advantageous if other duties were found for them, so that they could be kept employed. It would appear that this operation is one that is repeated year after year, and these are not just casual employees who are hired each year for this service.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There are cases where some of the employees are retained throughout the year or for a longer period than others. We are making every effort possible to try to keep these employees as long as their services are needed. However, there are other cases where the service is not operating for a certain period of the year and, unfortunately or fortunately, these employees have to take advantage of unemployment insurance.


William Arnold Peters: Benefits are paid on their behalf?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.
Item as amended agreed to.
90. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,070,000.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, as this is the last vote in the department, in view of what I intend to say, I am sure you will allow me to be somewhat out of order. Before the minister concludes his estimates I should like to express in a formal and public way, even though it has been done before, our regrets at the unfortunate passing some months ago of the late George Clark, who was the deputy minister of fisheries for many years. He was a very competent and able person.
I should also like to express our congratulations to Dr. Needier on having been elevated to the position of deputy minister and to wish him and his confreres in the department well. I should also like to wish good luck to Dr. Kask, chairman of the fisheries research board, and to say generally that even though there are times, because the fishing industry is a very complicated existence, when fishermen may object strenuously and violently to the closures and other conservation measures that are imposed, and even though some may object when they are penalized for fishing at times and in places where they should not fish, nevertheless in the fishing industry of British Columbia there is general approbation of the officials and staff of the Department of Fisheries. For my own part I share that feeling as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in concluding the estimates I wish to thank members of the committee for their co-operation in passing them.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
1. Customs and excise division-general administration, $5,270,500.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it understood that at seven o'clock this is the item we will be on, national revenue?


Lucien Lamoureux: That is my understanding.


John Watson MacNaught: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall this vote No. 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We hope the minister will make a very short statement.
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue):	I shall be delighted to oblige
in the short aspect of it. The estimates before the committee are those covered by votes Nos. 1, 5, 10, and 15, and they provide for the financing of the 1963-64 operations of the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue. I should point out to the committee that these estimates are quite separate from the estimates of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue and I would ask the committee's cooperation, as in past years, in keeping the discussions of them separate. It seems past experience has shown that more orderly and effective discussion is possible in this manner.
These customs and excise estimates total $40,571,400 and do not include some $2,341,000 supplementary moneys provided for the most recent revisions of salaries. Of course, as members of the committee know, salaries make up most of these estimates and in fact account for more than 93 per cent of the total.
A great deal can be said about the operations of this division which last year was responsible for collecting $2,397 million in customs and excise revenues. However, in view of the rather tight schedule of the committee I will limit myself to saying that in the short time I have been Minister of National Revenue I have been greatly impressed by the efficiency and forward-looking spirit which I feel characterizes the policies of the administration of the customs and excise division.
The record bears this out. It shows, for example, that last year, 1962-63, the total of revenue collections was close to $470 million more than was collected in 1958-59. The

record shows also that during this period almost every area of customs and excise operations experienced considerable development and growth. Yet, notwithstanding these additional demands on its resources and staff, the customs and excise division has during this period, through good management actually reduced its personnel establishment. At the commencement of the current fiscal year this division had 518 fewer employees than it had five years ago, which represents an annual savings of over $2 million. Such is the record of the administration of the customs and excise division, and I think that it speaks for itself.
I shall be pleased to do my best to answer any questions that hon. members may wish to raise, and I again would ask their co-operation in considering the customs and excise division separate from the taxation division. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the committee would permit me to inject a personal note here. I would like to express my thanks -this is the first opportunity I have had to do so publicly-to my predecessor, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, for assisting in the smooth transition following the change of government and the take over of this department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Garland:: I would also express the hope that I might enjoy, in the passage of these estimates, at least some degree of the success that was enjoyed by another predecessor, the very able, well respected hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


David Réal Caouette: I have a few words to say about certain administrative procedures in the income tax office of my riding-


Lucien Lamoureux: May I remind the hon. member for Villeneuve that following the suggestion of the Minister of National Revenue, it would be advisable to consider at first the first items relating to the customs and excise division, that is items 1 to 20. After item 20, we shall be considering the estimates of the taxation division.


David Réal Caouette: I gladly agree with your suggestion, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: I thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for his co-operation.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-
20. General administration, $3,906,300. [Translation]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I come now to some remarks I want to make about the
Supply-National Revenue income tax office located at Rouyn, in my riding of Villeneuve.
As in all the other income tax districts, naturally, methods are being used which I believe may not be known to the minister himself but which are certainly known to his officials. I am thinking here of those tyrants, those zealous men who seem to be envious of those who succeed and who take pleasure in torturing them with very little reason or no reason at all by making them believe that they will be severely punished by the income tax division if they do not conform to their rules. Hence, those officials misuse their authority and act with arrogance.
I had a personal knowledge of actions by certain inspectors of the income tax in the division of Rouyn-Noranda, which comprises the whole northwest region of the province of Quebec. Let me give you a name. One Mr. Bob Hardy, for instance, is an inspector who checks the bookkeeping and takes pleasure in fining small businessmen because they do not send to the department, at the required date, the amount collected from their employees as income tax. He even threatens to send them to prison if they do not send their cheques at once for the tax collected and this, on top of the fine which is imposed.
This Mr. Hardy is a big man and he seems to be all-powerful in his department. Therefore, I vigorously protest against the actions of those federal employees. If the officials of the division know about such things, a man such as Bob Hardy of the Rouyn division, should be made to toe the line and be called to order.
I also would like to call the minister's attention to the matter of charity receipts, about which the minister has probably heard.
The figures of charity receipts submitted to the minister have been cut down, particularly since the present government came to power. Last year, and the year before that, we met with much less difficulties; but this year, it seems that everybody is acting in collusion, to harass not the taxpayer who, is not bothered in his own home, but rather the parish priest who is being disturbed at his residence, and asked to check his books, in order to certify whether Mr. So-and-so has given $100, $200 or $50 to charity. Then, in a most arbitrary manner, the authorities cut down the total amount of the charity receipts which the Canadian taxpayer was able to deduct from his income tax return.
I know of several cases in my own county, where people had charity receipts for a total figure of $500 or $600, and where the income tax officer in Rouyn, on his own authority, and without consulting the taxpayers, brought down those figures by $400 or $500, and

Supply-National Revenue stated that he had established that $200 and no more had been given to charity. How could this income tax officer know what went to charity, and was given by the taxpayer?
There is a way to remedy the situation and forget altogether about charity receipts. The minister could decree a general abatement of the income tax for charity, up to 10 per cent of the personal income. This would stop the harassment of Canadian citizens by income tax inspectors.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out another matter to the minister. When people send in their income tax returns a few days after the deadline, the department automatically fines them. Is that logical? I find it strange then that the department has never thought of paying some interest to taxpayers who are entitled to a refund. These people may wait for weeks, or even months, before getting their refunds, but they are not granted any interest, for the government does not pay fines. After all, these taxpayers are deprived of a part of their income for a given period of time, but woe to the taxpayer who does not send in his income tax at the date set by the department, for he will certainly be fined. I see the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) shaking his head. If that does not happen in his riding, it does in mine and I am quite sure that it does happen in his riding.


Gilles Grégoire: It is because the member for Edmonton West never meets his electors.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Lapointe is probably right on that point.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wished to make. Something has to be changed in the administration of the Income Tax Act. For instance, employees of that department should show more courtesy when they meet the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, those inspectors are not our employers. They are government employees. They are at the service of the Canadian people and they must respect the human persons they have to deal with. Therefore, those civil servants should be a little more courteous towards the Canadian taxpayers.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a few brief remarks after complimenting the minister. It is very refreshing to have a minister begin his estimates by generously acknowledging his predecessors. This is one way in which I am certain he can expect, and will receive, the full co-operation of the house. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring


in a private bill, if necessary, to assist our school teachers across the country in the way of providing them with some exemptions from income tax. This is of course impossible under the rules, so I just bring to the attention of the minister and his officials this very important subject.
Most of our teachers all across Canada are anxious to upgrade their own academic standing and so be in a better position to train our young people in the very competitive world in which they find themselves. In order to do this, often at great sacrifice on their part they are obliged to re-enter university. Some of them have to go back to university and attend summer school for a period of eight or ten years in order to get the qualifications necessary to be able to teach our young people in this ever-increasingly technical world. I should like to suggest that every consideration be given to the granting of a tax exemption of a reasonable amount to school teachers to cover their tuition, books and perhaps their maintenance during the summer months when they are obliged to go back to university.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, only a few words to remind the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) of a request I addressed him during the fall concerning many taxpayers in the east of the province of Quebec who have to send their income tax returns to the Montreal office and who always eagerly wait for a refund of the tax they overpaid during the year.
I noted that after representations by the minister, the civil servants of the Montreal office did speed up the revision of files. But numerous family heads have been particularly anxious in the last couple of weeks to receive the tax refund they think they are entitled to and I hope that the minister, with his recognized and proverbial kindness, will ask once again the civil servants in his department to speed up the revision of files so that the taxpayers can get the tax refund due them at least before the end of the year.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief comments.
I too wish to come back on this matter of receipts for charitable donations since, in the Quebec area and in my constituency especially, many complaints have been made on this subject.
If I am not mistaken about the provisions of the Income Tax Act, taxpayers may deduct, for charitable purposes, up to 10 per cent of their taxable income. This means then that a person who submits a receipt in proper form, signed by the religious authorities or

the organizations to which the donations were made, can deduct up to that amount from his taxable income.
Now, such receipts are often rejected, in whole or in part, by income tax officers. If the idea is to refuse to grant deductions for these charitable donations, the thing to do is to amend the legislation. But, at this time the act allows a tax deduction up to 10 per cent of the taxable income, for charitable donations.
Moreover, I believe that the investigators, under the act, do not have a legal right to reduce claims for charitable donations, putting forward various excuses for doing so.
What is even worse is that when somebody complains, the answer is that the case was studied, that inquiries were conducted and that it was finally established that the amount to be claimed for charitable purposes did not reach the amount appearing on the receipts.
Mr. Chairman, I am not able to prove the contrary, but I would really like those officials to actually prove that they conducted an inquiry, that they did get the exact figures, since, after all, those figures can come only from those who have submitted them.
Consequently, if the receipts indicate a certain amount, I cannot understand how the investigators can state it is otherwise, or that the amount claimed was not paid.
Mr. Chairman, we receive numerous complaints to that effect, particularly in the Quebec district. That is why I wanted to call the attention of the house on this state of affairs, which is becoming a sort of tragedy. Some other procedure should be found.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) suggested a method a short while ago. I believe there are no doubt others. In fact, somebody has already suggested a reduction on the tax rate for the first taxable amount of $1,000, so that the taxpayers could, without receipt, benefit from abatements almost identical.
Mr. Chairman, another problem on which I wish to call the attention of the house is that of small industries manufacturing products which are called seasonal products. The industry itself is not seasonal, but the products are.
For instance, let us take the case of the manufacturers of gloves, mitts, boots and slippers. Those manufacturers accept orders during most of the year, but as soon as they have accepted the order, they must pay the federal sales tax, according to the regulations of the Department of National Revenue. However, that sales tax is not refunded to them
Supply-National Revenue until the bill is paid, that is not until a period of at least six months, or even more, has elapsed.
There are many such industries in my constituency, considerably several of which manufacture various leather articles. The directors of those industries are obliged to bear for six months at least, sometimes longer, the cost of the federal tax which they must pay at the time of the order and which is refunded to them only when the bill is paid.
Mr. Chairman, this procedure, I think, affects the development of those small industries which we claim we want to help but which are prevented from surviving by similar things like that.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that the Minister of National Revenue should be able to change the legislation in order to remove all the economic harassment the small industrialists are subjected to at this time.
I have already contacted the officials of the Department of National Revenue about this and I have been told that it was difficult to determine the marginal difference between small and large industries. I admit that, but it should be possible to set a criterion which could be based either on the number of employees or the number of working hours, it does not matter which. This is a problem which it is up to the officials to settle. As far as we are concerned, what we want is results. We do not want small businessmen to have to wait months for the refund of a sales tax they had to pay in taking an order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, first I want to say that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) is possibly the nicest and the most pleasant Canadian citizen I have had the pleasure to meet. And I say this not to flatter him but because I believe it. However, I must add that I doubt there is a more unpleasant department than the one he heads.
To be head of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that is encouraging. To administer the Department of the Secretary of State, that is also encouraging. But to be Minister of National Revenue, to be the boss of those who empty our pockets, that, Mr. Chairman, is a very thankless job.
And I must say that the minister deserves all our sympathy.
I must also confess that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) chose the present Minister of National Revenue, he chose one of the nicest and most charming members to fill that most thankless job.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I must recognize that I have no reason to complain about the attitude of the revenue officials in my riding or my district because we have none. There is no district income tax office in

Supply-National Revenue the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. There is none in such towns as Jonquiere, Alma, Ro-berval, etc. In fact, the nearest office is in Quebec city, which means that taxpayers of my region have to travel 135 miles if they wish to submit a claim of some sort to the income tax people.


David Réal Caouette: You are better off than we are, because we have one.
The hon. member for Villeneuve says that they are better favoured than we are because they have one. But I must admit that even though they are in Quebec, the inspectors are efficient enough to come and grab it. But when they want to protest, taxpayers find it far. I say that the people of Saguenay-Lake St. John are in an inferior position when it comes to appealing against the decisions of the Department of National Revenue, dispute its decisions, try to obtain information, let their opinions be known.
I recognize that the farther we are from taxation inspectors, the better it is; nevertheless, it is sometimes convenient to have them near us in order to let them know what we think.
Mr. Chairman, the only thing I should like to point out tonight is the question of charity receipts. It is well known and even striking- the minister must admit it today-that the legislation is ill conceived. Something should be changed in the act. As a rule, a 10 per cent deduction is granted to those who file charity receipts, but we ought to remember what Christ said: let not thy left hand know what your right hand does; in other words: make charitable donations but do not proclaim it on housetops.
Now, with the Minister of National Revenue, receipts are needed; everything must be in good order. Just try and make a charitable donation to an organization that is not recognized by the department or to an individual who needs it badly and is not recognized either; then it is not accepted. In my opinion, it is distorting the true meaning of Christian charity as it is usually understood. I see that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) approves what I am saying now. All that means only one thing, Mr. Chairman; the act is defective and should be revised.
One good solution would be to do away with this business of receipts and give a general rebate of 10 per cent on the first $3,000, for instance, 7J per cent on the next $2,000 and 5 per cent on incomes of more than $5,000. That is the first point. We must change this antiquated and immoral act which goes against all principles of true charity.
It should not be forgotten either that, under the present legislation, unjustified investigations and inquiries are being made in rectories and religious establishments.

The parish priest and his assistants are not employees of the Department of National Revenue; they are not there to represent them, but to help their parishioners and devote themselves to parochial tasks. Therefore, it is a practice that should disappear.
Those inspectors of national revenue are arrogant, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Villeneuve has said. Not that they are so personally, but because of the legislation of which they are the servants, and because of the zeal which they display and the stale atmosphere which prevails in the Department of National Revenue. It would seem that everyone who works for national revenue feels an obligation to be arrogant and contemptuous to the highest possible degree. I say again that those inquiries in the presbyteries must cease.
In conclusion, I should like to ask something of the Minister of National Revenue. At the present time, a great number of constituents and taxpayers of our ridings have been writing to us along those lines: We submitted receipts of $500 or $600 for charitable donations and the department replied: Your receipt for charitable donations has been reduced to $250 or $300. We then write to the income tax office in Quebec city and always get similar letters from the same official by the name of Audette saying: After inquiry, it has been found that the individual had not donated more than such an amount.
I ask the Minister of National Revenue how can an inquiry be made when a person holds a receipt signed by the parish priest, if nobody bothers to go and see the taxpayer.
In my opinion, there is no inquiry at all or simply a superficial one that cannot be taken into account. I would therefore ask the Minister of National Revenue:
1.	To amend the legislation.
2.	As regards past cases, to instruct his inspectors to go and see the taxpayers who protest, so they can prove their good faith. In the case of those who do not protest, it means that they agree with the merits of the assessment made by the Department of National Revenue. Otherwise, it would not be an investigation but a farce.
Mr. Chairman, this is all the more important because the Income Tax Act is entirely different from all other Canadian acts. Under Quebec's civil code, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a doubt. On the other hand, according to the Income Tax Act, a person is presumed guilty, and it is up to him to prove himself innocent beyond the shadow of a doubt. In such a case, the individual himself has to pay the costs, to hire a lawyer to prove his innocence.
Mr. Chairman, in the great majority of cases, rather than spend money to prove their

innocence, the taxpayers prefer to let the matter drop, which does not prevent them from saying: there is the kind of justice we have in Canada. And they keep on cursing the government, protesting against injustice, against the fact that they cannot assert their rights without having to spend a great deal of money.
Mr. Chairman, I maintain this is a serious matter in a democratic country where each and every one is entitled to justice and fair play. With the Income Tax Act, we do not have such a thing in Canada because the individual is first presumed guilty. Judgment is taken against him and he has to pay court expenses and lawyer's fees in order to prove his innocence.
This situation has to change, otherwise we shall see an increase in the number of Canadian citizens who will accept, without abdicating however, to be deprived from their rights because they are not prepared to spend money to have them recognized. The Income Tax Act which says that everyone is guilty unless proven innocent, must be changed.
That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. I made my remarks in good faith, I think they are pertinent and the Minister of National Revenue should inquire with his inspectors in order to find out the feeling and the climate in which they work, so as to remedy the situation and revise this legislation which is faulty in many cases.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder whether the minister would have the names of institutions, organizations, etc., listed as charitable for purposes of income tax assessment set out in Hansard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order paper.


John Richard Garland: Do I understand that the discussion on item 1 is completed?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the minister intends to reply to the several speeches which have been made, perhaps we could recognize, before he does so, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to support the view presented by the hon. member for Athabasca with regard to allowing deductions for expenses incurred by teachers who are taking courses, not only the cost of tuition itself but of the textbooks required. I believe last year I attempted to move an amendment to that effect which was ruled out of order. I think the department has probably received representations from the Canadian teachers federation and other interested bodies with regard to this matter. This is a question of
Supply-National Revenue investment in training and efficiency, and I should like to see some consideration given this matter.
There is another matter I should like to raise for consideration by the minister and his colleagues in the cabinet. This concerns a rather important policy question. We have heard from the Liberal party in the past some suggestions about campaign expenses incurred by political parties. I do not have with me the book "The Liberal Party" by J. W. Pickersgill-usually one can get from that a quotation on any important policy matter- and I do not know whether he deals with this subject, but I should like to suggest that the cabinet give consideration to allowing certain sums of money to be deductible-that is, with respect to contributions to political parties. I think the amount would have to be in the neighbourhood of $200 or $300. Citizens who help finance the campaigns of political parties are assisting the democratic process and I think this should be recognized to a certain extent. This matter has been mentioned in the house before, but nothing seems to happen in this connection. I believe that if a lot of people could be encouraged to make contributions to political parties in the same way as they are encouraged to make contributions to charity, some of the abuses which now occur in the field of political contributions could be avoided.


William Arnold Peters: I am pleased that the minister comes from northern Ontario because I am sure he will be aware of many of the problems we have there. I wish to add my voice to those who have already discussed this question of donations, particularly to religious organizations. I have had several letters from clergymen in my area who are concerned about the issuing of receipts. I have one letter from a clergyman who is being asked to list cases where donations of $1 have been described as donations of $10 and so on. He says he is not getting this money, though he and his church would be very glad if he were. Yet pressure is being put on him as if he were an employee of the people who are asking for receipts. He is being asked to supply receipts for money which he has not collected.
This is a growing problem and we shall have to face it in the future, because many more people today are earning an income which encourages them to enter religious donations, whether actually made or merely contemplated, on their tax forms. The fact is that clergy are being asked to do something which is dishonest. I suggest that workers who make a straight contribution to income tax out of their pay, without much chance

Supply-National Revenue of other deductions, are finding that this is an agreeable method of obtaining tax relief.
On the other hand, there are those who make donations to charity and ask for nothing but an honest receipt. Yet in some cases such receipts cannot be given because of the manner in which the donations are made. The donations which are put into collection plates on Sundays are difficult to account for. I am sure that if the inspectors in the department went into some of these churches and added up the receipts and related them to the collection on the plates it would be found that many people had arrived very early and that there would be no receipts for those who had arrived late. It may be, as the hon. member for Lapointe said, that it would be better to allow for the reduction of a flat sum in the case of everyone who wished to make a contribution to a religious organization. It is not a revolutionary idea because this is now being done in the case of union dues. Lodge or union dues can be deducted up to a fixed amount. I believe it would be fairer to those who now have to issue these receipts if deductions were made possible in this manner.
I am not one of those who believe that inspectors should not go round to check the information given on the tax forms. I think they should. I do not believe anyone should get a receipt for money that is not given, and I believe this has happened on many occasions. But I agree it is difficult for anyone to say with accuracy how much a parishioner has donated in a particular year unless the donation is made in a lump sum, and I imagine that this is something which seldom happens.
A point has been raised in connection with teachers' salaries and I agree that special provision should be made for those in the teaching profession who are engaged in training. It is obvious, of course, that the salary paid to different groups of teachers will vary widely and some difficulties are bound to arise as a result. I imagine that in some cases two groups of teachers could be found in the same institution whose incomes and tax responsibilities would vary widely.
Again, in conclusion, I urge the minister to look carefully into this question of tax receipts for donations. This problem is growing because of the change in our economy which has arisen with the development of the industrial age. People are earning a living in a different way. Those engaged in farm work were often in the habit of writing up a good many expenditures as farm expenses. Industrial workers have found it difficult to obtain similar advantages and this has led them, in many cases, to apply for receipts in respect of religious donations which may


never have been given. The longer we leave this question in abeyance, the more difficult it is likely to become.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I would like here to say a few words about charitable receipts. The matter has been raised already by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) as well as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). However, I do not share their views in that respect.


David Réal Caouette: We are not surprised.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is just that I feel there is a way to control charitable receipts with regard to income tax.
I can tell you that it is accepted where I come from; we have Catholic and Protestant parishes as in all the other ridings in the rest of Canada and we do not have any difficulty simply because we use envelopes.
When a parishioner makes a donation to his parish through this system of envelopes, or any other donation, the receipt he receives for the amount given in the envelope is the only amount he can claim as a deduction.


David Réal Caouette: This is not the business of the government.


Norman Platt Lambert: The exemption for charitable donations is an exemption under the Income Tax Act. We are already granted an exemption of $100 without receipt. If you examine the situation in general, you will notice that less than 35 per cent of parishioners who pay taxes, require a receipt. First, there are the children and the persons who have no job; then there are those whose income is not high enough to be taxable.
So the only persons who ask for receipts are those who have a taxable income, that is a third of a parish, this is no phenomenon. So why not use a system of contributions through envelopes?
That system has been used for years in dioceses in the west, and is used more and more in dioceses near the east. And I can tell you, following my experience at the Department of National Revenue, which dates back three years ago, that that system has been set up in some dioceses of the province of Quebec, and it works.
Then if a parish priest is in a position where he is subject to pressures, all he has to do is to set up a system of envelopes, whether it is in a diocese of Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes or the western provinces.
Those people are not different one from another; then why would they protest against a system of envelopes? I do not think that there is-


Mr. Belanger:: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Norman Platt Lambert: Certainly.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Does the hon. member know that it happens sometimes that a donation is made and that the parish priest is not aware of it? For example, when a $1 candle is lighted every Sunday this represents a sum of $52, the parish priest is not aware that money is deposited in the box.


Norman Platt Lambert: If you make a donation for the missions, you are entitled to ask for a receipt. Now as far as vigil lights and other-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: If during the Sunday collection-


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, if you forget your envelope, it is up to you-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: -I give a dollar, I do not have any receipt.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is your fault if you forgot your envelope. The method has been in use for years and people are satisfied. So I wonder why all this difficulty? Honestly, I do not see any problem in connection with those charity receipts. Let people acknowledge receipt or ask for a receipt to cover actual charitable donations and there will be no trouble.
Now, other questions have been brought up. [Text]
I should like to raise now certain points I have raised from time to time in the past with regard to the administration of the department. The first one has to do with the allowance for the use of an automobile for business reasons, whether by lawyers, automobile salesmen, travelling salesmen, farmers or anyone else. There is a varying scale of allowance and I think there is discrimination in this regard.
I know that a sort of rough and ready rule or yardstick is applied. But I am wondering to what extent the matter has been reviewed recently because I think great difficulty arises in the case of the individual taxpayer or the tax accountant, shall we say, who is preparing the tax return of say a farmer for example. If my memory serves me correctly, a farmer may be allowed 75 per cent of his automobile expenses when the automobile is used for farm purposes. An automobile salesman may be allowed 50 per cent, a lawyer down to 20 per cent or a doctor up to 80 per cent. I hope the minister can set me right in this regard, but I think this is an area that merits some study to see if a fairer yardstick cannot be devised for application to all sorts of persons who use their automobiles. Automobiles are no longer in the category of a luxury or
Supply-National Revenue something used merely for pleasure. Today they are a necessity. In the case of a lawyer transportation to his office is just as important as for a doctor who is going to his office. Time is of the essence to these people and to business and professional men generally, and I think the matter should be considered in that light.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would the same argument not apply to workers going to a factory?


Norman Platt Lambert: If a doctor uses his automobile to go to a hospital or a lawyer uses his automobile to go to a police court-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the hon. member referred to a lawyer going to his place of work. I have many C.P.R. workers in my constituency who go to the Weston shops in Winnipeg by car. That is their place of work. Should this rule not apply to them also?


Norman Platt Lambert: I will accept the hon. member's question and say that I think this is part and parcel of the problem. It may be that the allowances now given certain classes of people should be cut down. I am not saying others should be brought up, but some may be cut down if we are going to have a rather more general rule. There are other subjects I could discuss, but in the interests of expediting the business I will leave them for some future occasion.


Mr. Frenette:: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of raising applause I will say that I shall be brief. I do not intend to pick a quarrel with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat concerning the control of receipts for charitable donations. The Christmas season will soon be upon us and we are all anxious to get this session over.
That system may be of some use in certain areas but it is difficult to put into effect in some parts of the province of Quebec.
I am sure that no matter how shrewd my parish priest may be, he cannot say exactly how much is given to the various charities.
My reason for participating in this debate on the estimates of the Department of National Revenue was not to take sides on the issuance of receipts for charitable donations nor to settle the question.
I merely wish to draw the attention of the minister on a point which has been especially dear to me for many years. It has to do with the customs and excise tax on U.S. imported goods used by farmers.
I know that most articles in that category are exempt from this 22J per cent tax. However, there is one product which I would like to see exempt, that is what is commonly


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in connection with corporation taxes as compared with personal income tax.
It is a well-known fact that taxpayers pay 22J per cent as income tax. The percentage is worked out for each $100. For example, the taxpayer who has a net income of $1,000, pays 14J per cent of income tax covering the difference between $1,000 and $2,000 and this percentage increases up to 80 per cent.
On the other hand, companies pay 22J per cent on the first $100 of income up to $35,000.
I think that there is a serious discrimination here against taxpayers as compared with companies. That is why I ask the minister to examine carefully that situation so that justice may be done in this regard, especially when one considers that individuals pay more taxes than corporations do.
Besides, corporations are entitled to reinvest capital while individual persons are denied that right.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on behalf of the worker. We all know that, to earn their living, workers need the tools of their trade. For instance, bush-workers need many mechanical tools that cost a great deal of money. But the cost of those tools, unfortunately, is not deductible for income tax purpose and, as a result, the workers have to pay for those tools themselves. What is more they even have to have cars to carry them to their work, so they can earn a living. Neither their car nor their tools are exempt from income tax.

Consequently, I think the minister should give this matter serious consideration in order to treat the workers a bit more fairly.
I would like also to talk about the carpenters. They also need many tools in their line of work. I can also mention the plumbers who find themselves in the same situation. The cost of the tools used by these skilled workers cannot be deducted either for income tax purposes.
I submit that the Minister of National Revenue should consider all those cases and I ask him to study carefully the situation of those poor workers, those poor people who work hard to earn a living and do not benefit from any exemption for the cost of the tools they need to earn a living.
That is all I had to say, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: That completes the estimates of the Department of National Revenue.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if I might be permitted just a word to express my appreciation of the co-operation shown and for the many suggestions made, of which a careful note will be taken.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

Gordon Minto Churchill: Where is the minister?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He will be here in a moment or two, and meanwhile the parliamentary secretary will carry on in his place.
20. Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $625,600.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 'While the minister is coming in I would like to say a brief word on this vote. I see that he is now in his place. As hon. members are aware, we debated the estimates of the Department of Labour for a full three and a half hours on the night of November 8, and I think on both sides of the house we would agree we had a very good discussion of those estimates. Accordingly we do not feel that extensive discussion of the remaining items of this department is necessary tonight.
I would like to make two or three observations related to the aspect covered by vote 20, as well as other matters that come under the purview of the department. We particularly welcome the minister's assurance, given on November 8, that there is a real possibility of two things being done at the next session of the house: First, the introduction of a

national labour code covering the various things which we agreed on that night as properly belonging to a national labour code and, second, that there would be legislation amending, or revising, or reconstituting the Unemployment Insurance Act.
We were glad to hear these announcements or promises confirmed at the recent meeting between the government and representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I suppose what I am doing tonight, by thanking the minister for these promises is, in effect, pinning him down to them; we are reminding him that when the next session comes we will expect both these items to be mentioned in the speech from the throne; and we hope most of that speech from the throne will be implemented during the course of that session. We were sorry that the minister did not find it possible, either in the house when we were dealing with his estimates or when he was before the Canadian Labour Congress on the recent occasion when that body met the government, to give the assurance that there would be an overhaul of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act between now and the next session. However, he did indicate both to us and to the Canadian Labour Congress-and I believe he did so to other labour bodies that appeared before him-that as soon as possible there would be a study in depth of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. We hope it will not be too long before we get action in that field.
As I say, we did have a pretty good discussion of the department on the previous occasion, and although there may be a few items with regard to which some hon. members may wish to raise points, we do not feel it is necessary to prolong the discussion on the estimates of this department.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that this place, as always, abounds with rumours. Sometimes one ignores them; sometimes one wants to ignore them; sometimes they come true. One of the rumours that circulates around this place relates to the Minister of Labour. All I want to say with respect to that rumour is that if we have to have a Liberal government in power, we would like to have the present minister presiding over the Department of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can ask this question on this particular item, because it might apply to any item. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether treasury board has now lifted the freeze on the whole department, or only on a certain portion of it, as far as new employees are concerned.
Supply-Labour


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the unemployment insurance commission and the national selective service, I think we have lifted any restrictions on that particular part of the operation; and we have lifted the freeze, if that is the correct term, on part but not all of the remaining departmental operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Civilian rehabilitation branch administration including payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, Including undischarged commitments under previous agreements and the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker, $529,000.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister advised us, when introducing his estimates, that nine provinces had signed vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons agreements.
I wonder whether he could tell us which province has not signed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The province of Quebec has not signed, Mr. Chairman. I understand that province is well advanced in its consideration with regard to signing.


Michael Starr: Does the minister expect that province to sign?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is my expectation and hope that the province will sign.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special Services-
30. Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $525,700.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think this would be a good time for the minister to give us an accounting as to what is happening in the older worker program. I think when I asked him in the house yesterday or the day before he promised to do this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I did indicate to the hon. member for Ontario that I would tell him the extent to which this program was utilized in the month of November. For that month there have been, up to the present, 325-that is the correct figure-employer applications for this program. I must say that, while I appreciate the extent of the response, I would like to see it more acceptable and more widely used. For that reason, in response to views that have been expressed in the house by members of the official opposition and the New Democratic party, and in response to my own consideration, we have decided to extend the period of hiring for an additional two months, so that instead of the

Supply-Labour
hiring period finishing at the end of January it will finish at the end of March. This additional period will be open for hiring.
We have also made further changes. We have relaxed the provision of the previous regulations that eligible older workers would have to exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits before qualifying under the program. We hope these two changes, together with one or two others that are not as substantial in character, will accelerate the acceptance of this program. We are trying to utilize the services of the national employment offices in the way of making direct contact with employers who may be encouraged to take advantage of this program. It is an experimental program, and we hope that by observing the developments that take place and by observing the response to the program, we will have contributed significantly to solving the problem of the older worker and will possibly gain some information about how to handle this problem in the future.


Michael Starr: In this item, Mr. Chairman, the amount is shown as $525,700. There is a proposed reduction of $5,000 in this item, is there not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Provision for the older worker program is contained in the supplementary estimates and the sum provided in this particular supplementary, for the older worker program-


Michael Starr: I was referring to the amount now shown in the item. It is $525,700 for expenditures for 1963-64. I think when the minister spoke in the house previously he said there would be a reduction of $5,000, to $520,700.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is true that I did say on November 8, when introducing the estimates, that the amount shown under vote 30, which is the vote to which my hon. friend is referring, would be reduced by $5,000. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like my colleague the Minister of Transport to move that this reduction be made. It shows my attitude of economy.


Lucien Lamoureux: Mr. Mcllraith moves that vote No. 30 of the estimates of the Department of Labour be reduced by $5,000. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
40. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-payments to the provinces, $109,484,000.
Michael Starr: On this vote, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether he could give us some idea as to how the plans for training in the agricultural area are coming along. We did have a conference here in Ottawa last year, I think it was, with the provinces in respect to this matter, and then the provinces were going to carry on this program. I wonder whether there is any report as to what progress is being made in this field.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like to tell my hon. friend that the foundation that was laid by the conference to which he has referred has been carried on by further consultations with various provinces, especially the province of Saskatchewan. We are carrying out consultation in regard to the ARDA program and there is a special provision for additional personnel, I think, in one of the other divisions to carry out this further consultation in connection with the ARDA program and the agricultural field.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question for the minister in connection with this item 40 which concerns the expenses relating to the implementation of the Technical and Vocational Training Asssistance Act and of the agreements under it.
Do the agreements passed this year between Ottawa and Quebec give more to the latter, in comparison with previous years when Quebec was given an inferior treatment compared to Canada as a whole, so far as this question of technical training or of technical and vocational training assistance is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it is a fact that in previous years the province of Quebec did not participate as fully as the other provinces in the benefits of this program. I do not believe there was any disability within the program itself that brought about this condition, but it was a fact that the financial benefits accruing to Quebec were not as great. The house has already this session approved amendments to this particular act to provide for a further extension of the time so that, especially in the field of capital construction, the province of Quebec will be able to participate as fully as the highest province, up to the end of the last fiscal year. There will be, therefore, many additional millions of dollars available to Quebec and, in a theoretical way, if all the provinces participated to the maximum Quebec would be in full parity with all the provinces of Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in discussing this item in previous years I have been surprised at the lack of graduates from the many training projects that we have undertaken on behalf of the unemployed. The retraining programs have produced quite a sizeable number of graduates, but the percentage of graduates compared with the number who enter the course has not been large. Is there any improvement in this field?
I should like to ask how extensive the program is at present for training supervisory staffs. Under the technical school program that has been undertaken in Ontario during the past two years, there has been an excessively large number of technical classrooms and a shortage of technical teachers for those institutions. I was wondering how successful the technical teacher training program has been, and what the potential is in the next two or three years for training teachers for technical schools?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers the previous speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for putting the record straight with regard to the law that was introduced by his predecessor. I am glad to hear from the minister that there was nothing wrong with the act passed by the previous Conservative government, but that it was the fault of the Liberal government of the province of Quebec, if that province did not get as much as they should have. The fault did not lie with the previous minister of labour or the Conservatives, but the fault lies with the Liberal ministers of the province of Quebec.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my information is that since the program began 3,000 teachers have been trained for technical purposes. I understand that in 1962-63 alone, 600 teachers were trained in Ontario for technical purposes, and this province has an extensive program in this field. I understand that during 1963 alone, 267 teachers were trained. This is not the end, because the province is going ahead actively with further training programs.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister have a percentage of those who graduated from these courses? I am interested in those who were trained under the unemployment insurance scheme in co-operation with the provincial departments.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am told we do not have figures available at the moment, but I will make an effort to get them for my hon. friend and provide them as quickly as possible.


William Arnold Peters: I am not really concerned with he numbers. I had some experience with this
28902-5-392
Supply-Labour
program because a friend of mine was training. He said that the number who dropped out was very large. This would seem to indicate that we were having difficulty in completing this program and turning out a large number of people. All I am really asking is, whether the minister is satisfied with the progress we are making? I agree it is a difficult field. We are taking adults from one occupation and trying to train them in another field. There are many hazards in connection with such a program. Is there overall satisfaction with the results we are getting from this retraining program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry I cannot provide exact figures, but I think I can meet my friend's interest by telling him that approximately 30 per cent of those who enter these courses are drop-outs. Presumably, therefore, approximately 70 per cent graduate with full benefits from the course. It would be desirable if we had 100 per cent, but it seems in this field this is a considerable accomplishment.


Raymond Langlois: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister said that 70 per cent graduated from this course that we have had established for quite a few years. Can he furnish figures indicating to what extent the persons who graduated were successful in finding permanent employment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, there is a variation in this particular area. My information is that approximately 80 per cent of those who graduate get work at once of a permanent character in their chosen field of training.


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: I should just like to express my views on the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) with respect to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
The hon. gentleman seems to blame the present government of the province of Quebec when, in fact, that legislation was enacted under the previous administration which deserves our praise in that connection.
The group which was in power in Quebec under the leadership of Mr. Duplessis, in 1957, did not want to participate to the program because they felt-and rightly probably -that education was a provincial responsibility. However, when the present administration took over in Quebec, in 1960, it was already too late for the province to obtain all the grants it could have had if it had prepared for them. When a request was submitted for the extension of the legislation to enable Quebec to get all the grants it had coming, the then minister of labour replied that the program could be extended for

Supply-Labour
another six months only. Obviously few technical schools could be built in six months and it is only since the present federal Minister of Labour introduced new legislation that Quebec can get just as much as the other provinces.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think the record should be clear on this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
When I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) a question, it was not to allow the members for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and Longueuil to play politics. I merely wished to inquire about the federal government's intentions concerning the province of Quebec.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no question of privilege.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to keep the record straight. I have listened to the exchange which has taken place regarding this matter and I must point out that the act did not pass parliament until December 1960. Six months later all of the provinces signed the agreement with the federal government with respect to this program, with the exception of the province of Quebec, which took another six months to sign their contract. The money was there; there was no ceiling. Every province had the same opportunity to participate as much as they wanted, with the approval of the federal government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I wish to take this opportunity to repeat in French what I said a while ago in English.
I am grateful to the Minister of Labour for having paid tribute to his predecessor by admitting that the legislation passed under the previous administration was written so as to give satisfaction to everyone.
I regret and have always regretted that the province of Quebec due to the fact that its government is friendly with the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) has not deemed necessary to take advantage of the legislation passed by the former Conservative government to promote the progress of youth.
I regret with my hon. friend for Longueuil that before the downfall, the province of Quebec did not obtain more grants, but we are both helpless in this connection.
Nevertheless, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), when he was Minister of Labour, tried to do something so that the young people in the province could improve their lot.

However, the province of Quebec, under a Liberal government, did not find appropriate to avail itself of the act which, as mentioned a minute ago by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), is a sound and equitable act, the purpose of which was to give equal opportunity to all the young people in the country.
If the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) is in mourning at this time, let him join his Liberal friends in the province of Quebec and let them weep together. It is not our fault, the Conservative's fault, because we want to give to the young people in the province of Quebec as much chance as to the young people of western Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks by the member for Longueuil and the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, it would be appropriate to clear the record.
It must be noted that education falls under provincial jurisdiction. It must be noted also that the federal government with direct taxation, invaded a field which is not his. It is by invading sources of revenue to which it had no right that the federal government permitted itself subsequently to enter sources of expenditures also outside its field of jurisdiction.
If the province of Quebec has taken advantage of this act after the other provinces, it is not its fault, it is due to the fact that the principle involved in this field is fundamentally wrong, since the federal government went to look for money where it had no right to look and went into expenses which it was not its business to make.
I believe that this clarification was necessary.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the fact that at the present time, the unemployment insurance commission is asking unemployed citizens in the province of Quebec to take vocational training courses and when those citizens refuse, they lose their unemployment insurance benefits.
Does the Minister of Labour think that is a democratic policy that should be maintained?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I question very much whether this practice takes place. If my hon. friend has instances of a claimant being disqualified for refusing to undertake a training course I would be glad to investigate the matter. I regret that the chief commissioner is not with me tonight but I will be glad to investigate that particular issue.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I think I should bring to the attention of the minister the situation which exists under the winter

works program in certain municipalities. In one municipality in my constituency some of those who applied for unemployment insurance were asked to work on winter works projects and were laid off unemployment insurance. That is one way of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, into winter works projects. Some people who were receiving $36 a week unemployment insurance went to work under the winter W'orks program for $8 a day for three days, carrying branches of trees along the roadside or digging ditches. Yet they were able to receive $36 by staying at home. This amounts to a transfer of funds from one place to another, and people had to work in this way for half the money.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a number of questions in connection with the vocational training scheme of the minister. Certainly it was a plan brought into being by the government of which I had the honour to be the head, and has been tremendously successful, as shown by the statistics given by the minister. However, he delivered a speech the other day in the city of Toronto to the commercial travellers. He was substituting for the Prime Minister on that occasion. He pointed out what a wonderful system this was; that there was assistance for vocational training schools, and he mentioned the plans the present government had. As I listened to a recital of his speech over the radio- it was on T.V. as well-the minister, unintentionally I know, left the impression with his hearers that this indeed had been a plan which was the brainchild of the present government, and had been a tremendously successful undertaking. I mentioned that this, of course, was not done intentionally in any way. It is just one of those coincidences which give evidence of carelessness in the use of language, which is not commonly shown by the minister. In ordinary circumstances, if any of us had been present at the time of this meeting, I am sure that this carelessness in language would not have taken place. And so that the record may be completely correct and up-to-date, I wonder if the minister will tell the committee the total amount which was expended up to April 21, 1963, either by contract or undertaking-the number of new schools contracted to be built under this plan, the number of schools in which renovations were to be carried out, and so on. I should like the minister, too, to bring the committee up to date with regard to what has happened since April 21, 1963-the number of schools which have been contracted for since the present government took over and, in general, 28902-5-3924
Supply-Labour
to give us a bird's eye view of the situation, so that there may be no mistake in this connection.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I certainly regret it, if I gave a false impression to the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it was to the meeting. Had I been there, the misconception would have been corrected.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I spoke in the presence of the former member for Eglinton and I thought he listened with approval to what I said. I took care to mention the time period in giving the statistics of student placements and total capital expenditure. I thought I used a date which brought the program well within the period of the right hon. gentleman's jurisdiction. I certainly would not for a moment attempt to take away any of the credit which the hon. member for Ontario deserves for the development of this program. Indeed, I have taken pains, speaking in Ontario and elsewhere, to refer to the work of the hon. member for Ontario.
I will give as many statistics as I can. First, the capital expenditure program, projects approved from April 1, 1961, to March 31, 1963. The total estimated cost of this program was $507,570,169, of which $323,424,821 was the estimated federal contribution. I have the estimated federal contribution for each of the provinces, as well. I will give them in round figures: Newfoundland, $21 million; Prince Edward Island, $2 million; Nova Scotia, $7 million; New Brunswick, $4 million; Quebec, $23 million; Ontario, $200 million; Manitoba, $4.9 million; Saskatchewan, $8.2 million; Alberta, $36.9 million; British Columbia, $13.5 million; Yukon, $682,000 and Northwest Territories, $64,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Would that be the total amount or the federal contribution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These figures represent the total estimated federal contribution on approved projects up to March 31, 1963. It is noteworthy that in this period the estimated federal contribution to Quebec was $23 million, though to Ontario it was $200 million. As I stated, this disparity does not arise from any disability within the opportunities offered to each and every province under the program. It was because of this outcome-


Gordon Minto Churchill: By that, you mean it is not the fault of the former Conservative government. Is that what those words mean?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman would not expect me to go that far.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are sitting where the minister of external affairs sits, and you have adopted his habit of circumlocution.

Supply-Labour


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have similar figures in respect of capital projects approved up to November 30, 1963 and these, when compared with the figures I have already given, will indicate what has happened since this government took office. The total for Canada is $531,479,925. The federal share is $337,663,741. That, I think, indicates the extent of the program up to the end of March of this year, and the additional projects approved in the period up to the end of November. I think the tables I have are complete but I believe the figures I have already given are sufficient to make the comparison clear and I will not detain the committee further.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for the amplitude of his answer. It indicates that since the present government came to office they have actually expended 5 per cent of the amount the previous government made available.


Jean-Louis Frenette: Mr. Chairman, reference was made a while ago to vocational or professional training. I am glad to inform the house that, in several cases, those training courses were very efficient. As far as I am concerned, I want to thank and congratulate the persons responsible for setting up that program because, in my riding, several men and women have been able to take advantage thereof.	_
But I wonder if it would not be possible to improve the employment facilities for the people who followed those training courses. In fact, I know several workers who, after making tremendous sacrifices to follow that training program and reach a certain level of specialization in some skill, have remained unemployed or, very often, had to be satisfied with working as labourers or taking any job they could find.
A while ago, during the discussion of the national revenue estimates, several hon. members agreed that they had to face many income tax problems.
And now, I think we could say that hon. members also have to face many problems in their relations with employees of unemployment insurance or employment offices in the country.
I realize it is very difficult for managers and employees of unemployment insurance offices to satisfy every unemployed who goes to see them. Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be allowed to say this: I wanted to experience that myself, and, one day, I went incognito to one of our unemployment insurance offices, because my constituents had told me that some officials treated unemployed people in an offhand manner. As I say, I went myself to that particular office, and I

saw, with dismay, that the grievances I had heard were justified. Some of the officials, particularly among the lower ranks, were extremely rude to the unemployed who came to that office.
I feel that the various officials of the Department of Labour, and more particularly officers of the unemployment insurance commission, should act as advisers to people who come to see them, instead of being, first and foremost bureaucrats, who maliciously seek to annoy and embarrass those with whom they are dealing.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for Portneuf. I wonder if his remarks could not be brought to bear on vote No. L-27A relating to the unemployment insurance commission.


Jean-Louis Frenette: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I rushed ahead. It is perhaps because I am a bit too anxious for Christmas to be here, so that we may get some rest. However, I shall resume my remarks when the occasion arises.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, from the music we are hearing tonight there is no doubt we are hearing Christmas, and to hear the minister sing the praises of the former minister is certainly reassuring. I was glad to have the minister put on record that he did not want to take any credit away from his predecessor with regard to the technical training measure. It was certainly reassuring to hear him say that he wanted to pay a special tribute to the hon. member for Ontario for all he has done to prepare our young people to be better equipped for the future. I again thank him for putting this on the record and I wholeheartedly agree with him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
45. Administration ot the Government Employees Compensation Act, $114,000.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member rising on vote No. 45?


William Arnold Peters: Yes. Several problems have come to my attention in relation to the federal compensation act. I know the minister has been very busy with labour matters that he is not normally called on to deal with, but I am sure he has given consideration to some of the problems that will face us with the new areas that are to fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The establishment of two new territories in northern Canada will add to these problems and I believe the time has arrived for the

federal government to provide some leadership in establishing for those areas a model compensation set-up that will be a guide for them when they achieve the status of provinces.
I receive letters about many compensation cases in Ontario and some from Quebec and I was very surprised when I received one a few weeks ago from a workman in Frobisher, who had been home for some time with a broken leg, to find that he was receiving no compensation. I was particularly surprised because in this case the matter of compensation was being handled not by the federal government but by a trust company in Montreal. It seems to me we are going backward a long way when we have trust companies dealing with compensation matters.
We are aware of the difficulties that have arisen in the Northwest Territories in relation to employees there and the fact that in public works contracts it is specified that the Department of Labour will only deal with those cases arising out of works that have been declared to be in the public interest and for the public good. It is surprising, but there are officials in the Department of Labour who will say that a vote of this house providing for a particular project in the Northwest Territories does not qualify that project to be considered to be in the interests of Canada. I would presume that gentleman must be a Conservative now, with a Liberal government, and had been a Liberal previously, with the Conservative government, because he seems to be very perverse in this regard. He is not alone. The Department of Justice and many other departments were involved in this particular case and none of them could come to the conclusion that I thought should be reached. But this does raise the point that there is a great deal of difficulty in establishing jurisdiction in that area.
While this other case was in another labour field the fact that this man had an accident and that it was a compensation case confirms that the whole field needs some examination. I know this is not a large item and that in the whole of Canada employees, including public service employees, are very cautious and safety conscious. An item of less than $3 million a year is not a significant one. However, I would think the minister might like to institute a pilot compensation set-up under federal jurisdiction in order to provide legislation that would assist provinces who might wish to look to Ottawa to bring their own compensation boards up to date.
I believe that in the past it has been necessary to use provincial compensation boards, hospitals and other facilities, but now that we are establishing new areas under
Supply-Labour
federal jurisdiction I think a federal compensation board would serve a purpose not met by any other agency. Therefore I think the minister should consider establishing a model compensation board under federal jurisdiction. The fact that as far as the territories are concerned it would not be in existence too long is no reason to restrict it, but an added incentive to make it as good as possible, so that when provincial compensation boards are established they can take advantage of the farsightedness of the federal government.
I am not expecting the minister to suggest that he is prepared to set up this type of compensation board, but I submit he should give some consideration to it. When the bills to set up the two new territories in northern Canada, the Eskimo one and the other, are brought forward it is my intention to try to have compensation boards established if the federal government has not moved in that field before these territories are established. I suggest that the minister should consider the matter, and if this can be done I am sure the people in these areas will certainly appreciate it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, $45,412,500.
Michael Starr: On a previous occasion the minister said that some 362 new positions were being added to the national employment service. Have these been approved by treasury board, and when does he anticipate they will be filled-in a year, a year and a half,, or two years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The additional personnel have been approved by treasury board. We are actively recruiting now through the civil service commission, and we want to fill the positions just as quickly as the commission gets the people for us.


Michael Starr: I had the experience when we tried to fill 175 positions in the area of placement officers that it took something well over two years before they were all filled. Are these positions in respect of placement officers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a considerable number of employment officers in the establishment and there is provision for special service officers, if that is the term, who would take a more active part in manpower development, training and retraining programs of the employed and unemployed, and who would assist generally in the promotion locally of manpower programs. My hon. friend will appreciate this is a pretty important activity, and that is why we would

Supply-Labour
like to get the recruitment done as quickly as possible. It may be that it will take us longer than we expect and that we will have the difficulty experienced by my hon. friend when he was minister.


Michael Starr: How many of these positions are placement officer positions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The large share of these 362 are employment or placement officers, and maybe 100 for other categories.


Michael Starr: About 100 out of 362?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Roughly 250 placement officers or employment officers.


Michael Starr: What is the present state of the unemployment insurance fund, when does the minister expect it will be depleted, and is he making any provision for a loan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the end of November the amount in the fund was roughly $56 million. We have already made provision for the usual loans, so that we expect we are fully covered for the present fiscal year. It may be we will have a deficit but we are in a position to deal with it.
[Translation^


Jean-Louis Frenette: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the house has a rather heavy program and that everyone is anxious to be on holidays, I shall not repeat what I said a while ago. But, even if I wander a bit from the item before us, I do wish to tell the minister how much I would appreciate it if the job opportunities advertised by the various employment offices were given more elaborate publicity.
Employment offices receive from the Department of Labour, through the usual channels of distribution, notices of job vacancies and they try to bring those opportunities to the attention of workers in the area.
I am wondering whether employment offices are giving enough publicity to such notices so that the unemployed may be made aware of them.
On that matter, I should like to give the example of an office which makes known its employment offers as they should be made known. It is the office of Three Rivers which, I believe, could be held up as a model for all other offices in the province as regards the publicity it gives to the employment offers and the means by which it makes things easier for the unemployed who call at that employment office.
I should like to see all other offices in the province follow the example of the Three Rivers office in order that the unemployed be well informed about the different job opportunities.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just one thing about item No. 50 to the minister responsible for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Section 21 of the act, general principle, says:
That any employment Is insurable, except those exempted under the terms of the act.
Consequently, a little further in the act, there is a long list giving all exempted employment, including agricultural employment.
The act does not say anything more about agricultural employment. In my opinion, that is dealing a bit harshly, even unjustly, with people who would like to do agricultural work. Therefore, I submit that the act should be amended to enable agricultural employment to become insurable because farmers have a hard time finding farm hands.
Many cases have been submitted to me by farmers in my riding, to the effect that they encountered great difficulties in securing farm help because they were not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. I therefore consider that this exemption of farm employees mentioned in the list appended to section 21 of the Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended so as to provide for the coverage of those farm hands by the act.
That is the only remark I wanted to make. [Text]


William Arnold Peters: That would be a good question for the minister to answer, because many of us want to know whether the government intends to place farm labourers under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to ask him, is he aware of the problem in many parts where the inspectors coming into areas to do spot checks classify certain areas as remote areas for employment.
It seems to me that if a man is employed for a period of time in a locality and is obtaining a livelihood there, it is not fair for an inspector to come and say, "This is a remote area and you will not be eligible for unemployment insurance. You are now in a category that will not allow you to draw unemployment insurance." I would sympathize with the minister if an I.B.M. operator went into a lumber area where there was no sizeable plant, and certainly no equipment. That person would be placing himself or herself in a remote area for employment purposes.
This matter has been a real problem in my part of the country; and I do not think there is any difference in an area where employment is obtained for seven or eight months of the year, and is difficult to find the other four months from, for example, those in the fishing industry who cannot go fishing in the off season, and sometimes cannot fish because of weather conditions. I am sure

this is not the general policy of the unemployment insurance office, but the outside inspectors do go into an area with the avowed purpose of knocking off 20 per cent of the unemployment insurance benefactors. I have taken some of these cases through the various steps and have in several cases gone as far as the board of referees. The matter cannot be argued satisfactorily because when it is decided that this is a remote area, the only thing that can be said against it is that it is not a remote area. Going before the board of referees cannot establish any conclusion in these cases. I would like to know whether the minister is considering this matter of remote areas and what changes he proposes to make to correct the abuses-and there are certainly abuses in some areas-in the use of the term "remote area".


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour a subject with which he is very familiar. I refer to the matter of unemployment insurance for farm labourers. I had a bill on the order paper for a number of years, but the reason given to me for nothing having been done in the past was that the Gill committee report, when it was handed down, would make some recommendations and would contain clarification on this point. As I pointed out to the minister not very long ago, the Gill committee report is actually in favour of unemployment insurance payments being made to all unemployed people, if administrative difficulties can be overcome. At that time the minister agreed with my proposition, and said that as soon as the Gill committee report was handed down, this problem would be given serious consideration. I would like again to direct the attention of the minister to this problem, Mr. Chairman, because in my opinion and in the opinion of many people, this is a serious problem, and this is the only section of our labour force that is not covered by unemployment insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, there is a brief remark I have to make. There is also a class of employees who are not covered by unemployment insurance. I refer to the seasonal provincial employees-at least in the case of the province of Quebec.
I would ask the minister to kindly consider the possibility of covering those seasonal employees who, forced to remain unemployed a few months, receive no income during the winter months.
Supply-Labour


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was expecting the minister to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I wanted to ask the minister a question about another aspect of the matter of unemployment insurance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the point made by my hon. friend from Timiskaming, the suggestion was that inspectors would go into a particular area and disqualify workers because they were in a remote area. It seems to me this is a practice we would want to investigate, if in fact it is occurring on any scale, or even at all; because surely if a claimant has created entitlement to benefit, and is in receipt of benefit, other things being equal he ought not to be disqualified because of his residence in a particular area, remote or not. It may be that a worker who has qualified for benefit will move from one area to another and because of that movement has restricted availability of employment, which might render him eligible for disqualification because it brings in the question of test for availability of work. But I would be glad to hear of any cases or further details, and I will have the matter examined.
Perhaps while I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I ought to say a word about the question of farm labour raised by two hon. members. Farm labour is not an insurable occupation at the present time. The Gill committee recommends the exclusion of farm labourers because of administrative difficulties. We expect to be considering the recommendations of the Gill committee next session when they are put into a bill, and hon. members will have a full opportunity of discussing these questions in relation to general coverage, which is another matter raised by the Gill committee.
With respect to the point raised by my hon. friend in connection with seasonal provincial workers, the commission is currently in discussion with the province of Quebec with respect to coverage for provincial employees.


William Arnold Peters: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise this point. There is no disagreement with the minister in the case of a person moving into an area where unemployment is not available in his type of work. However, if he makes his living in that area, he is now being disqualified for two reasons which are very much the same. One is the question of remote area, which is usually coupled with transportation. Perhaps the minister is not familiar with how this is done. A man comes into the area and goes to the unemployment insurance inspector. He answers a number of questions which form,

Supply-Labour
in effect, an affidavit. He will be asked, "Do you have a car? Does your friend have a car? Is there a public conveyance that can take you to such-and-such a place?" Then the inspector will ask, "Isn't it true that transportation facilities here are very limited?" and the man will say, "Yes, that is true". In terms of a series of questions you can elicit almost any kind of answer. This is being done and it establishes transportation difficulties to an employment centre. This question will not be reconsidered even if the claimant moves into the town, where employment might be more readily available. The man may never have worked in that town in his type of job. By going there he may really, as the minister mentioned, be putting himeslf in an area remote from the type of employment he is capable of doing.
These inspectors have done this. I suggest they have done it for the simple reason of eliminating a number of people. It is not widespread, but I believe it has been done in a number of cases. A year ago it was being done to quite an extent. If one takes such a case to the board, it usually results in a number of C.U.B.'s being cited which those appearing before the board have no opportunity of seeing. I have appeared on a number of occasions where women were involved, and usually the C.U.B.'s that were cited referred to pregnant women, and some of the problems they had. In the cases I have had, this has never been a factor. I suggest to the minister that this practice is widespread-I can only speak for my area-and there should be a redefinition in this regard. To be fair, Mr. Chairman, I must say that on the occasions we have brought these cases to the attention of the director of unemployment insurance there has been an investigation, and a satisfactory one. I have been receiving a number of letters recently from unorganized areas in which this is again a factor. I presume this is at the direction of some of the local offices.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I should like to make a short submission on this item. My district of Athabasca contains the air base at Cold Lake. This is a very poor place for employment generally, and sometimes service personnel, artisans in the lower income brackets, find it awkward when they are moved to this air base from bases which are adjacent to large cities. They are accompanied by their wives who have to give up their jobs to go there. I realize that they do so voluntarily, but they are accompanying their husbands and find themselves involved as a result in severe hardship. They run into this difficulty referred to by the hon. member for Timiska-ming. I do not know what the solution is, but I would appreciate it very much if the min-

ister's officials could look into this problem.
I have received several letters in this regard, and I would be pleased to make my files available if necessary.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about this matter of unemployment insurance for farm labour. There are certain classes of farm labour to which quite a bit of security is attached. It would seem to me the department should try to move into that general area and provide coverage for these people. It is a fact that today people who have a job which entitles them to stamps will not take a job on the farm because they would be denied stamps if they did so. Surely, there is some rule that could be brought into play that would take care of this particular situation. I only mention it to the minister now so that if he has some recommendations to introduce at the next session, he can take this problem into consideration.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with unemployment insurance, I think it is appropriate to remind the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) of the conditions of the Canadian loggers who go to work in the states of Maine and Vermont.
Following a motion for the production of papers, in September last, I received certain letters with regard to a possible agreement between the state of Maine and the Canadian government. In fact, in the last letter on record, the social security representative from the state of Maine implied that in the near future, that is early in September, an agreement might be reached between the Canadian government and the state of Maine.
We are now in December. On many occasions, we have asked questions to the minister on this matter and considering that this situation affects more than 6,000 lumbermen in the ridings of Beauce and Dorchester and a few others in the lower St. Lawrence, I feel that we are justified in expecting that the minister will tell us whether negotiations are actually under way. It should be kept in mind that lumbermen have a right to expect that this problem affecting them will be solved a little more promptly.
Mr. Chairman, it was possible to reach an agreement rapidly with our neighbours on the matter of nuclear weapons. I feel, therefore, that after seven or eight years of discussions by both successive governments, and more especially following the information provided last September, when we were given to understand that an agreement was possible, it is strange that no answer has yet been supplied as late as December.
Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Labour tell us this evening whether the nego-

tiations which are under way will result in the signing of an agreement between the Canadian government and the state of Maine concerning Canadian forest workers?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as has been indicated by some previous speakers the minister has mentioned the fact there will be an opportunity early in the next session to discuss some aspects of unemployment insurance. I do not believe any of us expect him to undertake a detailed discussion of the question of unemployment insurance tonight. However, there is one aspect of this question of unemployment insurance and the national employment service administration about which I should like to inquire. I am referring to the general pattern of establishing offices for the servicing of claims, and particularly the national employment service offices.
I have a feeling that there has been a rather rigid formula developed over the years since the commission has been in operation. I am wondering whether, along with that review of the whole operation of unemployment insurance arising out of the Gill report, this sort of thing could be reviewed. I have a particular interest in this matter and I should like to illustrate the point I have in mind by citing a case I have in my own constituency. I know that prior to 1957 in the planning of a public building for Campbell River, provision was made for an office for the national employment service. According to information given to me in answer to a question just before the last election, this place is still available.
I know, too, that no efforts of mine exerted in co-operation with the former minister of labour, and through him to the commission, nor any efforts of the former member for Comox-Alberni resulted in an indication of willingness by the commission to establish an office on either a part time or full time basis in Campbell River. A great many people feel very strongly that the problems of unemployment are aggravated because of the difficulty people have in reaching the employment service. This is emphasized at times by the inaccessibility of the office for filing claims. Using this situation as an example of what I am driving at, I should like to ask the minister to tell us whether there is any review of the whole question of policy for establishing employment offices under way at the present time, particularly from the point of view of making the national employment service a more useful instrument in the elimination of unemployment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In this connection, Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend realizes, the 28902-5-393
Supply-Labour
Gill committee made a proposal to separate the national employment service from the unemployment insurance commission, so that it could become a more effective instrument, more dynamic and more closely linked to the policies for employment programs. This whole question is under consideration, and surely one of the matters that we would want to consider in connection with the possible severance of the national employment service, is how to make the service more effective; and that obviously would entail locations. In that respect, the matter will be under review.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we waited till a few hours before prorogation of the house to study such an important question as unemployment insurance in Canada. It is true that I have only a few words to say on this matter at the present time. However, a matter of this magnitude should have been discussed much earlier in the session, so that every hon. member would have had the opportunity to say what is going on in his riding concerning the administration of unemployment insurance.
Last week I received a letter sent to me from St. Jerome, in the county of Terrebonne, where there was a strike which lasted four months. During the strike employees were paid $12 a week by their union.
Finally the strike was settled. People reported at the unemployment insurance office to ask for their benefits. Then they were told that as long as 80 per cent of employees were not taken back by the industry concerned, they would not get more than what they had received at that time, that is $12 a week paid by their union.
I think that governments should have done something to help those people who had already suffered for four months in claiming the rights they were denied.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point I want to bring to the attention of the minister. I mean the treatment given to the unemployed when they report at the unemployment insurance office.
We have received numerous complaints in that respect. In some offices, people are as welcome as a dog on a putting green. They are treated like numbers. They are instructed to march like soldiers. It seems that an absolutely rigid discipline is imposed. Under such circumstances, I say to the minister that the unemployed suffer enough from being out of work and grappling with the problems of life without employees of federal employment offices and unemployment insurance offices causing them additional troubles.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Now I would have another remark to make concerning conciliation, but since I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house so as to permit adoption of the estimates of the Department of Labour, I suggest to the minister to introduce his estimates much earlier at the next session, because otherwise, I think that we will exercise nevertheless our rights to discuss thoroughly the problem of unemployment insurance in Canada.


Lucien Lamoureux: The item is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Labour.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $2,406,800.
Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is legislation being brought forward tonight? It was on last night's list.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize. I had intended earlier to say that it had been suggested to me that it would better suit the convenience of a number of members if legislation were held over till a little later. I think I indicated to some hon. gentlemen privately that that request had been made, but I am afraid I omitted to explain it to the committee, as I should have done. I hope there will be no objection taken to this course.


Edward Nasserden: What is next?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it might be convenient if I indicated the order in which we would like to go on for as long as we can this evening. After the Department of Veterans Affairs we will take mines and technical surveys and then the remaining item of the Department of Industry and the remaining item of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We would then take the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and then the Department of National Defence. Perhaps that would be all we could hope to get done tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to lengthen the list, but in these private communications which took place I thought transport was fairly high on the list.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Transport was ready to pinch hit at an ealier stage in the evening when I was looking for some of my other colleagues who have now turned up. There are also reasons of convenience why I prefer to take these other departments which I am now indicating.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make a speech this evening in introducing these estimates for the very good reason that they have been dealt with by the committee on veterans affairs, where I gave a brief presentation. My intention this evening is only to express my thanks for the excellent work of that committee, which has again carried on in the tradition which has been developed over the years. I think they have done an excellent job and I want to assure them that their recommendations, as well as those of the veterans groups which have made presentations to them, will be given every consideration when we examine and review the legislation of the department for the next year. When I introduced the estimates to the committee I said at that time that there would be two or three small amendments or adjustments in the amounts of three votes. These are not changes of principle or changes in programs; they are adjustments due to the fact that we were able some eight or nine months after the printed estimates were prepared to make a more accurate forecast and to assess the situation more accurately than could have been possible eight or nine months earlier. We will, of course, move these amendments as the votes come up.
I have not all the officials of the department available because I think most of them have been exposed to the committee. They answered all the questions which were asked at the time. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks.


William Arnold Peters: Supply-Veterans Affairs who has not had an opportunity to do anything about these recommendations.
I make these statements in condemnation ot no one except the leader of the house and those responsible for preparing the order of business. Here is a case where members of voluntary organizations have made their presentations. Members of parliament sitting on a committee have agreed with many of the proposals which were made. Now the officials are waiting for us to take the further steps that are required, and we cannot do it because of the time factor.


Edward Nasserden: I have only a brief word to say, and that is in commendation of the work which this department has undertaken in the past. I wonder if the minister could indicate what plans the department has for the veterans hospital at Saskatoon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I so seldom find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Timis-kaming that I cannot resist the rare opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the point he has made tonight, with the sole exception of his statement that his experience has been the same all through these years. I agree that the minister should make some statement with regard to the future plans of the department, based on the extensive submissions and the recommendations made by the committee.
During the period when I had the good fortune to be associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs, I introduced certain substantial changes in legislation and I did indicate that I thought one of the next steps should be a revision of the Pension Act. The present minister has been in office for several months. He has had the benefit of the committee hearings and he should by now be in a position to let us know what the government has in mind for the veterans of this country. I may caution the hon. gentleman by saying that, as far as I can gather, the veterans of Canada are not very sure what this government intends to do about some of their problems, and perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite should show some signs of activity along that line.
One of the main items which has been before veterans, certainly in these latter years, has been the benefit of the doubt section of the Pension Act. When I was connected with the department we endeavoured to correct that by persuasion. I recall a debate in the house on one occasion when almost all the veteran members of the house participated and talked about the problem of the benefit of the doubt clause. At the committee hearings this year very extensive evidence was introduced to show how that matter had been
dealt with in England where the same problem had arisen, and it seems to me that the minister, for the sake of the veterans of this country, should have said something tonight about the intentions of the government with regard to that particular problem.
Then there is that other section in the Pension Act which causes so much distress to the pension commission in their endeavour to do justice. It concerns servicemen who are now with the regular forces, or their dependants. It is a section in the act which saddles the pension commission with a problem which perhaps should not be a problem for the pension commission, but rather something that should be handled by the Department of National Defence. This again was a matter I had hoped to deal with, and had conditions not changed so fundamentally and so disastrously for the country perhaps it would have been dealt with by this time. But the responsibility now rests on the Liberal government. It is not a partisan matter.
In the one instance there is the problem affecting the veterans of this country under the benefit of the doubt clause and, second, there is the problem that concerns present servicemen and, in the event of their death, their dependants. These problems have to be recognized and faced and something has to be done about them. The minister has said nothing. Granted that these estimates were considered by the veterans affairs committee, and granted that under these circumstances the house will possibly not spend very much time on them, nevertheless in order to avoid spending too much time on these estimates a clear statement from the minister is desirable so that we will not have to ask him such questions or prod him into giving us a review of what the government's intentions are.
There is a third matter which is of very great interest to the veterans of this country. They would like to know the intentions of the government with regard to veterans hospitals. I recall that last spring when the report of the Glassco commission came out with a suggestion that the veterans hospitals be turned over to civilian use, we immediately said: Hands off the veterans hospitals. Subsequently I looked into the matter and I discovered that the officials of the Glassco commission who had written that particular section of the report had ignored the submission made to them by the director of medical services for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the circumstances, therefore, that report cannot be accepted as valid.
To create in the minds of our older veterans any doubt as to the veterans hospitals is in my view very unwise. I have said time and time again since that report was issued that

in so far as our older veterans are concerned nobody wants to deprive them of the services of the veterans hospitals which have served the veterans of this country so well all these years. Everybody realizes, of course, that if there is no further war, and we hope there will not be, the veterans hospitals will be available in time for other purposes, but for our older veterans of the first world war in particular these hospitals are essential. They are also essential, of course, for the veterans of the second world war and Korea, but at the moment the numbers of those veterans who require such attention is not as great as in the case of the veterans of the first world war. I am aware of all the reasons for and arguments about the extra expense involved in looking after our older veterans in veterans hospitals, where the cost per bed is much higher than it would be if they were given attention under other arrangements. I know all the arguments there; but until these other arrangements are made for the older veterans of this country, let us reassure them that their needs will be looked after in our veterans hospitals, and let us reassure their relatives at the same time.
On these three matters I have raised, which were the subject of considerable discussion in the committee on veterans affairs, the minister should say something to the house to inform us what the intentions of the government are. If he will do that I will relieve him of something that has been hanging over his head for eight months, his shabby treatment of a former member of the pension commission. But if he is not going to give us satisfactory answers on these other matters I will revive that matter. I will read into the record my cable to the Prime Minister and his brush-off reply which I have also described as shabby treatment of a veteran of the first world war. Therefore we await the minister's accounting.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: There are two things I am going to say at the moment. The hon. member is perfectly right, of course that the report has only been in my hands a short time. The submissions of the association were also presented to me. I had meetings with most of these groups and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the matter will be under very intensive study and I am going to give these representations every consideration.
As far as Saskatoon is concerned, I am given to understand that tenders are about to be awarded for the new hospital there, so my hon. friend should have the answer to that shortly.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there is one small point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. It is a point that gave me
Supply-Veterans Affairs some pause when I occupied the position he now has. I refer to the matter of the retroactivity of a pension when awarded by the pension commission. I found some difficulty in understanding the principle involved, in that if a veteran applied for a pension, was examined and in the normal course of events was awarded a pension in six weeks or two months time after assessing his case, the pension was then made retroactive for 12 months. Even though the veteran may not have even considered it or had no entitlement 12 months earlier, the pension is paid as of 12 months earlier. I think this is done to compensate more or less for those veterans who apply for a pension, are turned down and then have to go through the appeal procedure which sometimes takes a year, 18 months or more to get a final favourable decision, with the result that they would be penalized, and therefore an average of 12 months was taken. I think basically as the commission now works it would be far more equitable to make the pension award as of the date of the application, rather than the date 12 months prior to the date of the award. If a man has applied and it takes 15, 18 or 24 months for a favourable decision to be reached, the entitlement in effect was as of the date of the application.
There may have been some cases that stretched over three or four years, many years ago, and the rule was adopted then because the officials felt too great a sum of money would be paid to a veteran. But if a man is entitled to it he should get it. It was a wrong principle to limit him to 12 months just because it took a long time to come to the decision which should have been reached in the first place. If a final appeal is favourable, then that means that the original decision should have been favourable. For those reasons it is my earnest submission to the minister that this rule should be reviewed and that the date of the application should be the date from which the award ought to start.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have just two brief points to make. First of all I am a member of the veterans committee, and a very fine appeal was made by the Hong Kong veterans to that committee. I draw this brief to the minister's attention for special consideration. These veterans are the ones gravely affected by the controversial section 70 in the Pension Act concerning benefit of doubt. In my opinion any man who served in Hong Kong and was four years in a Japanese prison camp should certainly get the benefit of the benefit of doubt rule. There is a burden on those of us who did not pay in this very definite manner for our freedom to see to it that these veterans should not be put to the indignity of begging.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
In the absence of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, who is working very hard in the committee and in the house seeking a judicial review of the administrative boards in this connection, I would again like to draw the minister's attention to the presentation by Lord Denning, chief justice of England, which I believe is written into the minutes of the committee meetings. I do not think one could cite a higher authority on judicial matters, and he is quite open and free in his support of a judicial review of all points of law, whether or not an appeal is spelled out in the covering statute.


Mr. Thompson:: I would just like to add my voice in support of what the previous speaker has mentioned concerning Hong Kong veterans. One of the greatest tragedies of war involves those who suffer injuries that cannot be measured in terms of loss of limb or physical wounds. It is difficult for any of us to realize what those veterans went through during their years of imprisonment, and I believe there is not a single group of veterans so worthy of special consideration as they are.
There is no special item in the regulations which applies to them, but in many cases they are more worthy than some of those who probably have less difficulty fitting into the regulations. Therefore I urge that the minister give very careful consideration to the responsibility our nation owes these people who went over there, poorly equipped and probably poorly trained, to meet the type of struggle they had to take part in, and then go through years of imprisonment.
The second matter I wish to mention concerns war veterans allowances. I believe the maximum casual earnings allowed for those who are entitled to these allowances are $900 a year. In many cases, combined casual earnings supplemented by war veterans allowances do not provide veterans with sufficient to maintain the standard of living which we all agree a man is entitled to in this day and age. It would not cost the department anything to permit an increase in the maximum amount of casual earnings, and I believe this is a point very worthy of mention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sure the hon. member for Red Deer would not like to leave the impression that the people who served in Hong Kong were poorly trained. Those regiments were organized at the beginning of the war. The Winnipeg Grenadiers, whom I knew so well, were mobilized in September 1939. They were well officered and the ranks were well trained. Their problem was shortage of equipment when they reached Hong Kong. They put up a magnificent fight against very 
heavy odds, and those who survived and suffered in the Japanese prison camps deserve special treatment from a grateful country. Vey few of them have recovered from the suffering they went through. I hope the hon. member will not mind if I just make that slight correction to his remarks, because they were a well trained body of troops and they fought magnificently.


Robert Norman Thompson: I did not intend any reflection on the type of training or the degree of training they had at home, but certainly they were not trained for the type of fighting they had to face. They expected attack from the sea, and they had to fight an entirely different type of warfare. This is not a time for controversy over whether they were trained or equipped. The main point is that they deserve special consideration, and I think we are all agreed on that.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the debate on the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which amount to $335,000,000, I believe it is appropriate for me, like the hon. members who preceded me, to make a few remarks.
It is easy to realize that the expenditures of that department are rather sizeable, since they total $335,000,000. However, if we consider the objectives for which they are intended, we must admit that those who took part in the two world wars as well as the Korean conflict surely deserve all the consideration of the Canadian parliament and their country, for they were called upon to defend us. That is why I feel that it is certainly appropriate to pass those votes, even if they are very considerable, in order to avoid some criticisms of the department by veterans of world war I.
I am not sure whether the minister is aware of the fact that some veterans receive a meagre pension, which is not even the equivalent of 50 per cent of the present cost of living. None the less, veterans are entitled to a pension.
As for the pension itself, I do not know exactly according to what standards it is established. In any case, several veterans of my constituency complain that they do not receive enough to honour their commitments, and this, at a time they have reached old age and can no longer hold a position in view of their state of health, which was considerably affected during their service in world wars I and II. Moreover, I know of other veterans who returned from war with disabilities but who, during the first year after their discharge from the army, did not seem too badly affected as far as their occupation was concerned. Now, after three or four years

in civilian life, they find that their health is seriously handicapped and, then, they experience tremendous difficulties in being admitted to the class of veterans entitled to a reasonable pension.
I believe the minister should deal more seriously with such cases and, as far as possible, grant them a more generous pension, and this, in order that those veterans may be in a position to live more becomingly in their country. Furthermore, I submit that the department should see to it that veterans have adequate housing, because they have sacrificed a part of their life on the battlefields.
I think they should be given much more than what they get today, a preference when an administrative job has to be filled in the country. Thus, I think it would be possible to employ many more veterans who do not ask for more than to earn their livelihood. Unfortunately, their health is affected, they cannot take any kind of job. I think the department should give them priority as veterans in many areas where their energy could be used.
Now, I should like to point out to the minister another aspect of his department which I think is very important. I refer to the lot of veterans' widows. I have very often exchanged correspondence with the minister on that matter.
In my own riding, several veterans' widows are complaining today that people do not seem to be willing to heed their representations, because these widows do not know how to submit them. In brief, they do not know where they should apply for information they absolutely need in order to take advantage of the continuance of their husbands' pensions as veterans' widows.
I hope that after the many sittings of the veterans committee held this fall, numerous steps will be taken so that, at the next session, the Department of Veterans Affairs can bring forward something new to improve that act.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I propose that item No. 25 be reduced by an amount of $250,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20. Treatment services-medical research and education, $419,000.
Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for just a moment on this item. Before commencing my remarks I would congratulate the minister on his inheritance of an excellent department, excellently administered, and I hope the work that was carried out by his predecessors continues in the future for the benefit of the veterans of this country.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Chester MacRae: Item 20 deals with medical research and education and it is noted that the amount is $419,000. The details, which are shown on page 453, indicate that for medical research itself the vote has been raised from $80,000 to $130,000. When Dr. Crawford appeared before the committee on veterans affairs I questioned him on the item of medical research, especially in the field of mental illness. To me this is vitally important, as I think it must be to many who have seen the broken minds of those men who served in Canada's wars. I first became interested in this matter early in world war II and I had occasion to visit Ste. Anne's military hospital, where one could see these men. It was depressing to see the men who had been bodily wounded, but it was even more depressing to see those men whose minds had been broken in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 and who were still fighting their battles.
I became more deeply interested a few years later when a young man who served under my command and was decorated for gallantry was hospitalized at the end of the war for battle exhaustion so severe that for the rest of his life-he was then 19 years of age-until the time he dies he will remain in hospital. He was so battle exhausted that he could never go back to his home, to his family or to his friends. I would suggest that the minister should give very special thought in the future to the whole field of research into mental illness.
Dr. Hans Selye, the famous physician, is doing a tremendous amount of research in this whole field. His viewpoint is that stress and strain are the basic causes of most of the illnesses which beset mankind. If this is so, the men who served in battle in Canada's wars, have more than anyone else undergone stress and strain, and this calls for some consideration at the hands of this nation. I suggest to the minister that as the years go by his department will find that men who would perhaps have lived much longer and would have led much easier and happier lives will break down because of what was popularly known in world war II as battle exhaustion. This condition received much more humane treatment in world war II than it did in world war I, when a man who had been shell-shocked was considered to be a coward, and such men were sometimes shot as a result.
I commend this matter to the attention of the minister, and I hope that next time he presents his estimates he will be able to report to us that much more than is detailed in this vote has been spent in the whole broad

Supply-Veterans Affairs field of research into all types of mental illness, especially as it applies to battle exhaustion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Treatment services-hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $2,599,000.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, after securing the necessary information, I move that the item No. 25 be reduced by $250,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Mr. Favreau moves that vote 25 of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs be reduced by $250,000. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
30. Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for prosthetic and related services, $1,435,200.
John Chester MacRae: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to delay the passage of the minister's estimates. They are important. They are, of course, the estimates of the previous administration and we are now looking towards prorogation. I wish to speak very briefly on this item. The minister will know, when he reads the report of the veterans affairs committee, that there is therein a recommendation that the prosthetic services of the department be made available to all Canadians. I realize that the minister will be giving this recommendation his consideration in due course.
The point was made by Dr. Crawford that perhaps adequate prosthetic service was not available throughout most of our country. Well, that is true but only up to a certain point. Mr. Chairman, there are in this country a number of private prosthetic makers who do an excellent job. We are a free enterprise country. Also, let us keep in mind that we do not want this service to be any less than it is now for the veterans of this country. I would ask the minister to look carefully at this recommendation before taking this particular branch of our veterans service into the welfare state towards which we seem to be headed.
45. War veterans allowances and civilian allowances, $86,244,000.


Guy Favreau: I move that vote No. 45 be reduced by $700,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


William Arnold Peters: We would like to know why there is this large reduction.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: As I explained in the committee and at the beginning of my estimates, this is quite a large vote amounting to $86 million. An assessment was made some eight or nine months after the book of printed estimates was available. The requirements during the year indicated that this lesser amount would be required to meet the commitments. There is no change in principle or policy involved at all.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the minister of the promises which were made to the veterans when they were soldiers in the 1939-45 war, while they had, in Europe, a visit from the minister of national defence, Colonel Ralston, who said to them: Young men, fight with courage and bravery and when you go back to your country, Canada, you will never suffer again poverty in the midst of plenty and you will be treated-as we say in French-"aux petits oignons"; you will be respected by your country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the veterans' benefits in many cases are not sufficient to allow them to live decently. I know that the minister cannot change his estimates at this time, even though he introduces a reduction of $700,000; but when parliament meets again in 1964, I hope that the government will take into account the needs of the veterans and of their widows, in every respect.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
60. Burials and memorials, $1,691,500.
William Arnold Peters: I am interested in this item. Perhaps the minister does not have the information I require at hand, and perhaps he could supply it later. I had a request from my areas, and I am sure the same situation applies in other areas, for some type of perpetual care to be supplied to cemeteries in which veterans are buried, both enemy and allied. At the time I was led to believe the benefits of the national war graves commission had been made available to cemeteries for prisoners of war. I am just wondering if sufficient time has elapsed to allow that work to be done under this arrangement. If the minister does not have the information, it is quite all right, but I would appreciate it if he would look into this question of the maintenance of war graves in this country in relation to the arrangements that were made earlier.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: May I take advantage of the kindness of the hon. gentleman to suggest that I might dig into the matter and report to him at a later date?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
75. Administration expenses, $2,592,200.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggested earlier to the minister that if he would give a statement to the committee concerning some of the issues raised on item No. 1, I would refrain from drawing the attention of the committee to the treatment he afforded a first world war veteran immediately on taking office. The minister gave no statement. I simply record the fact that I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister of this country on May 8 to this effect:
When your government assumed office on 22 April there were two vacancies on the pension commission. A third vacancy was created on 1st May by the action of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I repeat my request for the immediate reinstatement of McKay to correct the imbalance in the representation of first world war veterans on the commission and in the representation of western Canada.
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
X am in receipt of your telegrams, one sent to London and one sent to my office here, concerning the decision of the Minister of Veterans Affairs not to renew the appointment of former commissioner McKay of the Canadian pension commission on the completion of his term which expired on April 30 of this year.
I do not believe that this is a matter in which I should interfere with the decision of the responsible minister.
I consider that to be shabby treatment of a veteran of this country who gave service in two world wars and who served in the trenches in the first world war at the battle of Passchendaele. Anyone who served at the battle of Passchendaele will understand the circumstances, and why I speak strongly in favour of this man.
More important than that, sir, is the fact that on May 17 I asked a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is recorded on page 14 of Hansard and reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should like to ask him whether he has filled the two vacancies on the pensions commission which were existing when the government took office on April 22.
The minister replied in these words:
To my knowledge there were no vacancies on the commission at that time.
This statement misled the house, because there were two ad hoc vacancies on that commission. I asked a supplementary question in the following words:
In view of the fact that there were two vacancies on the pensions commission when the government
Supply-Veterans Affairs
took office on April 22, I should like to ask the minister why he found it necessary, as he stated, to create a vacancy-
This was by way of a letter and a press release.
-when those two were in existence: and will he immediately correct the imbalance on the pensions commission and reinstate Mr. McKay so that representation may be restored for first world war veterans and for western Canada?
He replied as follows:
I have given the hon. gentleman a complete and truthful answer in writing to this question.
I maintain, sir, that the house was misled by that statement. There were two ad hoc vacancies on that commission when the minister was appointed, and he then created a third. He raised the issue of the non-representation of various parts of this country and tried to confuse the issue. I say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Prime Minister of this country treated very shabbily a veteran of this country who deserved better from this government and from his country.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I expected, of course, that the hon. gentleman would have carried out the threat he raised earlier, and that is one of the reasons I allowed him to. Second, I will not repeat the argument except to tell him that the statements I made were truthful and categorical and they remain so. To attempt to suggest that an injustice was done here means that, if there was, then I was only correcting an earlier injustice which took place a year before. I reinstated the balance of the commission because the hon. gentleman unbalanced it. I said that at the time. I still think that is the fact, and as far as I am concerned the matter rests there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister said that on the first occasion-


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and he says "and the matter rests there". The veteran has been let out. The minister said there is no imbalance on the commission, that there are no vacancies. I say again that he is misleading the house. There were two ad hoc vacancies on the commission at the time he took office.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I will not take very long to make my point. In this furore or difference of opinion which has developed between the minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I recognize that a question of principle is involved. I felt that there should be protection against this sort of thing and I put on the order paper a bill, Bill No. C-35, described as an act to amend the Criminal Code (a purge for the king's evil). In this sense I just want to define

Supply-Veterans Affairs what "king's evil" means. A lot of members have come to me and have asked whether "king's evil" is scrofula, which is some kind of skin disease. In this particular case the king's evil is the arbitrary power of the king, in this sense the crown, to dismiss people at a moment's notice. It is a failure to renew an appointment which the incumbent might expect to be renewed, without giving notice of any kind.
Therefore I would advocate to all hon. members the purpose of this bill. If it had applied to this case it would have meant that the member whose appointment was not renewed would have had six months' notice. This is one of the things we should consider, that when any gentleman is drawn into the public service on an appointment basis, most of which appointments offer a high salary, and they devote three, five, perhaps seven years to their appointment, when a shift in government comes, for example, they may be dropped very quickly. I can think of some examples on the other side. A Mr. Buchanan was dropped very abruptly from the tariff board by the Conservative government. This often results in a tremendous shock to the person concerned. No matter what his partisanship may be, the bottom drops out of his economic base.
In considering people in the pension commission at the present time, those who were Conservative appointees, when their time ends, must expect to be dropped. But what about the man doing a good job on the commission? I am sure there are several of them doing a good job, whatever may be their political allegiance. I think the best way to protect them and to prevent the kind of situation developing evidenced by the obvious disagreement between the minister and the former minister is to put something like this bill I have proposed on the statute books, making it a requirement to give six months notice when an appointment will not be renewed. I leave this with hon. members as a suggestion, because it is quite apparent my bill will not be debated in this particular session of parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the bill would have been in the house a few days ago, had the hon. member been available. I came down with all this material intending to support him, for I like the idea of six months' notice. All Mr. McKay was given was 24 hours' notice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
115. Veterans benefits including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,044,600.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That vote No. 115 be reduced by $65,000.


Mr. Clancy:: I should like an explanation of this deduction.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I gave the answer a little while ago. A later assessment some eight or nine months after the printing of the estimates allowed for more accuracy. There is no change in principle or policy.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I agree, as long as you speed up the queen's printer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This concludes and completes the estimates of veterans affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: May I express my thanks to the committee for assisting me so expeditiously.


William Arnold Peters: Ten thirty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is out of the chamber for a few minutes, could we take the lone item of Department of Trade and Commerce and dispose of it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
L63b. Acquisition in the 1963-64 and 1964-65 fiscal years of uranium concentrates in accordance with contracts to be entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada with Rio Algom Mines Limited, Denison Mines Limited and Faraday Uranium Mines Limited; and to provide in the current and subsequent fiscal years for the cost of stockpiling uranium concentrates purchased under the said contracts, $20,000,000.
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: That concludes the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William Arnold Peters: Ten thirty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether, in view of the general desire of the committee to get on with the business so that we can finish this week, there could not be an understanding that we would sit long enough at least to take the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys which have already been considered, according to the records I have, for three and a half hours and which, I imagine, will not require much more time.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys



DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

[Stage Direction]
Administration services-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the panAmerican institute of geography and history, $1,290,100.
Mr. Benidickson:: We were considering item one, I think, on November 15 and I believe at that time the hon. member for Port Arthur had the floor. I have spoken to him in the meantime and I think we have agreed that I shall see the prospectors association of Port Arthur on my next visit to Port Arthur, which will perhaps be in the very near future.
With respect to some of the items which were brought up, I think I could very well, with the consent of the committee, write replies by letter to the hon. members who spoke. I see my predecessor in office is here. He was not available last night in the committee but I paid him the compliment of saying I was really advancing his estimates. If he has any suggestions to make I shall be glad to reply to them. But apart from that, I think we had a good discussion on November 15 and, with the consent of the committee, I assure everyone that although some of the members who spoke that night are not here this evening, I will see that my officials analyse with great care the recommendations they made, and we will reply to them in writing.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief since it is getting late.
However, I should not want to let this occasion go by without first congratulating my successor, whose graciousness is well known and who is doing such a fine job. I do not think my friends opposite will mind my saying that.
I should also like to pay tribute to the late Marc Boyer, the lamented deputy minister who passed on suddenly while I was his minister. His demise was a great loss not only to the officials who were associated with him in the department, but to the people in the Canadian mining industry who came in contact with him. A man of great competence, he was always in for those who sought the development of that important industry. We greatly deplore such an untimely death.
As for the present deputy minister and his assistant, I know that they carry out their duties with great competence, and I commend them for it.
I think that the minister has realized the importance of having within his department a supply of scientists and technicians who are second to none in knowledge among other
world scientists and who are responsible for the tremendous progress accomplished by one of our most important industries.
As the minister pointed out, the estimates now being considered have been prepared in great part by the Conservative administration, and I could hardly object, of course, to the projects covered in those estimates. But since the budget of this department relates mostly to industrial research, I suggest to the minister that he should certainly not yield to the pressures that must have been brought to bear by his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in order to further reduce his estimates. I know that the minister, who has the welfare of his departmental officials at heart, and more especially the country's development, will use his great influence, not only to maintain the estimates at their present level, but even to increase them so as to improve the outstanding services provided by the various divisions of the department.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, allow me to say that the department and particularly the mines branch renders important services to the mining industry. However, in my opinion, these services should be given more publicity, and this not only to enable the mining industry to make use of them, because it does so quite freely, but also in order that prospectors and small people of the mining industry from the grass roots of the mining industry, as we say, be better acquainted with the services of the mines branch.
In this connection, I agree with the proposal made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), to the effect that the department should tangibly support the very important work of the prospector because he is at the basis of the mining industry and hence of the discovery of this important source of wealth for our country. Therefore, I ask the minister to find concrete means to assist that very important category of our miners.
Mr. Chairman, I think the whole question of industrial research in this country should be reconsidered, and I would go as far as to suggest that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, where there is a nucleus of scientists and specialists, be made the centre of all research services in the federal government. In my opinion, it is more than time to centralize those research services, and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is the ideal place to achieve such a concentration.
If the government undertakes the re-organization of the public service, as suggested by the Glassco commission, it will perhaps establish a department of research, the heart
6184	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys of which, if I may put it that way, should be the present Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to add one more point to the minister's consideration of his meeting with the prospectors. I appreciate that he intends to get in touch with the very active prospectors association at the lakehead. I have mentioned before that the minister of mines in the Ontario government at the present time is from the northwest section of Ontario, from the riding of Port Arthur. The minister knows him. He is a man who is very much in touch with mining developments. At the present time he is promoting a silver "come back" in our area. Now that we have two ministers of mines who come from the big prospecting country, I suggest it is a perfect time for them to get together, and I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would consider having a conference with the Ontario minister of mines specifically to see if Ontario and the federal government cannot devise a program which would be of mutual interest and which, perhaps, could also be applied to other provinces.
I am sure Saskatchewan, which has a program for prospectors at the present time, would be interested in joining in. The lure of the big strike, the dream of making it rich, of making it big through a mineral discovery is one of the dreams in Canada that to me is much more worth while than the idea of striking it rich in the Irish sweepstakes. I think it has real consequences for our economy. We need to do something about refurbishing the dream of a lot of men who have fallen behind the kind of scientific and technical advance that more and more is turning prospecting into something that is really in the hands of the very large corporations with great technical resources and geological experts, such as the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to say immediately that I have had two recent conferences with the minister of mines of Ontario. This subject is another on which we would be very glad to collaborate, with the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: One question.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he has received a request from the province of Quebec and from the province of Newfoundland to set once for all the boundaries of Labrador and New Quebec-


because the federal government often steps in, for instance in the field of transport which concerns two, three, four, ten provinces-and as this matter concerns two provinces, I would like to ask him if he has received a request or if he intends to invite the representatives from those two provinces to Ottawa to settle for good this problem which has been pending for many years.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, since I have become minister I do not recall that I have received an official letter from either province, but our position has been stated in the house at this session of parliament. We will be very glad to render the assistance available from our officials to either or both provinces, but I think both must make the request.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question?
Does the minister intend to ask representatives from the two provinces to come to Ottawa in order to find a final solution?


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: I call it 10.30, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that if we are not interested in ourselves we should at least be courteous to the staff and let them have a certain amount of rest before they have another hard day. If we cannot run our own business properly, let us at least help them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to be as considerate and courteous as I possibly could be to every element in the opposition, but I do not think anyone will take it amiss if I say it seems to me that the hon. member, who has taken at least a third of the whole time during the day, is taking a rather lot upon himself by making it possibly necessary for the officials for whom he is expressing consideration to have to come to work during Christmas week when, if we would get on with our work today, tomorrow and Saturday, they would be able to enjoy their holidays and so would the rest of us. I appeal to the hon. gentleman, to whom all of us have listened with the greatest courtesy and politeness whenever he has spoken today, and who has been treated very well by other hon. members, to reciprocate the co-operation he himself has received.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I am one who has taken up none of the time today and I wish

to express my strong disapproval of the inconsiderate manner in which the house leader has tried to encourage us to extend the hours without any regard for the health or welfare of those people who have to remain on duty in the interpreting booths. I think it is disgraceful.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. member, who represents a mining community, that we are dealing with mining estimates. Last week I dealt with some of the remarks the hon. member for Timiskaming made then. May I say that I dealt in the most pleasant fashion with members from all over the country who are interested in mining. The hon. member's remarks were accepted well, in proper parliamentary form, and I think he might consider putting through these estimates.


Colin Cameron: Ten thirty.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks that have been made I would certainly be glad to co-operate if the minister will ask that the estimates of his department be accepted in total.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it would be the wish of the committee to accept these estimates, there having been nearly four hours discussion of them, we would be quite agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How many millions did we vote in 20 seconds?


Lucien Lamoureux: This completes the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader three questions with regard to the business for tomorrow.
The first is, would he so arrange the business that we could have answers to the written questions, of which 60 remain on the order paper, and unless they are answered tomorrow I presume they will die there. The second question is, what legislative items are still to be considered, and will he call those first tomorrow? Then my third question is, what estimates will be taken up tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can propose, but it is quite obvious that is as far as I can go. So far as the questions are concerned we had questions answered yesterday-I have almost lost track of the days-yes, yesterday. I would doubt if there are many more answers available but I would be quite glad, when
Business of the House
we have concluded the estimates and sent the appropriations bill over to the other place, if the house would agree at that time to have questions called, to give any answers that by that time are available to any of the questions on the order paper.
With regard to legislation, as I indicated last night there had been some question about whether the government would have to make some suggested changes in the legislation with respect to the world's fair. We have now reached the conclusion that the proposal that is on the order paper is the one we would like to recommend to the house, and therefore we would ask the house to consider both the resolution and the bill tomorrow. There is no difficulty about that because the bill stands for second reading, owing to some fortunate Speaker's decision in, I think, 1913; but I would hope we could have the debate wholly on one or the other. I would suggest the bill might be preferable.
There is also a notice which has been put on the paper of a resolution preceding a bill which, as a result of such consultations as we have been able to have through the usual, and some more than usual channels, I believe will be generally acceptable to the house. If, when hon. members look at their Votes and Proceedings tomorrow and see this notice, they indicate that they are prepared to proceed expeditiously with it, the government would be glad to bring it forward, and I am led to believe that if it was acceptable to the house, it would then be possible to deal by agreement with a large number of private bills that still stand on the order paper.
There is no other legislation except those two matters and the private bills I referred to, that the government feels any obligation about. There are of course quite a number of public bills, and I believe there is one other private bill and, if there is any time after the appropriations bill, it has been suggested that some time might be devoted to a further consideration of that bill. That is something I personally would like to recommend to the house when the time comes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Which bill is the minister referring to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a bill in the name of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Portage-Neepawa.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I stand corrected. The hon. member himself is from Portage la Prairie.
There are still estimates of nine departments to be completed and I cannot be quite sure of the order in which they will be called because one or two ministers, and particularly my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have other preoccupations

Business of the House tomorrow of a pretty urgent character. But as I see it now, the order in which we would like to call them is first, the Department of Industry, which has relatively little left; then the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, where no items have been passed but where there has been quite an extended debate; then the Department of National Defence, most of the items of which have been dealt with, but there are a few items still standing; then the Department of Transport, most of the items of which have been dealt with but there are quite a number of items still standing; then the Department of External Affairs which of course has been considered carefully in the special committee and
I	believe was considered for one evening in the house, but in which no item has yet been passed.
There is an item left over in the department of northern affairs and we would work it in at some convenient time among the latter estimates. Then there are the estimates of the Speaker and the Department of Finance, and my own estimates which have not yet been considered at all. I think they would be kept until the last, in the order which I have given, unless there are some very strong reasons for changing the order.
When that has been completed, so far as I can see the business of the house for the session which began on May 16, 1963, so far as the government is concerned, would be completed.
The Minister of Industry reminds me that it is various agencies within his responsibility which have to be dealt with, but that the department itself has been disposed of. That is a technical correction of some importance. Whether it will be possible to do all that business in one day I do not know, but it does raise the question of what kind of hours the house is prepared to sit.
If there is no understanding about the matter we would take the public business from
II	to 1, from 2.30 to 5, and from 7 to 10.30. I think it is perfectly obvious to every hon. member that we could not possibly complete the business in those hours. I would hope, particularly now that the hon. member for Port Arthur was able to explain the king's evil to us this evening, that there might be a disposition to forgo the private members' hour, which would make quite a difference to the day.
The government would be very happy, and I do not think there would be much objection from the staff of the house, if we could agree, from the time we start in the morning-and every effort would be made to accommodate hon. members at their convenience in this, and to accommodate the staff-to sit without a break until some time in the evening when a

motion to adjourn would be made. I would certainly be only too ready to undertake that the motion to adjourn would be made not later than eleven o'clock, and certainly not later than twelve o'clock.
If that is not agreeable, perhaps we could at least have a definite understanding that if the business is not completed tomorrow we would meet on Saturday at eleven o'clock, and have the same rules apply to our proceedings as apply on Friday, except there would be no private members' hour. Perhaps I could have some expressions of view on this question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to tomorrow we are quite prepared to meet at 11 and sit continually until some adjournment hour later that evening, and our preference would be to complete the business tomorrow if that could possibly be done. We are prepared for a Saturday sitting if this fails.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I really do not think we have any right to keep staff here from ii in the morning until 10.30 or 11 at night without a break, no matter what the Secretary of State says. Translators, Hansard reporters, messengers and others have to be on the job during that period almost continually, and I think it is a most inhumane type of treatment to impose on any group of people. I do not think it is necessary, and I am sure that the longer we have, the more some people will waste time.
I think if we follow the time table we had today, maybe if we see we are going along pretty rapidly in the afternoon we could dispose of the supper hour, but we are certainly prepared to come back on Saturday. I think it would be better to handle this with decent hours and not kill the staff, rather than try to do it all with indecent haste and have a lot of people played out on Saturday morning.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, our group has no objection at all to the sitting hours proposed by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). However, I would suggest he asks personally whether the staff has any objections. If not, I do not see why we should not go on sitting according to the schedule suggested by the Secretary of State. In the circumstances, we are ready to do it, and even to sit Saturday if necessary.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, are also prepared to co-operate with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and the government with regard to the suggested hours for tomorrow. We are assured that arrangements will be taken so that the staff may be replaced alternatively during the lunch and supper hours. Consequently, we are prepared to agree to these sitting hours

so that we may complete consideration of the estimates in order for the house to prorogue as soon as possible.
It is strange to note that the opposition to that schedule comes precisely from those who are delaying the passing of those estimates, rather inconsiderately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might perhaps form a consensus from what I have heard, without trying to be invidious in any way, it seemed to me there was absolutely no objection to sitting on Saturday if it were absolutely necessary. I would like to have that clearly understood first. If that is the case, I think perhaps I might make a modified suggestion. It would be that we take one hour for lunch tomorrow, from one o'clock to two o'clock; that we take the private members' hour for government business, and that we make no decision about the supper hour at all and see what progress has been made and what the prospects are, because I think if the staff thought they did not have to come back on Saturday they would be glad to provide the services during the supper hour tomorrow. But I think there is something in what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said, that if it becomes certain by that time that there is to be a sitting on Saturday anyway, it might perhaps be desirable to have a break; and I hope it is clearly understood that we would sit, without any question, until eleven o'clock in the evening.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to any of these arrangements. I hope there is no impression left here that any party in this house is disregarding the staff of this institution. I am relying on the house leader to make the necessary arrangements for the staff; and if the situation becomes impossible, we will be satisfied with his judgment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been observing parliament, in it and around it, for a quarter of a century. If we manage to end this session without having one day of continuous sitting, I think it will be just about the first session that has
Business of the House ever been ended without that having been done. It is not that I mind setting a precedent, if we can do it. I hope it is understood, then, Mr. Speaker, that we will meet tomorrow at eleven o'clock; we will adjourn from one o'clock to two o'clock; we will take the private members' hour; we will consider before six o'clock, through the usual channels, whether we want to sit between six o'clock and seven o'clock; we will come back at seven o'clock; we will sit till eleven o'clock, and if we have not concluded our work, we will start our sitting on Saturday at eleven o'clock and complete it, I hope, before too long that day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the minister means when he says "take the private members' hour"? Does he mean take it for government business?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house will sit tomorrow at the times and hours suggested by the Secretary of State?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: I hope, Mr. Speaker, there is not any pressure with regard to sitting until eleven o'clock. I hope the Secretary of State, if he says eleven o'clock, will not put up this tirade at that particular hour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that unless the hon. member for Timiskaming rises and asks us to sit after eleven o'clock tomorrow night, I will not ask.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we should also have it noted, just to get it all together that we are agreed to the Saturday sitting if necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed, as far as the Saturday sittings are concerned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being seventeen minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day (for amendments see text):]

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Administration services-
Departmental administration-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the PanAmerican institute of geography and history, $1,290,100.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and equipment, including common-use field survey equipment, $304,600.
10. Explosives Act administration, $104,500.
15. Mineral resources division, $424,100.
Surveys and mapping branch-
25. Branch administration including a grant of $1,000 to the Canadian institute of surveying and photogrammetry, $197,000.
30. Geodetic survey of Canada, $1,119,400.
35. International boundary commission including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the United States government of the cost of binding annual reports and maintaining boundary range lights, $102,900.
Topographical surveys-
40. Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,002,800.
45. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $87,000.
50.	Legal surveys and aeronautical charts, $796,600.
51.	Provincial and territorial boundary surveys including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of the provincial governments of the costs of the surveys, $300.
60. Map compilation and reproduction, $1,628,100.
Marine sciences branch-
70. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international hydrographic bureau, $6,001,800.
75. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,100,000.
Geological survey of Canada-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the cost of the geological liaison office, British Commonwealth scientific conference, London, England, and $75,000 for grants in aid of geological research in Canadian universities, $6,191,000.
85. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works land and equipment, $265,800.
Mines branch-
90.	Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the cost of the commonwealth committee on mineral processing and $35,000 for grants in aid of mining and mineral processing research in Canadian universities, $4,677,700.
95. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $464,200.
Geographical branch-
100. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the Canadian permanent
committee on geographical names and the national committee for Canada of the international geographical union, Canada's fee for membership in the international geographical union and a grant of $500 to the Canadian association of geographers, $554,300.
Dominion observatories-
Dominion observatory, Ottawa and field stations-
105. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the national committee for Canada of the international astronomical union, Canada's fee for membership in the international astronomical union and a grant of $3,500 to the royal astronomical society of Canada, $1,722,000.
110. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $495,000.
Dominion astrophysical observatory, Victoria, B.C.-
115.. Administration, operation and maintenance, $217,900.
120. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $60,600.
General-
125. Purchases of air photography and the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, $510,000.
130. Polar continental shelf project, $1,562,500.
B-Dominion coal board-
135. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $131,500.
140. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $14,721,400.
145. Subventions in respect of eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $1,600,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
L63c. Acquisition in the 1963-64 and 1964-65 fiscal years of uranium concentrates in accordance with contracts to be entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada with Rio Algom Mines Limited, Denison Mines Limited and Faraday Uranium Mines Limited; and to provide in the current and subsequent fiscal years for the cost of stockpiling uranium concentrates purchased under the said contracts, $20,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement, and Veterans' Land Act-
100. Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, and grants to veterans settled on dominion lands in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and Naitonal Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $115,000.
Terminable services-
118a. To provide, notwithstanding the children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, that Sharon Anne Isted, daughter of the late Sgt. William G. Isted, who was killed on the 22nd day of January, 1944 while serving on leave without pay from the Royal Canadian Air Force as an instructor with a civilian training organization operated under the British commonwealth air training plan, be deemed to be a student on and from the 1st day of September, 1961 within the meaning of the said act, $1.

119a. To deem ex-Gunner John Ausborn Taylor, notwithstanding section 248 of chapter 43 of the statutes of Canada, 1950, to have been honourably discharged from the Canadian Army (active) on the 3rd day of July, 1946, $1.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
45d. To provide effective October 1, 1963 and during the twelve-month period thereafter, that a pension paid pursuant to the Old Age Security Act be deemed for purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, and Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, to be $55 per month, $1.
Canadian pension commission-
80. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $174,829,000.
85. Gallantry awards-world II and special force, $26,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
90. Administration of Veterans' Land Act: soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,198,900.
95. Upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $58,800.
Loans, investments and advances-
L80. Purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and protection of security under the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act, $41,500,000.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
57a. To authorize payment of an allowance to Mrs. Cecile P. Arcand, widow of Louis George Arcand, a recipient of war veterans allowance, in an amount equal to the amount that she would otherwise receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, as amended from time to time, if her marriage to Louis George Arcand had fully complied with the reauirements of section 11 of the said act, $1.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
90a. Administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British Family settlement, $115,000.
95a. Upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $10,200.
Terminable services-
117a. To ratify payments made and to authorize payment of the remaining proceeds to Norma Hannough. daughter of the late Farys Hannough, regimental number D-82513, under veterans insurance policy V-36866 notwithstanding clause 16 of the conditions of that policy and notwithstanding section 10 of the Veterans Insurance Act, chapter 279, revised statutes of Canada, 1952, $1.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
105. Grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $40,000.
111. To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, necessary remedial work
Supply-Items Passed
on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act and to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible; and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $6,000.
Terminable services-
115. Veterans benefits including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations by the governor in council, $1,044,600.
120. Repayments under subsection (3) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, $5,000.
30. Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for prosthetic and related services, $1,435,200.
35. Veterans' bureau, $666,000.
40. War veterans allowance board-Administration, $207,800.
Miscellaneous payments-
60. Burials and memorials, $1,691,500.
65. Grant to army benevolent fund, $18,000.
70. Grant to Royal Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
75. Administration expenses, $2,592,200.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
45. War veterans allowances and civilian allowances, $86,244,000.
50. Assistance in accordance with the provisions of the assistance fund (war veterans allowances) regulations, $3,450,000.
55. Treatment and related allowances, $2,715,000. 1. Departmental administration, $2,406,800.
5. District services-Administration, $3,395,800.
10. Veterans' welfare services, $3,689,400. Treatment services-
15. Operation of hospitals and administration including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year for hospital and related services, $42,865,600.
20. Medical research and education, $419,000.
25. Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $2,599,000.

[Stage Direction]
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
50. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, $45,412,500.
55. Transfer of labour to places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council. $37,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L27a. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding the Unemployment Insurance Act, to credit, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, to the unemployment insurance fund such sums as may from time to time be required by the said fund; the aggregate of the sums outstanding at any one time not to exceed, $55,000,000.
A-Department-
Government employees compensation-
45. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $114,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
47d. To authorize payment, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to Helen O'Neill, a former dependent of Wilfred Vincent O'Neill, of an allowance under the Government Employees Compensation Act from April 21, 1963 until she dies or marries, whichever first occurs, at the monthly rate payable pursuant to that act to the dependent widow of an employee who was usually employed in the province of Quebec, $1.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
40. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-Payments to the provinces, $109,484,000.
40a. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-Payments to the provinces, $47,165,000.
General administration-
25. Civilian rehabilitation branch administration including payments to carry out the purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and agreements made thereunder, including undischarged commitments under previous agreements and the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker, $529,000.
25a. Civilian rehabilitation branch administration, $176,000.
27d. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to employers of 50 per cent of monthly wage paid or $75 per month, whichever is less, on behalf of each full-time worker 45 years of age or over engaged during the period November 1, 1963 to January 31, 1964, and who is otherwise eligible under the older worker employment and training incentive program; to authorize the governor in council to make regulations for the effective administration of the said program, $5,000,000.
Special services-
30. Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $525,700.
30d. Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $650,000.
32d. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1963-64 and 1964-65 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding fifty per cent of the cost of labour incurred in the period from November 1st, 1963 to such day in the fiscal year 1964-65 as may be determined by the governor in council, and in the case of projects in designated development areas and as authorized by the Minister of Labour in areas of heavy winter unemployment 60 per cent of such cost; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years to provinces in respect of previous municipal winter works incentive programs in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $35,000,000.
33a. To provide for the establishment of a manpower consultative service to assist in and encourage the establishment of manpower adjustment programs by employers and workers; and to authorize payments in accordance with agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council by the Minister of Labour with provinces, employers and workers, in respect of labour mobility and assessment incentives, $586,000.
34d. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council under the winter house building program during the fiscal years 1963-64 and 1964-65 of $500 per dwelling unit substantially built during the period December 1st, 1963 to March 31st, 1964, $20,000,000.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
35. Administration, $401,300.
General administration-
5. Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $835,200.
Annuities Act-
10. Administration, $1,177,300.
15. Government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 1, 1961, $17,000.
20. Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $625,600.
20a. Industrial relations activities, $25,000.

[Stage Direction]
Taxation division-
20. General administration, $3,906,300.
25. District offices, $33,850,500.
25d. District offices, $1,829,000.
Tax appeal board-
30. Administration expenses, $139,300.

[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
205. Expenses incurred in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services and administering mortgages on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $415,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L50. Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of the acquisition, development, construction and improvement of land and buildings, $118,000.
(Responsibility transferred to Minister of National Revenue)
L207d. To authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, notwithstanding section 7 of the National Housing Act, 1954, to insure loans made on and after June 14, 1963 under that act to homeowners, to builders of houses who intend to sell to home purchasers, and to co-operative housing associations, where the amount of any such loan does not exceed,
(a) in the case of a loan made in respect of a house containing one family housing unit, an amount equal to the aggregate of

(i)	95 per cent of the first $13,000 of the lending value or any part thereof,
(ii)	70 per cent of any amount by which the lending value exceeds $13,000, and
(iii)	the amount of the insurance fee paid in respect of the loan; and
(b) in the case of a loan made in respect of a house containing two family housing units, an amount equal to the aggregate of
(i)	95 per cent of the first $13,000 of one-half of the lending value of the house or any part thereof,
(ii)	70 per cent of any amount by which one-half of the lending value of the house exceeds $13,000,
(iii)	85 per cent of the other half of the lending value of the house, and
(iv)	the amount of the insurance fee paid in respect of the loan, $1.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
General administration, $5,270,500.
5. Inspection, investigation and audit services, $5,266,400.
Ports
10. Operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from firms and individuals requiring special services, $29,725,500.
15. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $309,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
45. Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $1,162,000.
45a. Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $110,000.
50. Newfoundland bait service, $1,771,000.
55. Educational work in fisheries techniques and co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $120,000.
60. Fisheries Prices Support Act administration, $65,000.
65. Payment, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, of assistance to producers of salted fish on products designated by the governor in council, in the amount of 50 per cent of the laid down cost of salt purchased for their production, including authority to charge administrative costs to the vote in these estimates which provides for administration of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, $600,000.
70. Assistance, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, for the construction of fishing vessels in respect of which capital subsidies authorized by vote 222 (Canadian maritime commission) of these estimates may not be paid, $300,000.
75. Assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the regulations established by the governor in council, $30,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
80. Headquarters administration, $228,000.
85. Operation and maintenance including an amount of $55,000 for grants for fisheries research and for scholarships, and authority to make recoverable advances of amounts not exceeding in the
Supply-Items Passed
aggregate the amount of the share of the international great lakes fishery commission of the cost of work on lamprey control and lamprey research, $5,318,000.
90. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,070,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act-
170. Payments in respect of projects and programs under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and payments to provinces pursuant to agreements entered into under that act, $7,000,000.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; land protection, reclamation and development-
145. Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,229,200.
150. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $23,826,000.
155. Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Nova Scotia of the cost of the Annapolis river aboiteau-causeway project, $468,400.
Special-
160. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $785,000.
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act- 165. Administration, operation and maintenance, $157,000.
Production and marketing branch-
Livestock division-
90.	Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1963, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $751,600.
91.	Special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $140,000.
92.	Special grant to Pacific national exhibition, Vancouver, $100,000.
Dairy products division-
50. Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvements Act, $1,073,000.
55. Fruit and vegetable division including maple products and honey-operation and maintenance, $1,823,900.
Health of animals division-
65. Operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the office international des epizooties and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from packers requiring special services, $10,837,100.
70. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $104,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
70a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $20,000.
75. Compensation for animals slaughtered, $2,100,-
000.
77. Contributions to the provinces, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, of amounts not exceeding two-fifths of the amounts paid by the provinces to owners of animals that have died as a result of rabies since the first day of July, 1960, $17,000.
Livestock division-
80. Operation and maintenance including premiums on purebred sires and contributions for livestock improvement; stockyard supervision and furs, $2,690,100.
85. Supervision of race track betting, $1,021,400.
42. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $76,500.
42a. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act and a grant of $50,000 to the Cape Breton co-operative fisheries, $120,500.
Dairy products division-
45. Operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international dairy federation, $905,400.
Board of grain commissioners-
140. Canadian government elevators-operation and maintenance including authority to purchase screenings, $1,529,000.
Livestock division-
95. Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $266,200.
100. To authorize, notwithstanding sections 33 and 35 of the Financial Administration Act, the issue by the Minister of Agriculture, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of premium warrants for high grade hog carcasses and for high grade lamb carcasses, and to authorize the charging to this vote of the value of premium warrants at the time they are issued, notwithstanding that the total value of all premium warrants to be charged may exceed the estimated cost of the program, which is $5,515,000.
Plant products division-
105. Operation and maintenance including seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides controls, $2,110,100.
110. Freight assistance on western feed grains, $18,500,000.
115. Agricultural lime assistance, $1,608,900.
116a. Contributions to Alberta and Saskatchewan in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture, of one-half of the amounts paid by those provinces in respect of the transport of fodder and haying equipment and the movement of cattle to feed in the period from the first day of May, 1962, to the thirty-first day of March, 1963, $42,000.
120. Plant protection division, $1,298,100.
125. Poultry division, $1,252,900.
127a. Contribution to Prince Edward Island, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture, of one-half of the amounts paid by the province to compensate
farmers for the loss of 1962 grain crops which they were unable to harvest due to natural causes beyond their control, $60,000.
128a. Contributions to Nova Scotia, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture, of one-half of the amounts paid by the province to compensate farmers for the loss of 1962 grain crops which they were unable to harvest due to natural causes beyond their control, $72,000.
129a. Contributions to Nova Scotia, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture, of one-half of the freight charges paid by that province in respect of the emergency movement of hay in the period from the thirty-first day of January, 1963, to the thirty-first day of May, 1963, $35,000.
Board of grain commissioners-
130. Administration, $173,500.
135. Inspection and weighing of grain and related services, $4,656,000.
Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, $1,057,600.
5. Information division including a grant of $33,000 to the agricultural institute of Canada, $749,600.
10. Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £88,048, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $265,500.
15. Economics division, $893,400.
15a. Economics Division-To extend the purposes of vote 15 of the main estimates, 1963-64, to include the contribution detailed in these estimates, $22,750.
llOd. Freight assistance on western feed grains -To extend the purposes of vote 110 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include assistance in respect of grain storage costs, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, and to provide a further amount of $1,000,000.
Research branch-
20. Branch administration including Canada's fee for membership in the international society for horticultural science and $128,290 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, $1,974,100.
Institutes, stations, farms, laboratories and
services-
25. Operation and maintenance including the costs of publishing departmental research papers as supplements to the "Canadian Entomologist",
[Stage Direction]
30. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,525,000.
Production and marketing branch-
35. Branch administration including contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products, subject to the approval of treasury board, $948,100.
40. Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $504,800.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 20, 1963