1964-07-10

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Richard.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two copies of the eastern Canada farm survey, as requested some time ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. In tabling this survey I would like to point out that it was prepared by persons outside the government and was instructed to be prepared by the previous government, and the views and conclusions expressed in the report do not necessarily represent the views of this government on the matters dealt with by the report.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct two questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The first has to do with peace keeping in general, and in particular the proposal of the U.S.S.R. I would ask the minister whether the acceptance of the Soviet proposal in its present form would not have the effect of placing peace keeping operations under the security council of the United Nations rather than under the general assembly, thereby permitting the U.S.S.R. to exercise a veto and to control peace keeping operations.
My second question has to do with the situation of the peace keeping force in Cyprus. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the fact that in the United Kingdom within the last 24 hours there has been a reference to the number of Greek troops which allegedly infiltrated Cyprus
about ten days ago, the number which I mentioned at the time by way of a question as 4,000? Is there not now confirmation of that, and what has the minister to say in that regard?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last question, I heard the report mentioned this morning, and there is no confirmation of those precise figures.
With regard to the first question, it is true that in the Soviet proposal for the establishment of a permanent peace keeping body under the United Nations, the Soviet union apparently intends that the security council shall have exclusive authority in the matter. It is only fair to say that under chapter 7 of the charter of the United Nations there is such a provision. But since the charter of the United Nations came into being the general assembly has brought into existence the procedure, under the uniting for peace resolution, which gives a residual authority to the assembly when the security council, having exercised the veto or having failed to act, takes a course which is not acceptable to the general assembly. Canada continues to regard peace keeping as the primary responsibility of the security council but, as I said last night in the external affairs committee, Canada would feel that the general assembly, in the contingencies I have mentioned, should not be deprived of the right to act when the security council has failed to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: With the purport of what the minister has said I am in agreement, but he has not answered my question. Would not the acceptance of the Soviet proposal in its present form have the effect of obliterating that residual power which has developed whereby under certain circumstances the assembly can act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. The veto is now embodied in the security council and is exercised by the great powers. The uniting for peace resolution was adopted after this power was given to the security council, and the general assembly acted notwithstanding. So my view, and it may be an arguable one, is that such would not be the situation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could I ask the secretary of state whether he has received from the Soviet union directly or indirectly the terms of their proposal, and could such terms be made available to us so we can study them? Also may we have some statement from the minister as to what is the reaction of the Canadian government to this proposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have not had a formal communication from the Soviet union. Other countries have not received their copies. It may be that the ambassador wishes to deliver it personally. However, we have had the full text before us and have made a preliminary study of the matter. As soon as this proposal is formally before us, I will be happy to see that the full text of the proposal is tabled in this house for the consideration of hon. members.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question. I would hesitate to think that the information the minister has at hand is not as up to date as what we receive in news bulletins, but the confirmation I have heard is that the British prime minister said that 4,000 Greek nationals did land on Cyprus and were dispersed in small groups to homes in the mountains, and that these landings coincided with the arrival of General Grivas on the island. Has the minister been in direct contact either with the Greek or the Turkish government about this critical and serious situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that the British prime minister did not make any such statement, and I can assure my hon. friend, as I have already indicated, that we have been in touch not only with the ambassadors of the countries concerned in Ottawa but we are in continuous touch with the United Nations, with our NATO partners and with other sources. This is not the place to confirm or deny figures which are given in this way. There is under way a very important deliberation in Geneva under the direction of the mediator, who is meeting with certain parties. This could be a very important meeting, and because of it I do not propose to go any further at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the figure I gave ten days ago was one which has been used very authoritatively in various places except in this House of Commons. After this meeting takes place in Geneva today will the

minister remove the mystery regarding this matter? Certainly all over the world this is the figure which is being used, and used by individuals who have some knowledge, as the hon. member said a few moments ago. It is difficult to understand why the secrecy, except that when we brought it up originally the minister said there was no foundation for the whole thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think in a matter of this vital importance we should and, I am sure all of us agree, weigh very carefully the significance of what we say. I can only say to my right hon. friend that the government has sources of information, as have other countries; we have to assess these, and this we are doing. There is not much to be gained, in my judgment, by public discussion as to whether there are this number or that number. I have indicated that we have expressed our deep concern, as other countries have, with regard to the presence of troops from other countries that have an involvement.
The meeting that is under way now is a vital meeting. It will not be finished today by any means. This very important meeting is under the direction of the mediator. There are other parties present, among them parties who are guarantors of the treaty of 1961. I would sincerely hope that as a result of this meeting the situation will become clearer and I hope more satisfactory. In any event Canada takes the position which other members of the NATO alliance take. This situation is one that calls for both Greece and Turkey to exercise every moderating influence they can in order not to complicate an important and difficult assignment given by the security council to the mediator.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one other matter. Certainly Canadians, with 1,100 men there, are most anxious to be assured that the Canadian government has made very clear to the Greek government and to the Turkish government the fact, regardless of NATO relationships or otherwise, that it is a very serious matter for Canadians if there be a basis in fact for such incursions in that country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend has already been assured, and I reassure him, that when I saw both Prime Minister Papandreou in Washington and Prime Min-iter Inonu in New York a few days ago, I made this unmistakeably clear, as I did to their ambassadors here a few days ago, and as the secretary general has done. I would remind the house of the statement made by

General Gyani the day before yesterday when he made his report to the secretary general, and of the statement of the secretary general in the United Nations the day before yesterday when he directed a formal appeal to both Greece and Turkey with regard to infiltration asking them to respond in a manner that would enable him to make a report to the security council.


SOUTHEAST ASIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his statement in the house supporting United States activities in southeast Asia, I wonder if the minister is now prepared to give equally vigorous support to the proposal of the United Nations secretary general, U Thant, for the convening of the 14 nation Geneva conference in an endeavour to resolve some of the difficulties in southeast Asia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would not want to give the wrong impression. I did not make any statement that warranted the suggestion that Canada had given its imprimatur to the full position taken by a friendly power in Southeast Asia, and particularly in Viet Nam. I said Canada agreed with the United States that there was a violation by the Chinese communists of the provisions of the 1954 Geneva accord and the subsequent agreement of 1962.
With regard to the appeal made by the secretary general for reconvening the 14 power conference, I am not convinced that a reconvening of that conference could result in any arrangement other than that provided in the Geneva accord and in the conference of 1962. Canada has made this view known, particularly with regard to the Polish proposal for a six power conference in respect of the situation in Laos. However, at the same time we have indicated that, notwithstanding this view, if it were thought desirable that there should be such a gathering we would cooperate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the violation to which the minister refers has to do with the 1954 Geneva agreement, would it not seem logical that the signatories to that agreement should be called together rather than resorting to unilateral action by
Inquiries of the Ministry the United States, which is not itself a signatory to the agreement; particularly in view of the statement made by Mr. Bundy, assistant secretary of state for eastern affairs, to a subcommittee of the United States house committee that the United States may now find it necessary to send troops into Viet Nam? May I ask the minister if it would not be preferable to have the 14 nation Geneva conference reconvened, since they are the people who are the signatories to the agreement which is being violated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The presence of United States military forces in South Viet Nam is the result of an invitation under the authority of the government of that country. It is not in any way related to the fact that the United States is not a signatory to the Geneva accord. What I sought to point out was that the necessary machinery exists in the agreements themselves which set up the international control commission in the three countries-of which commission Canada is a member-to deal with this very situation. If all parties concerned lived up to those accords, there would not be the critical situation in Indochina that confronts the world today. That is the situation.
However, I want to make it clear that, if it seemed a desirable way of trying to mitigate the difficulty Canada would be willing to attend such a conference. But we believe that, if the nations concerned would live up to the obligations to which they are committed in accordance with the procedure outlined in the agreement, we could bring about some pacification in this situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know a debate is not allowed at this time, but I want to say to the minister that I agree entirely with the viewpoint and stand being taken by the Canadian government. I suggest to him that he might outline those terms of the agreement which, carried into effect, would bring about a solution of the problem in southeast Asia. If he would do that I think it would clarify the situation very much.


DELIVERY BY U.S. TO TURKEY AND GREECE OF CF-104 PLANES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs which he promised to look into and answer. I am referring to the delivery by the United

Inquiries of the Ministry States of CF-104 jet fighter-bombers to Turkey and Greece during the present trouble in Cyprus. We were referred at that time to the statement of the Minister of National Defence on May 13, reported at page 3213 of Hansard. The question I asked was, in view of the fact that of the $200 million which was spent on this program Canada put up $50 million, or a quarter of the cost, was the Canadian government consulted about the giving of these planes to Turkey and Greece?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will recall, Canada suspended its share of that program when the Cyprus operation began. I am not aware of any consultations having taken place. My officers have not concluded their examination of this matter, but I hope to have some information next week.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Re-souces. Can he tell us whether negotiations between his department and that of natural resources of Quebec are going on with a view to transferring the administration of Quebec Eskimos?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have nothing further to report at the present time.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH POLAND AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and is in two parts. Can the minister give us some word about the negotiations now taking place in Winnipeg between officials of the Canadian wheat board and Czech and Polish officials with regard to the sale of wheat? Second, have any of the private export firms been called into these negotiations and, if not, will they be?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations


that are now proceeding very satisfactorily in Winnipeg involving the Czechoslovakian and Polish representatives and the wheat board are related to the long term agreements that we signed last year with these countries. These countries are now buying under the terms of those agreements, and it is quite clear that they intend to carry out the agreements in full. When the negotiations with the wheat board have proceeded to a certain point the private trade, of course, will be interested and will be negotiating the actual sale of the wheat to the Polish and Czechoslovakian agencies.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: As a supplementary question, would the minister be in a position to disclose the price of the wheat negotiated for sale to these two countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have often explained, it is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to reveal the details of any particular sale, but one can look at the prices at which the wheat board is offering wheat at the present time and get a good indication.


GIFT OF CATTLE TO SOVIET UNION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) concerning the export of Holstein cattle to Russia, the minister told us how he had pioneered this export field, and I commend him for that. Then he stated:
I said we would be prepared to give them three head to prove our point-
By the use of the word "we" does he mean he and his company or some other individuals, or does he mean the government of Canada will give these Holstein cattle as an outright gift to the Soviet union?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I meant you and I, the Canadian people, will be giving them. I would be quite prepared to do it myself, because I think there is a fantastic market available.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Would the minister not consider it might be a good idea to send over a little bull, too?


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganfic):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry?
Did the minister get information from the provincial government to the effect that the Peugeot company or Renault company would be interested in opening up plants in Thet-ford Mines?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: Should the minister get such information, would he so inform the house immediately?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I did mention earlier that these are delicate negotiations working toward the bringing into Canada of a new and substantial industry, and it would not be in the public interest to make statements until such time as the negotiations are concluded.


Raymond Langlois: I will wait until the negotiations are concluded, but will the minister give a report to the house after they are through?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


TIMMINS, ONT.-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN MINING DEVELOPMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. What part, if any, did he or his officials play in the negotiations and discussions between the Ontario department of mines and Texas Gulf in connection with the prospective developments around Timmins?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any particularly urgent and pressing nature to this question? If not, I suggest the order paper.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY MEMBER FOR THREE RIVERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux-Mon-lagnes):: Mr. Speaker, availing myself of the
Inquiries of the Ministry provisions of standing order 39 of the House of Commons, I should like to direct a question to the Leader of the Opposition.
Would the Leader of the Opposition approve of the taxation policy expounded in a press release by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), when he was speaking on behalf of the Conservative members from the province of Quebec and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is contrary to standing order 39.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, standing order 39 states that a question can be put to a private member or to any member of the house who is not a member of the cabinet, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the house.
Now, we have before us a bill concerning taxation. The Leader of the Opposition announced, on behalf of his party, a policy contradicted in a press release issued by the hon. member for Three Rivers in his capacity as assistant leader of the Conservative party and leader of the Conservative members from the province of Quebec.
It would be interesting to know the exact policy of the Conservative party in respect of the bill now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member, but the practice here has always been not to direct questions to the Leader of the Opposition. This practice has been consistently followed. On occasion questions can be addressed to chairmen of committees, but certainly not to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, unless he is the sponsor of a bill.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister on a matter that covers several departments and is of extreme urgency. Has the Acting Prime Minister and the other ministers received from the Vancouver city clerk, Mr. Ron Thompson, a formal letter applying for a 99 year lease on the Kitsilano reserve?

Inquiries of the Ministry
The urgency arises in view of the fact that work has been started by the federal government on renovating four buildings at Kit-silano. Does this mean that regardless of the objections and stand of the corporation of the city of Vancouver and many other organizations, including the park commission, the government is going to go ahead and allow this property to be taken by the C.B.C.?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the government and a number of its ministers received a proposal this morning, which has not yet been studied, from the city of Vancouver for the transfer of the Kitsilano property in its entirety to the city of Vancouver. As I undertook the other day, the government will study this proposal from the city of Vancouver along with other proposals received by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the disposition of this property and, after proper consideration of all the factors involved, I hope will come to a conclusion next week.


John George Diefenbaker: The other question was this. Why is it that the government is now proceeding to renovate those four buildings in this particular area? Is it in preparation for the C.B.C. to take over?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I was not aware that renovations were being carried out at Kitsilano. I would be glad to inquire into this.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Now that we have this indication that the city council has made a formal application to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, could the minister tell us whether the C.B.C. has also put in an application to that body?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, the C.B.C. has also made a proposal to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have any other applications been made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: So far, only those two.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What would be the closing date for such applications?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is no formal closing date.


John George Diefenbaker: When did the C.B.C.
make its formal application? How long ago?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday? Then does the minister understand why Mr. Ouimet said in Vancouver about 10 days ago that he intended

to get hold of this property, if no application had been made by the C.B.C. at that time?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the minister if the final disposition of this property is to be decided by the cabinet or by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


An hon. Member:: By Ouimet.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think this will be a matter
for decision by the government.



COUCHICHING CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State in his capacity as the minister reporting for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is based on a brochure which I imagine has been received by a number of members, entitled "Order and Good Government" and connected with the Couchiching conference presented by the Canadian institute of public affairs in co-operation with the C.B.C. on the subject of parliamentary democracy in Canada.
We find there are five Conservative members, four members of the New Democratic party and three Liberal members on the program. Could I ask the Secretary of State if he would enlighten the house as to the reason the Social Credit movement, which since 1935, with the exception of the period 19581962, has had substantial representation in this house and which forms the administration in two of the provinces of Canada, has been completely bypassed in the preparations for the discussion of these most important matters dealing with parliament and parliamentary democracy in Canada?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: As far as I am aware the C.B.C. has no direct responsibility for selecting guest speakers at these meetings. But in case the C.B.C. had something to do with it I will inquire, and report to the management the grievance of the hon. member.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wonder whether the minister knows that the C.B.C. is putting on a daily one hour program covering this important conference and, of course, that it will give the views of only certain sections of the political picture in Canada.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister supplementary to an answer he gave me on Tuesday to a question I asked him on Monday. On Tuesday he indicated that the premiers of Alberta, Nova Scotia and British Columbia have thus far replied to the Prime Minister's letter regarding the holding of a conference within six months as recommended by the Hall commission report. My question now relates to the announcement made yesterday by Premier Robarts, according to a Canadian Press dispatch, that arrangements are under way to hold such a federal-provincial conference. Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether these arrangements have reached a stage at which an announcement of the holding of a conference can be made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure what the Ontario premier had in mind was that there would undoubtedly be a meeting on this matter, but I would not wish to go beyond that until further letters have come in from the premiers. One was received yesterday from Premier Roblin. However, let me look again at this question and make sure that my answer has the precision I would wish it to have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Acting Prime Minister ascertain whether there has been a communication from Premier Robarts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there has, but I should like to make sure.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, for the acting minister or the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government intend to ask parliament for a special subsidy to assist the railways in meeting the cost of the wage increases recently negotiated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would refer the hon. gentleman to the statement made in the house the other day by the Minister of Transport.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Minister of Transport was not specific on this point, and I would
Inquiries of the Ministry ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is aware that the continued delay in dealing with the MacPherson report is placing considerable hardship upon the Canadian trucking industry.


David Vaughan Pugh: have a supplementary question to ask, and as a preliminary I might say that I asked the Minister of Transport if any carrot had been held out to the railways and he said no. Then I find in the letter sent by the Prime Minister to the top men in the railways the statement:
-an opportunity to decide what additional temporary financial adjustments would be justified to assist the railways during the period up to the coming into effect of the proposed new railway legislation.
My question is this. Does the minister not think that is a sufficient carrot to the railways?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Transport will be here on Monday.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
secretary of State for External Affairs a question. As the Prime Minister of Canada stated at the commonwealth conference in London, that red China is to have a seat in the United Nations, does the secretary of State for External Affairs intend to campaign for it during the next session of the United Nations in New York?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the hon. member to the statement I made on May 22 last in this house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the conference of the commonwealth countries which is being held in London, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that red China was to take its place, to have a seat in the United Nations. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to campaign for it on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada and this government, at the next assembly of the United Nations?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to my previous answer, and I think that the hon. member will find that the statement I made on May 22 last is worth considering again.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs unconditionally support the statement which the Prime Minister made in London?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have never quite understood the meaning of the two-China policy. Does it mean now that we have one China policy in London and another in Ottawa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. gentleman, who was the premier of a province for an unduly long time, will appreciate that when one is called upon to divulge government policy one would wish to rely on official declarations, not on declarations which are reported to be official.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. gentleman mean by that remark that anything he says is unofficial, but what the Prime Minister says is official government policy on this question? My hon. friend has asked a perfectly reasonable question. In this morning's issue of Le Devoir it is stated-and I am using it as it appears here-"Pearson denounces segregation" and also "Declares China ought to have its place in the United Nations".
I am translating it with that freedom that is accurate, however. I ask the minister this. Is this government policy, or is it just another case of what is said in London is not dreamed of in Ottawa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, no one in this house at the present time has greater experience than my right hon. friend with regard to prime ministers' conferences in London. I think he would agree that he was perhaps better able to deal with the effect of reported leaks of statements made at those conferences than anyone else. I simply want to say to my right hon. friend that I have not seen the statement, but I would commend to my right hon. friend, for whom I feel nothing but friendship these days-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Watch out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the statement I made on May 22.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, flattery will get the hon. gentleman nowhere. I simply ask

him this. Was that declaration in London- which was not a leak; apparently it was one of those transmissions of information that finds its way to the C.B.C., with a reporter carried along for the purpose-in keeping with government policy; because what was said on May 22 in Ottawa is a long way from what was said on July 9 in London?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very glad to look at this statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Good.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs admit any change in government policy with regard to China since May 22?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Acting Prime Minister or the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will the Acting Prime Minister secure for the house information related to the flying of the new flag design from the mainmast of H.M.C.S. Yukon while at sea, and the authority under which such action was taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear this question, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I could read it and give an answer later.


Robert Carman Coates: I will put my question again, because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is important, I admit, but I think the Acting Prime Minister certainly needs notice to answer it. I do not see how he could possibly answer it today unless he has personal information. Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister will be able to secure this information for me at the same time. Have any instructions gone forward from the government to the armed services requesting that they assist in the promotion of this new flag design?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked a couple of days ago. He asked me to inquire whether a communication has been received in my department from the minister of social welfare of Saskatchewan on the question of requiring work from welfare recipients. No such communication has been found.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would look into this matter further. I have the Regina Leader-Post of July 4 in which the minister of social welfare of Saskatchewan is quoted as saying that they are waiting for a reply from Ottawa; that they have made application and "We are still hoping the federal government will change its legislation to permit a cost sharing arrangement".
Either the minister of welfare in Saskatchewan is under some misapprehension about this letter which he claims to have sent to the federal government, or the federal government for some reason or other has not been able to discover this letter. Could the minister give us an explanation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to build up this mystery of the missing missive; but I did make inquiries, as I was asked to, as to whether this communication is in the files or was received by the Department of Finance, and the answer is no.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, this puts us in the position of having to ask the Secretary of State if he will search the records of all departments to see if this missing letter can be discovered. On two occasions the Minister of National Health and Welfare has claimed that her department has received no such communications, and now the Minister of Finance has said his department has not received it. Therefore I would like to ask the Secretary of State to search the files of all departments to see if the letter is there.


Maurice Lamontagne: I would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which perhaps I might address to the Acting Prime Minister. While efforts
Inquiries of the Ministry are being made to find the letter, can the government not declare that its position is unchanged and that it is still opposed to the principle of work for relief?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to see the letter first.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Could the Postmaster General say whether to his knowledge his department have returned any letters, which were addressed to the government, marked "Undeliverable"?



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to make a remark and to bring a correction to a statement I made yesterday when I directed the following question to the Minister of Forestry:
Could the minister say whether on December 6, 1962, the federal government and the province of Quebec signed an agreement under ARDA to carry out a $185,000 survey in the riding of Megantic?
Later on, I said:
-If I remember well, on December 6, 1962, the federal government and the province of Quebec signed such an agreement with a view to carrying out a survey in the riding of Megantic.
Mr. Speaker, when I came back to my office, I found that the federal government had approved that a convention be signed on December 6, 1962, concerning a survey, at a cost of $185,000, in the riding of Montmagny and not Megantic. It was not on December 6 but only at the beginning of 1963 that this convention was signed by the province of Quebec.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
I would like to ask him whether it is true that ARDA will be restricted to the Gaspe peninsula and whether Mr. Courcy has asked
530?

Inquiries of the Ministry that the drainage be entirely financed by ARDA or another joint plan?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I think that there is some confusion, because the Minister of Agriculture has announced that only areas of the lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula would be designated as rural development areas, but this does not prevent the program from being applied in other parts of the province. As far as drainage is concerned, I may inform the house that we shall pay 50 per cent of the cost of projects submitted.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Could the minister inform the house why Messrs. Lesage and Levesque denounce joint plans and, at the same time, sign an agreement as they did recently with regard to ARDA?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, there is a constitutional reason. Under section 95 of the B.N.A. Act, agriculture comes under the joint jurisdiction of the federal and the provincial governments. I think that provincial authorities recognize the jurisdiction of the federal government and are willing to co-operate with the latter.



QUEBEC-PROVISION OF FEED GRAIN STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Has the minister provided, in his 1965-66 estimates, for the building of grain elevators in the Chicoutimi or Bagotville harbour so that the Saguenay farmers may benefit from as advantageous prices as the communist buyers do?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received any letter from the government of the province of Saskatchewan setting out a request by that government for assistance in connection with the drought situation, with

particular reference to supplying fodder for cattle and the like, similar to that which was-given two years ago. Has he received such a letter or request in writing?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman said yesterday that he had sent a letter to the government of Quebec, or one of the ministers, offering the same type of terms that were being asked for by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. What was the nature of the terms contained in the letter he wrote to the province of Quebec which would also be applicable to that province, as they should?


Harry William Hays: Yesterday I indicated that I had discussed the problem with the Saskatchewan cabinet and also with the minister of agriculture of Manitoba. I also said I had dispatched a letter to the minister of agriculture of Quebec indicating that we would be quite prepared to consider his suggestions as to the problems they were having.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold this up, but this is not what the minister said yesterday at all. As reported at page 5236 of Hansard the hon. member for Shefford asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has expressed his intention of giving farmers affected by drought conditions more time to repay their farm loans, could he not apply the same policy to Quebec farmers whose crops are a complete failure and who depend on them to make a living? I refer to apple growers and strawberry producers.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I dispatched a letter this morning to the minister of agriculture of Quebec offering him the same consideration.
I ask the minister, what were the terms of that letter?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I thought I indicated several times that I would not disclose the terms or how we should deal with the problem. I suggested first that we would have to hear from them officially, and this is the basis on which I wrote to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: So that what the minister said was "I was out in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and we have a plan out there for drought and we will give you the same". Is that what the situation was?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the right hon. gentleman should be putting words

in my mouth. I think I have explained the situation fairly clearly.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Are we to understand that whatever request is made by the provinces the minister will agree to it? In other words, is he signing a blank cheque?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the case.


John George Diefenbaker: It is just a blank offer.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in view of the questions put this morning in connection with the drought. Would the Minister of Agriculture discuss a proposition similar to the steps taken by the previous government in 1961 regarding the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, so as to allow the farmers covered by that act to cut their oats, wheat and barley in cases where there is no prospect of harvesting the crop, which would give them the full benefit of the P.F.A.A. this year?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that in this area where they are having the most trouble there was no germination, so there will not be any oats or barley unless the farmers receive rain in the very near future. I discussed this problem with the cabinet in Saskatchewan and with the minister of agriculture in Manitoba, and they indicated what they wished to do. When we receive official notification we are going ahead with the suggestions they have made, and at that time I will disclose to the house the steps being taken.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the administration of the P.F.A.A. is entirely under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and in view of the fact that in quite large sections of this drought area there has been some germination taking place, although there is no prospect of a reasonable crop except for use as forage for herds, I think a decision should be taken as soon as possible regarding the administration of this act so the farmers will know whether to endeavour to harvest this stunted crop for forage or to let it develop to maturity as the case may be.


Harry William Hays: I think that is a reasonable request. If there is no chance of a crop at all the farmers should be able to do this sort of thing; and so far as the federal government
Supply-National Defence are concerned we will be very sympathetic toward this suggestion.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question of some urgency to the minister of northern affairs. July and August are the big tourist months in our national parks, and I think of Banff particularly. Some time ago I either put a question on the order paper or wrote a letter to the minister asking whether legislation would be brought forward or the regulations would be changed with reference to traffic violations, so that people could pay traffic fines rather than appear in the police courts. Thousands of tourists are now being affected and there have been complaints about this. The minister said this step would be taken immediately, but could he give us an indication whether the regulations have-been changed, or is it his intention to bring in an amendment to the act to carry out this change?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, this would have to be given effect by way of amendment to the act, which we foresee at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. What does the minister mean by "as early as possible".


Arthur Laing: As early as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary. What does the minister mean by "as early as possible".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Sixty days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the time of the house can be better utilized.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
56a. To authorize the governor in council to prescribe the circumstances under which a contributor who, having served in the forces for ten or more years, is compulsorily retired from the forces before reaching retirement age during the period commencing on the 7th day of May, 1964. and ending two years thereafter, due to a reduction in the total number of members of the forces,.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 10 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, to have served in the forces for twenty or more years, $1.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
LI 7a. To provide for and authorize the purchase out of United States dollars paid to Canada, pursuant to the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, together with any protocol or exchange of notes relating thereto, of such obligations of the government of the United States as may be approved by the governor in council, and the subsequent disposition of such obligations; the amount which may be expended for such purchase not to exceed $254,400,000 U.S. notwithstanding that this amount may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1964, which is, $275,149,500.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I undertook when this item came up to make an explanation of the way in which this financing would be handled. This item arises out of the Columbia river treaty. The United States has agreed to pay on or about October 1, 1964, contemporaneously with the exchange of ratification of the treaty, $254.4 million U.S. in a lump sum as payment for the Canadian share of the downstream benefits of hydroelectric power. If the funds are paid over earlier, they are subject to a discount of 4| per cent per annum.
The Columbia storage power exchange, a non-profit organization of the power producers and users concerned, which is expected to raise the necessary United States funds, will pay to the government of Canada the United States funds as was agreed with the United States last January. The agreement is contained in the "attachment relating to terms of sale". As soon as the government of Canada receives the United States currency we will pay the Canadian dollar equivalent to the government of British Columbia, except that British Columbia may choose to receive some of the funds in United States currency in order to redeem some outstanding United States debts.
Accordingly- the government of Canada is seeking authority to pay out of cash on hand or from the proceeds of borrowings a maximum of $275,149,500 in Canadian funds to British Columbia, and will have a maximum offsetting asset of $254,400,000 in United States funds.
As I have said, British Columbia may prefer to receive some of the funds in United States currency in order to redeem United

States dollar obligations. To the extent that this takes place, the amount of Canadian funds to be made available by the Canadian government to British Columbia will be reduced. The amount of United States securities to be purchased will likewise be correspondingly reduced.
In my budget speech of March 16 last I mentioned an amount of $220 million Canadian as my estimate of our cash requirements in this fiscal year in connection with the Columbia river treaty lump sum payment. This was based on the assumption that British Columbia would require a payment of $50 million in the form of United States funds. The remainder of the lump sum payment, $204.4 million U.S., is equal to about $220 million in Canadian funds.
Except in one respect the arrangements will be similar to what happens whenever there is an increase in Canada's official holdings of foreign exchange reserves. Normally increases in Canada's official holdings of foreign exchange other than gold are invested by the exchange fund of the Minister of Finance in short term securities of the United States government. It is important to note that according to United States official statistics, increases in Canadian holdings of such short term securities would constitute part of the United States balance of payments deficit.
To avoid increasing the United States deficit in this way, Canada agreed with United States authorities last January that we would invest the proceeds of the lump sum payment in medium term non-marketable securities of the United States government. These securities, being non-marketable, will not be held in Canada's exchange fund account but will be held in a special account of the Minister of Finance. As the securities mature, it is expected that the proceeds will be taken into the exchange fund and invested in short term United States government securities in the normal way. The effect of this entire approach will be to even out the flow of funds into our reserves and to spread the impact of the transfer of so large a sum of money on the United States balance of payments over a longer period.
Arrangements in non-marketable securities have been made between the United States government and a number of other governments in recent years.
It should be pointed out that while the non-marketable securities mentioned above will not form a part of Canada's official hold-

ings of foreign exchange, they will constitute an important backstop for our reserves, and will add to our ability to marshal adequate resources in the event of a drain on our foreign exchange reserves. Although we do not anticipate any such drain, experience over the past few years has shown that our exchange position can become exposed to sudden and unexpected pressures from time to time.
The exact schedule of maturities and interest rates on these special securities remains to be worked out with United States authorities. Interest rates will be related to, but probably somewhat above, the market rates prevailing in the United States at the time of the issuance of the securities.
A question has been raised as to the cost to the government of Canada of acquiring these special United States securities. Such a cost would be regarded as being the difference between the interest paid by the Canadian government on the Canadian money raised to pay British Columbia and the interest received on the corresponding amount of United States dollar securities to be held by the government of Canada. Assuming that the lump sum payment is invested in medium term United States government securities, and assuming that the required amount of Canadian funds is obtained by the sale of Canadian securities of similar maturities, the difference between the interest rate earned in the United States and the interest rate paid in Canada would be in the neighbourhood of one half of one per cent on the basis of current yields. Assuming that the lump sum transfer was of the order of $220 million Canadian, the interest cost of the arrangement would be $1.1 million per annum.
However, two points need to be emphasized. First, costs of this nature are always incurred when the government increases its exchange reserves. In fact, because normally our exchange reserves are invested in market securities at slightly lower rates of interest than those contemplated for these special securities, the cost of this particular transaction is appreciably less than it would have been if our normal reserves had increased by an equivalent amount. Second, as I have already emphasized, these securities will form an important backstop to our exchange reserves. For quite different reasons in each of the past two years we have experienced heavy pressures on our exchange reserves. While we do not anticipate further speculative pressures, experience does sug-
Supply-Finance
gest the importance of being able to marshal adequate resources at all times.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in this phase of the minister's statement as to the purpose of this estimate. I must say that I am sure it comes as a surprise to some of us who realize that the government is in effect introducing legislation because this is an increased charge against the exchequer about which we were not told in the committee on external affairs.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder if I may clear up that point. The government, as my hon. friend knows, has authority to invest in Canadian securities. We also need, in this case, authority to invest in these medium term United States securities.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I fully understand that. This is, in effect, introducing legislation. You will remember that in the committee on external affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs was most emphatic that this treaty was an executive act, that it was not necessary to come before parliament. I want to take this opportunity to say that a member of our party who is versed in these matters raised the question during his remarks in a debate in the house.
I should like to quote, Mr. Chairman, from page 67 of the minutes of evidence of the committee on external affairs for Tuesday, April 7, 1964:


Mr. Byrne:: I was simply going to ask the minister if when the former administration suggested that the treaty be put before a parliamentary committee, it was prepared to have it altered in any way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not. The treaty was signed in Washington by the President of the United States, by the secretary of state for the United States, by the Prime Minister of Canada, and by the Minister of Justice. The treaty was not in that form submitted to parliament because there was not an opportunity to do so. But under our practice, the government of the day takes its responsibility. It negotiates a treaty with another country and it takes its responsibility, and having taken its position and responsibility, then it asks parliament to approve or to reject. That is the constitutional position.


Mr. Davis:: Is it not correct that ratification is an executive act, or an act of the executive?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. There is no law which requires us to come to parliament or to refer the matter to a committee.
Some of the members of our group suggested that we were of the opinion, Mr. Chairman, there should have been a bill with the introduction of the treaty; it should not have been by means of a resolution which the house could simply endorse or reject. We claimed that this treaty was changing the law of the

Supply-Finance
land and was affecting the rights of certain Canadians. To support my argument in that connection I should like to read a few extracts. I think what is happening today proves we were correct. This is an estimate; this is legislation by estimate. The Minister of Finance admits that, does he not?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I said, this comes under the loans section of the supplementary estimates. All we are asking for is authority to invest these United States funds in short term and medium term United States securities. We have not got that authority to make investments in United States securities, and it is that for which we are asking.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Of course there will be a bill following these supplementary estimates.
Some well informed people looked up this question, and I should like to quote two or three authorities. The first article I should like to quote is by A. Lawrence Lowell, entitled "The Government of England", volume 1, page 22:
The crown...has power. ..to conclude treaties, save that, without the sanction of parliament, a treaty cannot impose a charge upon the people of change the law of the land, and it is doubtful how far without that sanction private rights can be sacrificed or territory ceded.
I am very interested to note that the hon. member for Kootenay East is paying attention to my remarks. I hope he stays until the vote comes on these estimates. There is a footnote to that citation which cites Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, volume 2, pages 297-99 and Dicey, Law of the Constitution, page 393. In my edition of Dicey the passage on the subject seems to be at page 460, where Dicey says that it is even open to question whether the treaty-making power of the executive might not in some cases override the law of the land. He gives a footnote reference to a judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council in 1892 which, however, refers only to treaties of peace and other treaties akin to them, as to which the judicial committee refrains from expressing an opinion.
Then I should like to quote Bora Laskin of the faculty of law, University of Toronto, who in his book "Canadian Constitutional Law", second edition, 1961, at page 270 quotes Chief Justice Duff:
But it is no part of the prerogative of the crown by treaty in time of peace to effect directly a change In the law governing the rights of private individuals, nor Is it any part of the prerogative of the crown to grant away, without the consent of parliament, the public moneys or to impose a tax or to alter the laws of trade and

navigation, and It is at least open to the gravest doubt whether the prerogative includes power to control the exercise by a colonial government or legislature of the right of apropriation over public property given by such a statute as the British North America Act.
That is what we are doing with respect to this treaty and with respect to the effect of this item. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote an extract from "The Law of Nations-Cases, Documents and Notes", published in 1938 and edited by Herbert W. Briggs of Cornell University. In chapter 10 of that textbook, entitled "The Law of Treaties", at page 433 under the subtitle "Treaties as Internal Law" Professor Briggs notes:
In another group of states, legislation is necessary before treaties affecting private rights become internal law which the courts will enforce. Thus Picciotto writes with reference to British practice that, whatever be the theories, there is an "undoubted modern practice of incorporating all treaties affecting private rights in acts of parliament".
This is the contention of the members of this group. The treaty should have been incorporated in an act of parliament as was done in the case of the boundary waters treaty of 1909, and as has been done in the past by the introduction of schedules to bills involving a number of treaties that have been ratified by the house. I wish to refer also to Picciotto, page 71, also Walker v. Baird (1892) A.C. 491, and to A. D. McNair who asks the question "When do . .. treaties involve legislation" and then goes on to explain the basis, which is very similar to the previous argument I have advanced.
I also wish to quote an extract from "Principles of British Constitutional Law" by Emden. Dealing with the external affairs function of the British executive Emden has this to say at page 15:
.-it is generally deemed advisable by the executive to obtain the sanction of the legislature to treaties, concluded in time of peace, which involve important cessions of territory-
Which this does in effect.
-the imposition of taxation-
Which these increased costs to the government will mean.
-a grant from public funds, the amendment of existing laws of trade or navigation, or interference with the private rights of the subject.
I have quoted from these few authorities in support of the contention of the members of this group that this treaty should have been introduced into the house as a bill, in which case the house would have had the opportunity to deal with the various clauses,

and the schedules should have included the agreement with the government of British Columbia just the same as agreements with other governments with respect to taxation have been included in schedules to bills.
I have a long way to go, today, Mr. Chairman, so I hope you will bear with me. Since the treaty was dealt with in the committee and since it was last dealt with in the house there have been certain changes in circumstances and certain things have happened about which members of the committee were not informed, and which in some instances I am sure the government had no idea were going to occur.
In this connection I want to quote from some correspondence that has taken place between General McNaughton and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think these letters should be placed on the record because they put the picture in true perspective from our point of view. I wish to quote a letter under date of June 3, 1964, addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to these letters in themselves being tabled, because they represent an interesting exchange that will have historical value if nothing else, but this matter has been decided by parliament. The treaty has been approved by a committee and by parliament, and any argument directed toward the treaty is completely out of order. My hon. friend is in order, of course, to discuss the matter which has been raised in the estimate by my colleague the Minister of Finance, but to go into the treaty now is contrary to the rules of the house. Parliament has taken a decision.


Mr. Peters:: You are still taking a decision.


Murdo William Martin: I do not think my hon. friend, for whom I have a high regard, understands the complications of the point at issue. I think the situation is as I have outlined it, and to argue now on the merits of the Columbia treaty is absolutely contrary to the rules of parliament. We have taken a decision. My hon. friend must address himself now to whether this particular item in the estimates should or should not be accepted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I definitely disagree with the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I fully expected him to make that argument, but I am giving reasons why we are opposed to this increased financial burden on the
Supply-Finance
people of Canada as the result of this item in the estimates. I am giving the reasons for requesting in the first instance that this matter be brought before the house in the form of a bill rather than a simple resolution with regard to which the house only had the opportunity to say yes or no, with no opportunity to amend as in the case of a bill, something to which we had looked forward. In that connection I believe I have the right under the rules of the house to place before the committee the reasons for my objection to this procedure and to this item.
I now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to read this letter addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West realizes that in speaking on this vote he is not permitted by the rules of the house to reflect on any motion that has been passed during this session. I recognize the difficulty of the hon. member in speaking on this particular vote. I would think that his comments, in so far as they deal directly with the vote, would be in order, but I think it would be out of order to again go over the arguments for or against a resolution which has already been agreed to by the house.


Mr. Barneli:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might be allowed to say a word on the point of order. Obviously the Secretary of State for External Affairs has some foreknowledge of what is contained in this letter but all other members of the committee, including yourself, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, do not have such knowledge. It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that at least until we have some indication of the contents of the letter neither you as chairman nor the other members of the committee have any information as to whether or not the letter has a direct bearing on the item we are discussing.


Murdo William Martin: It has to do with the treaty.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Therefore I feel that the hon. member for Kootenay West should be permitted to indicate to us how the letter relates to his argument on this particular item of the estimates.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the position taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is quite right. I am not ruling the hon. member for Kootenay West out of order so far as reading the letter is concerned. Naturally I do not know what the

Supply-Finance
letter contains. What I am saying to the hon. member is that I think he would be out of order if he were to discuss the details of the resolution which has already been agreed to by the house. I am not ruling the letter which the hon. member is about to read out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order which Your Honour has raised, no one would disagree with your ruling that it is not proper to go back and debate a resolution already passed by the house but, if I gathered correctly, the hon. member for Kootenay West quoted the date of a letter as June 3, and letters of subsequent dates. I have not seen this correspondence but I would gather from his remarks that all of it has to do with events which have transpired since passage of the resolution. Therefore the correspondence in question does not deal with the resolution per se but with developments which occurred since the passage of that resolution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to explain that I am dealing with an exchange of correspondence on this subject since the hearings before the external affairs committee concluded. I would like to deal with that correspondence first, and I want to bring other matters to the attention of the committee because things have developed along certain lines quite different from what we expected.
I claim that the committee on external affairs was not fully informed, was not accurately informed, and I think we have a right to raise this matter on this estimate. I want to deal later on with assurances given to the committee by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the treatment that some 2,000 people would receive who will be affected by the building of one of these dams in particular, and with what has happened since so far as the B.C. hydro and power authority is concerned. Also, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the fact that we were assured in the committee that the conclusions were final, that the sites of the dams were the best that could be secured and that the best engineering advice had been obtained.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt but it is obvious that we are discussing the treaty, and this parliament has made a decision on that treaty. I have no objection to my hon. friend referring to these letters, but the context in which he is referring to them is not germane. The issue before the committee is simple. It is whether or not this estimate should be accepted by the committee, and any argument as to the merits
[The Deputy Chairman.]
or demerits of the procedure that followed! the study of this matter in the external affairs-committee and its adoption in the house is not relevant. Citation 148 (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition states:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
My hon. friend, who is a distinguished and experienced parliamentarian, knows this. Let us have the discussion on the item, but let us not discuss whether the treaty was sound1 or not.


David Vaughan Pugh: If we accepted the statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs we would be precluded from bringing up at any time in the future anything to do with the Columbia river, the treaty, and all the rest of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


David Vaughan Pugh: Just hold on a minute. We have a letter here dated June 3, and surely this is after our discussions. I do not have to go back too many years to recall when the hon. gentleman was advocating the very opposite of what he is now saying.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I can shorten this. I have no objection to the letter being read, but what I have raised is that the hon. gentleman, during the last few minutes, was arguing the merits of the treaty. Let him discuss or show how the letters have a bearing on this present matter, but let him not discuss what we have already decided.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before we start on this let us be clear so that we do not get into a continual tangle. What the house has decided by resolution is to approve a treaty signed by the government of Canada and the government of the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And a protocol.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What we are trying to discuss today is a supplementary estimate to give financial effect to the implementation of that treaty. Surely the minister cannot separate the giving of financial effect to the treaty and some discussion of the treaty, particularly if certain aspects of the treaty are being departed form and if new steps and new measures have been introduced in the meantime?
I submit that the resolution which was passed by the house does not put the treaty into effect unless this estimate is passed.

Without this estimate the treaty is only paper. Therefore, surely this committee has the right to go into any departure from the treaty or *any events which have transpired since passage of the resolution. It seems to me the hon. member is quite in order and ought not to be restricted to the narrow base suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps I may say a word on this. Under the treaty the Canadian government will receive 254 million United States dollars. All this estimate covers and all it asks for is authority to invest those dollars in medium term securities. That is all this estimate deals with.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says that is all that is asked for. It is a good deal to ask for, and it seems to me that before the committee approves the authority which the minister is seeking we have a right and an obligation to look into the extent of the use to which this money will be put to see if it is in keeping with the treaty which was approved by resolution of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think I should remind hon. members of the second part of citation 148 (2) at page 126 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which, in part, says:
It is irregular to reflect upon, argue against, or in any manner call in question, in debate, the past acts or proceedings of the house-
I recognize that in discussing this item we would have to draw a fairly fine line between the actual proceedings which took place in the external affairs committee, the decision made in the house and the vote now before the committee, but I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West would not be in order if he were to call into question the decision taken by the house. However, if in discussing the item before the committee he wishes to make comments regarding the purpose for which this money is being allocated, that would be in order. But I would question his being in order if he were to rehash the whole debate on the resolution dealing with this particular point.


Mr. Leboe:: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question. What would happen if this supplementary estimate did not pass? What would happen with the cheque you were going to get from the U.S. government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The 254 million United States dollars received would be converted into Canadian dollars and deposited in Canada. Then the equivalent Canadian dollars, 275 million, if it were so desired and if the com-
Supply-Finance
mittee approved, would be used to buy U.S. dollars which could be put into the exchange fund or, as this item suggests, held separate in the form of medium term U.S. securities. The government has the authority to add to the exchange reserves but it has not got the authority to invest in medium term nonmarketable securities, and this is all that is being asked now. From the standpoint of our finances and from the standpoint of a backstop to our exchange reserves this is a highly desirable move, and I have no hesitation in asking authority to pursue it.


Bert Raymond Leboe: It is not absolutely necessary, as I understand it, for this supplementary estimate to pass in order to receive a cheque from the United States. What we are dealing with here is something subsequent to the transaction; it is an administrative problem which would exist after having received the money from the United States, not before. Am I right in that assumption?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is my understanding.


David Vaughan Pugh: Must the Canadian investment be in United States securities?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I understand it, the United States authorities are not anxious to see a sudden drop in their exchange reserves of $254 million at one time. They have a balance of payments problem, as we have, and we are doing our very best to meet each other's difficulties. We think it makes sense from their point of view, and we wish to accommodate them. If we do so, we hope they will accommodate us on occasions when we have a problem. It is one of the ways in which things should be worked out between two friendly neighbours.


David Vaughan Pugh: Is it not a fact that we too have a problem with regard to the international balance of payments? The first quarter of this year was another $100 million behind last year. The minister in his explanation said we were not getting as many American tourists up here as Canadians were going abroad. He has put the case for the United States government. Why not put the case for the Canadian government; because if our balance of payments is getting behind, surely to goodness this money would be better brought into Canada, held here and invested in Canadian securities. That is the only point I have to make.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We have to distinguish in this transaction between our current account deficit in our balance of payments and the

Supply-Finance
over-all position. When we look at our overall position we find that Canada's exchange reserves have held up remarkably well. 1 think last month they increased by some $20 million. So we do not need this $254 million in one fell swoop. It is quite satisfactory to us to invest this amount in these medium term non-marketable United States securities which we can take into account if we should need to. If it is done in this way it will not cause a sudden drop in United States statistics. It is all right for us this way. It helps us, but we are doing it in a way which will accommodate the United States.


David Vaughan Pugh: Once an investment is made in the United States, is it made on a term basis so that we in Canada will be able at any time to draw on that investment and bring it back to Canada and reinvest it here?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I discussed that point two or three months ago with the United States treasury people and it was agreed between us that in practice if we needed this backstop it would be available. I am perfectly confident, from the conversations I have had that we could translate these non-marketable securities into marketable securities with the full approval of the United States authorities. I do not want to ask them for a formal agreement to this effect because then, I think, from a statistical point of view it would have to be shown as a reduction in their reserves. They do not want this to happen, and we do not need these funds at the moment.


David Vaughan Pugh: One further question. This government feels this is the best way to handle the situation? In other words we are not being forced into it by the United States in any way, shape or form? Our present government feels they want to do it this way?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct. I can give the hon. member the assurance of the government and my personal assurance that this is a good way of doing it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Let me assure the committee that I do not intend to discuss a previous decision. I simply want to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that after we had been assured of certain things in the committee on external affairs it is obvious from recent action taken by the government of British Columbia that there are no grounds for such assurances. Second, that despite certain assurances given us in the committee that persons who will be directly affected by

this legislation would receive every consideration, the very opposite is about to occur in the district I represent.
I should like to take this opportunity of dealing with these matters, because the circumstances are not as members of the committee were informed at the time. In this connection I should like to read some interesting correspondence which has gone on between the minister and General McNaughton since the committee which was dealing with this question rose. I should like to call attention to a most unexpected development with respect to an action on the part of the British Columbia hydro commission, and I should like the opportunity to bring to the attention of this committee the evidence we already have of the fact that there is going to be a breach of faith with the people I have the honour to represent, with respect to relocation and compensation on the Arrow lakes. I am sure the members of this committee have patience enough to listen to me for at least an hour or two on this very important matter.
Now I should like to begin reading this letter.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Is it not a fact that these negotiations are subject to arbitration, as are all expropriation matters?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is quite right. The owners of property have the right to go to arbitration and later to the courts.


An hon. Member:: The B.C. power corporation did.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, and let me say that the only purchase we have had to date was a most unfortunate purchase for the poor rancher concerned. I want to forestall anything like that happening in the future. Again I will begin to read this letter:
The Hon. Paul Martin. P.C.. M.P.
Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Martin,
I now have a copy of the external affairs committee minutes No. 28 giving the text of your closing statement to the committee on Thursday, 21 May, 1964.
In this, you make reference to the views I have expressed to you on numerous occasions, notably, contrary to the inclusion both of the Libby and of the high Arrow projects in the plan of development to be authorized by the Columbia river treaty: also to my advocacy of the Dorr-Bull river-Luxor storages in I.J.C. seq. IXa in lieu. In this connection I note (page 1435) you refer to an 'independent' assessment by the Montreal Engineering Company as confirming the conclusion of the

Supply-Finance
government experts and suggesting that when I made my concluding remarks on 15 May, 1964, I might have indicated precise figures in correction. May I mention that as part of my presentation on that date I tabled a report dated 13 May, 1964, which had been worked out by Mr. Larratt Higgins analysing Dorr-Bull river-Luxor as the alternative to high Arrow in a phased development to meet stated U.S. requests for flood control to their "primary" objective and to match forecast Canadian loan requirements. This estimate follows the same principles of evaluation at site and downstream, which had been adopted by the Montreal Engineering Company.
Mr. Higgins' report shows that when appropriate use is made of Mica storage capacity in the interim prior to machining that very large savings in cost, and substantial increases in production, can he realized over high Arrow in the treaty.
I would point out that the principal reason for this satisfactory result is the fact that the waters originating in the East Kootenays are stored at the highest altitude available subject to supply. Despite the fact that the average annual increment of regulated flow therefrom diverted to the Columbia of 5.8 million acre feet is considerably less than the 7.1 million acre feet
which might be obtained from the high Arrow, nevertheless the stored energy available for release at site and downstream in Canada and the United States is very much greater.
I gave the figures in my presentation to the external affairs committee on 15 May 1964 (see pages 1321/22 of minutes No. 26).
For your convenience I repeat this information in tabular form to which I add a part III giving the allocation on the basis of Canada being entitled to one half the benefits in the United States. This was omitted from the record inadvertently.
Then there is a short table here which I would ask the permission of the committee to have included in Hansard, without reading it, in order to not take the time of the house. It is a sequence of figures. Have I the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
I Average Head Feet	High Arrow 7.1 MAF	Dorr-Bull River-Luxor 5.8 MAF*	Canada	52	1165	U.S.A.	1150	1150	Total II Energy available for release in MWY	1202	2315	Gain by Dorr-Bull R.-Luxorin Canada	37	675	+ 638in U.S.A.	815	667	- 148-	-	-Total	852	1342	+ 490III Allocation on the basis	that Canada	is entitled to \ the	power benefits in the U.lin Canada	37	675	in U.S.A.	407	333	Total	444	1008	+ 564'(regulated diversion from	4.8 MAF of	storage supported	by Dorr pumping)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The letter goes on:
It is, of course, these very large increases in available energy from storage which is the source of the inherent flexibility of sequence IXa in the early period when firm power is an objective in Canada.
Moreover, later on when the systems mature it is the large stored energy in sequence IXa which provides a means of carrying the heavy seasonal upswings of hydroelectric generation instead of by installing the additional large, and expensive to operate, thermal plants which would otherwise be required.
Surely Canada is entitled to a half share of this form of peaking benefit which derives from the large energy releases from the Canadian storages, in the form of a saving in U.S. investment in thermal plants.
In the absence of the independent computer studies on this aspect of co-operation between Canada and the United States systems which I have advocated, but which have not been made available, it is not possible to give precise figures of the savings which will result. However in this connection I note that Mr. Cass-Beggs, who is well Informed on the value of storage in system operation, in his presentation to the external affairs

Supply-Finance
committee on 14 May, 1964, minutes No. 25, page 1239) stated "water withdrawn from storage... would be firm power... available when you need it to meet peak loads... valued at 4 or 5 mills per kilowatt hour in the U.S."
On the basis of the lesser value, namely 4 mills per kilowatt hour, the average annual incremental release of energy from Dorr-Bull river-Luxor over high Arrow of 490 MWY would be worth 17.4 million dollars annually. This at 5 per cent would pay interest on an added investment of $348 million, whereas under the latest figures given by Montreal Engineering the extra cost of Dorr-Bull river-Luxor over high Arrow is 187.1-129.5=$57.6 million (minutes No. 27, page 1406); that is about 1/6 of the added expenditure which would be justified by the greater energy release available from Dorr-Bull river-Luxor.
Surely, Mr. Martin, such a gain in power in its most valuable form, not to mention the other advantages of sequence IXa such as the maintenance of Canadian control over East Kootenay waters, is a worth-while objective and evidences the need for renegotiation being insisted upon by the responsible government, the government of Canada.
I do not propose to go through again the detailed comments which I have made to you in our correspondence and to the external affairs committee in my presentations on the proposed Columbia river treaty and protocol and sale agreement because these are all reproduced in the committee's minutes. I merely state at this time that I reaffirm the views I have stated to you.
Also that I have examined the comments made by your adviser Mr. G. M. McNabb and it is my view that he has failed to appreciate the true import of the various clauses of the treaty and protocol in question and the importance and equity of the various proposals I have made in correction.
For example in my presentation the importance, in regard to flood control, of an effective and continuing deterrent to abuse and the limitation of the objective at the Dalles: this so that, as the U.S. continue to move out into the flood plain of the lower river, the operation of Canadian storage shall not be increased as would be the case under the present wording.
Also, in regard to power, X draw attention to my proposal that the treaty should be revised to implement the principle agreed to in the I.J.C. that benefits from the co-operative use of Canadian storage should be equally divided and that all forms of benefit should be included.
In this connection also I have recommended that annex A, paragraph 7, et sequence, which sets up a criteria of operation on a basis of optimization of system benefits, which is contrary to I.J.C. principles, should be replaced by a criteria which will provide for a "best use value" of Canadian resources in head and flow in Canadian at site generation as is customary in interconnection agreements between utility systems.
Failing correction of these points, I repeat my view that the treaty and the protocol should be rejected by parliament.
In this connection I would invite particular attention-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that, following his previous remarks, I have listened to him very carefully and have given him the opportunity of saying sufficient to enable me to judge the tenor of his remarks. I believe now that the hon. member is reopening a
[Mr. Herridge.l
matter which has already been decided. I would refer him to paragraph 3 of citation 148, page 127 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
Reference to debates of the current session is discouraged even if such reference is not irrelevant, as it tends to reopen matters already decided.
If the Chair permits the hon. member for Kootenay West to proceed as he has in the last three or four minutes, I shall have to allow other members of the house to do the same thing, and in effect we will be reopening a debate on a matter which has already been decided. I believe if the hon. member were to continue his remarks in the tenor of the last few minutes, I would have to consider him as being out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your comments.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say, so that I do not engage in a debate that has already taken place in the house, that it is quite obvious that, as old soldiers never die, neither do old politicians.


William Arnold Peters: That is a really great remark.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You can see, Mr. Chairman, what rests in the mind of the hon. member for Kootenay East.


William Arnold Peters: The respect he has for soldiers, too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He would not know what that meant.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member intends tc continue reading that letter, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a further ruling that he be not permitted to continue this debate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I have already given the ruling and have quoted the citation of Beauchesne in support of my ruling. My ruling is that a reference to a debate of the current session is discouraged even if such reference is not irrelevant, as it tends to reopen matters already decided. It is the opinion of the Chair that the treaty dealing with the Columbia river has been decided, and any reference to that treaty does nothing more than reopen an argument already decided. I would urge the hon. member for Kootenay West to confine his remarks as closely as possible to the item before us and the reason for that item or vote.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, of course I accept your ruling. However, there was one paragraph I read which would indicate that we were reopening the question, and I have

some other correspondence which I will take the opportunity to place on record at the appropriate time, which I presume will be on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Now I want to bring to the attention of the minister, because this is the only opportunity I have of so doing, that we were given in the committee certain information with respect to the sites of the dams and the cost of construction.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This minister?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, not the Minister of Finance. I said this was in the committee. We were given evidence by certain experts and consultants regarding construction costs, etc., and were told that these matters had been concluded. These sites were said to be the best possible; the construction costs were known, the flowage costs were known. We were told we were being given definite facts. Now we find the government of British Columbia has a doubt in this matter. After having before us a gentleman whom we were informed was the world's leading expert on the safety of dams, we now find the government of British Columbia has appointed a five man commission to check into these questions. I should like to refer to their terms of reference, and I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because this is a development which has occurred since the house made a decision:
B.C. drafts expert power dam scheme.
Five top authorities on power dam construction have been commissioned by B.C. hydro to vet all plans for construction of B.C.'s three Columbia treaty projects.
Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, B.C. hydro chairman, said Tuesday that this board of engineers, which will meet in Vancouver shortly, has been asked to review the designs for Mica, Arrow and Duncan dams-
-and these are the designs for which this money is being paid. We were told that the designs were known and had been determined. We were shown pictures of the Mica, Arrow and Duncan dams. We were told that the sites had been selected and were the best obtainable. We were told that construction materials were the best available and in close proximity to the dams. This report continues:
-construction plans and other matters affecting safety and economy.
As I said before, we had a gentleman brought before us from Harvard University who we were informed was the world's leading expert on the safety of dams. Now the government of British Columbia will have 20220-337
Supply-Finance
a five man commission check into these matters. The report continues:
The members of the "Columbia board of review" are John O. Gorman, senior officer of Ontario hydro and adviser on geological and foundation investigations; J. Gordon Watson, chairman of the Saskatchewan river development board and chief engineer of the prairie farms and rehabilitation administration; Lt. Gen. Raymond A. Wheeler, U.S. army retired; J. Barry Cooke of San Rafael, Cal. and Calvin V. Davis, chairman of the board of Harza Engineering Co., Chicago.
At their initial meeting here, the board will visit each of the three dam sites and meet separately with the consultants responsible for each project.
In addition to reviewing plans for the dams, the review board will visit the projects periodically during the construction to ensure that the dams will be built according to designs and specifications that they have approved.
Dr. Keenleyside stressed that the establishment of the board was in no way a reflection on the work being done by the engineers who are designing the dams.
Lt. Gen. Wheeler, commanding general of the U.S. army forces in India, Burma, China from 1942-45, was appointed chief engineer for the U.S. army in 1945. For the past two years he has been chief adviser on water and power for the international bank.
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Davis are both recognized as international authorities on major dam construction. Both have been responsible for numerous important projects in different parts of the world. Mr. Cooke also is a member of the review panel for B.C. hydro's Peace river project.
Geology and soil mechanics engineer with Ontario hydro since 1954, Mr. Gorman carried out geological and soil studies on both the St. Lawrence seaway and Niagara projects in addition to all other Ontario hydro dams erected since 1940.
In addition to many other important assignments, Mr. Watson was planning and design engineer on the South Saskatchewan river project and is chief construction engineer for the prairie farm rehabilitation administration.
I mention that, Mr. Chairman, because these people are being appointed to check facts which we were told were already known. The facts and costs and so on were all known.
Now what has happened? In the United States they are finding some difficulty in selling these bonds. And do you know why? Because there is a surplus of power where it has been decided to sell these bonds. There will have to be an intertie connection or a power line from the northwestern United States to California which is estimated to cost $690 million. This means that a bill has to be put through congress in connection with the appropriation.
There is some difference of opinion over that. Discussions are already being held in the United States concerning whether, in view of the amount of $690 million which is

Supply-Finance
required, it is necessary to build the Libby dam, which is a marginal dam, at a cost of $350 million. Also, further consideration is being given to the high Arrow dam project. I would not be a bit surprised to see Mr. Bennett use the advice of United States experts-and notice the standing they have in the United States-to do another about turn on the Columbia river treaty. This is being talked about, and other leading engineers have expressed their opinions with respect to the revision.
What is behind all this? What is behind it all is that the United States authorities are determined, if they have to build this tie-line to California, that they will need Columbia power, all they can get, and also utilize surplus Peace river power, and so on, all the way up to the great power resources of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which totals 20 million kilowatts.
Now, when did this occur? I want to draw this matter to the attention of the younger members of the committee who are possibly not so well informed on this matter. I want to refer briefly to pages 108 and 109 of "The Market for Rampart Power, Yukon river, Alaska", study by the committee on public works of the United States Senate, 1962. I wish to quote this passage to bring to the attention of the committee what is likely to happen in the future, and I trust that this government is alert to the situation. Paragraph 2 on page 108 says:
Introduction.
The feasibility of establishing an aluminum industry in Alaska was determined favourable early in the 1950's by the Aluminum Company of America. That company proposed to divert waters of the upper Yukon river from Canadian territory to the vicinity of Skagway, Alaska. The Taiya project would have developed in two stages over one million kilowatts of power capacity and 400.000 short tons of primary aluminum capacity at a total investment cost estimated at $700 million. The first stage of the development. 200,000 tons of aluminum capacity, would have added about one third to the then capacity of the United States, reflecting Alcoa's confidence toward placing a substantial share of the aluminum industry in Alaska.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Kootenay West that the purpose of this vote is to provide for the purchase of United States securities with United States dollars paid to Canada, pursuant to the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin. This vote deals with certain securities which deal with a treaty which has already been passed by the house. The hon. member is

trying to reopen the debates on the Columbia river treaty. I feel I should remind him of standing order 59	(2) which states that
speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I respectfully say to the hon. member that I do feel he is reopening the debate on the Columbia river treaty, a matter which has already been decided.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and understand your comments on my remarks. I apologize if I transgressed. I did not mean to reopen the debate on the Columbia river treaty. I was trying to point out what the effect would be if this estimate were passed by this house, if this government were not alert to the situation and to the objectives of United States interests and to the policies of the government of British Columbia. Really they are very closely intertwined. I was just using this estimate to point out the possibilities in the future, without going into the question of the Columbia river treaty. However, sir, I am quite sure that both of us are inclined to look at this from different points of view. Naturally, coming from Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, you would be very objective about the matter. I admit that at times I am not completely objective.
I just want to conclude my remarks on this point before dealing with another aspect of this item. I am doing this because I want the government to be on the alert and realize what is happening. I continue to quote:
The unwillingness of the Canadian government to support this Alcoa project was followed by development of a similar project by the Aluminum Company of Canada in northern British Columbia in the wilderness area of Kitimat-
Now, the background of that story is not any too well known. What happened in this connection was that Dr. Keenleyside, who was then deputy minister of the department in question, without authority of the minister, Mr. Winters, gave the president of the Aluminum Company of America a licence with regard to the exploration and development of this Rampart project, and so on. When this was discovered I happened to know that Mr. Howe was most indignant. The president of the aluminum company was invited to come to Canada, and at a dinner was told by Mr. Winters that the licence was going to be cancelled. Shortly afterward Dr. Keenleyside packed his bags and got a job with the United Nations.
This is all part of the same scheme. Regardless of our opinion of the Columbia, the purpose of these developments has always

been to build a power line from California to the Yukon and have a tremendous flow of British Columbia and Canadian power into the United States instead of having it go into a Canadian national grid. I take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, because this is what I am confident is proposed for the future. I speak as a Canadian, and I speak as one from British Columbia who wants to see this power used to produce jobs in Canada, in British Columbia and in the Kootenays.
X have one other aspect, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention before I conclude. This has to do with the question of compensation to persons affected. I trust the members of all parties will stand up and do their part to see that these people get justice. The Secretary of State for External Affairs told us he was assured that the persons affected by flooding from these dams would receive proper relocation or compensation therefore.
I have been asked by a large number of people along the Arrow lakes to raise this question in the house. Dr. Keenleyside came into the district and intended to speak to one or two chambers of commerce. This was not good enough for them, and they demanded that he speak at public meetings. They organized public meetings and he spoke at Edgewood and at Nakusp to between 350 and 400 people. He was battered with a barrage of questions which were not answered to the satisfaction of the people concerned. They were told that the there would be no replacement or relocation, and that compensation would be on the basis of market value.
I have a newspaper report here. I could read at length from it, Mr. Chairman, to indicate how very upset these people are. I happen to know that one of the farmers' institutes of the district has written to the Prime Minister bringing this to his attention. I know they have written other members. I have had letters also from the Castlegar to Revelstoke area. I am using this estimate as a means of bringing this to the attention of the house. To indicate what happened at this meeting, I should like to quote the headline on the article. "No Replacement Compensation says B.C. Hydro's Keenleyside". The article reads in part:
Residents of the reservoir flood basin will not be compensated area for area. Dr. Hugh L. Keenleyside, co-chairman of B.C. hydro, told an enthusiastic audience of 300 in the Legion hall Tuesday.
People who expect to get full compensation or replacement value for their homes will definitely not get it he said.
20220-337J
Supply-Finance
I am bringing this to the attention of the house and I trust I have the support of other members. After the assurance given in the committee on external affairs, after the statements that have been made by the chairman of the B.C. hydro authority and the speeches he made to the Vancouver board of trade and the Kelowna board of trade, this was a great shock to these people. I indicate this by quoting again from the article:
Mr. Frank Lewis of East Arrow Park told Mr. Keenleyside that he had been promised by the co-chairman one year ago that he and other senior citizens would get help in relocation because they couldn't afford to move.
"Tonight you have reversed your promise."
Then spokesmen from other areas got up. Finally one man, a veteran who has just completed paying for his home and was told he would get the market value, was told by Dr. Keenleyside that he would do what he could to assist him to borrow money to build a new home. This man said:
If you are going to rebuild Celgar's dumps with new ones, then you should also replace the old houses with new ones.
He also said:
I would like to make my position clear, sir. You'd better send a big man.
These people are very concerned indeed. I believe there is a responsibility upon the federal government to use its influence with the government of British Columbia and the B.C. hydro authorities to see that these people receive justice, are relocated and do not suffer in any way. They do not want to make a profit and they do not wish relocation at an improper expense to the B.C. hydro authority, but they want to be compensated so they will not suffer any actual loss because of this development. We are told this is a work for the advantage of Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the member for Kootenay West was just making a plea for the concern of members of this house from all parts of the country for the situation he has been describing. I feel that the vote we have before us places some rather stringent limitations on the total amount that may be authorized to be spent, and does give us cause for concern about this situation that has arisen subsequent to the ratification of the Columbia river treaty by this house.

Supply-Finance
Some members who are present will recall the period when the St. Lawrence seaway was under construction and the reports that were made in the house with regard to how the people of the area affected by that development were being relocated, steps which in many cases involved the moving and relocating of people almost in complete towns. As a member from British Columbia at that time I enthusiastically supported the taking of equitable action with regard to the people who were involved in that development in the central part of Canada.
Now that the parliament of Canada has seen fit to authorize a type of development in British Columbia which involves the flooding out of many of the people in the Arrow lakes area, I feel that parliament certainly should be concerned to see that those people in that province are treated with equity equal to that which was extended and supported by parliament in the case of the development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I think the hon. member for Kootenay West has given us cause for a good deal of concern about some of the developments that have taken place since we saw fit to ratify the treaty. He has given us some cause to consider whether, if our fellow citizens in the area most immediately affected are to be treated with justice and equity, the liability on the part of the government which parliament is being asked to ratify will be adequately or properly discharged with the kind of limitation of figures found in the vote before us. In this situation I feel that one of the matters which should be of concern to us before we decide to pass this item is whether it will satisfy adequately the financial responsibility which parliament has a moral obligation to assume in connection with the development in the Columbia river valley which we earlier authorized to take place.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I only want to say a few words on this item. I note in the estimate that we are being asked to transfer some of the money paid by the United States to the government of Canada. We are actually being asked to convert this money into U.S. dollars and to leave the amount in the United States. If you read the item you will see that it goes on to say:
...relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, together with any protocol or exchange of notes relating thereto, of such obligations of the government of the United States as may be approved by the governor in council...
We are now being asked to allow this money to remain in the United States, and I am won-

dering for what reason we were originally to be paid $254 million. If it was to assist in the development of the Columbia river project, then obviously we should not be turning this money over to that country even in the form of investment in short term bond issues of that country, but should be retaining it in Canada.
I think we are all concerned about the method used in dealing with the Columbia river treaty in the first place. A bill should have been introduced and the problem should have been completely understood. That matter has been decided, but in some respects it would appear that perhaps it has not really been decided after all. If we have this obligation for which we are paying $254 million in U.S. dollars, it would appear to me that we will be asked in a further estimate to provide that amount of money in Canadian dollars, which will make it that much easier for the United States to meet its obligations and create hardship to the same extent for the Canadian people.
Certainly the government of Canada was not to have this money in payment of its contribution in a national sense. Obviously the decision reached between the federal government and the United States government was that the development of the potential of the Columbia was a matter of provincial jurisdiction in Canada, and therefore the province of British Columbia had the right to make a call on the moneys paid.
In my opinion this will involve a further expenditure. In addition to the supplementary estimate we have before us now, it will very likely result in an additional estimate of an equal or greater amount. The amount of money we are generously lending the United States on a short term basis will have to be raised by the Canadian people in order to proceed with the Columbia river complex and we will be asked to vote a further amount. I believe the Canadian people will be very concerned about what is involved in this supplementary estimate. Neither the purpose nor the reason for this vote has been made clear to the public.
I think the matters raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West must be given very close scrutiny, and there must be a statement by the government that they intend to correct some of the faults already evident and which can be corrected by the sum of money being paid by the United States. This money was supposed to represent compensation paid to Canada for benefits that the Canadian people were losing.

Yet we are told that people in British Columbia, who are affected by the treaty and by the estimate we are discussing, are not being given reasonable or adequate treatment in the expropriation of their properties.
It would seem to me that the situation in British Columbia will involve problems similar to those that developed and were faced in other parts of Canada, particularly in relation to the expropriations made necessary by the flooding for the St. Lawrence seaway. In the general interests of a community expropriation can be used, but a bending over backward must take place in relation to the rights of individuals who suffer as a result of expropriation. In my view this amount of money was to be paid by the government of the United States to see that people displaced were treated properly.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Mr. Benidickson:: Perhaps the hon. member for Timiskaming has forgotten the new rules.


William Arnold Peters: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for the inconvenience. When we make a mistake we are quite willing to admit it. It would be a good thing for other people to do likewise.
I was dealing with the matter of expropriation, and already there is an indication from Mr. Keenleyside that he does not intend to honour some of the commitments previously made. We have on record this morning statements by some of the organizations concerned that the commitments originally made were not going to be kept.
It appears to me there is some relationship between this supplementary estimate and the moneys which can be paid, and without having seen the exchange of letters we must conclude that there was a request from the United States government to the Canadian government to invest in these medium term securities. I am quite sure the United States government is as familiar with the situation in Canada as we ourselves, and knows our balance of exchange is no better than that of other countries and is becoming increasingly difficult as time goes by. The advent of a large sum like $275 million would be advantageous to our balance of payments, and the fact that it is not being used in this way is an indication that the United States has asked that the money be not removed from the American market.
It is unfair for the supplementary estimate to contain statements referring to the protocol
Supply-Finance
and letters of exchange without allowing the committee the benefit of those directives. I believe we should use this money to provide adequate, and even better than adequate expropriations for those who are going to be affected by the terms of the treaty, and that we should keep the money in Canada.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should let some of the remarks that have been made in connection with this witch hunting pass unnoticed. Mr. Keenleyside, as a member of the hydro commission, has an obligation to the corporation and to the people. He is certainly not going to play Santa Claus, and that is to be expected, but we do have the commitment of members of the government that fair treatment will be given these people. This was mentioned in the external affairs committee and is a matter of record.
I asked the hon. member for Kootenay West whether these expropriations were subject to a board of referees. This is a practice that has existed over the centuries and when the time comes these people in the affected areas will not be asking for arbitration because they are going to get a better deal without going to arbitration. In so far as the statement of the hon. member for Kootenay West is concerned I want to make that correction. This is what I call witch hunting. We have had a long discourse on the evil thoughts of the Americans in connection with this whole matter, and there has been a suggestion of underlying currents.
What is wrong with having a power line from northern British Columbia and the Yukon, shall we say, to California? It is very nice down there, and maybe some people would like to go down there, live on their pension cheques and use some of the Canadian power. Again I mention that I would not like this passed without calling attention to the witch hunting that is going on in this committee.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that we do not have a quorum.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will make a count of the members.
And on the count being made, more than 20 members were declared to be present.


Herman Maxwell Batten: A quorum is present.


Robert Norman Thompson: A few minutes ago there were 12 members in the chamber. There was not one member in the seats of the Conservative opposition.

Supply-Finance


Mr. Ricard:: I take objection to this. We have permission to run in and out of the house because we have business to do outside the house. The hon. member himself is not often in the chamber.


Robert Norman Thompson: There was not one member on the Conservative benches a few minutes ago.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not a fact.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is correct.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just before it passes I want to deal briefly with a matter that comes under the responsibility of the federal government. I may say we must acknowledge the fact that there are two members of the Social Credit party in the chamber and eight members of the Liberal party, so we are doing pretty well indeed.
Dealing with the question of relocation and compensation, the federal government has some responsibility with respect to the veterans affected. There will be 50 or 60 veterans affected by the building of the high Arrow dam. Some of them purchased properties under the Veterans Land Act and some purchased properties directly themselves, but as a result of Dr. Keenleyside's visit to the district they are very concerned. They held a meeting in the village of Nakusp attended by some 150 delegates, and I would like to read briefly from the Arrow Lakes News of June 25 with respect to the resolution adopted at that meeting. The article in question is headed, "Legion Convention gives Backing to Hot Replacement Question," and it reads:
The West Kootenay zone of the Royal Canadian Legion resolved to ask the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide professional assistance to those veterans which will be affected by the Columbia river development projects.
The resolution was presented by Branch 20, Nakusp, who were the hosts for the week end convention...
A general meeting of the Branch 20 membership voted unanimously in favour of the resolution:
Whereas the veterans residing in the flood basins of the Columbia river, who are to be affected by the treaty, will be at a disadvantage negotiating with trained officials of the B.C. hydro authority;
Whereas experience has shown great variance in allowances for similar properties received from hydro authorities for similar areas for no apparent reason;
Whereas these affected veterans are in fact negotiating for the interests of Veterans Land Act, National Housing Act. soldiers settlement board and others as well as those of their own;
Therefore be it resolved that the Department of Veterans Affairs be asked to provide professional

assistance to veterans affected by the Columbia river development projects.
Another resolution was adopted by the convention in the following terms:
With regard to displacement of persons living in the area to be flooded by the Columbia development projects:
Whereas it has been stated in verbal and written form by Dr. Keenleyside that market value will be the criterion used in the purchase of property of affected persons, and
Whereas the use of market value can mean a very great hardship on people who cannot afford to pay the difference between market value and actual cost of replacement; and
Whereas many veterans will be affected by the system of market value settlement;
Therefore be it resolved that the Royal Canadian Legion support the principle as follows:
When a person, or persons, are forced with the necessity of having to move; where a cash settlement is not suitable, that B.C. hydro resettle that person in accommodation not less favourable to that person at no cost to the person being resettled.
I bring those two resolutions to the attention of the committee because they were adopted at a zone convention concerned with the welfare of the veterans and of all those persons affected. The president of the Royal Canadian Legion of the province of British Columbia wired me in this respect as did the secretary of the branch concerned. I do urge that the government and the Department of Veterans Affairs particularly should bring their good offices to bear so as to assist these veterans in connection with expropriation or purchase. We recall what has been done in this regard by the national capital commission, which has in my opinion treated people very fairly and properly. We remember what was done in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway. Every person who had to be relocated was relocated at no cost to himself. Houses were moved back, and in most cases new basements were built to the satisfaction of those concerned. Then, in connection with the Saskatchewan dam, those farmers and others who were affected were compensated not on the basis of market value but on the basis of the potential value of the properties they were being asked to leave on account of the development.
I do urge that the government through the Department of Veterans Affairs take whatever action it can to assist these veterans in the area to obtain justice, and I urge that the government as a whole should take an interest in the developments which are occurring in British Columbia with respect to these projects. I am sure that many interesting things are going to happen in the future. As I have said before, regardless of our opinions

respecting this treaty, no Canadian should be treated unfairly and unjustly to the advantage of the community as a whole. That is all I intend to say at this time and I thank the committee for listening to what I had to say, though I am sure they were at times somewhat bored with my repetition of these important matters.


Mr. Ryan:: In one serious respect I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West has given the committee a mistaken impression. We were told in the committee on external affairs when the treaty was before it that preliminary plans were in existence for all three Columbia dams and that working drawings existed with respect to two of them. We were also told that an engineering board would be reviewing and examining the plans and actual construction. I submit this five man board which has been appointed is in line with what we were told in the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman is confusing the permanent engineering board, which will represent Canada and British Columbia, with that other body. We were told nothing whatever about this new review commission. The hon. member is confusing this new commission or review board, which is the creature of the British Columbia hydro and power authority, with the permanent engineering board which will be responsible to governments for the whole project.


Bert Raymond Leboe: The hon. member for Spadina is right. We were told in the committee that this was to be set up. It is a special board to make sure that the work will be coordinated.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member for Spadina tell us, as a result of his knowledge of what is going on in the external affairs committee, whether that committee was given any indication of the announcement by the premier of British Columbia that he is now tying in a third river development requiring the damming of the Fraser river for hydro purposes? This is a most important matter. Now it appears we have moved away from a two river development to a three river development in British Columbia, and if my recollection of the plan put forward by General McNaughton is correct, it looks as though the premier is in part reverting to General McNaughton's plan. Can the hon. member tell us whether this is before the committee in any way or whether any representations have been made to the committee regarding this
Supply-Finance
new three river development, which was announced I think about four days ago by Premier Bennett?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Of course I can give no answer to that question. Furthermore, the question is completely irrelevant to the subject now being considered.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I can answer that question quite simply. It was given in the committee by Ray Williston in connection with the Fraser river engineering board report. Drilling and everything else has gone on on the upper Fraser. The testing is already being done.


The Chairman:: May I suggest to the members of the committee that we are now going over matters which have previously been discussed? I would suggest that this exchange is out of order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to return for a moment to the question of the financial obligations of the government of Canada and to the responsibility of this parliament generally in connection with the voting of money.
The particular point I wish to raise has reference to some of the observations made a little earlier in our proceedings by the hon. member for Cariboo when he referred to "time honoured expropriation proceedings". I am quite sure that the persons who will be responsible for the valuation of properties as a result of the development which is to take place will probably do a competent job. But the point I was trying to make earlier is that it depends upon the terms of reference which these people are given. I happen to have some recent experience with an incident involving the appraisement of land, and without entering upon a discussion of this matter I would refer to the situation arising out of the tidal wave disaster on the west coast. Appraisements there have been carried out on the basis of the depreciated values.
As I tried to say earlier, I think this committee should unanimously support the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay West that the people affected in the Arrow lakes area should be compensated on the basis of the cost of re-establishment and the replacement value of their properties. Certainly this is my understanding of the basis upon which compensation was available to people displaced by the St. Lawrence seaway project, and I was in this house at the time.
Since parliament has taken action by ratifying this treaty, and since it has assumed financial obligations in connection with it, as mentioned in the item before us, I suggest

Supply-Finance
this question of compensation is one of legitimate concern to every member of this house. We should be completely satisfied that those immediately charged with making compensation decisions have satisfactory terms of reference, and that those affected by their decisions shall be re-established as far as humanly possible without incurring any loss. The hon. member for Kootenay West has placed evidence on record to show that up to the present time this is not the policy being followed by the authorities charged with this responsibility within the province of British Columbia.
I suggest that this matter should be made abundantly clear. While we may be prepared to pass this item in the supplementary estimates at this time, it should be made clear at this time and there should be an indication in this house that unless certain changes are made in the policies which apparently have been followed up till now, this matter is by no means finished with as far as this parliament is concerned.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On that point, Mr. Chairman, surely I, as one of the members of the external affairs committee that sat and heard evidence in respect of this matter, would be prepared to vote against this estimate if I were not convinced that the B.C. government and the chairman of B.C. hydro were prepared to carry out the commitments they have made.
The hon. member for Kootenay West read from a newspaper report taken, I believe, from the Arrow lakes News, concerning a large meeting before which the chairman of the B.C. hydro appeared. The hon. member did not read all that was said at this meeting. The report of the meeting indicates that it is the intention of B.C. hydro to carry out its commitments.
I am not aware exactly what "area by area payment" means, but I would like to quote something that was said by Dr. Keenleyside in this regard. It is also related to what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said:
Dr. Keenleyside read from the water comptroller's terms for appraisals.. .fair market value of the property but will contain details of any circumstances which could be considered to give the property a value to its owner that is in excess of the fair market value.
"The appraisal report will also give details of circumstances that would entitle an owner to compensation for disturbance and moving expenses".
This means that many intangibles would be considered in each case. Sentimental attachment, back-breaking labour, home improvements, age,

employment, desire to move and many, many more will all have to be considered, he said.
This is substantially what was said in the committee. While no doubt there is some misunderstanding, and understandable misunderstanding, on the part of the people who are going to be displaced, I think the situation is clear. I think it is to the credit of these people that they continue to bring these matters before B.C. hydro and the province of British Columbia in order that there will be no relenting in their desire to fully compensate people for removals and any other losses that are anticipated. But to say that B.C. hydro and the B.C. government are going back on their commitments is completely without any foundation whatsoever.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I represent those people and I am not going to sit here and have the member for Kootenay East suggest that I am not telling the truth. These people have written to me, hundreds of them; they are completely dissatisfied about what was said at the meeting that was addressed by Dr. Keenleyside. They got up at that meeting and said what I have quoted some of them as saying, namely that he had gone back on his word. They are very disturbed and put out about this matter. Also, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Kootenay East does not know it, the farmers of the district have sent a letter to the Prime Minister bringing these facts to his attention. You must remember that when you come to deal with a weekly newspaper nowadays, all weekly newspapers take a very neutral approach to public affairs-we have lost the old fire and brimstone we had 50 years ago- because they are all dependant on governments for advertising and things of that sort.
I speak with knowledge and conviction, Mr. Chairman. These people are most dissatified; and so far as the veterans are concerned, they expect the Department of Veterans Affairs to do what they can to assist them to obtain justice. As far as the rest of the residents are concerned, they hope that the government of Canada will do what it can to make certain that these promises which have been made will be kept. As I have said before, I am very interested in listening to the hon. member for Kootenay East as being an apologist for the government of British Columbia.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the hon. member is not telling the truth as he thinks he knows the truth. All I was doing was reading what purports to be a correct interpretation of what took

place at that meeting. I am personally convinced that these people will be treated in a fair and reasonable manner, or I would certainly have voted against the treaty and would vote against this estimate. However, as I say, I am personally convinced that they will be treated in a fair and reasonable manner, and certainly we will see to it that they are.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to get that clear, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Kootenay East I think pledged to the house that the government would see they were fairly treated, if I heard him correctly when he was concluding his remarks. I repeat that. As I heard it, the hon. member for Kootenay East said the government will see that these people will be fairly treated; so we expect that promise to be kept.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, it is up to members of parliament and the various governments to see that these people are fairly treated. I am sure no government would endeavour to avoid that responsibility.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
["The hour\nfor the consideration of private members' business has expired."]
Mr. Mcllraiih moved:: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, the sum of $183,433,000.67, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraiih thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-109, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1965.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, the sum of $183,433,000.67, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Next sitting of the house.
Ways and Means


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We need unanimous consent to proceed with second reading of the bill at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The Chair cannot proceed and put the motion unless there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Scott:: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the position where there is not unanimous consent so it cannot proceed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is not some misunderstanding about the appropriation bill which is based on these two items. I wonder whether there is a misunderstanding as to what the bill is or what the procedure is.


George James McIlraith: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
['the second reading of the bill.']
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. If we allow the purchase of short term bond issues in the United States with this money, is it the intention of the minister to come to parliament and ask for an appropriation to cover the money which has been paid? In other words, this money has been paid for a specific purpose. Some of that money, I am sure, was intended to be used as compensation. We are concerned with the payment of this compensation and the size of it. Is the government prepared to advance a sum of money either equivalent to or less than this amount to provide for that compensation while the short term loans are in process?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am not at all clear on the point the hon. member is raising. However, I do want to make it clear, because I am not sure that I did earlier, that this item in the supplementary estimates will give authority to invest in non-marketable medium term U.S. securities. There is already authority to invest in marketable U.S. securities. I am not sure that I understood the hon. member's question in the context of this item.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister one question. Can he assure the

Supply-Agriculture
committee that the $275,149,500 mentioned here will complete the treaty projects as required, and that the treaty projects will be built and completed according to the terms of the agreement with the government of British Columbia?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I have not been dealing with this matter of the treaty. I am here as Minister of Finance seeking authority to invest this money in medium term nonmarketable United States securities. I am not in a position to answer other questions in connection with the treaty itself or the obligations of the British Columbia government, which matters have been dealt with by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
['Mr. Chairman, I have not been dealing with this matter of the treaty. I am here as Minister of Finance seeking authority to invest this money in medium term nonmarketable United States securities. I am not in a position to answer other questions in connection with the treaty itself or the obligations of the British Columbia government, which matters have been dealt with by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


William Arnold Peters: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Kootenay West the fact that the member for Kootenay East is here to vote on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is here when there is no vote.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production and marketing-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products subject to the approval of treasury board, $2,190,400.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when item I was passed I asked whether the Minister of Agriculture would let us discuss the subject of crop insurance under this heading, owing to the fact that there is no item in the main estimates specifically relating to crop insurance. One of the members who

wanted to speak on this matter is not present today so I am going to make a few remarks on that subject. My remarks will be brief and, I think, not controversial.
In 1959 we passed the crop insurance legislation to enable provinces to pass enabling legislation to set up crop insurance programs suitable to their conditions. As I understand it, there are at the present time four provinces with agreements on crop insurance, but others are interested.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, might I raise a point here. I understand, the problem of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is that the subject matter he wishes to discuss does not relate to one of the items in the main estimates. If I am correct in that, would it not be more appropriate to discuss the matter on item la of the supplementary estimates, which deals with departmental administration?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It would be satisfactory, I think, except that we are trying to get item 1 through the house. This is one of the matters which would have held us up for a considerable time but the minister agreed to let me discuss this on item 15. Unless this is another change of government policy I would just as soon discuss it now.


Harry William Hays: We have no objection.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This will only take a few minutes. Some of the provinces have taken advantage of this legislation, but it was apparent within a year or so after the legislation was passed that in those provinces where there is a one crop economy, such as the wheat growing areas, the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan were a little unhappy about putting in crop insurance to cover the whole province. The reason for this is clear. If the whole province were covered, in case of a major crop disaster the credit of the province would be extended under the conditions of the original act if the amount of money required to pay losses during any particular year exceeded the amount in the reserve fund of the crop insurance plan, then the province could come to the federal government and borrow the amount necessary to meet the shortages. The provinces felt that the requirements of borrowing from the federal government would reduce their power of borrowing, so felt reluctant to put the scheme in for the whole of the province.
Toward the end of the term of the last administration, this matter was before the

government. The proposal was that the provinces would reinsure for this amount with the federal government. The provinces would pay the federal government an amount of money on an actuarial basis as a premium to cover the costs of the reinsurance. This principle was under discussion and consideration at the time the government changed. I understand the minister intends to introduce a crop reinsurance bill. Without revealing any of the details of this legislation which may be intended to carry out this reinsurance on an actuarial basis, I wonder if he could confirm that this is the intention? If so, we on this side of the house will be satisfied, and I will say nothing more about crop insurances.


Harry William Hays: Yes, on June 8 we put this on the order paper, and I think it is very well covered in the suggestions made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like now to go on to another subject, and on this too I shall be fairly brief. Vote 15 relates to the administrative costs of the agricultural stabilization board. I may have to come back to some individual questions, but I want to raise one major point in a general way in the hope the minister will give us some sort of lead on his thinking in this regard.
I am referring to the fact that in Canada today, generally speaking, agriculture is doing fairly well. The large area of weakness in the agriculture economy is concentrated in the low income areas. This is a major problem that will require the efforts of many people for many years to come. This is one problem. The other problem that is more immediate and has been here for the last eight or nine years is the difficulty of the dairy industry. The situation in the dairy industry cannot be described quickly, but suffice it to say that in the main we have an industry across Canada that is not in a serious situation, if you look at the over-all statistics. The surplus production from the industry is roughly 6 per cent to 7 per cent. However as a result of the fact that this surplus bears on those members of the dairy industry who have not got a fluid milk contract, the situation is desperate for them.
The previous government tried to cope with this situation by taking action under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. However we recognized as we were coping with that situation that adjustments would have to come as experience dictated. Without going into all the ramifications of the support price 20220-338$
Supply-Agriculture
policy of the agricultural prices board in connection with the dairy industry, I should like to focus my remarks on the pressure points of butter. It is recognized I think that the problem of the purely butter producer is almost hopeless. The consumer will not pay the price based on the 64 cents support price, therefore the consumption of creamery butter has fallen off. It was obvious that the price to the consumer had to be brought down to get him back into the habit of buying butter. This we did by a policy of keeping the support price to the farmer at 64 cents a pound and by letting the consumer have butter at the wholesale level of 52 cents a pound. This was, in effect, a consumer subsidy of 12 cents a pound to encourage the consumer to buy more butter.
The figures we have indicate that this policy was a success. I should like to make two points clear. First of all, a person who is in the business of producing butter, by itself, cannot make money at 64 cents a pound. Since the consumer who buys the product will not pay that price this means that we are up against what seems to be an insoluble problem. In the days when I was minister the department looked at many solutions to this problem and selected two or three that seemed promising. Every one of those solutions that seemed promising seemed to me to be based on the premise that there had to be something done by the farmers themselves to make the work of the senior governments effective.
In the case of milk, the provincial governments, under a provincial statute, guarantee a fair price to the producer of milk who is putting his milk into the fluid milk market. Using very round figures, the price for milk in this market is from $5 to $5.50 per 100. The price goes higher in some cases and a little lower in others. This I think the farmers would agree is essentially a fair price. However the farmer who is not lucky enough to have a milk contract receives an average price that fluctuates between $2.50 per 100 and $3 per 100 if he is in the business of shipping manufactured milk such as to a cheese factory. I am not attempting to be precise when I use these figures; it is just to give you the picture.
We know from the most casual observation that no matter how efficient a farmer is, even if he had 25 good cows and was running a very efficient establishment, at a price of $3 per 100 pounds, or less a farmer cannot make a living. This is an essential economic fact he faces. In order to try to bring about an adjustment we have used the Agricultural

Supply-Agriculture
Stabilization Act and tried to direct production into those forms for which there is a better market and which would give higher returns to the producer. I think, in all fairness, the Agricultural Stabilization Act has achieved a great deal. It has pioneered a whole series of new agricultural techniques to try to raise the income of farmers without costing the treasury an inordinate sum of money.
This does not mean that we have to say that the agricultural stabilization board has finished experimenting. I would suggest in this connection, that is in connection with the dairy industry, that the stabilization act could be used even better. We inaugurated a program of paying consumer subsidies on butter, for example. At that time I made it very clear to the provincial governments and to the dairy producers that this effort by the federal treasury to help sell more butter at great cost would be done as long as the farmers were making efforts themselves to get together and form some sort of national organization to help themselves. Now, for obvious reasons, this program of farmers to help themselves was centred in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario where the dairy problem is one of the prime interests of the people in the agriculture industry. The province of Quebec undertook to introduce legislation to enable the farmers to form a single organization in that province. The province of Ontario, through its minister of agriculture, organized a series of meetings with the four main dairy organizations in that province in an effort to try to bring about a single dairy organization that could co-operate with the Quebec organization and bring about relative harmony in marketing so far as the two adjoining provinces are concerned.
The next step was that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture called a dairy conference under the chairmanship of the late Dr. Hannam which was held in the city of Ottawa in the spring of 1963. This conference decided to move toward a national dairy policy. It was recommended that a committee of 16 be set up to help to draft a national dairy policy, with five members of the committee from the national dairy council, five representing the dairy producers, five representing the provincial governments-they having divided the country into areas-and one representing the federal government. To my knowledge that committee has either never met or certainly has made no progress report to the public.
In this period of adjustment we are trying to help the dairy farmers by subsidizing the

price of butter to the extent of over $40 million a year. This subsidy was given with the idea that at the provincial level and the farm level there would be a continuing effort to try to solve the problem by establishing a national dairy policy, which could take several forms.
I have almost completed my remarks, Mr. Chairman, but when we are discussing the administration of the stabilization board I believe we should hear what the policy of the government is in relation to the over-all dairy situation. We want to know if there is any activity at the provincial and farm levels to meet conditions that were well understood when we advanced the heavy subsidy on butter. I am not making these remarks for the purpose of causing any trouble between the provinces and the farm organizations. I make them because I know that unless we do have some rational dairy policy in Canada the great majority of the farmers in the dairy business, the 55 per cent in Ontario for instance with less than 13 cows, and the even greater percentage in Quebec with less than 13 cows, cannot be asked to continue indefinitely waiting for some action.
It is true that the difficulties are great. It is true that the heaviest responsibility falls on the provincial ministers to give leadership in their provinces in creating single dairy organizations in each province, so that a national organization can be formed with some opportunity to work out policies that will provide some control over the production and marketing of the products of the dairy farms. I suggest that the problems of low income farmers, mostly in eastern Canada, and the problems of the dairy industry are very closely related and that the test of any minister of agriculture of Canada will be how well he provides leadership in getting the provinces to continue their movement toward a single dairy organization within each province, which organizations can then sit down together and see if they cannot work out a national dairy policy within the next two or three years. I should like to know what the minister's thoughts are with regard to a national dairy policy and how he intends to use the agricultural prices stabilization board as part of the machinery to help to solve this problem.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I assure the hon. member that we do recognize the problems he has mentioned. This committee has met four times, the last time in June, and the

next meeting will be in seven or eight weeks time. Its members are actively engaged in trying to formulate some policy that will protect producers in so far as prices are concerned. As the hon. member recognizes, the big problem of course is price, and there has been some improvement in this field. But I should like to assure the hon. member that the committee which represents all levels, the producers, the provinces, farm groups and the federal government, which has a representative, has met four times since the 1963 meeting. Its last meeting was in June and it will be meeting again at the end of September or the beginning of October.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have one or two more precise questions. Has the federal government put forward any inducements to encourage the members of the committee to move faster in working out a national dairy policy? In referring to inducements I am not overlooking the fact that we put forward a $40 million inducement for them to get together, but I think they should be reminded that this inducement is conditional upon their moving forward. I should like to know from the minister what policy he has that will make the farmers of Ontario, with four separate organizations, want to get together to form a single organization and work in co-operation with the province of Quebec.


Harry William Hays: I can assure the hon. member that we do have this in mind and that we are moving forward in this direction. There are many problems. There are many people who, from a regional point of view, do not agree with what might be a good over-all policy. These are big problems, as the hon. member knows, but we are working toward what we think will be a much happier position in so far as the dairy farmers are concerned.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the fact that we are now considering item 15A to discuss briefly a particular point which, in my opinion, affects the agricultural economy in the Saguenay district. Naturally, like many other areas, that area is faced with marketing problems.
In that district, most farmers are engaged in dairying and their products obviously include butter, cheese and a very small quantity of powdered milk.
Farmers have never been quite able to understand the government's attitude concerning the marketing of such products. In
Supply-Agriculture
fact, if there is a surplus of butter, one year, in Canada, the year after we are faced with an overproduction of cheese. As a result, the government pays subsidies on butter one year and on cheese the following year, so that our farmers can never know from year to year which of the two products they manufacture will be subsidized. Because of those surpluses, either of butter or of cheese, our farmers are confused, unable to decide whether they should produce butter or cheese or whether they should give up dairying altogether.
Mr. Chairman, item 15 reads as follows:
Marketing of farm products.
I also note that an amount of $35,000 was appropriated for this item last year and it seems that this year, no need was felt to resort to marketing-


Harry William Hays: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we dealing now with vote 15?


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes.


Harry William Hays: We have finished all the other votes up to that point?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. members to the fact that the house is now considering vote No. 15 -production and marketing administration.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the subject matter with which I would like to deal. I see that, last year, an amount of $35,000 had been allocated under that item-marketing-while this year the amount allocated is only $20,000.
I am particularly interested in this matter, because, after all, the main problem facing our farmers today is precisely the problem of getting a stabilized market, a steady market for their produce.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Department of Agriculture should consider as most important the matter of finding markets for farm produce.
At the present time, the farming industry in the Saguenay area includes dairy farming and potato growing; and very soon now, the farmers of that area will be able to put on the market their production of blueberries.
I was reading recently a report published by Hon. Mr. Courcy, the Quebec minister of agriculture, to the effect that he would have to postpone his project to establish blueberry patches in the Saguenay peninsula, under ABDA, because of the uncertainty of

Supply-Agriculture
markets. Now, I am wondering to what extent this federal government is interested in this problem which the Quebec farmer has to face, and more particularly, the farmer in the Saguenay area, who is asking himself if he should give up dairy farming. When there are surpluses of milk, cheese and butter, the farmers are told: You should take up some other type of farming, you should produce something else, you should diversify your production.
Mr. Chairman, the farmer is quite prepared to diversify his production, to do something else, but he should, at least, be given the assurance that he will be able to sell on Canadian or foreign markets what he is requested to produce, and sell it at a reasonable price which will make it possible for him to live a decent life.
In my opinion, by having such a small amount earmarked for marketing research, the Department of Agriculture is simply missing an opportunity to use one of the means at its disposal to assist eastern agriculture, that of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. This question of markets is closely related to the present problem.
I was listening a while ago to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), the former minister of agriculture. Indeed, I always enjoy listening to him, because he speaks like a level-headed person and seems to be especially aware of farm problems. I like the suggestions he makes and when, a while ago, he said we should endeavour to unify our farm organizations in Quebec as they did in Ontario, in order to succeed in establishing a stable farm policy, I found myself in complete agreement with him on that point. I believe this is the way to a rational policy which would be acceptable to all the people concerned. However, until that feat is accomplished-because it will certainly be one to achieve that unification- we cannot let things deteriorate further.
The Department of Agriculture certainly has, on the federal level, a great responsibility, as stated so well this morning by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who is responsible for rural development. On the other hand, that responsibility is shared by the federal government and the provincial authorities, but they will reach those solutions only through co-operation.
I wonder if, at the present time, there are meetings between the federal Department of Agriculture and the provincial government of Quebec or Ontario about that

particular problem of marketing and market research.
What is the federal government exactly doing today to ensure that our dairy producers our cheese producers in Quebec and in the province of Ontario obtain the necessary outlets for their products? Does the federal government try as hard today to secure a stable market for our Canadian cheese producer as they did for the wheat producers?
I have nothing against the latter, and I am perfectly happy and in agreement with everything which is done to help them, but I would like to see the federal government jointly with the province of Quebec and the other provinces do the same for those other people.
I sometimes wonder whether it would not be opportune to set up a dairy board, similar to the wheat board, for instance, which would ensure that our dairy products meet national quality standards that are also acceptable internationally. Indeed this board might take joint action with the provinces and the dairy organizations with a view to securing a market for them, like the wheat board is doing at present by approaching every market in the world in its search for outlets.
We should have a similar organization which might dispose of our dairy farm products on every market in the world. I do not believe that this would be a prejudicial centralizing policy-far from it, as everything would be done in co-operation with the provincial governments, and more particularly with all organizations concerned. If this body were only like the wheat board which, to all ends and purposes, seems to be independent from the government as such. As this organization, as I say, was set up by the central government in agreement with the producers and wheat producing organizations, I believe that the same thing or something similar, might be repeated for the dairy farmers, which would provide them with the markets for which there is a great need.
They are now told: You are producing too much milk, you will have to do something else.
But has the assurance been previously given that another market could be found for the foodstuffs which they are asked to produce? Would it not be better, since a market must now be found for this new production, if the government itself, through some organization, found markets for the products for which they are equipped such as butter and cheese. I think that it is a serious problem.

The government would like them to give up part of their dairy production to produce something else. But was it anticipated that a market would nevertheless have to be found for that production? Besides, this transfer from one market or production to another is a burden for them, since they must now quit a production they developed at a loss, in order to reorganize in another line of production which in most cases requires a rather large investment for farmers who have been leading a precarious life for several years in a rather rough climate.
Relatively large funds have been placed at their disposal; but is it intended to get them into debt by urging them to turn to another type of production which, five years from now, will also be faced with a deteriorated market? And perhaps they will be asked then to change once more their line of production.
I think the thing should be thought out before urging our dairy farmers to diversify their production.
Indeed, allowance should be made for the fact that the population of Canada will not remain static, but will increase. And this dairy production, which may now have a temporary surplus, will not have a surplus forever.
Today, we say to dairy farmers: Reduce your production. Tomorrow or perhaps the day after tomorrow, we will have to beg them to increase their dairy production, in order to face the increased consumption due to the greater number of Canadian consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks because I think that many other members want to speak on that subject. In my opinion, the federal government should now make it a point to co-operate with the provincial governments-and here I mean Quebec in particular-to secure markets for our present agricultural production before asking the farmers to engage in another kind of production for which we are not sure they will find markets or for which we are not ready to guarantee them markets.
That being said, Mr. Chairman, I resume my seat.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the next few minutes to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who, a few minutes ago, made suggestions to the present government concerning the dairy industry.
I do not wish, today, to criticize the policy of the government but rather make a few recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture and to the agricultural stabilization
Supp ly-A griculture
board to help them find a way to assist the eastern farmers.
Mr. Chairman, it is well known that the dairy industry is the cornerstone of agriculture in eastern Canada, and in Quebec especially.
We know the dairy industry is the farmer's major source of income. A while ago, I was looking at the survey report tabled today by the Minister of Agriculture. That survey covered ten regions in the province of Quebec. In each, the dairy industry is at the top, providing farmers with the larger share of their income. Thus, 48 per cent of the income of farmers in those ten regions comes directly from the dairy industry and 16 per cent from the sales of cattle, which, in a way, is also part of the dairy industry.
If we are seeking ways to come to the assistance of eastern farmers, I think we have to know what will provide the farmer with the largest income, and that is the dairy industry.
In my opinion, the minister should pay a very special attention to this matter.
If the price of milk were to rise a little, the income of the farmers in the province of Quebec and eastern Canada would increase that much.
Some time ago a group of farmers marched on the provincial parliament. On that occasion, the minister of agriculture for the province of Quebec announced an increase of 20 cents per 100 pounds of milk. Farmers were immediately satisfied because they believed that this increase would apply to milk delivered to processing plants as well as to fluid milk. But they learned to their surprise that the increase was applicable only to fluid milk.
At the present time, Quebec farmers want to ask the federal government for an increase in order to raise their incomes. It is not only a certain group of farmers, but 71,000 dairy producers of that province.
Recently, I had a survey made in certain areas of the province of Quebec in order to ascertain the total number of pounds of milk sold by milk producers to their cooperatives. I should like to put on record the figures obtained in one area of the north shore, La Perade:	1,270 milk producers
shipped an average of 49,307 pounds of milk in 1961; in 1962, 1,235 milk producers shipped an average of 55,390 pounds of milk; in 1963, 1,222 milk producers shipped an average of 59,845 pounds of milk, still a slight increase. In such an area, milk is worth approximately

Supply-Agriculture
$3 per cwt.; this is not a very high income for those farmers who only rely on the dairy industry to support their family.
I now wish to quote the figures of the survey for 1963 only: 46 per cent of these 1,222 farmers shipped less than 50,000 pounds of milk, 22 per cent shipped between 50,000 and 75,000 pounds, 6 per cent shipped between
75.000	and 100,000 pounds and 13 per cent shipped between 100,000 and 150,000 pounds; finally, 3 per cent only shipped between
150.000	and 250,000 pounds. Consequently, if the federal government really desires to help farmers in eastern Canada it must take the necessary means to increase their income.
Last year, with its new dairy policy, the federal government saved the treasury about $11 million; this year, it will save the treasury between $4 and $5 million. Of course, the price paid to the producer for milk is somewhat the same as last year. In some places, this price is about 5 cents higher per cwt., in some other places, about 10 cents, but elsewhere it is 5 cents lower.
If the federal government saved the treasury $11 million last year and between $4 and $5 million this year, when the farmer receives about the same price, it is due to the fact that cheese is from 2 cents to 3 cents higher per pound, powdered milk is about 5 cents higher and finally, the demand for our dairy products is greater.
The suggestion I am making to the federal government is that this fall a special subsidy of 25 or 35 cents per cwt. of milk should be granted to eastern farmers up to a maximum of 100,000 pounds of milk. Such legislation would cost the federal government some $13 million, that is more or less the amount saved with the new farm policy passed last year and even then there would still be a few cents left over to give assistance in other fields.
If we figure that, in 1962, the subsidy of 25 cents per cwt. of milk paid to all eligible producers cost some $13 million and if, this coming fall, the government paid out to those eastern farmers a subsidy of about 35 cents per cwt. of milk for the first 100,000 pounds in order to increase their income, we would be, by the same token, giving assistance to most of the eastern farmers, because their average production is about 65,000 to 70,000 pounds shipped to processing plants.
If, in the province of Ontario, as was said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)-I was going to call him the minister of agriculture, because I anticipate that in a few months, he will be back at the head of

the Department of Agriculture-55.5 per cent of dairy producers have only 13 dairy cows, and 38.5 per cent have between 13 and 32, then I think that the situation is a little more serious in the province of Quebec. I am making this suggestion to the government in order that it may increase the income of those producers. And we can give good reasons to encourage the government to incur this $12 or $13 million expenditure early this fall. The Farmers' Advocate, in its June 1964 issue, quotes figures showing that in order to have an income of $3,000 per annum, a dairy producer should have 54 milch cows, with an average yield of 7,000 pounds of milk, the total of which amounts to 378,000 pounds of milk per annum, selling at $3.50 per cwt. or else 31 milch cows with an average production of 9,000 pounds, the total of which would represent 279,000 pounds selling at $3.50, or again, 22 milch cows, producing yearly an average of 11,000 pounds of milk for a total of 242,000 pounds of milk, which would earn $3,000 per annum, or still, 18 milch cows with an average yield of 13,000 pounds of milk, or a total of 234,000 pounds of milk which would bring in $3,000 per annum.
If we consider there are 55 per cent of the dairy producers in Ontario who keep less than 13 milch cows, and if we consider that in the province of Quebec, according to the data I have here, 7,484 dairy producers have obtained an average of 70,132 pounds of milk, evidently, their income is insufficient to allow them to meet their commitments. Now, if, in the province of Quebec for 70,000 producers the chief source of revenue is derived from the dairy industry, in my opinion, the government should focus its efforts on increasing income.
As a dairy farmer, I would say that the first 100,000 pounds of milk are necessarily the most expensive to produce and, as a matter of fact, they cost almost $3.50 per cwt. Keeping in mind that for each thousand dollars invested in dairy production it costs about $20 per milch cow, so that when the number is around 13, the income for the first
100,000	pounds of milk, the most expensive to produce, must be around $3.50 per cwt.
I remember that, in 1957-58, when I had the opportunity to visit the various areas of the province of Quebec and meet farmers, when the milk was worth about $2.50, $2.60 per cwt., I used to tell them: Milk ought to pay farmers an average price of $3 per cwt. We have now reached this average price of $3. At this time, it is not enough, we must go farther. In my opinion, we must not en-

courage just the big producers, the large organizations, so that they can keep on growing. We must help those who produce less than 100,000 pounds of milk.
I shall give an example. In the Granby area, in 1963, out of 1343 dairy farmers 68 per cent produced less than 100,000 pounds of milk per year, the average being 50,599 pounds.
In the Joliette area, in 1963, out of 736 producers, 79 per cent produced less than 100 pounds of milk a year, that is an average of 50,611 pounds a year. In the Bon-Con-seil area, my own area, in 1963, 57 per cent of the dairy farmers produced less than
100.000	pounds of milk, that is an average of 55,175 pounds of milk a year. In the La Perade area, on the north shore, in 1963, 84 per cent of the dairy farmers produced less than 100,000 pounds of milk, that is an average of 45,350 pounds a year. In the eastern townships, out of 400 producers, 57 per cent produced less than 100,000 pounds of milk, that is an average of 56,732 pounds a year.
In the area around Quebec city, including Megantic and Plessisville, out of 1,419 milk producers, 82 per cent produce less than
100.000	pounds of milk a year, or an average of 41,809 pounds. That is the situation in which our milk producers now find themselves.
We have small farms. Farmers have herds which are not too large, and mechanization is quite expensive. If the government really wants to help most farmers, it will have to implement this coming fall, or even sooner, the suggestion I put forth. And I am seriously warning the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), in short, the government, that Quebec farmers are getting ready to submit a request to the federal government and, if need be, to march on Ottawa. They have a right to do that.
If I were sitting on the other side of the house, I would advise government members to rouse public opinion throughout Canada, and more particularly in the cities. Our city dwellers should not think that farmers will always be the poor cousins in the Canadian economy. We should not forget that Ontario numbers about 70,000 or 72,000 producers, and the province of Quebec has about the same number. Those are people, families, human beings.
When did the government mind spending millions to help the miners? By following my suggestion, the government would spend a few million dollars to help thousands of people with inadequate income.
Supply-Agriculture
I make this suggestion, not because I want to criticize the policy the government enacted last year and which had its points. But I objected, though this policy had some good points, to the attempt which was made to save the federal treasury some money by every possible means, so as to be able to tell the city dwellers: We gave less to the farmers. That is not as it should be. Our fellow citizens who live in cities or towns should be made to understand that the farmer has a part to play, and that he should receive his rightful share of the national income. Indeed, if the farmer does not get an adequate income, he will move to the city and join the unemployed, or take the job of a person who is working and who would then become jobless in his turn.
Moreover, in some areas, families would have to receive social security allowances.
I should prefer the government to spend $12 or $15 million more in order to help directly the dairy farmers.
If the minister agrees to pay this additional grant next fall to farmers in Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces, up to 100,000 pounds of milk, I suggest that he should give this money directly to the farmers in two or three instalments. This would help increase the farmer's income. This will only be a temporary measure, since the appropriate long term measure is the one suggested earlier by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), that is, form a national dairy council which, I am sure, can do much for the dairy industry in Canada.
Just like the economists, we say there is at present a butter surplus. In fact, there are some 100 million pounds of butter in storage. Last year Canada produced 350 million pounds of butter, and approximately the same quantity was consumed. But if, in the course of one year, some drought prevailed, or if, at the end of said year, production decreased by 50 or 60 million pounds and consumption increased by 30 or 40 million pounds, there would be a shortage of about 100 million pounds of butter, and we would just about empty our warehouses.
During the 1967 world fair, if Canada receives 30 or 35 million visitors, we shall need more agricultural products, more butter, more cheese and it would be disastrous for the Canadian economy if we had to import agricultural goods which Canadian farmers can produce here. Moreover, when Canadian farmers produce, they have work, and it is a lot better for governments, federal as well as provincial, to help people

Supply-Agriculture
by keeping them at work instead of giving assistance when they have absolutely nothing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I shall close my remarks by asking once more the Minister of Agriculture to consider seriously the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. It is imperative that meetings be called as soon as possible between federal and provincial authorities as well as producers, in order to set up this national dairy council which afterwards might even be responsible for finding markets in foreign countries. Moreover, once this national dairy council is set up, we will really have a long term dairy policy.
But in the meantime, it is imperative to help dairy farmers, and that is why I suggested a short term policy under which the federal government would pay directly to dairy farmers in eastern Canada, starting next fall, a subsidy of between 25 and 35 cents per hundred pounds of milk, up to
100,000	pounds.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, the house is now considering the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, especially item 15.
It seems that the total budget of the department for 1964-65 is $140,124,800, while the expenditures under item No. 15 amount to $2,190,400.
What strikes me more than anything else in all those expenditures with respect to agriculture is that in the total budget as well as in the various items, as for instance votes Nos. 5, 10 or 15, millions of dollars are earmarked for agriculture, but farmers never see the colour of that money.
And to illustrate my assertion, if one considers the details of vote No. 15, one realizes that subsidies to agriculture represent only a small fraction of this whole vote of $2,190,400.
On the other hand, if one considers the whole budget, which amounts to $140 million, one can see that about 20 per cent of that amount is for farmers, the balance going to travelling costs, expenses and salaries.
In vote No. 15, for instance, out of $2,190,000, there is an amount of $2,170,000 in salaries and travelling expenses while $20,000 are made available for the marketing of our farm products; $20,000 to make our farm products better known and to improve processing methods; $20,000 out of $2 million.
Now, the total estimates provided for agriculture amount to $140 million. The same thing applies to all other expenditures.
According to vote No. 15, there are 418 employees working for the Department of Agri-
culture. To do what? To hand out subsidies. And how much? To hand out $20,000 in subsidies. Those 418 employees receive $2,170,000 to hand out $2,190,000. To whom? To the farmers? No, the farmers only get $20,000. That is the stupidity of our present system, Mr. Chairman. Then, people are amazed to see the farmers, especially those in the province of Quebec, march on parliament to demand their rights. And they are accused of being cry-babies and critics. I hope the farmers of the province of Quebec will organize, travelling by bus or in convoys, if necessary, to march on the Ottawa parliament because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) who is here, does nothing to change that situation.
He said that he wants to help the farmers. Help them, yes, but out of $2 million he gives them $20,000 to market their farm products and no one even knows how those $20,000 were spent. We do not know whether farmers even saw the colour of that money.
Mr. Chairman, we no longer have to put on white gloves to talk to the Minister of Agriculture. He was elected and came to Ottawa a year ago and what did we get in the field of agriculture in the province of Quebec? Nothing.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point
of order. I think I should mention that when we come to vote 25, the hon. member will see that there is $10 million there. When we come to vote No. 35, he will see that there is another $20 million. If he will recall, when we were discussing the supplementary estimates there was $122 million under the stabilization scheme. I feel that the hon. member should just keep these amounts in mind and not neglect to mention them.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture said that $5 million are provided under item 30. According to him, $1 million in subsidies appear under item 45, with regard to health of animals. In addition,
I must point out to him that an amount of $10 million appears under the item concerning animals and animal products.
However, of the $140 million, I note three items: $20,000 for production and marketing; $1,465,000 for health of animals and a further $10 million for animals and animal products.
Out of the amount of $140 million, only $20 million, that is, approximately 20 per cent, are actually intended for farmers.
As far as vote No. 15 is concerned, the Minister of Agriculture can look up the estimates;

he knows as well as I do that out of $2,190,000 allocated to agriculture, only $20,000 is earmarked for the marketing of products.
And some people say that eastern farmers are cry-babies.
I have more figures here showing that between 1936 and 1964, $2,500,000,000 have been granted, by way of various subsidies, to the farmers of western Canada. I am glad that the farmers of western Canada received $2,500 million since 1936, which is about $10,000 per farmer or $400 per year for each farmer in western Canada.
I will come back to the other items in a few minutes. Now, all the money provided under vote No. 55 for land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects is spent in western Canada; no provision is made for the province of Quebec.
I hope the new minister who is called the minister of agriculture for eastern Canada but who is actually much more a minister of rural development will learn his role-


Maurice Sauvé: I would ask the hon. member to kindly limit his remarks to the item under consideration and I should like to point out to him that, for the time being, I am just simply the Minister of Forestry. It is only when the house has passed the bill which was announced in that connection that I will become the minister of forestry and rural development.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the government will undertake as soon as possible to carry out the projects set forth in the speech from the throne, for at the pace things are going as far as agriculture is concerned, the minister will still not be appointed when farmers will begin to leave eastern Canada, because nothing is done in the province of Quebec or in eastern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture what he intended to do about frost in the province of Quebec where crops were destroyed. There is nothing in those items providing for the official establishment of a permanent committee or board in order to settle the problems of the province of Quebec.
Farmers are entirely dependant upon weather conditions and the government does not do anything to help them.
One can see here that boards have been established to deal with crops in western Canada.
What do you see in item No. 5 to meet the farm problems of eastern Canada? Absolutely nothing.
Supply-Agriculture
I should ask the Minister of Agriculture- [Text]


Harry William Hays: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe we should have a ruling that the hon. member is straying away from the subject matter of vote 15.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) wishes to confine his remarks to item 15.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to confine my remarks to item 15, but I should like to talk about grants and I do not see any. There are none. I am obliged to speak about government administration and expenses.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I do not see anything here that would be profitable to agriculture; everything is being absorbed by salaries.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure that the hon. member for Shefford wishes to confine his remarks to vote No. 15, as he should under standing order 59.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to confine my remarks to vote No. 15, but I do not see anything there for the farmers; all we can see is:
Salaries and wages	$800,000
Overtime	1,700
-they work hard, those people, nothing to the farmers-	to give
Various winter allowances	$ 4,600
Travelling and removal expenses	63,000
Freight, express and cartage	1,500
Postage	800
Telephones and telegrams Publication of reports and other	9,700
material Office stationery, supplies and	2,000
equipment	16,500
Materials and supplies	4,500
Acquisition of equipment	10,500
Repairs and upkeep of equipment Marketing of agricultural prod-	1,800
ucts	20,000
-there we have no details about what was given to the farmers-	
Sundries	$3,000
-which amounts to	$953,800
for one portion of vote No. 15.

Supply-Agriculture
So, Mr. Chairman, as you can see, in item No. 15 as in the whole budget for the Department of Agriculture, which amounts to $140 million, only 20 per cent goes to farmers, the rest going to civil servants. But what is the function of those people? They are employed to settle nothing, for nothing has been done for Canadian agriculture since the Liberal party took office.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I want to sound the clarion call on behalf of the 14,000 cigar tobacco growers in the province of Quebec who are now facing serious difficulties, especially during the past year and a half. The "Cooperative des tabacs de Saint-Jacques" has one million pounds of unsold cigar tobacco in its storage plants.
I can assure you that cigar tobacco growers are increasingly concerned about the future.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this type of farming is very important to the province of Quebec, and that it yields $7 million in taxes, all by itself, to both the federal and provincial governments, I am wondering if it would not be advisable to put this type of farming under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, in order to provide cigar tobacco growers with a stable income.
This is the only remark I want to make, in the hope that the minister will give me an immediate answer on this subject.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, we would be very pleased to take this under consideration and I will see to it that the stabilization board looks into the matter.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the passing of this item unduly but I should like to make a few remarks concerning crop insurance, since the minister was so kind as to allow us the opportunity of speaking on the subject on this item. As the years have progressed since the crop insurance bill was passed in 1959 I find that there is increasing interest in the subject across Canada. My own province of Manitoba in particular has pioneered the development of provincial crop insurance programs. Today a total of 6,170 farmers are covered in the six test areas that have been developed within the province, involving a total liability of over $14 million compared with just 2,500 farmers and a total liability of $4 million during the first year of operation, 1960-61.

I think this is a fairly clear indication that crop insurance in the province of Manitoba is receiving growing acceptance as a means of stabilizing farm yields. This is one point on which there seems to be confusion in the minds of a good many members whom I have heard discussing the subject in the house. First of all, I think it should be clearly understood that the crop insurance legislation introduced by the previous government in 1959 and passed by parliament was in effect enabling legislation which permitted provinces to set up their own crop insurance programs. It was one of those things mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in speaking of provincial-federal cost sharing programs. Under this particular program the federal government does assume some responsibility, and some of the cost as far as administration and part of the premiums are concerned.
I think crop insurance should be designed to treat individual operators with similar risks in a similar fashion without unduly penalizing efficiency or subsidizing inefficiency. In other words, a crop insurance program to be effective must be actuarially sound, and it is on this basis that the Manitoba crop insurance corporation is proceeding and developing their program with some considerable success.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle dealing with reinsurance is one that is of great importance to the province of Manitoba because they are very anxious to extend the provision of crop insurance across the entire province. But a year like 1961 and, again, a year like 1964 have caused them to proceed with a considerable amount of caution because of the risk that is involved and the necessity of having some form of reinsurance to fall back on, in the event of a disaster such as we are experiencing in parts of the west this year.
I am afraid there has been a tendency in some instances to emphasize crop insurance as a cure-all for all of the difficulties of agriculture. It is nothing of the kind. It is a part of an over-all farm program designed to minimize some of the variations in yield, and at its very best crop insurance can be no more than a device that levels out yields over a period of years. Obviously crop insurance cannot have any impact at all on the variability of income due to price fluctuations and for that reason the previous government when developing their farm program took into consideration the various things that contributed to agricultural instability and attempted to develop a program as national

in scope as possible, while at the same time taking into consideration regional problems that affect certain areas.
It is necessary therefore that the average production on a farm be such that it will provide the farmer with a decent income. Obviously crop insurance in those areas where average farm income over a period of years is so low that it does not provide sufficient income for the farmer is of little or no value to him. For that reason other programs must be developed to assist him. I have in mind particularly the provisions of the ARDA program under which a shift of emphasis in production will perhaps be more beneficial than the type of program we envisage under crop insurance. Paradoxically the areas that need crop insurance most can afford it least, because if it is to be based on the risk factor then of necessity the premiums are too high, and in many cases those areas where crop insurance is not required as much do not take advantage of it because the incidence of crop failure is so low that they do without it.
But in the greater part of Manitoba in particular crop insurance is the type of program that does provide that yield stability which contributes to the general well-being of the agricultural communities. It is not only the farmers of these communities who are affected. We recall that in the 'thirties the loss of income due to crop failures in those areas created a general depression among the business community. Farmers are unable to make purchases of equipment and pay necessary operating expenses if income is not available.
Again in 1961 we had an example of how crop losses due to weather conditions or conditions beyond the farmers' control can seriously affect other segments of the economy as well. For instance, in 1961 Manitoba farmers committed themselves to something like $117 million in cash operating expenses in the hope that the return from their crops would repay their expenses and provide them with a living for that year. Total net income for the year amounted to $64.6 million slightly over half of what it was the year before, and local businessmen as well as the farmers were very seriously affected. I happen to have visited those areas in Manitoba where crop insurance is in effect, and during the summer months it was easy to recognize the farmers who were covered by crop insurance because they were not nearly as worried as those who did not have coverage. On talking to businessmen in the area the same impression was created, that they were
Sup p ly-A griculture
optimistic in spite of the serious drought taking place at that time because so many of the farmers were covered by crop insurance.
In order to expand the operations of the Manitoba crop insurance corporation it is going to be necessary for the government to come up with the amending legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. I regret it will be delayed until fall because I know it is necessary in Manitoba to have this amendment to the legislation as quickly as possible, so that the corporation can proceed to accumulate the data and the necessary figures to determine what premiums and indemnities are to be paid in any given area.
The northern areas of Manitoba are suffering from rather severe drought, the central portions of the province are experiencing good crop conditions and the southeastern portion of the province, from which I come, is suffering severe flooding. From this one can see that the causes of crop failures are many and varied. Unfortunately the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, designed to offset the conditions of drought that existed during the thirties, does not adequately cover crop losses in the west today. There are areas where local flooding can create a great deal of difficulty for the farmers and the arrangements under P.F.R.A. could not possibly begin to cover the farmers affected. It is necessary, therefore, for them to seek aid elsewhere and if crop insurance were available all the farmers in the province could take advantage of its provisions and cover themselves adequately.
I recall that during the debate on the introduction of the bill in 1959 the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke at length on the subject of crop insurance, and criticized the then government because it did not take care of every ill, evil and contingency that could arise in agriculture. I only hope his opinions have been conveyed to the Minister of Agriculture so that he can take them into consideration.
I ask the minister to attempt to bring in this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity and thus facilitate the province of Manitoba and other provinces to proceed with the development of their crop insurance programs that will provide the type of stability farmers require these days when they have such high operating costs, and other costs that must be met from year to year.


Mr. Moore:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to stabilization payments as they affect the dairy industry and to mention that it


Mr. Caoueile:: Mr. Chairman, just a few words in connection with this item 15 concerning administration, operation and maintenance, including the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products and so on. Only I cannot see, among all those figures, any amount allotted to agricultural organizations. I can see, for example, directly related to those items, 418 employees who eat up-yes, I repeat, who eat up-$2,190,400 this year and $2,279,870 last year.
And the expenditures comprised in this item 15 are distributed in various paragraphs. Administration, continuing establishment, casuals and others, $800,000. Then salaries, wages, etc., telephones, telegrams, office stationery, supplies, $953,000. Then, we come to the Agricultural Stabilization Act administration:	continuing establishment, casual
and others, salaries, wages, $349,000. We notice travelling expenses, freight, removal expenses, telephones, telegrams, office stationery, sundries; there is nothing left there for agriculture. Nothing at all. I think the minister is considering that at the present time, and his senior officials as well.
A little further, we see: Prairie Farm Assistance Act Administration. There again there

Supply-Agriculture
is nothing for the assistance of prairie farmers; we read: administrative and professional, technical, operation and service, continuing establishment, casuals and others, salaries, wages, travelling and removal expenses, office stationery, supplies, freight, $796,000.
Once again, there is nothing there for farmers. As payment is made, expenditures are submitted to us for an amount of $2,200,000. It is the same thing this year and every year, there is nothing for the farmers; it is on their behalf, however, that 418 employees work and earn their living at the expense of agriculture, like every other class in society.
Mr. Chairman, I merely want to draw the attention of the minister to that point, concerning vote No. 15, because this is the one which is under consideration; looking at the other votes, we can see that the situation is the same: salaries, wages, expenses, office stationery, telephones, office supplies again, and there is never anything for the farmers.
The minister should submit real figures on what has been paid toward prairie farm assistance as well as eastern agriculture. I ask him to tell us how farmers are assisted by these $2,200,000 paid for administration.
It will be necessary, Mr. Chairman, to consider something other than administration, to talk, think and do something. A little while ago, I saw the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) stand up when my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said that the minister might be the next minister responsible for ARDA and eastern agriculture. What if he is Minister of Forestry? Should he become minister of agriculture that would not bother us too much. We have seen many others before this one and there will be others after him. However, the administration remains. That administration is above political administration, because those people are the ones who prepare the estimates. The minister may not have seen them before they were printed, but the bureaucrats of the branch knew all about them. Only let us have clear indications as to how the money is spent and not just the distribution of salaries which are spread from left to right and north to south to reach the total of $2.2 million the Minister of Agriculture has now laid before us.
Let us have facts. We want to help agriculture. We also want to see the marketing of farm products and the stabilization of prices.
We have the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and I am all for it. But, after five, 10 or 15 years, what are the results? What have
[Mr. Caouette.l
we today? What can the present minister tell us about agricultural stabilization in Canada? I appreciate that the present minister has only held that portfolio for the past two years. But we had another one who held it for six years, and the situation remained unchanged. Estimates are placed before us every year, but no clear or logical explanations are given.
We are told how this $2,200,000 are spent, but there is not 25 cents going to the Canadian farmer.
We are also told about organizations we have to subsidize. There is nothing about that in item No. 15, and yet it deals with organizations. What organizations? At the present time I see no organization except the 418 employees directly concerned by item No. 15.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Rosthem.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think I should answer the hon. gentleman. I can appreciate that the way the various items are documented probably presents a problem in understanding them; but I cannot let the hon. gentleman's remarks go by without saying this. With regard to the stabilization act, for instance, it is impossible to know what might happen at the end of the year. The committee will remember that we discussed this question in the supplementary estimates, and $122 million was required and was turned over to the farmers. Eggs are a good example: we will probably have to support eggs this year. We are supporting them at 34 cents, and the weighted average across Canada will probably be somewhat less. It would be difficult to deal with this problem in any other way, because we do not know the total amount that will be required under the stabilization act. Last year the amount required was $122 million, which does not show in here.


David Réal Caouette: That is exactly what I said, Mr. Chairman; that the minister does not know what is now taking place in this connection. If $120 million are paid to support the price of eggs, where is it in this item No. 15?


Harry William Hays: It is in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I was rather glad to hear the minister mention the support price for eggs. As he knows, this is a question that has engaged the attention of most of the farm people in the province of Saskatchewan and, to a lesser extent, the

other prairie provinces. Under the stabilization act farmers expected they would have a certain guarantee over the years. The act has now been in operation for a number of years. This year, and at the beginning of the term of the present government, when I asked that the operations of the act be brought before the agriculture committee, that suggestion did not meet with the approval of hon. members opposite. Later on, after refusing to have this question referred to that committee, they had a change of heart and it was referred to the committee; but it was never brought before the committee for consideration.
I do not know what hon. members opposite have to fear in bringing this question before the agriculture committee for consideration. Surely in a period of six years changes in the act as it is now constituted have become apparent. The only way members of parliament can establish a sound basis upon which to suggest improvements is by considering the operations in some detail, studying them and then making proposals along those lines. One thing is certain; regardless of whether or not a support price is paid to the producers of eggs this year, producers in the province of Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent those in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba, will suffer a greater loss than the producers in any other part of the country, as a result of the operations of the act as it is now constituted. I would like the minister to give us a firm commitment that the operations of this act will be brought before the agricultural committee shortly.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, I fully realize that the minister expects various requests, in particular from this side of the house, but the relief I am going to ask for is not going to cost the treasury anything. I trust that is some comfort to the minister. I realize that the Minister of Agriculture, a former rancher and cattleman, is interested in preserving our herds, and he is interested-or should be interested-in getting the best price for our beef cattle and dairy products.
The solution to the problem I am going to bring up lies in the hands of the minister of northern affairs, who it will be recalled gave me a negative answer yesterday when I asked him if any consideration was being given to the granting of special permits in the Riding Mountain forest reserve and national park to farmers owing to the fact they are faced with a hay shortage. They are faced with a drought situation, which I hope will not be as bad as it was in 1961. However, it
Supply-Agriculture
is very serious in the northern portions of my constituency south of Riding Mountain, and even more so north of Riding Mountain in the constituency of Dauphin. I asked the minister of northern affairs whether any consideration was being given to this, and his reply to me was very discouraging, because he said, as reported at page 5237 of Hansard: -some practices grew up which were certainly not of the best. We are certainly going to be very careful that this does not arise again.
Before I take issue with that statement, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that in 1961 the then minister of northern affairs agreed to grant special permits to farmers who needed it to enable them to take out 10 tons of hay. For the record I may say that 111 such special permits were granted and over 1,000 tons of hay was taken out of the park. I would also put on record that there are regular permittees, about 65 to 75 of them, who have been cutting hay in this reserve for 20 to 30 years past. Their successors on farms occupied by them have also had them. Therefore, those not on the regular list look askance and are critical of so much grass going to waste in this Riding Mountain national reserve. I think that this year it is just as necessary to give full consideration to granting these permits as it was in 1961.
I fully realize that the Minister of Agriculture might have to convince the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that he should consent to this because the parks are under his direct jurisdiction. But I would appeal to him to do just that for the sake of preserving our herds, because we all know what will be the situation if there is not enough feed. Our farmers will be compelled to reduce their herds and to depress further a market which is already depressed so far as beef cattle are concerned, which I believe would be contrary to the policy of any government and should be contrary to the sort of policy which the Minister of Agriculture is trying to pursue.
The minister of northern affairs was critical of certain practices. Of these I am not aware, because the reserve is in my own constituency and after the hay cutting season was over the hay was taken over by the farmers. According to the superintendent, he said that to the best of his knowledge all permittees obtained their hay and that as far as he knew the whole operation went off very satisfactorily. I cannot understand what grounds the minister of northern affairs has for giving me the negative answer he did. I

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
hope the Minister of Agriculture will give this matter careful consideration because the situation in my constituency is serious, as well as in other portions of northern Manitoba and in the northern sections of Saskatchewan and Alberta. But we have a source of supply. The wildlife people object to it and want to preserve all the hay and grass they can for the elk and the moose. But there is certainly more fodder there than the elk and the moose can consume, because people have been raising cattle and cutting hay there for generations, and still much is going to waste. Therefore, why not give it to those farmers who need it and leave it to the superintendent of the park to grant these permits?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to let this opportunity pass without saying a few words about that item because agriculture in eastern Canada is in such a state of stagnation that it is urgent-


Gilles Grégoire: You did nothing while your party was in office.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do not answer. Continue.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -that it is urgent to come back to it.


Gilles Grégoire: It was not that urgent while you were in power.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, someone once said-

We have to ask you again, Mr. Chairman, to feed the monkeys peanuts. Perhaps you will be able to keep them quiet. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture has a few he can send over.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do peanuts come under item 15?


Gilles Grégoire: We will send you a bagful.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, once again I say that to spend time on eastern agriculture is to show that we realize our responsibilities, even if in so doing we must take the time of the house.
When 10,000 farmers decide to go and submit their recommendations to a government, the situation is serious and, because of that, it is important to give it all our attention. In my opinion, we should all show our good will and try to do something for the farmer in general and the eastern farmer in particular-


Gilles Grégoire: You forgot about them when you were a member of the government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: To consider this matter comprehensively, we must first of all go back a long way and find the causes which gave rise to this problem. I will take a few moments more than I intended to, on account of the interjections coming from the far left corner of the house, to say that the conditions now existing have been developing for a long time.


Lucien Lamoureux: I take the liberty of interrupting the hon. member at the beginning of his remarks to remind him that we are now considering item 15 and that his comments must naturally be related to that item; he cannot discuss agriculture in general and his comments must be directly related to the item now under study.


Gilles Grégoire: Follow the rules.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I would have given you warmer thanks if you had called to order those good men at the back of the house-


Gilles Grégoire: It is you who is in the
wrong.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -they are the ones who make trouble. I would have preferred speaking before noon rather than now, but as I wanted to be better prepared to make my remarks, I chose to wait until this afternoon in order to relate them more especially to the milk and butter surpluses we have at the present time and which come under the vote under consideration.
However, as I abide by the rules and as I also want to comply with your instructions, Mr. Chairman, I come back at once to my subject, without further ado, to make comparisons-


Gilles Grégoire: There is nothing to compare; you did nothing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Give the monkey another peanut.


Gilles Grégoire: Fine, we will send you some peanuts.


Mr. Choqueile:: Up until now you have said nothing about item 15.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: For the information of my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), we are now discussing price stabilization, and that comes precisely under this item. If he thought that my remarks were irrelevant, it

was because he was not following the discussion. If he paid closer attention, perhaps he would get to understand what we are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I should now like to come back once again to certain election promises to remind the house that the Liberal party has pledged itself to provide assistance through crop insurance and to create new sources of income for farmers.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Shefford has raised a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is out of order, and I beg of you to remind him that he should limit his remarks to item 15.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to excuse the hon. member. Those people are irresponsible, and we must expect from them interruptions that make as little sense as the ones we have just heard. However, as the other members facing us appear more intelligent and reasonable than the "Caouettistes", I shall continue my remarks for their benefit.
I see, on this page, that the Liberal party had promised to improve the support price system. Since we are now discussing more particularly this item, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he is waiting for to bring about those improvements which farmers, and especially Quebec farmers, are looking forward to?


Gilles Grégoire: Why did you not look after them yourselves when you were in power?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should also like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why, for example, he has lowered by $11 million or almost $12 million the dairy producers' income, especially in eastern Canada.
As you remember, Mr. Chairman, the Agricultural Stabilization Act was implemented by the Conservative government and proved highly beneficial to eastern farmers.
For the information of the house, I should like to recall that from 1959-60 up to now, under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, Quebec farmers were paid in subsidies the amount of $4,731,119; in 1960-61; $5,016,759; in 196162, $5,658,139; in 1962-63, $5,408,000, for a total of $21 million. The Minister of Agriculture often rises in the house to state that the price of milk has increased by 10 cents per cwt.; that the price of all products under
Supply-Agriculture
the Agricultural Stabilization Act is ever improving.
I should like to ask the minister to check, for instance, the price of milk in the province of Quebec for December 1962. It was then $4.18 per hundred pounds, while a year after, that is in December 1963, it was only $4.19 according to the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics. This means an increase of only 1 cent.
This is a far cry from the 10 cents or even 15 cents mentioned more than once by the minister. I do not say that he knowingly wanted to mislead the house, but he probably referred to the wrong series of prices, he was mistaken in his comparisons because he took the price of milk when we came into office instead of the price of milk when we came out of office.
Mr. Chairman, I could give several examples of the lack of leadership on the part of this government because they do not have the required programs to fulfil their election commitments.
I have here an item from the newspaper Le Soleil of October 12, 1963. As you know, Mr. Chairman, due to the lack of planning in the post-war years, we piled up stocks of butter and dairy products which gave us considerable trouble and for which we had a hard time finding the necessary markets. Canada sold stocks of butter to Great Britain twice. The item I mentioned a few months ago deals more especially with the marketing of our dairy products. Here is what it says:
After selling huge quantities of grain to China, the Soviet union, Japan and other countries, the Canadian government has just sold 51 million pounds of butter to the United Kingdom-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am glad to see that my hon. friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) applauds, for I would now ask him to compare the sale to England in 1959 and the one I just mentioned. For this sale of 1959, I refer to the item in Le Soleil which I just quoted.
In 1959, Canada sold 13 million pounds of butter to Great Britain where there was also a shortage of that commodity.
That is far more than 5 million pounds.
The price then was 56 cents per pound.
That is far better than 25 cents. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Harry Hays, stated that surpluses of butter and butter oil had to be marketed even if we had to sell at a sacrifice.
I ask my hon. friends opposite, and more particularly the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, which of those two trans-

Supply-Agriculture
actions was the most profitable to Canada. Was it the one which provided for the marketing of 5 millions pounds of butter at 25 cents per pound under a Liberal government, or was it the one which took 5 million pounds of butter out of the Canadian market at a price of 56 cents per pound?


Vincent Drouin: Does the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot want an answer immediately?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If you can see the difference, I would be very happy.


Vincent Drouin: I should like to point out that the value of a businessman or a politician or a minister is not judged from one transaction, but rather from his general administration.
Now, the present Minister of Agriculture deserves congratulations in that regard because he proved to be a peerless administrator in view of his success in marketing our surpluses.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If I wished to follow my hon. friend on the grounds where he invited me, I would tell him that if we succeeded to market grain, it is due to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who set out marketing procedures which were followed by his successor now sitting on the treasury benches.
Mr. Chairman, I should also draw the attention of the house to the fact that, during the last election campaign, our friends opposite promised free milk distribution in our schools. Some time ago I mentioned this problem in the house, saying that I very much doubted that the Liberals intended to keep that promise at the time it was made. Yesterday I learned that they have absolutely no intention of having this free milk distribution in our schools. I heard from the very lips of the Minister of Agriculture the following statement which can be found on page 5239 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with all the ministers of agriculture in Canada. We have discussed the matter with many of the people who are interested, but many of the ministers think this is a program which, as I suggested before, due to the state of the economy we should wait a little while before pursuing any further.
Mr. Chairman, the Liberals made promises which they could not possibly keep, just to secure some votes.
I want to conclude-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You did not say anything.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friends seems to appreciate my remarks so much, I shall say a few more words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to show you how the catholic farmers' union feels about the present Minister of Agriculture, according to Le Devoir-


Lucien Lamoureux: Naturally, I do not know
what is to be found in the article referred to by the hon. member, but I would remind him once again that the comments he is making now must relate directly to the item before us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The clipping I was referring to, Mr. Chairman, deals especially with milk products. But since you have read my mind, I shall simply refrain from quoting from it. It does seem to me, however, that you are showing quite a bit of zeal in calling me to order when I am still abiding by the rules. I cannot do otherwise than to draw the matter to your attention.
I would like to ask the minister why, as Minister of Agriculture, he takes pleasure in reducing the income of the eastern farmers who devote themselves especially to the dairy industry. For instance, why did he reduce the subsidy on butter from 14J cents to 13J cents per pound? Why has he allowed a reduction of 1 cent per pound to the butter producer? Why has he allowed an increase of 1 cent per pound in the price of butter to the consumer? Finally, why has he saved $12 million at the expense of the eastern farmers?
Mr. Chairman, is going out of one's way to reduce the farmers' income helping the farmers?
I warn the Minister of Agriculture and the other members of the cabinet that if they do not do what they should to protect eastern agriculture, the farmers will march on Ottawa, they will submit their claims to Ottawa, because they want the assistance which has been promised to them, they want the Minister of Agriculture to consider their problems in order to help them, and not to whittle down the income to which they are entitled.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to speak on vote No. 15 and to deal particularly with supplementary payments pertaining to the sale of eggs and hogs under the stabilization board. My colleague the hon. member for Rosthern, has dealt with this matter but I should like to mention one thing that is of great concern to the producers of eggs and hogs in the west, the amendment

of the Agricultural Stabilization Act so that these payments will be made on a regional and also a semi-annual basis. We in the west have never received any deficiency payments in this regard and I do not think we will in the future unless something is done.
My remarks will pertain mostly to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act inasmuch as it will be made use of a great deal on the prairies this year, particularly in the area which at the present time is severely affected by drought conditions. I refer to the north central and northwest parts of Saskatchewan which at the present time are almost dried out. In these areas approximately 40 per cent of all the wheat planted in Saskatchewan is grown and approximately 60 per cent of all the oats and barley crops, and if we take this into consideration we can realize the severe conditions that the farmers are facing at the present time. The government has said that measures will be taken to alleviate the serious situation but in my opinion it is a case of too late and too little.
I think it came too little and too late- too late to the extent that had the minister taken into consideration the warnings given by the Leader of the Opposition, myself and some others, a number of the farmers would not be put in a position of having to sell some of their livestock. I say too little, because although some of the cattle will be put on community pastures the number of cattle involved in that is very small.
I would like to direct the minister's attention to the need for more community pastures, to be established under ARDA or other legislation. There are huge areas that could be converted into community pastures where farmers could place their cattle if in future they are faced with these drought conditions.
The situation is going to be very serious and many farmers will not have hay or other feed for their cattle. In these circumstances arrangements could be made to have the crops cut for hay before they are ready to be harvested, and provision should be made to have the areas in which this is done made eligible for payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Further, if the situation does not improve, measures should be taken to prevent feed from being exported out of the province so that it will be available to farmers during the winter period.
Yesterday the minister stated that he had seen these areas and therefore I shall not elaborate on this point. However, I would like to see him keep in close touch with the Saskatchewan department of agriculture and give all the attention he can to the situation.
Supply-Agriculture


Mr. McBain:: Early in the session the minister announced a support or floor price of 47 cents a pound on flue cured tobacco. When the 1963 crop was sold the average price realized was 46.84 cents per pound, and I ask when will the support price be paid to these producers and whether the amount will be .16 cent per pound? Will it be paid to each individual grower or to the Ontario marketing board? If my figure of .16 cent per pound is correct this is going to mean less than $300,000, and this seems quite a small amount considering that the crop produces upwards of $400 million for the treasury through all forms of taxation. Further, will the flue cured tobacco growers in Quebec come under this support price?


Harry William Hays: With regard to the tobacco for which we provided the 47 cents support price, we have heard from the flue cured tobacco people and the average price for this tobacco was 49 cents a pound. In these circumstances there will be no deficiency payment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not want to hold up this item too long as I wish to see the estimates go through this afternoon, and I shall do everything I can to expedite them. First, I want to thank the minister for having provided me with a copy of the increases and decreases in each vote because this has saved a good deal of time on asking questions.
The matter I want to speak about is one I raised in my opening remarks, namely that I am very deeply concerned about the dairy industry. I asked what inducements the minister was giving to the provincial governments and the farm organizations to encourage them to get together and form a single dairy organization. The reason I mentioned inducements was that we, as responsible members of parliament, want to take the load off the taxpayer that the stabilization act puts on him at present.
If you study the financial figures under the stabilization act you will find that for some years we support one industry and then for several years it will disappear as one of the items. The ultimate aim of the act should be not to have to pay anything, because when you don't have to pay anything it means every segment of the industry is able to look after itself.
At the moment the dairy industry is the sore spot and I am going to put forward, as briefly as I can, one or two suggestions which I hope the minister might take under consideration, if not for discussion at least to be aware that they should be considered. I make

Supply-Agriculture
these suggestions based on the fact that in my judgment the dairy industry, both at the producer level and at the processing level, is oriented toward the domestic market.
During the history of Canada the domestic market has been able to absorb the production from our dairy farms but in recent years, due to the rapid growth of technology and to the fact that more farmers wanted to raise their methods of living, we have a situation now when the productive capacity of our dairy farms is much greater than the Canadian market can absorb.
This problem can be met in two main directions. One is to move in with policies to encourage farmers at the marginal end of the scale in the dairy industry to move into other occupations or other types of farming. That is one road, and the other is to try and And, as was suggested by one of the hon. members to my left, an outlet for this production outside the country. The Canadian dairy industry and government officials tend to throw up their hands at the suggestion of finding relief in foreign markets. The reason for this is easily apparent. Price levels in Canada, the United States and most of the industrial countries of the world are so high for dairy products that we are not competitive with countries like New Zealand and Denmark which have a low cost type of product.
Because of this discrepancy in the price levels, and because of the advantages which efficient producers in Denmark and New Zealand enjoy and which we have not got, there is a tendency to say we cannot do anything about our dairy export markets. All we see ourselves doing is to give away our surpluses which are in storage at cut rate prices and let some individuals peddle them where they can with a depressing effect on world prices to the detriment of our good friends in Denmark and in New Zealand who are completely dependant on this type of market.
I rise at this time to challenge this type of thinking. I think that just because we are in a difficult situation with a price structure on the dairy side so different from the price structure of world market levels there is no need for despair. I think there are solutions. These solutions will not be easy but I think they can be reached not only in terms of our taking our industry in Canada outside into the markets of the world, but also by our realizing that at least a score of other countries are surplus in dairy products, and work with them because their problem is the same. In other words, a solution to the

dairy problem will not be reached only by agricultural support policies in this country. All you can do is twist and turn within the limits of the Canadian market, and if the present productive capacity of our dairy farms is producing 6 or 7 per cent above the demand, then the agricultural prices stabilization board works under great difficulty. But we might well realize the truth, that is that there are over a billion people in the world who desperately need protein products. I say "over a billion people" because I do not include the people of China. In my opinion the Chinese have been able to substitute protein derived from vegetables. But in the main the world demands proteins today from fish, from dairy products and from livestock products. The test is of course the difference in price, and the fact that in most of the countries where the need is so great they lack the ability to store these products and they do not have the ability to pay for them. These are the difficulties.
I would like to put forward some remarks or suggestions I made on September 17 last to a meeting at Stevens Point, Wisconsin to the creameries association. At that time there was not too much publicity attached to these remarks because other things were in the news. I was a little disappointed because I thought the time was right to move with our friends to the south on this point. Before I go into those remarks let me repeat that the problem of the dairy industry in the United States is almost identical with our own problem here. Their surplus runs at about 8 per cent as compared with 6 percent or 7 per cent here. They have a number of dairy farmers at the top level of efficiency who are doing well, but the great majority of their dairy farmers are in the same predicament as are the great majority of ours.
My suggestions to these men in the agriculture business were as follows: first, since the demand is mainly for protein food, that the dairy industry, including agri-business which handles dairy products, accept the possibility that there is a tremendous opportunity for expansion in the export market for dairy products that can satisfy the requirements of this new type of market. That is the first suggestion. Psychologically we should face the fact that if a billion people are hungry, we have the ability to produce and can get over the difficulties. That is the first suggestion: accept that philosophy. The second suggestion is that agri-business in North America join forces for a combined program of development of new

markets for farm produce. Why did I put that suggestion in? When you look at the businesses which handle and dispose of the products of American farms both here and in the United States, they are almost always the same businesses. Whether it is Swift here or in the United States, it is the same firm. They are working on this philosophy that the only market available for United States or Canadian farm products is in the United States or Canada. I say this philosophy is wrong in the year 1964 and we should ask this agri-business to accept some responsibility in helping to meet this situation.
The third suggestion I made was that government research in products suitable for handling, shipping, and storing for warm countries be accelerated. Already the United States department of agriculture has done a tremendous amount of work in this field. Already, here in Canada the department has done very good work in learning how to dry, store and handle varieties of different products. Our research and development in this respect are among the best in the world. I am simply suggesting in my third proposal that governments be encouraged to keep up this work and turn the results over to agribusiness. As a matter of fact, at the present time, in my opinion governments are ahead of business in this research work, and agribusiness in the United States and in Canada which for the most part is composed of the same firms, is delinquent in not making the best use of this research work which is available, so as to take Canadian and United States products to lands where they are needed at prices which the people can afford. I make that charge after due consideration.
The fourth recommendation I made was that the present efforts of the governments of Canada and the United States to achieve international commodity agreements be given increased impetus by the two governments calling a meeting of ministers of the dairy surplus countries, to help clear away the difficulties that are holding up present negotiations under the United Nations.
There are approximately 24 nations in the world which have surpluses of dairy products. Every one has the same problem as Canada. Discussions have been going on in the United Nations for a dairy commodity agreement. These discussions always founder on the point that these 20-odd nations have a higher price level domestically than the world price. I suggest this is not good enough. This type of price level can be met by international commodity agreement which makes
Supply-Agriculture
allowances in the form of quotas, and price levels within those quotas, to provide for the maintenance of a price which is necessary in our situation in Canada, the United States, Holland, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and so on to give their producers fair returns. We should then be able to give to the world the advantage of our tremendous technology and ability to produce these protein products on our dairy farms, and allow these people in newly developing countries some chance of access to them.
I could examine this a little further by saying that in trying to get an international' commodity agreement Canada should always be first in the fight to help those newly developing nations get international commodity agreements for the products they sell. I hold those who are now in office and who are sitting on the treasury benches at the present time responsible for a lack of really gutty leadership on this question of international commodity agreements. Too easily did they stand aside and see the sugar agreement go down. If we had had an international sugar agreement fixing, say, 5 to 8 cents a pound for sugar at wholesale price levels we would be doubling the income of the people who produce sugar across the world, as compared with what they have received in the last 25-years without markedly increasing costs at home. In a favourable position of that kind they might well be able to buy from us the goods they need so desperately. So when it is said: We cannot make an agreement now because the price is too high, my answer is this-when the price is high is the time to start bargaining; if you start by assuming that you intend to give these people a fair price for their product they, in turn, will' be able to buy from us, thus taking a load off the shoulders of the taxpayer at home in connection with price support.
My fifth suggestion-I am not in the government now but I keep picking away at these problems-my fifth suggestion was that agri-business examine the multilateral trading techniques of the big international grain selling organizations to decide whether these companies could handle dairy products, or that similar types of organizations be set up for dairy products. I had in mind the tremendous productive capacity of the dairy industry in Canada and the United States and was wondering whether serious thought had ever been given by our producers to selling their goods abroad by using techniques which have been so successful in other fields, with what help the government can give.

Supply-Agriculture
I am suggesting we had better take a hard look at those international grain companies that are doing such a wonderful job for us today by selling the production of the wheat farms of the world. Many people think the wheat board sells Canadian wheat. Every time I have raised this question their eyebrows have gone up about an inch. Under the law the wheat board has the monopoly power to sell all the grain from western Canadian farms. But to be technically accurate, they turn that monopoly right over to agents of the board; so that the great bulk of Canadian grain is not actually sold by the Canadian wheat board at all-they simply give an agent a licence to sell the grain.
So there has developed in the grain marketing area of the world one of the most efficient operations the world has ever seen. There are four main international companies, Bunge, with headquarters in Rio de Janeiro; Cargill, with headquarters in Minneapolis; Continental, with headquarters in New York; and Dreyfus, with headquarters in Paris. These four great international grain companies not only handle wheat but any other type of cereal product. Why should they not, with all their vast machinery and know-how about the marketing opportunities for small amounts of 500 bushels of wheat today, or 5 million bushels tomorrow, consummate these sales in matters of seconds with their electronic communications apparatus? Why should they not consider taking over other products, such as butter oil? Why should they not take over anything that can be stored or shipped; anything that can be graded and put into storage? Everybody in this organization knows how much is available, at what price, and what grade. This type of organization has been developed in selling grain all over the world, and why cannot this knowledge be put to use to help the dairy industry?
If these international grain companies are already big enough in their own operations and do not want to go into other products, I think government leadership is necessary. The situation demands that we ask the dairy processors, who are so good and efficient, to handle our dairy products within Canada and the United States and to take on the big responsibility of helping our dairy industry. Government leadership should be provided to encourage them to get off their nice, plush seats and sell the products ofE the dairy farms of Canada and the United States all over the world. The reason I put these two countries together is that most of their dairy products are handled by the same companies.

The sixth suggestion I will leave for the moment because it would take too long to explain. I am sorry that I am rushing through these remarks, Mr. Chairman, but I want to help the minister get his estimates through. I want to conclude my remarks by saying that as I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska today I wondered how many in this house realized he was pioneering a new proposal in connection with the agricultural prices support board. He was bringing into the dairy industry a selective type of support, and he suggested that supports should be concentrated into the pockets of those who need them the most. The hon. member suggested, as I heard his speech through the translation system, that farmers producing up to 100,000 pounds of milk a year should be given the support of the agricultural prices support board; those that produced above that amount were big enough to get up on their own feet and find their own opportunities, which was not the case with the man whose production falls below this amount.
I do not know whether that suggestion will be workable, but I think it is the type of philosophy that was in the minds of the people who established the agricultural prices stabilization board, and his suggestion should be given serious consideration. This is the type of policy that we intend, when we take over the treasury benches, to put into effect. I suggest, further, that knowing the cost of producing milk, any government that does not aim to give producers of milk in every part of Canada a minimum price of $3.50 a hundred is not being fair to that segment of the Canadian people. We ask the provincial governments of this country to enact minimum wage laws providing a minimum wage of $1 an hour in most provinces. As the member for Nicolet-Yamaska made clear in the figures he quoted, even the man who produces 100,000 pounds-the maximum allowable under his suggestion-would only be guaranteed a gross income of $3,500 a year; and that would only mean a net income of about $1,500. Surely this is a right that farmers should expect in this country. I would say that not only will the Conservative party support that type of philosophy but we would like to move in this direction into other areas of our economy, such as the poorer areas of our cities. I cannot discuss this question here, but we would like to do the same thing with regard to other areas of our economy.
I would like to compliment the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska for putting that

proposal forward. I know the many hours of study he has put into this question and into the mathematics of what it will cost. With the knowledge I have of what he has done, I am prepared to support his proposal and go further and say that I think our target should be $3.50 a hundred for the production of milk in Canada, as a minimum.
I have said what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. There was another subject I intended to deal with, but I will just mention it briefly. I refer to the attitude of helplessness that comes over ministers at times when difficulties are put before them. We are now told that a milk program for our schools is impossible; that the provincial ministers do not think it is economic. This raises the whole question of dominion-provincial relations in this country. One of the questions I raised the other day in the house was as to whether the province of Quebec is going to expand its shared cost program under ARDA. The minister replied yes, that that is the type of thing that is a joint, constitutional responsibility of both the federal and provincial governments. I would suggest that this attitude should be spread; that each one of those joint sharing programs should be looked at by itself. If in the case of ARDA it is good to expand it, fine. But here we are dealing with a subject that is as equally important as the ARDA concept, namely the dairy support program. I would suggest that if you take the initiative away from the federal government to make proposals in connection with dairy support, the dairy problems in this country will never be solved. I say this because it is so easy for provincial ministers to slip back into the woodwork and disappear when this subject is raised. They do this because it is a tough subject. It is so easy for them to become chameleons and fit into any background.
I think the job of the federal minister is to bring these reluctant provincial ministers forward and say to them, "Sixty per cent of the farm population of your province is in dire need. We have to work together on this question". Let all the provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance at Ottawa go back into the woodwork for a while. These are vital problems. If the Minister of Agriculture of Canada wants to make a name for himself and solve these problems of the dairy industry, he should bring these reluctant provincial ministers out into the open and tell them they have to share with him the responsibility of assisting this industry. They should go to the provincial governments and farm organizations and say, "We 20220-339
Supply-Agriculture
are prepared to help you this way, and this way, and this way, financially. But you have the constitutional power in many of these things, and therefore you must co-operate".
I think the farmers want an end to all this legal hair-splitting with regard to whose responsibility it is; they simply want action. One of the heaviest drains on the taxpayers of Canada is item 15 and the supplemen-taries that go along with it. I simply point out, Mr. Chairman, that the farmer does not want to bring his problems into this house and put heavier loads on the taxpayers under item 15; he wants a chance to solve his problems by his own efforts. But he has to have the leadership not only of the federal minister but of the provincial ministers. I do not know how far I will get in making these proposals but I do know that I intend to keep working for them.


Mr. Cardiff:: I do not intend to hold up the committee because I should like to see this estimate passed, but I do want to say a few words on administration. I have been very patient with the minister ever since he took over his portfolio. One could not expect a minister after years of being so conservative to be very liberal in this short space of time. And he has not been getting any help from his colleagues, which is very necessary if he intends to do anything or to get anywhere. I have worked with his officials and I find them fine fellows to work with, but they have to have direction from the government and they cannot go ahead without direction. The minister is not giving them sufficient direction to do the things we expect him to do.
To prove my point I should like to show you how interested is the Liberal government in agriculture. We have an agricultural committee of which I have been a member for the last 24 years. The other day we sat for 35 minutes before we could get a quorum. Half of the Conservative members were ready to proceed, but we waited 35 minutes for a quorum. Then at the best we had only four Liberals sitting on the committee. The meeting was called for 9.30 and we sat there until 12.30 and at no time were more than four Liberal members present. So, Mr. Chairman, you cannot expect the minister to do everything for the country when he has no backing from his own side of the house.
I would suggest to those Liberal members of the agriculture committee that if they do not understand anything about agriculture let them go to the committee where they will find out a few things. It is essential this



[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
committee have a quorum, and I do not think it is fair to its members to have to sit there for 35 minutes-sometimes it is 40 minutes -waiting for a quorum.
Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question. In the banking and commerce committee the last time it met there was only one Conservative there, who showed up for about 10 minutes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Since the hon. member raises that, yesterday a meeting of the public accounts was called. It is chaired by a Conservative to make it non-political. We sat there for 35 minutes and only one Grit came along. Eventually we adjourned and did not have a meeting at all. These officials who appear are called to give the committee guidance, yet hon. members opposite do not think it important enough to attend. I have no intention of criticizing the minister on these estimates; we want to get them through. I only rose in my place to try and help him as much as I can, if he will try to help himself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-
40. Administration, 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, $11,954,900.
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to take up too much time on this item but there is one matter I want to mention in connection with the operation of the health of animals division. I do not mean this to be a criticism of the officials of the branch of this department; Dr. Wells and his staff are doing a very commendable job of carrying out the policies of the administration of this department. However, during the last year a matter was drawn to my attention which I should like to raise with the minister at this time. It is in connection with poultry evisceration stations and the inspection of poultry processed through these evisceration stations.
I note from a reply to a question which I placed on the order paper on October 1 last that the percentages of the number of condemned birds going through these plants is increasing. Logically it is expected that this would be the case if the number of birds being processed was increasing as well. However, I find that the number of condemned birds is increasing out of proportion to the increase in the number of birds being processed.
On investigating I discovered that some of the farmers in my area are disturbed about

this matter. The situation is simply that they feel they own the birds. They have no contract for sale when the birds are brought into the evisceration plant, yet in some cases a fairly substantial percentage of these birds are condemned and are simply taken out of the farmers' hands. These farmers have paid for the cost of raising the birds, and arbitrarily they are being taken away from them and sent to the rendering plants. In some cases I understand the evisceration plants are selling the birds to the rendering plants at a profit, the farmer receiving nothing.
I am fully conversant with the problem of the health of animals division in ensuring that the consuming public are supplied with high quality meat. I will not go into details about this matter because I have had experience in this field, but here is a principle which should be looked into. I asked the minister whether he would direct his officials to give attention to this particular problem so as to ensure that, in cases where a farmer feels he has been unduly penalized as a result of a large number of his birds being condemned and taken away from him and sold by the evisceration plant at a profit, there should be some return given to the farmer for these birds. I was wondering whether the minister could comment on that or would look into the matter for me.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to look into this; and I should like to speak to the hon. member privately with regard to the locations where these problems exist.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage
projects-
65. 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, $12,000,000.
Mr. Doucett:: Mr. Chairman, before this vote passes the hon. member for Humboldt-Mel-fort-Tisdale asked a question in connection with deficiency payments and whether the minister would be making an interim payment on eggs. Would the minister care to comment on that?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this will be necessary because the period ends at the end of September.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Eggs have even been running at 30 cents a dozen for a long time. They have even been down to 28 cents and may

have been lower than that. I expect they are even lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Harry William Hays: We certainly expect that there will be a deficiency payment paid; there must be no question of that.


George Henry Doucett: The point is, when will they get paid?


Harry William Hays: I think the year period ends on September 30. We will put out the payments as soon afterwards as possible.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the fact that this item concerns ARDA and there has been a split in the duties of the Minister of Agriculture, and a new department is going to be formed relating to ARDA and forestry, I wonder if we could get some sort of statement of philosophy from the new minister who is going to be looking after ARDA and forestry? What does he intend to do with this legislation? I would think a statement could be made in four or five minutes. We would not expect him to make a lengthy statement, but let us hear what his thinking is on ARDA in a general way.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, as members of the house know, government order No. 60 will be called this fall to introduce the new department of forestry and rural development. I then hope, at the resolution stage, to make a lengthy declaration on ARDA, rural development and the conditions in rural areas. I shall be pleased, however, to make a few remarks today on how the program is working and what we intend to do with the program.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle will recall with great pleasure that he had the honour of introducing this legislation into the House of Commons. As I have said here in the house and outside, it was probably one of the best pieces of legislation the previous government introduced. I have commended him for this. This is a joint federal-provincial program which is, in a way, in the experimental stage. It has been going on for three years. We have projects in all the provinces of Canada. We have signed general agreements and special agreements with all the provinces. I have announced that I hope at the end of August or early September, to call a federal-provincial conference of the ministers responsible for ARDA to review the existing agreements, with a view to signing new agreements that would begin on April 1, 1965 for a number of years.
20220-339J
Supply-Agriculture
I have been visiting all the provinces of Canada and discussing all the problems related to ARDA with the ministers. There is a general consensus that this is an excellent program and there is a great future for it. My basic philosophy on ARDA is rather simple. If I could express it in a few words, I would say that I feel this law is entirely directed toward the low income people, the low income regions in rural areas. We have to do everything we can to eliminate poverty in the rural areas. It is not only an agricultural program, but it is a program to look after all resources in the rural areas-agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism, small industries-and we have to devise ways and means of improving the living conditions of the people in the rural areas, people who have a right to as good a living as the people in urban areas.
This will mean new methods of co-ordinating the services of provincial governments and the federal government, co-ordination at the regional level and at the national level, by means of new experiments in government. It is for this reason the meeting we will have this fall to review the agreements is so important. We are having meetings with the province of Quebec about this rural development of the region of the lower St. Lawrence, about which I have talked in the house and about which members of the house received a folder last week giving them much information. I am very proud to be responsible for the implementation of this law which to me is a wonderful piece of legislation and I hope members will support it as they have supported it in the past.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I noticed and also read in the newspapers that the Quebec regions where ARDA will be applied are as follows: Gaspe, Iles-de-la-Madeleine, represented by the minister, and Abitibi, represented by hon. Mr. Courcy, minister of agriculture in the Quebec government. I have no objection to the fact that those regions, which need help, will benefit from ARDA and to the fact that the two ministers concerned try to help their own people first. I do not have any objection to that, but I would not like the authorities concerned to show any discrimination in the application of that act.
The areas represented by the members of the government should not be the only ones to benefit under the ARDA program; others also need assistance, such as the regions of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and Ber-thier-Maskinongi-Delanaudiere, for example,

Supply-Agriculture
or the one represented by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), and others.
I should like to ask the minister on what basis he selects the areas which are to benefit under the ARDA program? Why have we neglected to apply the act to the counties of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere where a large part of the population needs as much assistance, under this program, as the region of lles-de-la-Madeleine or that represented by the Quebec minister of agriculture?
As I said before, I have no objection if those areas benefit from it. But other areas represented by members not on the government side, surely have the right to see that their people also benefit from that legislation.
The area which I represent, namely Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-especially the northern part of the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm riding-and also the Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere area are faced with serious economic problems. There is in those areas of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, a well organized economic planning board which, for some months, has attempted to have a portion of that area come under ARDA.
I wonder why the minister declines to put that area as well as some other areas such as that of Brome-Missisquoi, or that part of the province, under ARDA.
I should be very pleased if the minister would tell the house on what basis he chose the areas where ARDA is to be applied. Is it a political criterion? He should tell us. If it is an economic criterion, he should tell us also.
I am astonished to see that the first areas where ARDA is applied are those areas represented by the two ministers I have mentioned above, the federal Minister of Forestry and the minister of agriculture for Quebec.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I must say this: Mr. Courcy, minister of agriculture in the Quebec government, attacked me unfairly in the Quebec legislature during the present session. He said that the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, when he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, tried to mislead the farmers by telling them: "Submit your accounts to the government and they will be paid."
Mr. Chairman, I challenge the provincial minister of agriculture to prove this statement. I never said such a thing. Therefore I ask the provincial minister of agriculture to show no discrimination in the selection of

areas for the application of ARDA and to help equally the areas not represented by government members.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I hope that my hon. friend will believe me when I say that I had nothing to do with the selection of the nine areas of the lower St. Lawrence and Abitibi which would benefit from the ARDA program in the province of Quebec.
This procedure began last year when I was not yet a minister, as my hon. friend knows. Moreover, it is the provincial minister of agriculture who undertakes to propose to the federal government the development of projects under ARDA. The federal government has nothing to do with the selection of development areas or still with the submission of practical projects of drainage, soil conservation or community pastures.
I think my hon. friend is somewhat confused. At present, five groups of projects are foreseen under ARDA and so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, hon. Mr. Courcy stated at Mont Joli, last Saturday, that for some time there will be only two rural development areas, namely the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area and the Abitibi area. I believe I pointed that out to my hon. friend yesterday. Those two areas were designated exclusively on the basis of economic considerations and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is familiar enough with the province of Quebec to know that, in those rural areas, the level of income of many families is the lowest in the province. That is why the provincial government decided to develop first of all these two areas. The fact that Mr. Courcy is member for Abitibi and that the present speaker is member for the constituency of les lles-de-la-Madeleine is irrelevant for, in my case, this happened long before my appointment.
This does not mean that because there are only two designated areas, no other projects will be submitted by the province of Quebec; in fact, the reverse is true. Up to now, we had more than 117 projects submitted by the province of Quebec, representing a total amount of $6 million. Moreover, other projects are under study; projects for the province of Quebec concern drainage and very few have anything to do with development programs such as I have just mentioned. I wish my hon. friend knew there is no limitation, except in the designation of areas.
The Joliette area, and the other areas in need of ARDA, will continue to benefit from it, but the initiative rests with the provincial

government. It is not for the federal government to decide what should be done. According to the terms of the agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments, it belongs to the provinces to take the initiative, since they are responsible for the administration of ARDA.
My hon. friend should believe when I declared that neither hon. Mr. Courcy nor myself interfered to obtain the designation of the areas we represent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words to what the minister has said-


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that other hon. members have expressed the wish to speak at five o'clock, especially the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I merely want to point out that I have been very polite in my remarks and that the incomprehensible interruptions of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'-homme), who does not know anything about agriculture-I would suggest that he should learn his agricultural catechism and show more dignity in the house-are quite unwelcome.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Macleod.


Mr. Kindi:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words concerning ARDA to the new Minister of Forestry who is in charge of administering the program. We are not satisfied with the number of projects that have been started in western Canada, particularly in Alberta and above all in the southern part of Alberta. I read the report prepared for the minister's office and to me it connotes that there is nothing but a lot of sidetracking going on. In other words, what has been done in most cases is to sidetrack the ARDA program and, if possible, shift matters to the P.F.R.A. administration which is under the Minister of Agriculture.
Why has scarcely nothing taken place? Because the federal government will be expected to pay the full shot under P.F.R.A. whereas under the ARDA program it would be a co-operative venture with a sharing of costs with the provinces and local governments. There is something very seriously wrong with the set-up, with the action we are getting and the number of projects that
Supply-Agriculture
are being undertaken. I say to the minister that even with all the projects he has okayed he has not scratched the surface. This inaction should be corrected. He must learn that he cannot sit in a law office in Montreal and expect to get results under this program by leaving all of the initiative to the provinces.
I know that agreements of understanding have been reached with the provinces, as the minister has just indicated, but the present situation was not contemplated when the house passed the act. There was supposed to be aggressive initiative on the part of the minister in charge of administering ARDA. It is one act which, if properly administered, could do more to develop this country than any other law on the statute books of Canada.
The minister has said that he believes it is a good act. Let me tell him that it is not being administered properly. I suggest to him that he take another look at the situation. I suggest that he clear up some of the difficulties, some of the strife between P.F.R.A. and ARDA and do so right in the provinces so that we will get some action in those dry areas of western Canada along the Rocky mountains which are begging and hoping to have surveys made and an active program implemented under ARDA.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a couple of minutes to say that I was very pleased with the minister's brief statement with respect to rural rehabilitation and to note in his statement that there is a continuity of spirit and philosophy with respect to rural rehabilitation. I must say I thought it was sporting of him to give credit to the former minister for having introduced this very useful legislation, which has a great potential if we can get co-operation among the federal government, the provinces and the local people. I think the foundation of success for this program lies in co-operation among all levels of government, the organizations involved and the people themselves. This group will look forward to the introduction of the legislation that the minister mentioned and to his statement with respect to the policy in connection with the further expansion of this program.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have a few more questions to ask. I can assure the minister that if he agrees to postpone the consideration of his estimates till the next sitting, the vote will be passed in half an hour or three quarters of an hour. However, the

Supply-Agriculture
questions I want to ask are very important, because they concern public interest as well as the Canadian economy.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, if the house agreed, the discussion might be extended for a few minutes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed? The suggestion is being made that we continue in committee.


Mr. Lambert:: You will have to follow the rules in order to do that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the suggestion should be made in the house rather than in committee.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could continue with the estimates for a few moments with the expectation that they would pass?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
65. 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, $12,000,000.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if I had not been interrupted so often a while ago, I am convinced that we would have made more progress and that the vote under consideration would have been passed.
When the Minister of Forestry was an ordinary member, he approached the Quebec authorities-and I do not criticize him for that-in order that the area of lles-de-la-Madeleine might be included in the ARDA program, and I commend him for this initiative.
I know for a fact that the economic council for the riding of Montcalm was one of the first public bodies of the country, more especially in the province of Quebec, to make strong representations to the federal Department of Agriculture so that that area of our province might come under ARDA. However, I wonder why the provincial minister of agriculture, whose responsibilities it is to select the areas, ignored the

Montcalm riding which surely deserves careful attention.
I know also that the minister is on excellent terms with the Quebec authorities, and I would like ARDA to be used so as to truly help the farm people in those regions where the act will be applied.
On the other hand, I would not like that act to be used for patronage purposes, because I hear that is being done now. As a matter of fact, according to some letters I have received, the people who do work under ARDA are carefully selected.
Consequently, and knowing that the minister is not directly responsible for the application of ARDA in the provinces, I ask him to watch very closely what is going on, so that the act may be applied fairly and in the public interest.
I wonder if, without going to any trouble, the Minister of Forestry could not ask the Quebec authorities to make a study on tourism in part of the region of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and Berthier-Maskinonge so that it may benefit from ARDA?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's proposal is contrary to the agreements we have signed not only with the province of Quebec but with the other provinces of Canada. Initiatives must come from the province itself and I suggest to my hon. friend to ask the regional authorities concerned to write the Quebec minister of agriculture to submit their project.
The act forbids me to interfere in that field and even if I wanted to oblige, I could not do so, because I would not want to interfere in fields which come strictly under the provincial government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his co-operation.


William Arnold Peters: I had not intended to intervene because I think there has been a great deal of discussion on the agriculture estimates, but this item warrants some comment. The discussion which has just taken place is an indication of where the problem lies. The ARDA program has been talked about as a major, long term solution to most of the depressed agricultural communities but we are now seeing, and this has become more clear since the Liberals took office, that ARDA is to be provincial in scope and if a province does not want to make a request for a particular project then the federal government can do nothing about it. This is not what

we originally agreed to on the ARDA program.
We originally agreed that the program would be administered by the provinces, but if we find that the provinces fail to take advantage of it then we shall have to do something ourselves. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, the patronage machine in the province of Ontario is much more raw than the one in Quebec, where it is an accepted thing. We in Ontario are finding patronage is a very vile and distasteful thing, but it is being used to a great extent in the ARDA program. We are seeing patronage in Ontario today never seen in that province before, and probably only duplicated by some of the western agricultural programs undertaken many years ago.
When the minister made his statement he was very fair in saying he hoped this program would have a long term application, and I know he is not responsible for all of the abuses that take place. I am also aware of the arrangements that have to be made because of the jurisdiction of the provinces; but let us not tell the farmer we are going to solve all his problems with ARDA if we are not prepared to interfere with some of the little bourgeoisie arrangements made in some Of the townships, areas and ridings.
What the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm was really saying was, "Please, Mr. Minister, because I have spoken about this don't hold it against me, or at least give my people an opportunity to have something under ARDA." I do not agree with that. If we cannot get a fair and reasonable program applicable all across the nation without a member of parliament having to get up and beg, then we do not want it as a solution.
Farmers are not beggars. It is not the agricultural section of our section of our nation which got itself into the predicament it is in. It is because the nation has not been able to meet the change of the times. ARDA was developed to meet this change, and surely people should not be made to beg for it in particular areas.
Without even knowing the facts I am certain, just because the minister is who he is, that is not why a program was carried out in a particular county in Quebec; but I feel the provinces themselves are using ARDA for their own ends and not for the ends upon which we as a national government decided.
I agree with what the minister said, that what we want to do is pick out all the areas where income is very low and where a
Supply-Agriculture
transition out of agriculture is probably the solution. He mentioned the fact that some of this would be into the tourist industry, some into the forest industry and some into other fields of agriculture where redevelopment would be taking place. I say we have to begin this with a survey. We have to assess the needs. We have to apply the money to the areas that need it most, and not decide because of the political advantage of using it in certain areas.
The provinces will always use ARDA for their own ends because it is a handout, and for this reason I urge that the federal government stay very strongly in this field. Instead of waiting for proposals from the provinces the federal government will have to point out which proposals will be acceptable to it and get the provinces to make formal request for them.
According to the minister's own words he is going to carry on ARDA in the direction which the former minister who introduced it had in mind, namely in the direction of being a long range solution for depressed agricultural communities. But this cannot be done if we are going to give in all the time to the whims and wishes of the various provincial governments. We shall have to assess the over-all agricultural potential of Canada and the federal government will have to give the leadership in this field. If we have not got the power to do this now, then let us make an arrangement with the provinces whereby we can get that power.
In the province of Quebec they did not have a trans-Canada highway. It was not our fault in the rest of Canada; it was their fault. They did not take advantage of the provisions which had been made. We at least supplied a program of a type they could have taken part in. I suggest we do this with regard to ARDA. We should make proposals which will apply to all the provinces, to all the depressed agricultural areas, and if the provinces want to take advantage of them there should be no discrimination used in selecting the riding in which work is being done-that is, on political ground. Anything less will not be acceptable to the agricultural community of Canada.
I think the minister will make a great contribution-and certainly the minister who preceded him did not make this sort of contribution-if he would give real leadership in this field of ARDA, designed to relieve depressed agricultural areas. I believe ARDA can provide a solution to many of the problems faced by our agricultural community

Supply-Agriculture
When you find people earning an income of only $600 or $700 a year, then obviously the process being followed is not the correct one for that area.
I hope that the minister when he speaks on this subject will be prepared to tell us what he is ready to offer to the provinces under this plan and what leadership he intends to give. I say this because I am getting damned tired of waiting for the provinces to give a lead in this direction. What they have done so far does not, in my opinion, come anywhere near to meeting the need which ARDA was designed to satisfy.


Mr, Pugh:: The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has cast a lot of doubt on what is actually happening in connection with this program. I do not agree with him, I must say.
Could the minister tell us whether within the last six, eight or ten months liaison has been taking place with the various ministers of agriculture in other provinces with regard to ARDA. Perhaps at the same time he could tell us whether he feels ARDA is working. Perhaps he would indicate, too, whether it is not working on the highest political level, as suggested by the previous speaker. I have cause to believe that in my own province it is working, and I would not like to think the situation was different elsewhere in Canada. Perhaps the minister could set at rest whatever fears some may have.


Maurice Sauvé: I am pleased to inform the committee that I have tried to give the leadership for which the hon. member for Timiskaming asked. I was made responsible for ARDA on March 5 and between March 17 and May 30 I visited every one of the ten provinces. I have had discussions with the ministers and civil servants responsible for ARDA in each province. We have exchanged views and we are now preparing our submissions for a conference which I hope to be able to call at the end of August or early in September with a view to redefining, in a way, the scope of the program and the methods of its implementation.
In the last four or five months there has been a tremendous increase in the number of projects submitted by the provinces and, as the law stands now, the initiative in terms of projects has to come from the provinces. This is not the result of any recent change. It was the law when this legislation was passed by parliament. This is a joint federal-provincial program and I have no authority

to change it in this respect. It is working well, generally speaking, and there is great interest in the provinces about ARDA. However, this is still a very new concept. Originally it was thought of as being strictly an agricultural program, but it was found that you could not solve the problems of the rural areas by taking only an agricultural approach. It had to be extended to forestry, mining, fishing, tourism and so on. There has been over the years an extension of the program. This is in line with the provisions of the original law passed in 1961. It is true there have been problems of adjustment and administration. I might point out that the federal government has nothing to do with the administration at the provincial level. If here and there there are political considerations affecting decisions, as the hon. member suggested, it is not our responsibility. We have nothing to do with it, and I would be the first to regret it. If there were anything I could do to help in any such cases I would certainly bring them to the attention of the responsible minister. I am sure the ministers responsible are probably not aware of them and that they would be the first to take steps to correct such situations.
There has been great interest in ARDA in the last few months. As a result of the visits made to the provinces and with the passage of time, the provinces are getting to know how to work with this new plan. Nobody is to blame for what has happened in the past. It has taken time for an understanding of ARDA to develop in all the provinces.


David Vaughan Pugh: I gather from the minister's statement that he is satisfied generally with the way things are going. He mentioned the calling of a conference. Does he feel any important changes will be made? He says be believes a redefinition of the aims and objects of ARDA is needed. Does he believe these changes will depart to any great extent from the original concept?


Maurice Sauvé: I have stated in the house many times in answer to questions that the agreements between the provinces and the federal government come to an end on March 31, 1965, and with a view to re-negotiating these agreements we shall call a meeting of the provinces with the federal government. The provinces have already proposed many changes and we also have many changes to propose to the actual agreements. We do not know if the changes we wish to propose will necessitate amendments to the actual law. We are working on this now. But we are

hoping that there will be no need for amendments to the law. We hope to be able to bring about these changes-there will probably be 15 or 20 important ones-by changes in the agreements only, and these we are preparing now, here in Ottawa.
We are satisfied with the law in the sense that it has done good, but there are a number of improvements which could be brought about and this will be done when we meet with the provinces at the end of August or early in September.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There are one or two additional points I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Perhaps through no fault of his own but through his lack of understanding of the various regions of Canada he seems to have in the back of his mind the idea of a depressed area, a backward area-the problems which are now present in Quebec-and is using this as a touchstone before embarking upon ARDA projects.
This should not be so, because we have no, or very few, such areas in western Canada. We do have a lot of virgin territory. We have the Rocky mountain area, with streams which need to be controlled by dams and other structures so as to generate energy and make it possible to bring in industry. The power of those streams could be harnessed so that industry could be brought into being. It is needs of this kind which ARDA programs in the west should explore and satisfy.
If the hon. gentleman intends to wait until we find in the west situations such as exist in certain parts of Ontario and Quebec there will never be anything done under ARDA in western Canada. I am wondering whether this attitude in the mind of the minister and of others in the government is responsible for the inactivity which has been shown under this program in western Canada.
I like some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and I agree with some of them wholeheartedly. I would suggest again to the minister that he take another look at the objectives to which he' should be giving consideration, and that he should spread the action of this program throughout all Canada, including western Canada, and not confine it to the depressed areas.


Maurice Sauvé: If I might reply to the hon. member, I would suggest he look at the figures. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta had $17 million worth of projects approved up to April 13. So they certainly had their 20220-340
Supply-Agriculture
share. When I said earlier in my opening remarks that I felt ARDA should be concentrated mainly in low income areas, to assist low income people, I did not mean that this should be exclusively the case, but mainly, because it is in these areas that there is the greatest need. There are many other agricultural measures enacted by the federal government and the provincial governments which have a bearing on problems existing in the rural areas, but this program seems to be mainly oriented to assisting people in low income areas. It does not exclude other responsibilities that are contained in our law; but I think this is the intention behind the measure, namely to try to eliminate poverty in rural areas.
We do not have a concentration of low income people all over the country; they are mainly concentrated in eastern Canada. There are low income areas in all the provinces, but in these areas there are not as many people affected as there are in the east, in Quebec and the maritimes.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, did the minister read that section of ARDA, which deals with rural development, industrialization, and so on? If he had, and had considered the interpretation of what is contained therein, he would not have made the statements he has just made; he would have a broader concept of the functions of ARDA.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in listening to the minister say he had visited all the ten provinces in order to discuss with them problems connected with ARDA. I am sure the minister is-and if he is not, he should be-aware of the agricultural and resource potential of all kinds above the 60th parallel in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, with all sorts of timber resources and livestock potential in the agricultural field there, and feed grain possibilities. There is also this potential in the Mackenzie. The very fact that experimental farms have been established in both these areas in itself indicates the agricultural potential of the two areas concerned. I am not confining my remarks to the agricultural potential only, but also to the general resource potential that exists in this part of the country.
I wonder whether the minister is going to display any initiative and visit the rest of Canada apart from the ten provinces he said he has visited, and is going to take a journey north to see for himself how ARDA can be applied in this vast area of Canada which has

Genocide
very great potential indeed which in the ultimate will result, if proper development policies are adopted to the lasting benefit of all Canadians. It is their land; they are their resources; and it is an area which is deserving of the very concentrated attention of not only the minister responsible for ARDA but of all ministers having a direct responsibility in resource development in the north, where they do not have that responsibility in the provinces. I wonder if the minister could just for a moment explain how he intends to apply ARDA in the north, what his plans are for a possible visit there, and the like.


Maurice Sauvé: I shall be pleased to visit the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not thank hon. members for the consideration they have given the agriculture estimates and ARDA. We do appreciate their interest and approval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.


GENOCIDE
Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-21, respecting genocide.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the consent of the house to continuing the debate on this bill after six o'clock if necessary, in view of the fact that half an hour of the time allotted to private members' business has gone?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, what we did on one other occasion was let the bill hold its position on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I wonder if the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) would explain again the request he is making.


Milton L. Klein: I am content, Mr. Speaker, that the bill hold its position on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: We can
decide that matter at six o'clock.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as the explanatory note suggests, is presented in view of Canada's commitment under the United Nations convention on the crime of genocide. This convention was tabled in the House of Commons on March 2, 1950, and in the Senate on March 14 of the same year. It was approved by resolution of the house on March 21, 1952, and by resolution of the Senate on March 27 of the same year. The instrument of ratification was deposited with the United Nations on September 3, 1952, and the convention came into force on December 2 of the same year. This convention binds the contracting states to pass the necessary legislation to give effect to its provisions, especially to provide effective penalties. The intention of this bill, among other things, is to discharge Canada's obligations to the United Nations. Genocide is defined in the bill as follows:
Every one who, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, kills a member of the group, is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death for genocide.
The second clause of the bill deals with incitement to genocide; the third clause deals with group libel. It may be said that the present laws with respect to genocide-I am not now dealing with the question of group libel-are adequate; in other words, there is a section of the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment. I submit that the present provisions do not fully encompass what is intended by the crime of genocide. First of all, and aside from the moral effect of Canada subscribing to a law under the United Nations convention, there is a possibility-and I for one would support the proposition-that eventually our society will reach that plateau of civilization where it will abolish capital punishment. However, there are sections of the Criminal Code prescribing capital punishment which will not be abolished for such crimes as treason, and should not be abolished, because of the enormity of the crime, for the crime of genocide. So that if genocide were to be declared an offence under our law and capital punishment abolished in the future, it would still be retained for the crime of genocide.
With regard to treason, section 46(l)(a) of the Criminal Code says:
Everyone commits treason who in Canada (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her

any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her-
Here is a section in the Criminal Code which makes a provision with respect to capital punishment which is otherwise provided for in the Criminal Code, and it is this sort of thing which this bill envisages in making genocide a capital offence in spite of the provisions of capital murder.
I should also like to put on record a resolution adopted by the United Nations general assembly on November 21, 1963, which I believe was one day prior to the assassination of President Kennedy. Article 9, paragraph 1 of this resolution, to which Canada subscribed, says:
All propaganda and organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin with a view to justifying or promoting racial discrimination in any form shall be severely condemned.
Paragraph 2 says:
All incitement to or acts of violence, whether by individuals or organizations, against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin shall be considered an offence against society and punishable under law.
In order to put into effect the purposes and principles of the present declaration, all states shall take immediate and positive measures, including legislative and other measures, to prosecute and/or outlaw organizations which promote or incite to racial discrimination, or incite to or use violence for purposes of discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin.
Clause 3 of this bill provides for a group libel law. I inserted that provision in the bill because I maintain that group libel is the seed of genocide. Genocide can only be committed by a government; it cannot be committed by individuals. The only way a government can come into power to a point where it could commit genocide is by the systematic use of propaganda to defame and libel minority groups, as we have seen.
The libel under our law of an individual, which is provided for by definition in section 248 of the Criminal Code states that:
A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
One of the defences against defamatory libel of an individual is provided for in section 261 of the Criminal Code, which states:
No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel where he proves that the publication of the defamatory matter in the manner in which it was published was for the public benefit at the 20220-340J
Genocide
time when it was published and that the matter itself was true.
This section refers to individuals. There is no provision in the Criminal Code with respect to an attack on an ethnic, national or religious group as such. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that you can never make a statement, an all-embracing, blanket statement, against an ethnic or religious group which is libellous and which can be true. It is impossible to make a libellous statement which can be true against an entire group of people. You might be able to do so in the case of an individual but you cannot make a true statement which is libellous against an entire group of people.
Oddly enough, while the Criminal Code does not provide for group libel it does provide for false advertisement in business. Section 306, which is the section protecting competitors in business, reads as follows:
Everyone who publishes or causes to be published an advertisement containing a statement that purports to be a statement of fact but that is untrue, deceptive or misleading or is intentionally so worded or arranged that it is deceptive or misleading, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years, if the advertisement is published.
(a)	to promote, directly or indirectly, the sale or disposal of property or any interest therein, or
(b)	to promote a business or commercial interest.
An example of that might well be this. A person who manufactures soap could not make the blanket statement that the soap manufactured by his competitors is poisonous and should not be used, because under section 306 of the Criminal Code he could be prosecuted and might well face imprisonment for five years. Yet the same individual could make any sort of blanket statement which was defamatory and libellous against a group of human beings and escape scot-free. And not only would he escape scot-free but he would actually be protected by our law. I think there is something wrong with the laws of this country when business enterprises and products of business can be protected but human rights cannot.
Now, the disseminators of hate and hate propaganda are persons who are already consumed by their hatred. They are people who are already destroyed mentally and are seeking to destroy other people. They are actually using freedom to destroy freedom. There was an interesting symposium held in the United States at the Cleveland-Marshall law school of Baldwin-Wallace college. I should like to quote some of the statements made in that symposium. One of those who

Genocide
took part was Mr. Justice Clark of the supreme court of the United States. I am quoting from volume 13, No. 1, January 1964, the issue of the law review of that university. Judge Clark said:
Group libel statutes "represent of commendable desire to reduce sinister abuses of our freedom of expression-abuses which I have had occasion to learn can tear apart a society, brutalize its dominant element and persecute even to extermination, its minorities".
Going further, the judge stated:
Even professional defamers are, today, insulated and protected by our laws from civil liability, as long as their words or actions remain "wholesale" defamation and do not single out specific individuals or numerically small groups.
In the same issue in the summation of the symposium it is stated:
It is obvious that the constitution of the United States and the common sense of the American people must prevent similar excesses in this country. And we feel a chill of foreboding as we think of recent riots in Alabama, culminating in the bombing of a Negro church, causing the death of several American children.
True, the governor of Alabama has promised a reward for the apprehension of the culprits. But the real cause of these outrages was group defamation.
Then, I should like to read this paragraph:
We all know, already, that if a man should enter a crowded theatre and shout "fire" he soon will find out that he has violated a criminal statute. Clearly, his freedom of speech is not absolute.
If freedom of speech is not absolute, should freedom to defame large groups of fellow citizens remain absolute? We think not.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the subject matter of this bill would be referred perhaps to the external affairs committee because of the commitment to the United Nations, so that this bill could be studied and the subject matter debated. Perhaps something could be evolved in this way that will protect ethnic groups. Every group in Canada is an ethnic group, even the founding races are ethnic groups. In a country such as Canada which is composed of so many different ethnic groups, surely a group libel law goes to the very essence of the unity of the country and protection against the destruction of democracy as we have seen it destroyed in Europe.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this house, and in fact all people, will share in the concern and apprehension of the hon. member with regard to the evil which he seeks to cure by this bill which he brings forward. The horrors which from time to time, the civilized world has had presented to it

through the medium of war trials and other means is undoubtedly a cause of great apprehension. In so far as the objective of the hon. member is concerned, I have no hesitation at all in saying that I am in fullest sympathy with him.
The thing is, however, do we by the means that he suggests actually cure this evil? Are there cures already in existence which could be applied? It is my philosophy, Mr. Speaker, that there is a tendency for governments to legislate in haste and amend at leisure. Legislating in haste is a sin of which this government could not be successfully accused, and I must put this as a condition to my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be defamatory.


Gerald William Baldwin: Nevertheless, let us look at the law as it now exists. The hon. member will agree that a matter of such great importance as this, involving as it does the creation of a new offence punishable as capital murder, is one of great importance. This is especially true, having in mind the distinction which this parliament made between capital murder and non-capital murder. At the time this particular amendment to the Criminal Code was considered, these differences were most carefully weighed. At that time we considered most carefully the line of distribution as to what should be and could be included in capital murder and what should be kept on the other side of the boundary and found as non-capital murder.
This is important because, in effect, the first paragraph of the hon. member's bill would be doing violence to the changes in the Criminal Code represented by these amendments which this house and the other place considered most carefully. I would think that the gravest amount of care should be exercised before this is done. Apart from that, I want to make a submission with particular regard to the last two sections, numbered 3 and 4, of the proposed bill. I am not going to read those sections, but I am going to read three or four sections of the Criminal Code and I say that within the four corners of one or the other of those sections can be found a remedy which will meet the evil at which the hon. member is aiming. Before any bill such as this is enacted, I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice that a particular act which the hon. member seeks to stress by this bill cannot be combated by making adequate use of the existing provisions of the Criminal Code.

Can the Minister of Justice stand before us and say that these provisions which the hon. member seeks to make part of the statute law of this country are absolutely essential to deal with the problem he has presented, because what we have now in the Criminal Code will not meet the situation? This, I think, is a condition precedent to this house actually dealing with this bill in the sense of enacting it. I do not know whether or not the hon. member has had these discussions. I do not know what the position of the Minister of Justice is, but this I think is something which could be considered.
I should like the hon. member when he closes the debate to recite any cases where informations have been laid and the cases have been proceeded with to the stage where a judicial decision has been made by a supreme court, district court, county court or appellate court on the type of act which he envisages in connection with this legislation. I think this is important, because when we enact legislation we do so for the reason there is nothing on the statute books to provide what we require.
I know there has been a lot of discussion in the newspapers and I think it is good there has been. I think it is a good thing that the hon. member has brought this bill forward so that it may be used as a catalyst to obtain some clarification of the ambiguity and obscurity which have surrounded this particular situation.
However, having said that I should like to refer very briefly to the third and fourth clauses of the bill, particularly the third clause. I am going to recite several sections of the Criminal Code because I wish to submit that under the circumstances of an offence being committed one cannot discount the possibility that it might be met by these sections of the Criminal Code. One of them is section 153, which might be termed a corollary because it does not go to the root of the matter. It reads as follows:
Everyone commits an offence who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering anything that Is obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous-
It is the word "scurrilous" that I have in mind.
-but this section does not apply to a person who makes use of the mails for the purpose of transmitting or delivering-
And so on. This is an ancillary means of carrying into effect what the hon. gentleman aims to prevent, and I think this is one sec-
Genocide
tion which might be used under the circumstances. Section 165 reads as follows:
Everyone who commits a common nuisance and thereby... (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public-
I will concede this is a little remote but I can conceive of situations where this particular section could be used and convictions could be secured under certain circumstances such as the hon. member has in mind. Section 166 reads as follows:
Everyone who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest-
"Public interest" is not defined, but I can conceive of a number of circumstances where a reasonable and apt interpretation of the words "public interest" would cover some of the situations which the hon. member has in mind. I also wish to refer to section 248 which deals with defamatory libel and reads as follows:
A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation or any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule-
The hon. member quite properly pointed his finger at the word "person" and said that, the word "person" having been used in the Criminal Code, this automatically excludes actions which are directed against a class. At first blush I think that is a very sound argument, but I would refer the hon. member, who is from the province of Quebec, to a Quebec case. I do not have the case itself here, but it is referred to in The Canadian Abridgement, volume 13, and in column 436 I read these words:
...a charge of publishing a defamatory libel against the Roman Catholic clergy of a particular diocese does not disclose an offence. Section 317-
Which is now section 248.
-specifically refers to a ''person" and the definition of "person" in section 2 (13) is not sufficiently wide to include an unincorporated group-
The case goes on to use these words:
Although an indictment will lie at common law for libelling a class generally-
An indictment will lie at common law, and the common law is in effect in this country to the extent to which it has not been abrogated, altered or changed by our statute law.
-the indictment in such case must allege (and the crown must prove) that the tendency of the libel was to excite hatred against all members of the class and to provoke a breach of the peace.

Genocide
I would submit that those words meet squarely the problem which the bill aims to deal with. Finally, there is one more case I should like to refer members of the house to, a decision of that great old jurist, the late chief justice Harvey of the province of Alberta. In this case, which appears in column 140 of the same volume of The Canadian Abridgement, I find these words of the chief justice:
In Russell on Crimes It is stated that:
I am not going to take the time and trouble to read the definitions of sedition, seditious libel and so on because they have already been the subject of discussion in the house and the hon. member will know the precise wording.
-"Sedition consists In acts, words or writings intended or calculated under the circumstances of the time to disturb the tranquillity of the state by creating ill will, discontent, disafection, hatred or contempt towards the person of the kin, or toward the constitution or parliament"-
I think the words "or parliament" are words which some members of the public might well take note of at the present time.
-"or the government, or the established institutions of the country, or by exciting ill will between different classes of the king's subjects-
It is my submission that where there is a vacuum the common law applies. Wherever we have passed statutory enactments and occupied a vacuum, then the common law does not apply.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am just about finished and I will be quite glad to answer a question then. I end up with the conclusion that if what I have said does not entirely prove my case it should at least raise such grave doubts as to the necessity of creating a new section of this kind that before the house deals with the matter it should take a very close look at it and we should have the benefit of the opinion of the Minister of Justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Before the hon. member for Cartier began his remarks on second reading he requested that the house consent to having this bill retain its place on the order paper. Is it the wish of the house now to give that consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: In order to avoid any misunderstanding at that time, is it understood that the bill will be debated for the full hour on the next day it is called?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hour
for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask about the business for next week.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I can give the business for Monday. We propose first to call third reading of the appropriation bill which was before the house earlier today, then to continue the debate on the resolution respecting the fiscal arrangements revision act, then to take the debate on the resolution respecting student loans, and then to call interim supply. I think I should add that should there be a wish on the part of the house to go further than the resolution stage with either of the two pieces of legislation to which I have referred and to discuss the bills, that would be agreeable in either case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether I might suggest to the acting house leader that instead of calling interim supply next week, which is very early in the month, could we not have two days on main estimates so that we will get some of them covered this year?


George James McIlraith: I would be reluctant at this moment to say anything that would interfere with the order of business indicated to the house by the house leader some days ago, but I will pass the hon. member's remarks on to the house leader for consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the acting house leader a question which relates to the resolution preceding the bill regarding student loans? I gather from what he said that the resolution will be on the order paper on Monday. I speak subject to correction, but I believe we had an understanding that we would let that resolution go through without debate and have the debate on the bill itself.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre say that is right. It would be a good idea to call that resolution either first or second on Monday so that the bill could be given first reading and printed, and so that we would have a chance to examine it.


George James McIlraith: That is a good suggestion. I am not aware that agreement had been made

but, if it has, the resolution could be called either as the first or second item of business on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may say that arrangement was made for today, but of course the resolution was not on the order paper for today.


George James McIlraith: I understand the resolution has gone forward this afternoon and should be on the order paper tomorrow morning. I will make sure that that is so and try to have the bill distributed in this way so that it will be available for hon. members to examine it before the subject matter is debated.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
56a. To authorize the governor in council to prescribe the circumstances under which a contributor who, having served in the forces for ten on more years, is compulsorily retired from the forces before reaching retirement age during the period commencing on the 7th day of May, 1964, and ending two years thereafter, due to a reduction in the total number of members of the forces, shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 10 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, to have served in the forces for twenty or more years, $1.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
L17a. To provide for and authorize the purchase out of United States dollars paid to Canada, pursuant to the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, together with any protocol or exchange of notes relating thereto, of such obligations of the government of the United States as may be approved by the governor in council, and the subsequent disposition of such obligations; the amount which may be expended for such purchase not to exceed $254,400,000 U.S. notwithstanding that this amount may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May 1964 which is, $275,149,500.

[Stage Direction]
Research-
5.	Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international society for horticultural science, an amount of $145,000 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada and the costs of publishing departmental research papers as supplements to the "Canadian Entomologist", $24,609,400.
Supply-Items Passed
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $4,735,000.
Production and marketing-
Administration-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products subject to the approval of treasury board, $2,190,400.
17a. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $50,000.
Animal and animal products-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international dairy federation, $6,218,300.
25. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $10,527,400.
25a. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates. $387,177.
Plant and plant products $387,177.
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $5,486,400.
35. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $20,275,800.
35a. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $3,200.
Health of animals-
40. Administration, 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, $11,954,900.
45. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1,465,000.
Board of grain commissioners-
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to purchase screenings, $6,759,-
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, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act program and the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act program-
55. Administration, operation and maintenance, $9,317,600.
60. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $21,146,000.
65. Payment in respect of projects and programs under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and payments to provinces pursuant to agreements entered into under the act, $12,000,000.
Administrationla. Departmental administration, $53,000.
[Stage Direction]


*-
[Stage Direction]

Monday, July 13, 1964