1964-05-07

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have the honour once again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Your Honour's committee on procedure and organization to move concurrence in a report presented by this committee. I am grateful once more to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for offering to second my motion. There are three parts to the brief remarks that I should like to make on this occasion.
First of all, sir, I should like to say a few words about the structure of Your Honour's committee and the work that committee is doing. As hon. members will recall from the first report of the committee which Your Honour tabled on March 25, the main committee has been divided into three subcommittees. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is chairman of one of those subcommittees; the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) is chairman of another, and I have the honour of chairing the subcommittee on procedure. All three of these committees, as well as the main committee, have been working very hard on the matters assigned to them and it is my understanding that very shortly each of the other subcommittees will have reports to be presented to the house. On those occasions the other subcommittee chairmen will be moving concurrence in the reports. I should like to express my own personal pleasure at working on both the subcommittee and the main committee. We are tackling a big job with earnestness and seriousness, and I dare to hope that as the weeks go by we will be able to make considerable progress, as I believe we have done already.
The second thing I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, is to draw particular attention to the provisional standing order that we are asking the house to adopt by the motion to concur in the third report of the committee which was tabled two days ago. This new provisional standing order, which would carry the number 15(2-a), will make provision regarding the making of statements on motions. Many members may not even realize that
thus far we have no standing orders and no provision whatever for the making of statements on motions. This is a practice that has grown up, and tradition seems to rule the day. Therefore, by not having any standing orders governing this matter, Your Honour has to be guided by precedents, by incidents in the past, and by judging the situation as it arises from day to day.
It is the feeling of the subcommittee, shared by the entire committee-in fact our decision in this matter is unanimous-that we should have a standing order governing the making of statements on motions so that Your Honour will have something to go by. We feel that provision should be made for statements to be made on motions by ministers of the crown, but we feel that something should be said to impose certain limitations. Therefore in our proposed standing order we say such statements should deal only with announcements or statements of policy and that they should present only such facts as it is deemed necessary to make known to the house; and we add the proviso that the making of statements on motions should not be designed in such a way as to provoke debate at that stage.
In the standing order we add the provision that one spokesman for each opposition party should be permitted to comment briefly, subject to the same limitations. I think all members will agree that in practice we have expanded on this procedure, which was not provided for at all, and on too many occasions we have had a five man debate in which nobody else can take part, which leaves us all with the feeling that we have taken too much time and that we have not actually dealt with any item of the business before the house.
I could, but I am not going to, cite examples of faults on both sides of the house. I have gone out of my way to speak to some of the front benchers on both sides of the house, and I find there is general agreement that we could improve this item of our business to the advantage of the house as a whole. I hope the house will accept the motion for the concurrence in this report; that it will accept this proposed standing order; that with the cooperation of the members we can get away from having irregular debates on statements made on motions and that we can have instead, when they are necessary, statements of fact from the government side and brief comment from spokesmen on the opposition side of the house.

Procedure Committee
The third thing I would like to say is that I hope hon. members will look at this proposal in the context of what this committee has endeavoured to present to the house thus far. As time goes on we shall have other proposals to bring in, but thus far we have been dealing with what I think is a justifiable criticism, that the house has been taking too long with its preliminaries, that it has been taking too long to get down to the business of the day.
We agree that questions are an important part of the house business. So are statements on motions and motions for the production of papers, but to the extent that we have taken an hour and even two hours on these preliminaries we have created the impression of being too slow in getting down to the business of the house. We feel that by a combination of our proposals thus far, what we have done about questions and what we now propose to do about motions, we can reach the point where we will get down to the day's business sooner, we can offset the criticism about spending too long on preliminaries, we can improve the image of the house and we can, in fact, get down to our work that much quicker.
We propose that this provisional standing order should be in effect from the date on which this motion is concurred in until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the house itself, and our committee hopes that the house will adopt this rule unanimously.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, briefly I want to say that 1 approve as far as I can personally the recommendation contained in this report and the trial for a limited period of what is proposed, but may I briefly recite the philosophy which we have with regard to these particular changes, because there has been considerable comment in the house and outside in the press and elsewhere.
I think it is safe to say that those who suggest that hon. members come to this house purely to pass government measures or pass government estimates are wrong. We are here to give lengthy and critical examination to all matters which are on the order paper for debate. Only in this way does the public get the opportunity to examine in detail the subject matters which the house debates from time to time. It is only through the cut and thrust and the give and take of debate that this happens. Anyone who thinks there is not going to be a continuous series of wars, battles and skirmishes in this house is very wide of the mark.
On the other hand, those who suggest that there should be a continuous donnybrook

without rules, rhyme or reason are also wrong. I think we have to stop occasionally to drag out the bodies and put fresh sawdust in the ring, take time to find out what the new issues will be and when and where we wish to join them. It is in this sense, trying to reconcile those two opposing views, that the committee and the subcommittee have approached this problem of dealing with our rules.
There must be continuous review of and changes in the rules. With regard to this suggested amendment, what we are doing is legalizing a custom which has existed for some time. Frequently we have found that putting a custom into written words is a dangerous practice. It is often better to allow those customs to be moulded and refined by what happens. But I think, unfortunately, over the last period of time we have found that statements and comments on motions have been taking up a considerable part of the time of this house, so we are recommending this for a period of trial in the hope that there may be some measure of improvement.
I think it is a question of practicing self restraint. As a backbencher this direction has often been given to me. I think it would be helpful to bring it to the notice of those who sit on the front benches opposite particularly, from where these motions originate. I propose to them that they bear in mind the motto hung up in railway stations during the war: "Is your journey really necessary?" They might ask themselves, before making statements: "Are these statements really necessary?" After they are made, it frequently happens that no reply may be necessary at all from the opposition side. Frequently one reply only might be sufficient; and those who have in the past directed to us the admonition that we should save the time of the house might give this some consideration.
Finally, we are departing to some extent from the English practice. There is no reason why we should slavishly follow English practice but in England, in the mother of parliaments, these statements on motions are followed not only by comments, but questions are allowed. In this way the issue is sharpened and clarified so that it becomes quite apparent what is involved in the statement. Because of the situation in this house, the number of parties and the type of statements which have been made, it is not possible to follow that practice, but I hope that after giving careful consideration to what happens when this rule comes into effect the word "comment" which appears in the second last line in the phrase "parties in opposition to the government may

comment briefly" might be extended to include the right of questioning. This is something that will have to be considered in due course. This procedure might then serve a very useful purpose in preparing these particular subject matters for consideration and future debate.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I wish to say on behalf of this party that we concur in the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Peace River. I should like to commend concurrence in this report to all hon. members of the house, first of all because, as is clearly stated, it is going to be adopted on a trial basis, and second because I think it will provide some written formality, if you like, and will strengthen Your Honour's position when on occasion statements on motions and subsequent debate get out of hand. We agree that a tradition has grown up in regard to the provision for motions contained in section 15 of standing orders, and this procedure has been used to make statements of policy. On occasion we believe there has been far too much preamble to the actual statement of fact or policy being presented, and on other occasions there has been too much debate from all parties in opposition.
We believe that in the majority of cases the acceptance of this motion will not require any action on the part of the Speaker, but we think it is necessary to have this provision in standing orders so that Your Honour's position will be strengthened in dealing with a situation that gets out of hand when statements are made on motions.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, convincing arguments have been put forward by hon. members who spoke before me. However, as a member of the subcommittee on procedure, I should like to take this opportunity to give well deserved praise to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who did some exceptionally fine work as chairman of the subcommittee.
The subcommittee has already submitted two reports to the house and others will be forthcoming. I can assure hon. members that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did most of the work. I am pleased to pay him tribute today, because it will be thanks to him if the proceedings of the house are accelerated in future.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I am speaking for myself at the present time,
Procedure Committee
but I think we have hidden a certain process and procedure under the desk, and it is time it was brought on top of the desk. I am one of those members of parliament who believe this parliamentary system functions best with a two party system. We have talked a great deal about wasting time in this House of Commons when statements are made from the front benches and two, three, four, five or six comments are made by various parties. I would like to pose one question in this regard. The future holds a lot for us, because look at what happened to France. We may in this House of Commons, in my time-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -or sometime, see as many as ten different parties making ten different statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we on the government side heartily support this recommendation and hope it will have the good results which are anticipated for it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I had yet been ruled out of order, and surely I have the right to make a personal comment as far as this procedure is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite correct; no one has been ruled out of order yet, and I sincerely hope no one will be. We are discussing this motion, and I suggest to the hon. member that he stick to the motion under discussion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think I am sticking right to the motion, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with the subject of statements made by ministers. It is necessary for ministers to make statements from time to time in the house. What I am suggesting, and surely this is sticking to the subject matter, is that where you have six different parties each making comments, the time will surely come in this country when any one of us can form a group or five or six members and we will be having 20 or 30 different parties in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the rules, and hon. members cannot shout me down. They do not want the Canadian people to know the truth. The main cause of delay in this house since I have been here is the splinter parties.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, since you have permitted the last speaker to wander far afield from the motion may I just say this. The hon. member

Wheat Delivery Quotas tor Bow River is objecting to the number of parties in this house and says he is in favour of having two parties. I would merely point out that there were two million Canadian voters voted at the last election who did not agree with him. As long as we have a democracy in this country I think the hon. member for Bow River will have to abide by the decision of the electorate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Mr. Speaker, I would ask my right hon. friend not to be irresponsible and to bear in mind what I did say.']
Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to try to make a statement subject to the new rule. I wish to inform the house of a change in the administration of the delivery quotas of grain in western Canada which has been announced today by the Canadian wheat board. The wheat board's announcement is as follows.
The Canadian wheat board wishes to announce a basic change in its administration of delivery quotas. Effective on Monday May 11 all delivery points in western Canada currently on an 8 bushel per specified acreage quota will be given a supplementary 5 bushel per seeded acre quota for wheat deliveries, other than Durum. As delivery points in western Canada are raised to an 8 bushel per specified acre level they will automatically be placed on a 5 bushel per seeded acre quota for wheat. The supplementary quota for wheat, other than Durum, will be raised above this level if and when the export and domestic movement of wheat warrants an increase.
With respect to Durum wheat, oats and barley, no further deliveries of these grains will be allowed beyond the 8 bushel per specified acre level unless market demand for these grains warrants quota increases. In this event it will be the board's intention to grant supplementary quotas for the grain required.
The basic reason for this change in policy is that the board must have the type of grain in the marketing pipe line that is required to meet market requirements. Extremely heavy commitments for wheat other than Durum have been entered into for delivery prior to the end of the crop year. To facilitate the movement of this wheat and to avoid congesting marketing facilities with grain that is not immediately required for the market, the board deems this change in quota policy to be essential.
With respect to oats, barley and Durum wheat, the board wishes to call attention to the fact that producers can deliver these

grains up to the 8 bushel per specified acre level. This level is comparable to the quota level normally existing in the past few years at the end of the crop year.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement made today by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the new policy on quotas indicates the wisdom of certain statements made last year to the effect that there was a market for grains, and that if all the grain was sold there would be no question of having these quotas at all.
This is not exactly the free quota which we had two years ago, but it is a big step toward it. I think we all feel a little sad that the producers of oats, barley and Durum wheat are not in the position where they can deliver above the 8 bushel quota. It is no great satisfaction to them to be told that this quota is similar to what it used to be. Farmers now know that there is a market for their products in the world and they want to see that everything is done to make sure their products get to the markets.
I would hope that in the future no more statements would be made that might lead farmers to reduce production on the ground of the lack of markets, and that no more statements will be made saying that markets have had to be turned down, as happened this year, because there were not shipping facilities out of the country.
In summary, we are very glad to see the quotas moving up to a fairly nice figure, and we hope that something will happen to bring a little better news to the oats, barley and Durum wheat producers.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his statement on wheat delivery quotas. He stated that the supplementary delivery quotas would apply to points already on an 8 bushel delivery quota. Will the heavy deliveries arising from these extra quotas, at points now on 8 bushel quotas, adversely affect the chances of points not yet on the 8 bushel quota receiving such a quota soon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to direct this question to the wheat board.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, President Johnson

is reported as having communicated with the various allies of the United States calling upon them to assist in the economic blockade of Cuba. I would ask the Prime Minister whether any such representations were made to Canada, and whether he would give the assurance to the house and the country that the policy introduced when we were in office, namely that trade in non-strategic materials with communist nations would not be interfered with, will be continued by the Canadian government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such representations have been received by the government. Our policy in this matter is well known to the United States government. As recently as last week we had occasion to discuss it with them again. The policy that has already been outlined regarding trade in non-strategic materials with communist countries will not be affected by the kind of consideration which apparently is in the particular report to which my right hon. friend refers.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether any representations, other than the discussions that took place between the ministers of the two governments, have been made by the United States government to Canada in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. No representations were made at the meeting last week. The matter was discussed, but no representations were made or initiated by the United States delegation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him if he can give the house any information regarding the reports that Canadian troops were sent back into Turkish-Cypriot villages which they had abandoned, because of the refusal of the Turkish Cypriots to remove a new gun emplacement which they had built within 100 yards of the Canadian camp; and has he received any explanation from the secretary general of the United Nations as to why Canadian troops were not supported in their demand that the Turkish Cypriots remove this gun emplacement?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have no reason to doubt the story, but our request for information has not yet been answered. These incidents which are reported from time to time, have 20220-191
Inquiries of the Ministry not always proven to be in accordance with the facts. Therefore I am not making any comment on this question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the minister be prepared to look into the matter and report to the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister prepared to say whether it is correct that Major Patrick Tremblay, commander of the Royal 22nd regiment's "C" company, has asked permission to return fire with heavy machine guns if there was any further firing into his company's camp?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the same matter to which my hon. friend from Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) directed my attention. Just as quickly as we have a full report I shall give it to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any report to make on this, or do we have to wait for press reports as usual?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my right hon. friend not to be irresponsible and to bear in mind what I did say.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the cost of living index has risen 2.7 percentage points in the past 12 months I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government is planning any steps to cope with this serious problem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question and one very difficult to deal with on the orders of the day, except to say that the matter is under continuous consideration. It is true that the cost of living index has risen by 2.7 percentage points. It is also true that that record compares very favourably with the rise in the cost of living in comparable countries. But it is a serious matter, and it is being carefully watched.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The provincial treasurer of the province of Quebec, Mr. Kierans, has stated that the federal government appears to be contemplating instituting a system of tight money. Is that one of the steps under consideration at the present time?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I saw no such statement by the provincial treasurer of the province of Quebec, but in any event it is not the case.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in connection with the statement made by the minister of revenue of the province of Quebec.
1 would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he intends to give any consideration to Mr. Kierans' suggestion to expand credit through the Bank of Canada for public bodies in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did not see any such statement in the account I read of the speech by the provincial treasurer of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has had an opportunity of reading Mr. Kierans' speech?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister read this morning's Gazette with reference to this matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I read the account in the Gazette this morning with considerable interest, and I can assure my hon. friend that the government intends to abide by its responsibilities as set out in the constitution.



PREPARATION BY CANADA OF PACKAGE DEAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister. Canada is reported to be preparing a package deal for the Geneva conference in respect of the negotiations for tariff reductions. I am wondering when members of the house will be informed of the items that are contained in this package.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I take it my hon. friend is referring to the GATT discussions at Geneva. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will be in the house on Monday, I believe, and he will be making an interim report on the first week of the conference.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question in that connection, Mr. Speaker. According to a press report today Canada's views on the 50 per cent cut across the board will not be made public until the ministerial conference of GATT in September. Only then, says the report, will Canadian manufacturers learn how they have fared in domestic and export markets. I would ask the Prime Minister whether that statement bears a true relationship to the attitude being taken by the government in this very important matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. That statement would be an oversimplification of the position. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been in touch with the Canadian manufacturers who will be concerned with what is going on in Geneva. He has already made it clear, as I stated in the house yesterday, that the application of the 50 per cent linear reduction is not acceptable to Canada, and we expect to make our compensation in other ways. I hope my right hon. friend will await the return of the minister, when he will make a fuller statement on the matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house what steps his department is taking in an attempt to arrange a satisfactory settlement of the longshoremen's strike which is now paralysing the port of St. John's?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the industrial relations officer of the department located in St. John's is in daily contact with the parties and has made known to them his availability to assist. Further efforts to mediate will be undertaken by the department at an opportune time.



STEPS TO ASSIST UNEMPLOYED URANIUM MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received from the citizens of Bancroft, Ontario, a letter stating that, on account of the closing down of the uranium mine, at least 300 people will be laid off?
Can he also tell us what the government intends to do for the employees in Bancroft as well as those in Elliot Lake, in his own riding of Algoma East?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an important and beautiful question for the order paper.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the low level of water on the great lakes resulting in boats being unable to load to capacity, will this mean an increase in handling charges which in turn will mean a lower return to grain producers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper? I have doubts that the question is sufficiently restricted, and in order to resolve the matter would he put it on the order paper?



GREAT LAKES-CABINET CONSIDERATION OF LOW WATER LEVELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government now set up a committee of cabinet to consider problems relating to low water levels on the great lakes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this has been considered by the cabinet. There is not any special committee, though there is a committee which does cover these matters. We have been considering this in the full cabinet.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As a supplementary question, to whom should questions relating to this general problem be addressed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would think, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as the minister responsible.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister given any direction toward having dredging done in any of the prevailing emergencies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To say the least the extent of the question is very wide.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to stop the hon. member from asking a really urgent question. Would he please state its urgency?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, yes or no would be the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order paper, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries of which I have given him notice. Has the Minister of Fisheries been made aware of the substantial losses of lobster traps through ice conditions in Northumberland strait, and what action does his department intend to take in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper for a detailed answer.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have sent him notice. In view of President N. R. Crump's statement at the C.P.R. annual meeting yesterday opposing debt aid to the C.N.R., will the minister say when we will be given an opportunity to examine these serious charges against the government, either in the railway committee or when the MacPherson report legislation is brought down?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am responsible for the statements of Mr. Crump, but I hope the legislation will soon come before the house and that we will soon have a chance to deal with it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can we have some idea when? Will it be in two or three weeks? These are serious charges against the government, and I should think the minister responsible would like to take the opportunity to refute them; but perhaps they are true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. member consult the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre about when it might come up in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: The government has
given up completely.
3014	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FRENCH CANADIAN ARMY OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: fTranslation]
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct an important question to the Associate Minister of National Defence?
Is it the minister's intention to prescribe an inquiry, following the statement made by Mr. Arsene Lauziere, professor at the military college in Kingston to the effect that there is at the present time a certain discrimination against the French Canadians, as far as their promotion within the Canadian army is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is certainly a question for the order paper. I do not believe the minister can be expected to answer in a fully factual manner at this time without notice.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I want to discuss it further at ten o'clock tonight.



INQUIRY AS TO RECOVERY OF STOLEN ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether the arms that were recovered recently from the A.L.Q. were in fact the arms stolen from the Fusiliers armoury in Montreal in January.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell the house whether the police have recovered all weapons and equipment stolen in armouries?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as far as we could check, we believe that nearly all, if not all, weapons stolen at the Mont Royal Fusiliers' arsenal and at the Shawinigan arsenal were recovered at the time of recent arrests, more particularly the last one.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the Minister of Justice stated that the arms have been partly recovered, could
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

he tell us whether all those arms will be recovered, according to the information he might have obtained up to now?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, to be more
accurate, I wanted to avoid asserting something which might be subject to correction. I said that, as far as we know, we think most of the arms, if not all, have been recovered.
According to our information, we do not believe that there remains to be recovered any arms that had been stolen at the two armouries.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the drastic reductions which have been announced in respect of northern allowances and isolation pay for civil servants, will the Secretary of State consider undertaking a thorough review and reconsideration of this matter, which is causing so much concern to federal civil servants in northern areas as a result of the rising cost of living and the reduction in take-home pay?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put this question on the order paper, important though it is?


Robert Simpson: I should like to bring up this matter at the adjournment hour.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: In the
absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to direct a question to her parliamentary secretary. Has there been any indication from the tobacco companies as to the appointment of a comptroller of advertising, similar to that proposed in the United States?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On behalf of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving ample notice of this question. The department has received no indication from the Canadian tobacco industry that a course of action is planned similar to that proposed in the United States.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
pursuance of my policy of promoting good relations between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister any comment to make on Premier Bennett's statement in reply to the minister's statement that British Columbia had not asked for any aid in connection with the recent disaster?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I think a question was asked on this matter yesterday, and I thought I had replied to it in full. I do want to inform the house that this morning I was talking to Hon. Wesley Black, minister of welfare for the province of British Columbia, and I asked him if he could secure permission for me to read to the house the wire he had originally sent and the wire the premier of British Columbia sent. I have received consent to read those wires, and if I may I should like to first read the wire received here on April 3 from Mr. Black, addressed to myself. It reads as follows:
For your information. Following wire being sent to Right Honourable L. B. Pearson Prime Minister today quote emergency relief re west coast flooding being satisfactorily handled by local and provincial authorities. Province has instructed E. C. Earle of Canadian independent adjusters conference acting on behalf of seventeen adjusting companies to make detailed official appraisal of damage. Detailed report will be forwarded when complete. Offer of federal assistance appreciated and preliminary reports indicate that it will be required.
There has also been received by the Prime Minister a wire from the premier of British Columbia, sent from Victoria on May 4. I quote:
Re Alberni's tidal wave destruction additional to emergency aid program supported by public and provincial government imminent receipt of expert survey of damage suggests desirability of disaster policy jointly and equally to be underwritten by federal and provincial governments and made available for capital restoration of affected area. Suggest desirability early joint press release announcing this policy. Suggest also early appointment joint committee of permanent officials to implement statement of policy.
I asked Mr. Black this morning whether he had received the report of the adjusters. I think it is in his hands and he quoted a figure, but I said we would not report to the house until it arrived in writing. I think hon. members will appreciate my reason for not wishing to do that. I am particularly pleased
Inquiries of the Ministry that the sum he indicated is much less than was at first anticipated by way of loss.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if the federal government has replied affirmatively to the suggestion by the premier of British Columbia that there be a joint disaster program underwritten equally by the two governments?


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously we could not reply until we had confirmed the extent of the damage and studied the basis upon which the application is being made by the province.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Can the Prime Minister advise the house when we can expect the tabling of the report of the royal commission on health services?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I received a communication this morning from the chairman of the commission in which he regretted that he did not now believe he would be able to meet the deadline mentioned in the earlier communication, which I think was the middle of May. He says this is due entirety to delay in the translation. They expect to have the French translation completed shortly and get the report before us, but it will be a couple of weeks beyond the date originally set and that, I believe, makes it around the end of May.



LEUKEMIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Due to the possibility of false hopes having been raised by those suffering from leukemia, will the parliamentary secretary make a statement giving the department's views concerning the validity or otherwise of any possible cure for this dread disease which appears to have been claimed by Mr. Naessens, now visiting Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the parliamentary secretary has a prepared statement because of the general interest in this matter, I suggest that the question be placed on the order paper.
301S	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



CANCELLATION OF CLUB CHARTERS HELD BY ONTARIO GAMBLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Is the Secretary of State in a position to reply to my question of yesterday referring to social club charters being used for gambling purposes in Ontario, and whether or not he received requests for their cancellation?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, requests were received in May, 1963, October and November 1963 to cancel the charters of these two corporations. These requests were from the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto and the office of the deputy provincial secretary. In each instance it was explained that under the Companies Act the Secretary of State could not cancel charters by simple fiat.
Although officers of the Ontario government were invited to submit sufficient evidence to warrant the issue of a writ of scire facias, no further information has since been received by the department. I should further advise the hon. member that the government is at this time reviewing certain provisions of the Companies Act in this respect and a further announcement will be made on this in due course.


Reid Scott: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister indicate the nature of the evidence the department requires in order to act in a matter of this kind? As the minister knows, the present owners of the charters are convicted gamblers, although the charters themselves have not actually been used at this point. I wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of evidence the department would like to have.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not believe that is a proper question. The hon. member is indirectly asking for a legal opinion at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State?
Some time ago the minister promised to make a statement about the broadcasting committee. Is the minister in a position to make it today?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker. However, I hope to be in a position to make it next week.



FOREST FIRES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious forest fires that we are experiencing at the present time in Nova Scotia and the resultant destruction of valuable property in that province, would the Prime Minister indicate whether any request has been received from the government of Nova Scotia for assistance? If so, would he indicate the units of the armed forces or other government units that may be made available to assist in fighting these fires?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no request for assistance has been received by me nor, so far as I know, by any member of the government, but I shall look into that at once. I know how serious this is, and anything the federal government can do through the Department of National Defence, it will do.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the office, when might we expect an announcement regarding the filling of the post of minister of national revenue?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the post is being filled by a very competent minister indeed. If there is to be any change in that position it will be announced in the house when it is made.


Reid Scott: In order to get a more definitive period, could we expect that announcement before June 22?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, following a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue, I would like to ask the Minister of

Finance whether, in the amendments to the Bank Act which will be introduced this fall, he proposes to make it impossible for a bank such as the proposed new western bank to fall into foreign control?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would not like to prejudge what may be in the legislation next fall, Mr. Speaker, but I think I can reassure my hon. friend on that point.


Mr. MacEwan:: As a supplementary question, has the minister received any suggestions to this effect from the former governor of the Bank of Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think I have anything useful that I can add to my previous answer.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[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 Labour. When does he propose to introduce legislation dealing with the recommendations of the Gill report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the comments made by the Prime Minister on this matter shortly after the session opened.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition last night, that the performance of the present parliament is as good as any in the past. If so, would he care to withdraw his complaint of a few days ago that we are not getting on with the business of the house?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
Mr. Speaker, that statement was not drawn to my attention, but of course I read it because I read everything that is written about the right hon. gentleman. But I noticed in the report I read that he made some qualification to that bald assertion that my hon. friend has made.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister agree with the qualification?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I prefer the statement to the qualification.
Supply-Agriculture SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000, $3,368,900.
The Chairman:: Vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture is to be found in the main estimates at page 8 of the blue book, details on page 11. Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Nielsen:: Perhaps by way of explanation to the hon. member on the other side of the house who has just risen to his feet I might say that on April 24 I was speaking on this item, and still had some time left in which to discuss these estimates.
I will just spend a minute or two longer on the matter I was discussing on April 24. No doubt by now the minister has had full opportunity to inquire into the matter I partially raised on that date. Unfortunately time did not permit me to place all the facts on record for the minister's guidance. I will say to him now, though, that my information is that when Mr. Trach was requested to cut his contract, that is his contract to supply milk and ice cream to stations Namao and Griesbach, he was told there were certain elements and certain people who stated that if Trach did not agree to the contract being reduced from six months to three months "the Department of Agriculture could make it very difficult for us". That was Mr. McKay; and Mr. McKay, it should be said, is not an employee of the Minister of Agriculture; he is an employee of the Minister of Defence Production who I see, is sitting beside the Minister of Agriculture now, perhaps the better to make the explanations which are required.
Mr. McKay, at this particular interview of which I spoke, the employee of the Minister of Defence Production, then referred to the federal Department of Agriculture at Ottawa and particularly to the minister, that is the Minister of Agriculture; and Mr. McKay stated that he had instructions that the minister, that is the Minister of Agriculture, wanted the contract cut.
It is admirable that there should be cooperation between one department and another, but if my information is correct this is the wrong kind of co-operation when we have the Minister of Agriculture instructing an employee of the Minister of Defence Production in this fashion. Mr. Trach, I am

Supply-Agriculture
informed, told Mr. McKay that in his opinion the Department of Agriculture could not break the contract nor could the Department of Defence Production, since it was in writing and properly executed. But Mr. Trach was then informed by Mr. McKay, according to my best information, that there was a group of lawyers in Ottawa looking into the validity of the contract.
That is a strange statement for a public employee to be making to Mr. Trach, if it is true. It was just after that that Mr. McKay said the minister and the Department of Agriculture were "going to take the contract from us", that is from Mr. Trach, or at least reduce it from six months to three months.
What kind of pressure is this which is being brought to bear? It is strange that a contract for six months should be cut at all, or that these threats, if they were made, should be levelled. But the worst is yet to come. My information is that Mr. McKay then said to Mr. Trach that "we can, in accordance with instructions from Ottawa, find something wrong with your product". He was referring to the milk in question. In other words somebody was going to stick a manure fork into the cream can. I think this is the kind of threat which should be completely eliminated, particularly when there are executed contracts in existence. Here we have the old political patronage game coming back in full force as it used to be before 1957. Then Mr. McKay said during this interview, according to my best information, "I do not like to bring this up in reference to having your products declared unfit, but it is my superiors and the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa that I take my instructions from."
These are very serious allegations indeed, and I would be happy if the minister were in a position to rise and refute them, though I have grave doubts whether he is in such a position. But I think he owes this committee an explanation; because if it is correct that patronage is again running rife, it is time a stop was put to it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Would the hon. member permit a question? He has made reference to very serious charges. I should like to ask him whether he vouches in any way at all for what he is saying, or whether he suspects that it is all mere gossip.


Erik Nielsen: The information I have is of such a character and of such substance that I would not be disclosing these circumstances to the minister unless I thought that (a) it was serious, and (b) it did have some sub-tance. I cannot vouch emphatically and without reservation for the information I have, but I have every reason to believe-and the 
minister can take my assurance for this-that the allegations which have been made have a good deal of substance. They are deserving of explanation. They are allegations made by the person who holds this particular contract.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am asking whether they were made directly by that person to the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: I have an obligation at this moment to treat this information with the same confidence as it was given to me. But I have been quite frank in disclosing the names to the minister in question and I have been quite frank in disclosing the allegations, for they are complete-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am asking the hon. member this. Did he get this information at first hand from Mr. Trach?


Erik Nielsen: I am not obliged to disclose this information to the minister, as he well knows. I do wish at this particular moment to protect the source of information that I have. If the two ministers concerned have an explanation which is acceptable to the committee, after the investigations that the Minister of Agriculture has obviously made since April 24-because he has had the time, and my information is that he has made those investigations-there will be no need to disclose my source of information.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am just seeking to ascertain whether this is first hand information obtained from the man who is making these charges, or whether it is second hand information. I can say right now that the allegations concerning threats allegedly made by the Department of Defence Production employee in Edmonton are wholly false. If the hon. member heard this directly from Mr. Trach, he has been misled. Perhaps he would agree that in the light of these circumstances Mr. Trach is not the kind of person with whom the government should be dealing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and perhaps we should have cancelled the contracts.


An hon. Member:: Who is threatening whom now?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If on the other hand the hon. member got his information second hand, then perhaps Mr. Trach is not guilty of directly misleading a member of parliament. That is why I want to know.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I really think the shoe is on the other foot. I have assured the minister and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture that these have not been

manufactured allegations. I would not have brought them before the committee unless I considered them to be of a most serious nature and of substance. I can tell the minister, though, that Mr. Trach is prepared to swear under oath with regard to the information I have disclosed to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: It is all very well for the Minister of Defence Production to make these answers, which I am sure are very much welcomed by the committee because they want information as to the details and circumstances of this situation; but we should hear from the Minister of Agriculture, who is directly involved, because if the information I have disclosed is true it indicates that the Minister of Agriculture directly interfered with Mr. McKay, an employee of the Department of Defence Production, and made threats, as I put it in the vernacular of the west, to put the manure fork into the cream can.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand these agricultural allusions, but this is an employee of my department in whom I have absolute confidence. He tells me that the statements the hon. member is now making are false and without foundation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How did you get in touch with him so fast?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Some day perhaps the hon. member for Bow River will learn that we work faster than he does.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order briefly is that the minister is denying a statement that was made this afternoon and says he has discussed it with his department. How could he communicate with the department, when he has been sitting in his seat in the House of Commons listening to the statement?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bow River was not in the chamber when all this stuff was rehearsed a few weeks ago. Further, the hon. member for Bow River does not read his Hansard or he would have discovered the whole story.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was in the chamber the last time this statement was made, and I do read Hansard. The minister is not my private secretary, and I do not think he can read the crystal ball that well.


Lucien Lamoureux: In the opinion of the Chair that does not sound like a point of order.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, an employee in whom I have the utmost confidence denies categorically that he made any kind of threat to Mr. Trach or to the Purity Milk Company. Further, he has had no kind of pressure or indeed even suggestion from the Minister of Agriculture as to what should be done about this. The Minister of Agriculture first became aware of this matter when the hon. member for Yukon raised it in the house some two weeks ago. This was the first the Minister of Agriculture heard about it.


Mr. Starr:: Where is Harry's tongue?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the hon. member for Yukon has just pointed out, there is co-operation between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Defence Production. I would again ask the hon. member for Yukon whether he is vouching for these baseless charges, in which case they require some investigation, or whether he is merely retailing gossip. If he has it from Mr. Trach that he is prepared to swear an affidavit as to the truth of these things, let us get it and let us look into this matter. But I would ask the hon. member not to retail misinformation which has the effect of blackening the character of reputable, honest, hard working public servants.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister answer a question? Would he get an affidavit from his informant, as he is asking the hon. member for Yukon to do? Will he get such an affidavit, in the same manner?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite prepared to get an affidavit from the Department of Defence Production employee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would he be prepared to give it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the Minister of Defence Production to get up and reply, as he has, for his employee; but the Minister of Agriculture is of age and surely we can hear from him as to his reaction to these statements. I do not see how the Minister of Defence Production can stand up in this committee and inform us that an employee of his department, Mr. McKay, denies flatly having made these statements, when the statements that were made this afternoon were not in Hansard of April 24. Some of them overlap, but I put three additional statements on the record this afternoon that the minister had never even seen before, and very serious ones they were.
One of those statements was this. He- that is McKay-told Trach that there were certain elements and certain people who stated "That if we did not go for a three month contract"-that is, to reduce the six

Supply-Agriculture
months contract to three-"the Department of Agriculture could make it very tough for us". He, MacKay, then referred to the federal Department of Agriculture at Ottawa and in particular minister Hays. He stated he had instructions that the minister wanted the contract cut.
I cannot see how the minister, and above all Mr. McKay, can deny that this statement was ever made when this afternoon is the first time it has been put on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hays:: Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to make a statement and I would like to stick to my notes, because this is the statement I prepared so I could answer this matter today when my estimates came up again. I would like this on the record, so I shall keep strictly to the notes.
In the debate on my estimates on April 24 the hon. member for Yukon raised a question concerning a contract held by a certain dairy to supply dairy products to two air force stations in the vicinity of Edmonton. He implied that there had been an improper attempt to cancel the contract which, I quote his own words, "cause some doubt as to the integrity of the department itself, its officials and the minister".
He mentioned a Mr. McKay as the local official who had been involved in the matter. During his remarks I interjected to categorically deny the insinuations he had made, which I was able to do so far as the department was concerned because it has nothing to do with defence contracts, and so far as I was concerned because I knew nothing about the matter. However, he had raised the subject just before the committee rose at five o'clock, which did not give me an opportunity to secure information to reply to him in detail at that time.
At the next sitting of the house, on April 27, on a question of privilege I stated that no official of the Department of Agriculture approached any member of the firm mentioned by the hon. member, and that no Mr. McKay worked for the Department of Agriculture in Edmonton. At the end of his remarks on April 24 the hon. member stated that he hoped my investigation would completely exonerate my officials and myself. If that was his hope I can only say that if he had made a very simple inquiry he would have learned that the Department of Agriculture has nothing to do with awarding contracts to military establishments. In fact I am surprised that a member of parliament of his calibre and intelligence did not know this.
I now wish to inform him that neither I nor my officials were in any way involved in contracts with the Purity Dairy for the supply

of dairy products to the R.C.A.F. station Namao or the army station at Griesbach, and that at no time did I or my officials have discussions with Jacob Trach or any other member of the Purity Dairy firm with respect to those contracts. I have never seen Jacob Trach and I have never seen McKay. I have not been in Edmonton for a long time. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture has absolutely no jurisdiction over health requirements so far as the quality of cream or milk is concerned in the province of Alberta. This is strictly a provincial matter. I think it would now be appropriate for the hon. member to withdraw the insinuations which he made on April 24.


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find that there is nothing to withdraw. I do not think the minister should have such a thin skin in this matter, because if he will carefully examine my remarks of April 24, as he himself has just recalled I said in concluding them that I hoped his investigations would exonerate him and the officials of his department.


Harry William Hays: Do you agree, then?


Erik Nielsen: I think there are some further questions which must be answered here. For instance, the minister has not assured the committee that he never had, either himself or through his officials, any communications with Mr. McKay. He did not say that this afternoon, and I think we are entitled to that answer.


Harry William Hays: I said that categorically.


Erik Nielsen: Then we must, of course, accept it immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite are saying "withdraw". I think I have been very fair about bringing these circumstances before the minister. They are circumstances which have substance, and which if they are true amount to very serious charges indeed which require investigation. Let me put this to the minister; that while he can say he had nothing to do with D.D.P. contracts, it is quite another thing to say that there has or has not been any direct contact between himself or members of his department and an employee of his present seatmate the Minister of Defence Production. I would point out to the minister that he obviously had a prepared statement this afternoon, which of course is quite acceptable-


Harry William Hays: May I ask the hon. member a question. Does he think I did make some contacts in connection with this matter?


Erik Nielsen: This committee is the judge of that, not I, Mr. Chairman. It is for the committee to judge whether or not the minister's conduct is above reproach in the circumstances. I have already said that I must accept the word of the minister in this house, because that is a courtesy that is extended to all hon. members. However, he obviously had a prepared statement this afternoon to which he adhered quite closely, as explained by him. But prior to reading it and subsequent to April 24, when I put on the record the initial circumstances surrounding this matter, the remainder of the circumstances had not been disclosed. Therefore I suggest he examine the record in today's Hansard, when it is printed in order to assess the additional information which has been put on the record since April 24, because there are additional factors which he must now consider. The statements I have put on the record today cannot have been denied with any force by the minister in his prepared statement this afternoon since this is the first occasion upon which he has heard them. The statement he read this afternoon is all right as far as it goes, but it only goes as far as covering the information which I put on the record last April 24. I will leave that matter with him and he can explain it at a later date.


Harry William Hays: Would the hon. member be prepared to make the statements he has made today outside the house?


Erik Nielsen: In the same way I have made them in the house I would certainly be prepared to make the same statements outside the house. I think I have been fair in bringing these circumstances to the minister's attention. I have not done so in a way which has besmirched his reputation or smeared him. He put it that I was attempting to smear him, but-


Harry William Hays: Your mother must be very proud of you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: When my mother was alive she was very proud of me. I think I have been fair in bringing the matter to the minister's attention. Again I would refer him to the closing remarks of the discussion on his estimates on April 24, when I said that I hoped the minister's investigations would show that there had been nothing wrong and that those investigations would exonerate him and the officials of his department. However, I suggest to him that he still has a few inquiries to make respecting the information I have given him this afternoon, because I did not have time to put it on the record on April 24.
20220-192J
S upply-A griculture


Harry William Hays: I have no more inquiries to make.


Erik Nielsen: Then I think if he says that it is a dereliction of the minister's responsibility, because there have been other serious statements made today which require investigation. The statement he made today covers only the information placed on the record on April 24, and that is all it could cover. That is also the case regarding the denials of the Minister of Defence Production with respect to his employee; his statements go only so far as the information which was available to him in the record of April 24. I suggest that he too look at the additional information which I have placed on record this afternoon.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must have heard the Minister of Agriculture say that at no time did he or his officials instruct Mr. McKay. This is information which the hon. member for Yukon received in some fashion, he will not disclose how. However, he is prepared to retail what I suggest is pure unadulterated gossip, and I regret very much indeed that an hon. member of this house should lend himself to the practice of blackening the reputations of honest members of the public service with second hand gossip.


Erik Nielsen: I defy the Minister of Defence Production or anybody else who has listened carefully to the remarks I made today or to my remarks of April 24 to make the charge that I have attempted, either deliberately or unintentionally, to blacken anyone's character or reputation. I made it quite clear on a number of occasions that these are matters which have to be investigated; that if the results of the investigations showed that there should be an exoneration of the minister and his officials or the Minister of Defence Production's officials then that was fine, and that is the way it should be. We would all be very happy to see that result. But I think it is the responsibility of an hon. member, indeed his duty, when information of this sort comes to him, to put it before the responsible minister in a committee which is considering his estimates in order that it can be looked into. That is the whole purpose, to my mind, of looking at estimates in this way.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if I am being lectured on the responsibilities of a member of this house I would suggest that it is the responsibility of an hon. member, before he makes charges in this house which outside the house would be libelous or slanderous, to satisfy himself as to the truthfulness of such statements. The hon. member for Yukon, by his own admission, did not even take the

Supply-Agriculture
trouble to ascertain that Mr. McKay was not an employee of the Department of Agriculture. He did not even take the trouble to ascertain that the Department of Agriculture has nothing to do with the letting of milk contracts for the armed forces. I would suggest that the hon. member for Yukon has been unfair, that he is continuing to be unfair and further, that he has shown a complete lack of understanding of the responsibilities of a responsible private member of this house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would
seriously suggest to you that the Minister of Defence Production should come off it. He has implied that I have made statements in the house under my immunity as a member of the house that would be libelous or slanderous if made outside the house. I have just told him that, having regard to the manner in which the statements were made in the house, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in making them outside the house. The Minister of Defence Production, in making such an observation, purports to set himself up as judge of what constitutes libel and slander. There was no intention to libel or slander anyone.
Another point the minister makes is that I did not satisfy myself as to the truth of what was said. The Minister of Defence Production asked me if I was prepared to accept the information I had as being my own. He did not ask me whether I believed it to be true. If he had I would have said yes, because the information in my possession is such that I must believe these statements to be true on the basis of what I have. Prima facie I must believe them to be true. I simply cannot tell the minister at this stage the manner in which that information came to my notice, but I satisfied myself as a responsible member of the house that the information was of that substance, character and gravity as to require an explanation from the minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That it required investigation by the member, not merely an act of credulous belief.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I certainly have no intention of interrupting the discussion that is going on at the moment but X wonder whether the Chairman might be allowed to express an opinion. From the course of the debate that has been going on this afternoon it would appear to me to have been established to my satisfaction at least that the complaint raised by the hon. member for Yukon does not actually relate to the Department of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is my opinion. I might say that when it was first raised at the time we were discussing this item a while ago I expressed some doubt whether it really came under item No. 1 of the Department of Agriculture, but in view of the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member for Yukon I took no exception to his continuing to discuss it. But I certainly have serious doubts and I am sure hon. members will agree with me that there is serious doubt, in view of the statement that has been made by the Minister of Agriculture, whether this matter actually comes at all within the purview of item No. 1 of the Department of Agriculture.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I think you will have noticed that I was prepared to leave the matter about 20 minutes ago and had it not been for the groundless and rather childish accusations of the Minister of Defence Production it would have been left there. I bow to your ruling on the matter, of course, although I differ with it as I did on April 24.
I leave the matter with the ministers as responsible ministers of the crown. There is additional information of a serious nature that requires an investigation and an explanation brought back to the committee. I will leave the matter right there.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave it may I say I think I speak for all in saying that we would be quite prepared to have a judicial inquiry if the hon. member will give us the source of his information.


An hon. Member:: They do not like the one that is going on now.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the hon. member might want to return to this matter later in the debate. There are quite a few members who have expressed their desire to speak in the course of this debate. I have a long list of members who have come to me and have said they want to speak. Perhaps it would be fair to give them a chance at this time, although if the hon. member has a parting word I will recognize him.


Erik Nielsen: I will not say another word on this subject. I have two more that I can deal with in a very short time. They are of a similar nature to the last one, so the minister had better be prepared to keep his investigators busy because, whether or not he knows it, there seem to be goings on among members on the benches opposite as well as in his own office of which I am sure he would not approve. I am going to bring two matters to his attention.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member now going to discuss another point? His time expired quite a while ago. I realize there have been interruptions but the hon. member spoke for 14 minutes on April 24 and he has certainly been speaking for more than 16 minutes this afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I am not for a moment suggesting that you are running interference for the ministers. I am not for a moment suggesting that, but-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The point is very simple. According to the rules the hon. member has 30 minutes and he has spoken for more than 30 minutes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, every time there is an interruption his time starts again.


Lucien Lamoureux: Not necessarily. If another member rises to ask a question or if another member-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The ministers have made several statements this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. To my mind it is just a question of being fair to all members of the committee. I enjoy listening to the hon. member for Yukon and I am sure the point we have been discussing this afternoon is of interest to the whole committee. But the hon. member had the floor when we debated this item on April 24 and he called it five o'clock. At that point he had been speaking for 14 minutes. He continued this afternoon and, although there have been interruptions back and forth, the committee has been sitting for some 40 or 50 minutes and, while I have not kept the time, I am certain that the hon. member has spoken for more than 16 minutes. I would be inclined to see another hon. member in order to give someone else a chance to contribute to the debate. Perhaps the hon. member for Yukon might speak again later, because he can speak as often as he wants to.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order that has been raised by you, sir,-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve is rising on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to your sound judgment.
It is true that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) took up quite a lot of our time today. However, he was interrupted quite often by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) and by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays).
The points raised by the hon. member for Yukon are very important, so much so that
Supply-Agriculture
the two ministers sometimes have to get up at the same time to try to refute what the hon. member for Yukon is saying.
I understand that in agriculture-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As far as I can see from the remarks just made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), there is no point of order. He may be very eloquent as the spokesman for or the defender of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but the reason I intervene is that the hon. member for Yukon has just finished making a particular point. Since the discussion on that point is over, the committee might feel that another member should have the floor.
However, if the hon. member for Yukon feels like concluding his remarks, I certainly do not want to stand in his way and I recognize him immediately.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order that has been raised by you, sir, I believe that under the rules I am entitled to continue now. I could have dealt with the two remaining points I want to bring to the minister's attention in the time that has been taken on the point of order, if it had not arisen.
I believe that under the rules I have a right to go ahead, and if I may be allowed to continue I shall be finished in a few minutes.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Rosedale, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, has been making certain representations to his department with regard to the appointment of solicitors to the Farm Credit Corporation. Now, the hon. member for Lincoln had requested the member for Rosedale to appoint Mr. John Hicks; Mr. Frank Flynn; Mr. Harry P. Cavers; Mr. Keith Pedwell and Mr. Hugh Mahoney, all of St. Catharines, to share equally in the corporation work. The member for Rosedale, I am informed, said to the member for Lincoln that five solicitors were too many to be working for the Farm Credit Corporation. The hon. member for Lincoln then came back with a compromise saying, well, perhaps you had better just appoint Mr! Hicks and Mr. Mahoney to share equally in this work. The hon. member for Rosedale said it was government policy, or policy in any event, that only one solicitor is normally appointed to do the Farm Credit Corporation work. The hon. member for Lincoln then said that the work of the Farm Credit Corporation was in arrears because of the very poor schedule of fees being paid to solicitors doing this work.
The hon. member for Rosedale also made reference to the fact that it was embarrassing

Supply-Agriculture
to appoint solicitors to the Farm Credit Corporation and then turn around and fire others. He evolved another procedure for going about this. The hon. member for Rosedale's suggestion was, we will not fire these old solicitors at all. What we will do is, we will not send them any work at all and eventually, in the fullness of time, they will realize that since they are not getting the work somebody else is replacing them. It will be much easier for the Farm Credit Corporation and the solicitor in question.


Mr. Hahn:: May I ask the hon. member a question? For how long were the solicitors to whom the hon. member is referring employed by the department? Was it since 1957?


Erik Nielsen: I cannot say from my own knowledge, but I understand these solicitors have been working for the corporation since its inception.
However, we have a sudden recommendation from the hon. member for Lincoln to the hon. member for Rosedale, who is the parliamentary secretary to the minister, to appoint five solicitors. The member for Rose-dale says this is not good policy and they should appoint one. Then, when he gets one appointed he says: We are not going to tell the old one he is fired; he is not going to get any more work. We will not tell him a thing, we will just let him wait until he realizes another solicitor has been appointed, and in the fullness of time he will realize this when he is not getting any work. This is a real plan, I must say.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if he could give the source of all this keyhole gossip with which he is favouring the committee this afternoon?


Erik Nielsen: I mentioned the hon. member for Rosedale. I have mentioned the hon. member for Lincoln. I think that if the information I have given the committee is the least bit faulty, then they should get up and tell the committee that this is so.
There is another one. These representations came from the hon. member from Renfrew, a very distinguished member of this house. He made representations to the hon. member for Rosedale who, I invite the committee not to forget, is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture-no, justice.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. If the other information the hon. member has is no better than his knowledge of the parliamentary secretaries, then obviously all of his information is incorrect. I should like to enlighten the hon. member by informing him that the hon. member for Rosedale is not the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. The 
hon. member should inform himself of other things as well as these very fundamental matters.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order; I must appeal to the good sense of the committee to confine itself to the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Renfrew South obviously was not listening because before he rose I did correct my reference and said the hon. member for Rosedale was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. In any event, here we have the hon. member for Renfrew appealing to the hon. member for Rosedale to appoint Mr. Terence V. McCann of Pembroke in place of Mr. H. J. Bradley to do the Farm Credit Corporation work in that area. This one is a little more serious, I think and perhaps is going to require a little more explanation, because there is a hidden inference in this one. My information is that the hon. member for Rosedale had been informed that the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation was reluctant to make any change and therefore requested the hon. member for Rosedale to see what he could do. In turn, the hon. member for Rosedale then communicated with the minister's office and passed on the request. Since the chairman was reluctant to make any change, would you go up and see Mr. Bradley and put Mr. McCann in? It appears we are right back to this old system of the pork barrel.


John James Greene: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Inasmuch as my constituency has been mentioned, I should like to inform the hon. member that his keyhole source of information is incorrect. Either he should check back-I do not know whether he gets this information in a public house, through a keyhole, from the messengers, or the char staff, or from the Dorothy Kilgallen of the house. I suggest that possibly he will become a gossip columnist like the hon. member for Port Arthur, and one in this house is surely sufficient.
I deny the information that he has. In so far as my riding is concerned, no such recommendation was made. Had it been made, I think it would have been an excellent appointment because all of these gentlemen are highly qualified solicitors, far more competent than some of the gentlemen who were doing the work between 1957 and 1962. However, on the point of privilege, I deny this information and I challenge the hon. gentleman to give the source of his information, if it is anything more than idle corridor gossip.


Erik Nielsen: I should say the hon. gentleman has made a comparison between the admirable gentlemen who are proposed for this work and the gentlemen who have done this work, as he says, between 1957 and 1962. Now, I am a greenhorn when it comes to agriculture. I have not even got my straw hat, but at least I know that the corporation was not set up until 1961. I must say that all of us have to accept the hon. member's statement because that is the courtesy we extend to all members in all corners of the house. However, I suggest to him he should not be so brash as to make such a sweeping denial of this information until at least he has consulted with his colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale. It just might be that the hon. member for Rosedale may have been in touch with the minister's office, unbeknownst to the hon. member for Renfrew South. I suggest that he exercise a little caution.


John James Greene: I very much appreciate the learned, experienced and knowledgeable hon. member lecturing me on the proper procedures. He has already instructed the Minister of Industry, whom he called the Minister of Defence Production, one of the many errors the hon. member has made today. I very much appreciate the lecture, but I have a little more to do in this chamber than to investigate all the corridor and key hole gossip I hear in this place.


Erik Nielsen: I have no doubt whatever the minister will get up and participate with respect to these two particular matters, and tell the committee whether or not we are correct in the names we have cited, and the names of the members who made representations to the minister's office. All I have to say about the circumstances I have drawn to the committee's attention is that we are right back into the old pre-1957 pork barrel, the old Ottawa valley game, as I think it used to be called in the past.


Harry William Hays: I think I should probably explain something about the Farm Credit Corporation. It was set up long before 1961. We have tried, and I know the former government did also, to cut down the time it takes to service a loan so far as the farmers are concerned. After all, they are of No. 1 importance. My instructions to Mr. Owen, the manager of the corporation, have always been that we want to cut down this time. Last year we were able to cut it down substantially. This year the members of the corporation are charged with the responsibility of cutting it down further-ten days- regardless of what lawyers are handling the loans.
Supply-Agriculture
If the lawyers do not service them immediately and they have not got a real good excuse, then they are to be replaced. Everyone who has been appointed as a lawyer handling Farm Credit Corporation loans has been instructed to do the work quickly. These are my instructions, and it must be done on merit, regardless of politics. My instructions are that no matter what a lawyer's politics are, if he cannot cut the mustard and service these loans for the farmers, then he is to be replaced. This will continue to be our policy.
The Farm Credit Corporation is a big business. It has now handled up to nearly $400 million. The act is a good one and I give the previous government full credit for it, but it is an act which replaced another one that also did a great deal of good. Our main concern is that the farmers be taken care of first, and that all appointments be made on merit. I can assure the committee that these are my instructions, as Minister of Agriculture, to the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation.


Erik Nielsen: I just want to conclude my remarks-


David Réal Caouette: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) exchanged a few remarks for a while always to criticize the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for statements made by the latter this afternoon.
Now, in the field of Canadian agriculture, political patronage is found not only in the Yukon but everywhere in the country. Such patronage is not being practised in only one district, but in all parts of Canada. The Minister of Agriculture knows about it. Let us put an end to this patronage and let the $400 million-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must say to the committee that I think the procedure we are following is very, very irregular. I understand the committee gave permission to the hon. member for Yukon to continue his remarks beyond the normal 30 minutes.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I may be wrong there, but this is what I understood. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor, and until the hon. member has completed his remarks I would hope the rule will be observed that a member can make a speech without being interrupted.


David Réal Caouette: A question of privilege is submitted to Your Honour. Can we deal with it or not?

Supply-Agriculture


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the hon. member is rising on a point of privilege I should be pleased to hear him.


David Réal Caouette: No, the minister rose on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I could be through in about three minutes if the committee will permit me. I would not have risen again if it had not been for the hon. member for Renfrew South referring to my information as being corridor gossip.


John James Greene: Keyhole gossip.


Erik Nielsen: Or keyhole gossip. I have in my hand a letter which concerns him. I am going to read that letter, and if the committee wants me to table it I would be happy to do so.
I have here a letter marked private and confidential, dated May 1, 1964, and signed by Donald S. Macdonald, M.P., parliamentary secretary, addressed to D. F. McIntosh, Esq., executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. It reads:
Dear Don:
James Forgie, M.P. for Renfrew North has requested that Mr. Terence V. McCann of 73 Pembroke street west, Pembroke be retained for all Farm Credit Corporation work in this area in place of Mr. H. J. Bradley who, I believe, is now receiving this work.
In view of the reluctance of the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation to make these changes, I would appreciate it if you could assist me in carrying out Mr. Forgie's request.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What a thing.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The same old gang.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member table that letter?


Erik Nielsen: If it were within the rules.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member is not permitted to table private correspondence.


John James Greene: On a point of privilege, I believe that the rules provide that if he is reading the letter he is vouching for its authenticity, for the authenticity of its contents and its signature.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member may be quite true in saying that the hon. member for Yukon is vouching for the truth of the document, but the document is not a public document and therefore cannot be tabled.


Erik Nielsen: Unfortunately I am prevented from tabling it by the rules but I have no hesitation, believing in the integrity of the hon. member for Rosedale, that he wrote this letter and signed it on May 1.


John James Greene: Could the hon. member tell us how he came by the letter?


Erik Nielsen: Wouldn't the hon. member like to know.


John James Greene: I take it the hon. member declines to answer my question.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member, the minister, the hon. member for Lincoln or the hon. member for Rosedale would like to know the source of the information with respect to the solicitor's name cited in respect to this situation, I would refer them to the letter of Mr. Donald S. Macdonald, M.P., member for Rosedale, under private and confidential cover, to the same executive assistant dated May 1. It is a letter too long to read, but I would be happy to do so if the committee wishes.


Harry William Hays: I would like to make a few corrections for the record as it seems quite easy for the hon. member for Yukon to make these mistakes. He said the Farm Credit Corporation started in 1961. The Farm Credit Corporation replaced the old farm loan board on October 5, 1959.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister correct that? It was set up then, but it did not start operations until 1961.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; the hon. member for Champlain.


John James Greene: I wonder might I ask the hon. member a question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


John James Greene: He has yielded the floor. I wonder could he tell us if that was the original or a copy?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be more concise than the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. NielsenX
A country has never been prosperous without a flourishing agriculture, and especially in a country where agriculture is prominent in the economic life, as is precisely the case for Canada, a country where agriculture is extremely diversified, where farm yields are enormous and could even be bigger, if all agricultural fields were developed adequately all across the country.
Canada has a Minister of Agriculture whose responsibility includes a farm production infinitely diversified on a territory as broad as a continent. The great importance given to agriculture in western Canada, on account of its enormous production of wheat and grains,

has often led people to believe that the Canadian agriculture boiled down to that.
Except in a few cases, the Minister of Agriculture has always been a member from western Canada, well informed in matters related to wheat and inclined, of course, to think that all other matters are of secondary importance, although food consumption on the island of Montreal, for instance, is greater than in the three western provinces put together.
We recognized that this situation had to stop and that, although it was good for the prosperity of two or three provinces, it played against the whole country's economy and prosperity. The prosperity of western Canada cannot guarantee the prosperity of the whole country, and the rest of the country cannot remain at the mercy of conditions which result in an excellent crop one year and a poor one or none at all the next. The present Liberal government recognized and claimed that the agricultural situation in Canada, because of the size of our country and the diversity of its production, could not be directed efficiently by a single department.
We had stated that an important aspect of our policy would be to give eastern Canada its own minister, who would be entirely responsible for part of the farming development in the east and who would look after raising the standard of living of our farmers, by promoting full efficiency in agricultural and rural activities, which is an essential factor of prosperity, development and progress of our economy.
For the eastern farmer the dairy industry is just as important as the wheat crop for the western farmer. He cannot prosper without the development of his herds. It matters little whether he has the best cattle, the largest and best pasturage if he cannot market his products adequately, if he does not know how to transfer his dairy industry so as to make it more profitable.
The western provinces do not use up all of their wheat, they sell it to the whole world. The grain from western Canada helps to feed hundreds of millions of people, and we can but rejoice to see Canada, and specially the Liberal government, selling so much wheat and other grains to all parts of the world.
This however should not make us lose sight of the fact that in the other half of Canada, where we live, there are immense areas with tremendous possibilities for the dairy industry, and the raising of cattle. Wide markets exist in other continents for our products; and, yet, the yield of that form of agricultural activity is not what it could be; a part of the population in the areas where these activities could be carried on and expanded, does not earn enough to provide for
Supply-Agriculture
its essential needs. This is the new task that has been assigned to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), so that he will take care of this serious situation.
The problem is not that this part of the country cannot put agriculture and farms on a profitable basis. The simple fact is that agriculture in eastern Canada has never been given its rightful place, even if the opposition seems to find today solutions to all the problems which it could not settle when it was in power.
The possibilities of a country are not only measured by the amount of wheat or grain it can produce. We cannot take into account only one form of farm products and exclude all others. We must think of the whole and of all its component parts.
The fact is that eastern Canada has all it needs to put agriculture to the forefront. Vast areas are available for the kind of agriculture which would bring them greater prosperity. Some residents of eastern Canada have been living there for a long time; they offer guarantees of stability which perhaps have no equal anywhere in the country.
The people of eastern Canada do not have to become farmers. They are farmers by tradition and heredity, and a large number of them ask for nothing better than to remain farmers, providing they can make a living out of the soil and other related industries. Let us see the situation under its true light, however. If so many farms are abandoned, it is not because the soil is exhausted but because the families who had settled there could no longer make a living on those farms.
What is the use of having the best dairy herds in the world, the finest livestock in the country, if you cannot earn a decent living? You will have to live from hand to mouth, you will be compelled to stop fertilizing your fields and your pastures. Your property will start to run down; your family will be unable to live on the farm; one by one, your children will leave for the city, quite often without adequate training to earn a living. You will be left without the necessary help. With your children gone, you will not have the means to hire outside help and everything will go to pot.
All around you everybody is suspicious and pessimistic. Everybody says: what is the use of staying on the farm if nobody cares for us, if nobody does anything to help us.
I very often visit my riding which is partly rural. I see fine farms, fine herds, and a population which is sound, strong and skilled in all farming activities. But what concern, what pessimism among many of those farmers. They are wondering why they should remain on the farm and stick to farming.

Supply-Agriculture
Under the strong leadership of a minister whose purpose is to remedy so much misery, we wish to restore the confidence of our people. We must see, judge and act. Everything cannot be done overnight, especially in view of the slowness of this house.
In order to cope with the situation, we needed a minister who will deal especially with that poverty, a minister who will be completely aware of the rural situation, of its problems and possibilities, who will know the rural population, their requirements and what they can offer in terms of character, initiative, sustained work; a minister whose everyday concern would be to work so as to develop and revive that agriculture and promote its expansion, in order to obtain a proper efficiency, and who would move heaven and earth to ensure its maintenance.
Every week, commercial and economic missions come to Canada. Every week, similar missions are leaving Canada. The day when such missions will concern themselves with the lot of eastern farming, we can start thinking there is a will to do something with a view to the prosperity and welfare of a part of the people of eastern Canada.
Most recent surveys indicate that the number and the percentage of unemployed people are larger in the east than they are in the west. Would it not be because we have failed to see the situation under its true light, especially for the last five years?
There is only one way to make agriculture, which is quite different in eastern Canada, a prosperous, living and lasting industry. On the one hand, it must be organized so that the farmer will make a living by finding permanent markets and exporting his products. On the other hand, we also need a government aware and convinced of its responsibilities, a minister whose constant concern and essential task will be to organize accordingly his activity and that of the agencies under his responsibility, namely rural development, especially ARDA, by making it immediately more flexible and effective. Once agriculture is put back again on a sound economic basis and assured, by its own nature, of its future development, it is the organization of economic markets which will enable it to go ahead.
To secure our foreign markets is to guarantee full employment at home. Our recent wheat sales to the Soviet union, Bulgaria, communist China, Czechoslovakia represent a fantastic transaction, if we think of eastern Canada, and we are very happy about it.
The agricultural policy has been very successful for the west of the country. We are able to do as well for eastern Canada, where farming also has a bright future, provided a

special and essential part of the operations is in the hands of a minister who knows those possibilities and endeavours to take advantage of them as much as possible.
Agriculture has a double purpose, that is to feed a nation and, the economic purpose, to create markets in the world to balance its credit and its prosperity.
In that case, we should grant subsidies and credit to the farmers who would convert their dairy production to something else, like beef cattle for instance. We should impose high standards for milk quality, the farm as well beef cattle, and control milk sales through a national marketing board.
There is another thing we want to correct. Farmers in general, and more particularly in the east of this country would certainly benefit therefrom, because they are not informed of prospective markets for their products. There are, for instance, many farmers who know, as I said earlier, that the European market has unbelieveable prospects for our farming industry? We need a quick and dynamic information service. We need a research council on marketing, on the transformation and production of vegetables and animal products.
I think some beneficial solutions could be found for our farmers by establishing a "control council" for production and stabilization of feed grain prices by eliminating speculation.
If we want to help our farming industry, we should give it our special attention. The farmer is often affected by excessive production, by instability of prices, and his products are too often the prey of speculators who benefit more from government grants than the farmer himself.
We must plan, guide and control the demand and production by means of statistics, so that the production does not exceed twice the demand, thus lowering prices, which forces the farmer to sell his products at less than cost.
The issuance of breeding licenses would rationalize production and probably eliminate an unjustified competition against the farmer, which often leads him into a financial mess.
Breeding should be the responsibility of the farmers and not of the white collar workers, so that systematic speculation might be avoided. It would also be appropriate to define exactly the farmer's duties and to outline his aims, as is the case among the professional classes and tradesmen.
Farming was formerly the world's finest profession; unfortunately, it has become an industry. Let us revalorize the farmer's role; let us give him a real professional code;

I believe that such a course of action would dignify the farming profession; as all other professions and trades, it will support a man and his family properly, without recourse to all kinds of grants, which are often but mere poultices, devoid of healing power.
We have started dealing with these matters. The farmers would not expect less from us. Economy in eastern Canada is the foundation of their concerted efforts. We would not really succeed in rehabilitating economy in eastern Canada without first grappling with this problem. The farmer must be able to make a living for himself and his family on his farm alone, without going to the city, for whole seasons, if not for the whole year round, to earn part of his income; there are many people having to earn money, who cannot work and earn their living in cities, whereas the farmer, on the other hand, should be placed in a situation allowing him to ensure amply his subsistence through the sole income to be drawn from his farm. Such a policy of economic balance is essential if Canada is to have the economic and social security it needs in order to be a happy country in which each social class enjoys the well-being it is entitled to.
There is another very important point I wish to emphasize in order to show you that the French Canadian farmer does not feel at home in Ottawa but rather like a stranger.
French Canadian farmers, who make up 30 per cent of the farmers of Canada, cannot make themselves understood in the Department of Agriculture, because the very great majority of the civil servants in Ottawa, if not all, do not speak French but only English. There has been only a little improvement up to now. We cannot insist that English Canadian farmers speak French or that French Canadian farmers speak English, but we could insist that both be understood by civil servants, who are their employees.
If we really want to have unity, recognition of equal rights for both nations, parliament must develop bilingualism more intensely so as to include our farmers.
Our farmers believe in our Liberal government because we do not want speeches only but action that will satisfy all the aspirations of our Canadian farmers.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, I see there are just a few minutes at my disposal before we call it five o'clock. Perhaps that is indeed fortunate, because in my 30 pages of notes here I have a paragraph of commendation and 29 pages of condemnation. Perhaps I can get the commendation on the record before five o'clock. When the Minister of Agriculture gave his opening address on
Supply-Agriculture
these estimates it was expected from all parts of the house that he would deal with some policy in regard to agriculture as put forth by this government. The picture he painted in his remarks was, of course, of a somewhat rosy nature. He did state that the gross national income from farming rose in the last 12 months, for the year 1963. He did state and illustrate the importance of the research being carried on by the Department of Agriculture.
He commended the minister's department and we on this side of the house certainly want to endorse his commendation. Research in the field of agriculture in Canada is known throughout the world. These men are leaders in the field and certainly deserve commendation at every hand.
The minister dealt with an attempt by him and his department to bring the matter of research closer, in implementation and understanding, to the farmer himself, and I think this is a fine step to take. Too often have we had a tremendous amount of work done by the research department which would have been of extreme benefit to the farmers had it been initiated, but perhaps through some lack of communication, either on the part of the department or the farmers themselves, it was impossible to communicate this vital knowledge to the farmers. Therefore any effort made by the minister and his department to assimilate this information and distribute it among the farmers will be appreciated by all in agriculture clear across this dominion.
The minister also spoke of his activities in the development of livestock at the fairs. I think this is a step which is long overdue. I think the minister and the government appreciate the fact that the return of the fall fair to its former dignity, where we had greater emphasis on agriculture and less emphasis on the carnival aspect, would be of tremendous interest and benefit to all citizens of Canada. It should be a showcase for agriculture. We will have to wait, of course, and see what the new regulations the minister has introduced for the fairs bring forth. I imagine there is no reason to doubt that the minister and his associates will work very closely with the leaders in the livestock industry to set up these particular classifications.
I noted that the minister dealt first with the Hereford breed. I think he did this because the Hereford is a universal breed from coast to coast in Canada. The farmers in Ontario will be particularly pleased that he spoke about the fair in London and stated that perhaps this would be a good place to introduce such a policy, as far as dairy cattle are concerned. I should like to thank the minister for his praise of the cattle breeders in the

Supply-Agriculture
London area. We in southwestern Ontario think we have cattle breeders second to none.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I should now like to deal for a few moments with what is happening in the agriculture field today. Is the picture the minister painted as rosy as he says? Does this government know exactly what is going on in agriculture today? Are the farmers as happy and as satisfied from coast to coast as he would lead us to believe? I think the only way we can approach this problem is to analyse the situation. I never like putting a lot of figures on the record but I should like to illustrate what is being done.
The minister stated that the net income has increased in the last 12 months, and this is absolutely true. We all realize that the tremendous sales of wheat as well as other grains to communist countries have in the main been responsible for this. But when we analyse the figures which have been put on the record we find that the net income to the farmers clear across this nation, even with the tremendous sales of grain, has only gone up from 1962 to 1963 to the extent of $37 million. This leads us to wonder if all is well across the farm front of this nation. After delving into the matter a little further what do we find? Let us compare the incomes in 1962 with the incomes in 1963. During the year 1961-62 there was an increase in farm income in every province across the dominion. But what happened in 1963? In the province of Alberta there was an increase in income from 1962 to 1963 of $15 million. In the province of Saskatchewan, that great wheat bowl, what do we find? The increase in income was $97 million.
Now let us look at the rest of the picture in this rosy country of ours, this utopia for agriculture. What happened between 1962 and 1963 in Prince Edward Island? The income went up between 1961 and 1962, but last year it went down $130,000. What happened in Nova Scotia? Last year the income for the farmers was down $1.5 million. In New Brunswick it was down $900,000. And what about Quebec? This is the government which was going to bring utopia to the farmers of Quebec. Their needs were going to be looked after as never before. According to the minister, he said that the income from the dairies was the greatest since any time since confederation. Let us just see what the record is for the province of Quebec. The income to the farmers of that province went down $12 million.
What was the position in Ontario? We in Ontario were a little more fortunate: The income only went down $2,250,000. What happened in Manitoba? It went down $15 million. What happened in British Columbia,

that province on the west coast in which is grown all the wonderful fruits and vegetables and which has a great lumber industry? The income to the farmers in the province was down $4 million. Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 private bills, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-ll, to incorporate Canadian Conference of the Brethren in Christ Church. -Mr. Greene.
Bill No. S-14, respecting The Dominion Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Weichel.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mar-tineau:
That an order of the house do Issue for a copy of all maps, drawn up or deposited with the chief electoral officer or the representation commissioner, pertaining to the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries in Canada.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when I was giving my impressions, not quotations, a week ago, concerning this notice of motion-
-for copy of all maps drawn up or deposited with the chief electoral officer and the representation commissioner, pertaining to the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries in Canada.
-the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), who is not in the house now, said that the tabling of those documents would create confusion for the people, the hon. members and even for the chief electoral officer.
Mr. Speaker, that confusion was in fact organized by the orders or suggestions the chief electoral officer received from some ministers, either the Minister of Transport or another one, to the effect that he should prepare electoral maps which would be sent to provincial commissioners so that the provinces or the provincial commissions could take those maps submitted by the chief electoral officer, as a basis for their studies to reform or proceed to the redistribution of electoral boundaries in our provinces.

On that score, what I am interested in is certainly the redistribution of electoral boundaries in the province of Quebec, since I come from that province. Some others will have representations to make concerning the province of Ontario and other Canadian provinces, which will object to the fact that those electoral maps prepared by the chief electoral officer should be submitted to the attention of provincial commissions.
That is why I said a week ago that the Minister of Transport, as well as the chief electoral officer, should never have suggested that we go to the main office here in Ottawa to see the plans or drawings prepared by the chief electoral officer to give us an idea how the ridings should be organized or reorganized within the provinces.
When I called personally at the office of the chief electoral officer, I saw the plans, drawings and maps. They certainly do not suit me, nor do they suit the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) or the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise).
The chief electoral officer was telling us- and me, in particular-that for no consideration at all would be alter the plans he was then spreading out before me, and that the whole question would be submitted to the provincial commission which would decide whether or not changes were to be made.
Now, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue requests that these documents be submitted to the house. If they are to serve as a basis for the Canadian provinces to proceed with the establishment of new electoral boundaries, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, at least, I maintain that these maps must be submitted to parliament as well as to the attention of all Canadian hon. members assembled here in the federal house of parliament.
However, if those maps are not to be used for the establishment of new electoral boundaries in the provinces, the government should order the chief electoral officer to stop preparing maps and making plans for redistribution, since he himself admits that he knows nothing about Quebec.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: Would the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) allow me a question?


David Réal Caouette: With pleasure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could he tell us what would be the purpose of those maps, in his opinion, if they were not used for the establishment of new electoral boundaries. If they were not to serve that purpose, does he feel they should still be drawn up?
Electoral Boundaries Maps


David Réal Caouette: In reply to my good friend from Pontiac-Temiscamingue I will say that existing maps should be destroyed.
If those documents are not to be submitted to the House of Commons, they should be done away with. It is not up to the chief electoral officer to decide the basis on which the commission for the province of Quebec should work, or, for that matter, the commission for the province of Ontario or that for Manitoba, the province of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The provinces themselves look after their electoral readjustment.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that when I called on the chief electoral officer, Mr. Castonguay, he showed me electoral maps. Taking into account-


Mr. Choquelte:: Were you invited?


David Réal Caouette: I went at his own invitation, for the information of my hon. friend from Lotbiniere. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transport was also invited, as were members of each political party, to go and see, on the spot, the sketches prepared by the chief electoral officer.
Mr. Speaker, when I got there, I was told there was one map based on a 10 per cent tolerance, another based on a 20 per cent tolerance and, finally, a third one based on a 25 per cent tolerance.
While looking at the most important part of the country, that which, naturally, includes Rouyn-Noranda and the constituency of Villeneuve, I discovered that-


Auguste Choquette: Our part of the country is also important.


David Réal Caouette: -I discovered that we have in that area-a beautiful area-a region which is right smack in the middle-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the most important part of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: I believe my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was there on one occasion, and he realized that it was the most beautiful area of the province of Quebec.
The cities of Rouyn and Noranda are twin cities. Now, according to the work done by the chief electoral officer-fortunately he is not the chief officer for Canada, but merely the chief electoral officer-Rouyn and Noranda are to be separated. Noranda is to be added to the Val d'Or and Amos area, and Rouyn, which is thoroughly "creditiste"-

Electoral Boundaries Maps with all due respect for my friend from Lot-biniere-is to be added to the Pontiac-Temiscamingue constituency.
While I was pointing out-


Auguste Choquette: That is why the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is afraid.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear my hon. friend from Lotbiniere say that is the reason why the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is afraid. He is not afraid, but from the geographical point of view, that redistribution would be meaningless and totally irrational.
At present, we have a constituency including the whole mining area in the northwest of Quebec. We have a riding that is fundamentally agricultural:	Pontiac-Temiscamingue. We have, to the north, the constituency of Chapleau which is also an agricultural, forest and mining constituency.
Now, when I met the chief electoral officer, I was introduced to the young man who had prepared the exercises, and both of them told me that those exercises would not be used to determine new standards or the new boundaries of the ridings in the provinces. However, they admitted to me that those exercises would be used as a basis by the provincial commission and that they will be used as criteria to determine in the future, in the province of Quebec, federal constituencies included, comprised and recognized in the province of Quebec.
When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said the other day that to produce those exercises or electoral maps to the house would create confusion, he was quite right. On the other hand, why did the minister extend to us a public invitation to go and meet the chief electoral officer to find out on the spot what progress had been made?
The chief electoral officer told me candidly, honestly and humbly that he knows neither the province of Quebec nor Ontario nor any other province in Canada. If we are going to set up ten commissions in Canada, if we are going to have one in the province of Quebec -I contend that it is the responsibility of this commission in the province of Quebec to decide what will the new ridings be in the future and to decide the boundaries of those ridings, and when this commission will hear the people who have objections in respect to such and such a map, or such and such a percentage of population-if we take for granted that the act provides that the average or quota, as we say usually, will be between 70,000 and 71,000 people per constituency-well, I contend that it will rest 

with us then to go before the provincial commission, and I am of the opinion that no member of parliament, no organization, no party has the right or the obligation to go to the chief electoral officer to see the basic work he has done.
We have been told that this work should not influence the provincial commissions, but we know that it will influence them very much and that these maps will be taken into account.
In my opinion, there is only one solution, which I mentioned a while ago, and it is this: If the chief electoral officer, with his maps, should not influence the provincial commissions, then he should burn them, and get rid of them, and we should hear no more about them. Above all, we should no longer be invited to see those maps, because it is an insult to all federal members of parliament. If on the other hand, those maps are to be used as a basis for future electoral readjustments, or the readjustment of future federal ridings, throughout Canada, then, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) was justified when he asked that these documents be produced in the house in order that each member may examine them.
I am convinced that every member will agree with me that the chief electoral officer does not have to take part in the redistribution of electoral districts. If it is refused to have these documents destroyed, then let them be produced in the house so that every member may know what is going on in his riding. I shall appreciate then the impression that the government strives so much to give us, namely that it shows a democratic spirit, that it allows freedom to every individual and also to every member of parliament, an undeniable freedom to every province of Canada and, under the circumstances, as far as we are concerned, that the commission has complete and unrestricted authority to decide what electoral districts must be represented in the house. At that time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, with pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member still agree or does he not still agree to the proposition that Mr. Castonguay is to be a member of each of the provincial commissions and, therefore, is he not simply carrying out the duties already assigned to him by statute to be doing some preliminary work on this matter? In other words, does the hon. member feel this rather strong criticism he is making of Mr. Castonguay is justified?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I admit that my criticism is rather sharp but it is not directed to Mr. Castonguay and his organization, nor to those who asked Mr. Castonguay to prepare the plans.
Mr. Castonguay told me, in his office, that he does not know the province of Quebec and that that sketch or sketches have been prepared in an arbitrary fashion-I was told even more than that-I was told that, in the province of Quebec, there were four classes of ridings: urban ridings, rural-urban ridings, rural ridings plus two northern ridings, those of Saguenay and Chapleau. Mr. Castonguay himself told me that. In addition, Mr. Castonguay told me: "All our calculation is based on the science of mathematics, we stick to mathematics; the same quota from 70,000 to 71,000 people per riding will be applied."
But, with regard to urban and rural ridings-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the hon.
member for Lotbiniere can raise a point of order, I must advise the hon. member for Villeneuve that his time has expired and also that I took into account the fact that he was interrupted. I gave him two minutes more to make up for that interruption.


David Réal Caouette: May I reply to my good friend, the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member get the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am truly grateful to my hon. friend from Lotbiniere. I know that, eventually, he will feel like joining us.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, he did not
get the unanimous consent of the house; therefore, his time has expired.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in reply- [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to continue after his time has expired?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank once again my hon. friend from Lotbiniere, but to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I will say that when the chief electoral officer explained to me the way he
Electoral Boundaries Maps intended to proceed and suggested that there would be four categories of counties in the province of Quebec, I was told on the same occasion that this whole question was resting upon mathematical and scientific factors, and that the population would amount to 66,000 for each county. At a given moment, when it came to the northern counties, those of Saguenay and Chapleau, the mathematical element disappeared completely and was replaced by purely geographical factors.
The situation had changed completely. That is why I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that even if the representation commissioner sits on all provincial commissions throughout Canada, I do not think it is wise to entrust him with the establishment of the new electoral boundaries.
I would be in favour of leaving that matter to the provincial commission in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Quebec and in all the other provinces even if the commissions then had to rely on the advice of Mr. Castonguay and his staff of experts in mathematics and geography. However, I feel that far from submitting to the provincial commissions the maps he now has, Mr. Castonguay should throw them away. In other words, if he does present his maps, then I agree with the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue and I support his motion calling for the tabling of the documents in the house.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the motion of my colleague from Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) and I would like also to say that in the main we support the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to examine the remarks made on Thursday April 30 by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and I can only call his argument somewhat specious in that when he says, as recorded at page 2775 of Hansard for that day-
-what the motion is asking for is something which has no relationship whatsoever, except as an exercise in map drawing, to what will eventually emerge, if there is any disposition on the part of this parliament to deal with this problem and to deal with it in any reasonable time-
-he indicates that these are merely an exercise in map drawing. If that is so, then I would suggest that the representation commissioner is derelict in his duties because, by statute, he is directed to produce maps. These are not an exercise in map drawing. He is directed by statute to do this, and therefore

Electoral Boundaries Maps there must be a purpose. No direction of this kind by statute can be deemed to be a nullity or a frivolity, and therefore these maps do have a definite purpose.
Since we are asked under another bill to consider what extent of tolerance shall be included in the statute, surely it is pertinent to the deliberations of the members of this house to see what will be the results of the application of a number of tolerances? There is no one better qualified or equipped to take the electoral map of Canada and divide it up into the various ridings on the bases of certain tolerances. Therefore these should become the knowledge of members of the house who, on the basis of an examination of these various maps, will determine what shall be the better tolerance to include in our new representation act. Otherwise I would submit to hon. members that we are being asked to vote on something that will be entirely theoretical.
On whose word shall we rely-on the estimation of the Minister of Transport, or as a matter of fact on that of any member of the house-that a tolerance of 20 per cent will have such and such a result? Unless the minister has seen the maps that have been drawn on the basis of a 20 per cent tolerance, then frankly he is talking off the top of his head and his opinion does not warrant a great deal of attention.
What I find rather difficult to understand on the part of the government in resisting this motion is that we, or a number of us, have been invited personally to go and see the maps. I quite admit that the government is not trying to hide anything here. After all, members from all parties have seen some or all of the maps.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not seen any.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) says he has not seen any. Neither have I, but it is not because there has not been the opportunity, or at least the invitation.
On the basis that we are trying an experiment or a departure in the manner of drawing up the electoral map of the country, surely to goodness there would be no harm done in publishing the maps on the bases of 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent tolerances, or whatever they may be. After all, the electorate is interested. I simply cannot accept the argument of the Minister of Transport, as recorded at page 2776 of Hansard that constituents could not care less what riding they happen to be in or who is their representative. At least this is the interpretation I place on his words, and I do not know where the minister gets
[Mr. Lambert.l
that attitude. It is quite untenable, and I would say frankly, almost insufferable.
Certainly the people in my part of the country are interested in the proposed redistribution. They are vitally interested in what may be the redistribution of these seats.
If we look at what will be the ultimate act -and here, Mr. Speaker, I must crave your indulgence so that I will not stray too much from the interpretation of this type of motion that I have placed upon it myself-under the representation act there will be little or no opportunity afforded to the public, unless it is widely amended, to see what the representation is going to be. Once the representation commissioners have gone to work they will compile a complete report, and once that report has been compiled it will be most difficult for anyone to persuade the commissioners that they have been in error and that they must make a change. Frankly, if the commissioners are not to use these maps -and we know that by virtue of the other act they are entitled to hire staff and technicians to assist them-then the direction to the representation commissioner is a nullity. Why would he prepare maps if the commissioners are not to use them in the end? It would just be an exercise in duplication. I would suggest on all counts, now that the representation commissioner has prepared these maps on the basis of these respective tolerances, that hon. members of this house who, after all, are not second class citizens, are entitled to see how the electoral map would be affected by these various tolerances, if only to assist them in their conclusions as to what should be included in the Representation Act. It would certainly be of great interest to the citizens of this country to see how the new act would affect the electoral map of Canada, and surely they have the right to know as soon as possible what the possibilities are.
I do not want to anticipate argument on the act itself but I can indicate, now, that the opportunities for revision provided by that act are extremely limited; in fact, they are almost nil. It is not good enough that this information should be limited, as it is now, to members of the house who can walk down the street and have a good look. If these maps were tabled it would be common knowledge how the electoral map would be affected and I think it is essential that this be done. Regardless of the basis used by the representation commissioner used in drawing up these maps-and I do not know what staff he has- I would certainly be much more careful in my re-examination of the drawing up of the electoral map if I came to the conclusion that his staff worked on some purely mechanical

formula and disregarded the other factors which we on all sides know must apply in the determination of new electoral boundaries.
On this basis I would urge the government to withdraw its opposition to this motion. After all, the Minister of Transport has indicated that this is not a motion of confidence. We believe we can convince hon. members opposite of the strength of our case. They know there is no whip lashing them on, and if a vote were to come they could support this motion.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: As I see it, this motion would never have been placed on the order paper and a request made for the production of the maps if the situation with regard to the work of the representation commissioner had been handled somewhat differently.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who told us on another occasion that he had been working on this job for a whole year, perhaps misled the representation commissioner into performing certain exercises which may now turn out to have been completely unnecessary. As was said by the hon. member who preceded me, the Minister of Transport cannot expect the house to believe what he said on April 30, namely that these were just exercises which the commissioner was going through. I think the whole approach to this matter has been entirely wrong. The government has disclosed to us that maps have been drawn-I prefer to call them maps rather than exercises or tracings. Incidentally, I have not seen the version for the province of Manitoba so I do not know how the constituency I happen to represent will be affected. But I think the approach has been wrong. I think the commissioner should have started from the present constituency boundaries and, in preparation for dealing with the various commissions, considered in what respect those boundaries need to be changed instead of beginning the other way round with a mathematical exercise dealing with population and spreading out new boundaries all over the provinces. The rumours we have heard are that 75 or 80 per cent of the constituency boundaries are likely to be changed. I think it should be the other way round, and that constituency boundaries should remain as they are, unless there is some serious misrepresentation of the people taking place.
Then, I cannot help but wonder why the original exercise in drawing up these maps was based on a 10 per cent tolerance. Where did that figure come from? The bill before the house has a 20 per cent tolerance written into it; I know that the matter has not yet been settled by the house. But who gave authority to start from the basis of a 10 per
Electoral Boundaries Maps cent tolerance or a 5 per cent tolerance? If the representation commissioner thought fit to do these exercises, why did he not begin with a 20 per cent tolerance? Why did he not try his hand with the suggestion which came from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition of 33i per cent tolerance? Why did he not use, as was suggested by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett), a 25 per cent tolerance? Instead, the figure of 10 per cent was selected as a starting point. This figure was mentioned in the house during an interruption when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was speaking, and, advocating as he was strict representation by population, he said: Ten per cent tolerance is what we favour.
Why did the commissioner select this 10 per cent tolerance as the figure on which he would work first? This is the type of thing which creates suspicion in the minds of members of this house and this is why the present motion is now before us. Who has been tinkering with this matter of redistribution? Why should we not have available for everybody to see these exercises in the use of the tolerance, so that we can make a sensible decision as to what should be written into the act and as to the instructions which this house should give for the guidance of the commissioners? I think it is of the greatest importance that the commissioners should find out from parliament what they are to do in this matter of redistribution. Unless the house expresses itself in directions and through the comments which are made here and which, I hope, the various commissions will look at; unless attention is paid to the act and these comments, the commissions might very easily be led astray and end up with redistribution maps which are contrary to the general will of parliament.
Why should we be kept in the dark with regard to this particular matter? How much better it would have been if the representation commissioner, taking the bill as it stands at the moment before the house with a 20 per cent tolerance, had drawn a certain number of adjustments based on that tolerance for the guidance of parliament. I think that would have satisfied the members of this house. Then we would be able to examine the bill before us to determine what is the fair and proper thing to do. Then we would be able to talk, not theoretically but on a practical basis with regard to the effect of redistribution. Then we would be able to see some of these great areas that are going to be affected in the northern parts of all the provinces, and the populations that are in those areas, and make a decision as to whether the tolerance should be larger or smaller, or whether we should take into consideration
3036	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Electoral Boundaries Maps the point which I raised in the earlier debate on the bill with regard to some allowance for area representation.
Without the actual maps it is difficult for the house to determine what to do. I have not the faintest notion as to how the maps will affect the province of Manitoba; I have not seen the maps. I do not know whether it will be a fair and reasonable redistribution of the population factor there. I do know this, that people in their provincial elections are accustomed to variations between the large areas in the rural sections and the more closely congested, city areas. I have heard little complaint over the years with regard to that. There was considerable complaint a few years ago in Manitoba over the lack of representation for people living in the city of Winnipeg, but an adjustment has been made along that line and I have not heard much about it since. The consideration of fair play is in the minds of most Canadians in this country, and people who live in the congested areas within a city understand that they are not too seriously affected if the total population of their constituency is larger than that in these great, extensive northern areas.
But let us have the maps in front of us so we can see what is the effect, because if the maps are going to be based on a 10 per cent tolerance I think almost every constituency in Canada is going to be altered. I would much prefer to work the other way around and show cause why any constituency should have its boundaries altered.
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity of speaking on this resolution introduced by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). I represent a constituency in a province that is supposed to lose four seats, and it is very important that not only hon. members who represent constituencies in Saskatchewan but also the people of Saskatchewan should know what is involved in this new redistribution. Unless we have the maps and unless we know what is involved in them, hon. members and the people of Saskatchewan will be kept in the dark. For instance, we know from the statistics that the four maritime provinces have a population of approximately 1,897,425 people and they are represented by 33 members; in other words, each member represents about 57,497 persons. The two prairie provinces which are supposed to lose members are Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These two provinces together are supposed to lose five members; but we have a population of 1,846,867, represented by 31 members, which is approximately 59,576 persons per member. As I have said, we are

supposed to lose five members in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, while at the same time the maritimes are only supposed to lose one. I am not saying that the maritimes should lose more than one member, because this is a different story altogether; they have the senatorial floor and other guarantees. For example, Newfoundland has the guarantee that it cannot go below a representation of seven members.
If we in Manitoba and Saskatchewan lose another five members, the representation by one member will amount to over 71,000 people. This, in an area such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, will mean it will be almost impossible for one member to properly represent this number of people. We are an agricultural area and are considered to be agricultural provinces. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if an exception was made for the maritime provinces with regard to the senatorial floor, and if there was an exception made for Newfoundland guaranteeing them not less than seven members, why in this case could there not be an exception made in the case of these two prairie provinces which will lose five members out of a representation of 31?
I think we should have these maps so we may see what has been done, particularly when the maps have already been drawn. Unless we are able to study them, these two prairie provinces will not know exactly what is involved. I should like to see the adoption of the resolution of the hon. member which asks that the maps be presented to the house for scrutiny. If these maps had not been drawn by the representation commissioner, that would be a different story; perhaps we would not have asked for them. But since they have been drawn and since some hon. members have seen them-I have not seen them and as far as I am concerned perhaps I do not even want to see them-we should have the opportunity of studying them so we know what is involved. I simply cannot understand why there is opposition to having these maps laid on the table for every member to see. I know that at the last redistribution in 1952 there was a provision in respect of Saskatchewan that this province would not lose more than 15 per cent of its seated members. If I am not mistaken, at that time we lost two seats. If we are to lose over 25 per cent this time, in my opinion this is unjust and unfair. I believe these maps should be available to hon. members for study.
As I said before, I do not think that this is fair. These provinces should receive equal treatment. I think we should work to see that this is done, because it would be unfair if the people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were to lose over 25 per cent of their representation through this redistribution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there seems to me to be some misunderstanding regarding what has been drawn on these maps. Some hon. members have contended that very large maps have been drawn. I do not mind admitting that I am one of the members who have seen some of the mathematical exercises which have been drawn, including census districts, which would in fact meet the tolerances set out in the bill before us. But they are not maps; they are not recommendations; they are not even suggestions that these are the boundaries which should be set up. They are simply, as I said, an exercise, some of them at different tolerance levels.
Unless we were to request that all of these exercises be produced there would be a complete misconception of where these constituency boundaries may eventually lie. If some kind of map is published with a 10 per cent tolerance and another map published with a 20 per cent tolerance-and even the tolerance has not yet been settled-this will lead to a great deal of misunderstanding. Therefore I do not see any value in having these mathematical exercises tabled in this house or in having them made public.
Furthermore, any member of this house can, as far as I am aware, go down to the representation commissioner's office and see where the lines are drawn on these mathematical exercises. There is no problem in seeing them. I know that some of them appear to be acceptable to me, whereas others do not appear to be acceptable to me; but if we are going to retain the idea that the electoral boundaries are going to be drawn by an independent commission, I think we must understand that none of these so-called maps are either recommendations or suggestions. I think there would be a lot of confusion in certain areas if they were produced. We would lose the whole concept of the placing of redistribution into the hands of an independent body and would instead give every locality in Canada the impression that perhaps this is the way a given map was going to be drawn, with the result that some people would object.
There will certainly be problems in moving boundaries. We went through this sort of thing in Alberta a few years ago when we tried to make the hospital districts, the municipal districts and the school districts have coterminus boundaries. Where I live there were a few sections of land situated in three different local districts. These sections were in Brooks hospital district, the Medicine Hat school division, and in a municipal district known as a special area which had its office in Hanna, to the north. We discovered
Business of the House
that the people who wanted to retain their traditional community of interest put more emphasis on hospitalization. Others were more interested in school affairs and wanted to retain their communication with Medicine Hat. Then others were more interested in municipal administration and wanted to retain their interest in Hanna.
The argument which was put up by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) to the effect that bringing these maps before the house would not make any difference to the number of seats which would be lost by any one province I do not think is valid, because the tolerance has yet to be settled under clause 13 of the bill. Furthermore, if we are to retain the number of seats we now have in the house and merely divide them by the total population, then Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or any other province will have assigned to them a certain number of seats. Where the boundaries are drawn after that certain number of seats for each province has been decided will not be either helped or hindered by the publication of these mathematical exercises. Therefore, as I say, there will be a great deal of confusion if one of these exercises was published but not the others.
I think we should also stick to the principle enunciated and endorsed by the house in the first instance, namely that we are going to take the matter of redistribution out of parliament and put it in the hands of an independent commission. If we get embroiled in the question whether boundaries are going to be moved a little one way or another, I think the discussion will deteriorate into an interest in local affairs and we will lose the over-all concept which I believe is a good one. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: [Translation]
The hon. member for Chapleau concerning the possibility of diverting the James bay waters into the great lakes;

The hon. member for Mackenzie concerning the increase in handling charges for grain due to low water levels of the great lakes;

Supply-Agriculture [Translation]
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm concerning the canalization of the Richelieu river.

The house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration-
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000, $3,368,900.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. When the committee rose at five o'clock the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) was discussing item 1.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock I was pointing out that, although the minister had indicated that the net income of farmers was greater in 1963 than in 1962 by some $37 million, most of which can be directly attributed to the extensive sales of grain, only two of Canada's provinces did in fact have an increase in net income over the past 12 months. I was dealing with the western provinces and we find that even in Manitoba the net income of farmers dropped $54 million in the last 12 months.
The figures I have placed on the record are only rounded and not detailed figures, but this is the government whose members went out on the hustings and said that their primary aim with regard to agriculture was to make the economic situation of the eastern farmers the same as that of the western farmers. Everyone believed that meant an increase in income. Today we take a dim view of the fact that western farmers, with the exception of two provinces, are in the same situation as the eastern farmers, with income on a downward trend.
I am one of the many thousands of farmers in Canada who feel that the opportunities for agriculture in the next 20 years will perhaps be greater than ever before in the history of this country. That is why I share the deep

concern and uneasiness of farmers from coast to coast over conditions in farming as they actually exist today.
What are some of these conditions, Mr. Chairman? Let us deal with some of them in some detail. What about cattle? Cattle are important from coast to coast. If we look at the record we find that the average price for cattle over the past 12 months has been considerably lower. When the minister was questioned about this in the house he pointed out, and rightly so-we must give him credit -that prices were comparable with those in the United States, and in fact somewhat greater. He also pointed out that the people of Canada today are eating more beef than ever before, and this is also true. But when the United States was considering placing quotas on imports of cattle he was asked what Canada was going to do, and he said they were taking a long look at the situation. They did take a long look at it and while they were taking a long look at conditions in the United States Canada imported from Australia and New Zealand 41,000 cattle. Surely to goodness we must have some definite policy with regard to some of these difficulties in respect of various commodities.
What about hogs? Hogs are also important in the livestock industry. The average price of hogs was lower in the last 12 months. If the hon. member for Essex South has something to say, will he please get on his feet?


Mr. Whelan:: I would be more constructive than you.


Harold Warren Danforth: I will deal with the hon. member for Essex South in a few minutes. I have a few choice ones for him. Not only did the hog producers of Canada not fill the domestic market but there were $12 million worth of pork products imported into Canada last year.
What about dairy products? The minister stated that for the first time the consumption of butter almost equalled the production of butter. This is great news to the dairy industry because it takes off the pressure that has been building up over the years. But the government placed the emphasis on the production of cheese and we now find ourselves with 40 million pounds of cheese in storage, an increase of 10 million pounds over last year. I am not going to deal with dairy policy in any detail because some of my colleagues who are experts in the field propose to do so. I should like to pass on to tobacco.
What is the policy of the government with regard to the great $100 million tobacco industry which finds itself in dire trouble? We have a marketing scheme for tobacco and that marketing scheme is in difficulty. The tobacco industry is in difficulty. As a matter of

fact, the farmers are talking of voluntarily cutting to 55 per cent of production at a time when they should be increasing production. We find that conditions are forcing a decrease in production.
What about fruit and vegetables, one of the greatest industries in Canada? The men in the fruit and vegetable industry are looking with grave concern at the deliberations that are going on in GATT. I was interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture state that he spent a whole day with our negotiators on this very important subject. This is a most important subject because the Prime Minister himself said, in dealing with the negotiations at Geneva, that if we receive some concessions with regard to various products that Canada wishes to export we will have to give some concessions. The farmers of southwestern Ontario remember the last time this government wanted to play Santa Claus in that regard, because the concessions they gave directly affected the fruit and vegetable industry, which is most important to that area. As a matter of fact, their concessions in this regard set back the greenhouse growers and fruit and vegetable industry 20 years, and this was deliberately done by concessions in duty. It is most important that this industry be maintained, and it cannot be maintained if concessions do away with all the protection against imports from other countries.
What about soybeans? Surely the hon. member for Essex South knows what soybeans are, and surely he should be pressing the government to establish a policy with regard to the floor price on soybeans. What about the floor price on soybeans? In the last election members of the government stated it was absolutely necessary that the growers of soybeans and sugar beets should know exactly what the policy of the government was going to be by March, so they could plan their crops. The soybeans and sugar beets are going into the ground in my area, and yet the farmers do not even know what the policy of this government is in respect of them.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the agriculture policy of this country should be the most important policy ever conceived. Today we do not even know if there is a policy. We have never heard of a policy. As a matter of fact, when we speak about the development of the agriculture industry, we find the minister mentioning research. He spoke about the co-operation of the farmers. However, he did not tell this house that last year Canada imported about $635 million worth of food products, half of which could have been produced on the farms of this country. This importation occurred in spite of the 8.5 per cent protection our dollar affords us against these imports.
Supply-Agriculture
No wonder the farmers of this country are becoming worried. They begin to wonder what will happen if they lose this 8.5 per cent protection. What will happen to the imports of New Zealand and Australian lamb, beef, butter and so on? What will happen when we lose this protection? What will happen if we lose further tariff protection as the result of these negotiations that are under way? No wonder the farmers are uneasy. They have not had any word about policy from this government.
In a speech made in the west recently the Minister of Agriculture stated the government had not been able to put any agricultural matters on the order paper. In his statement yesterday he corrected that assertion and said he did not mean it. He meant that because of the slowness in getting business through the house he was unable to bring forward any legislation in connection with agricultural policy. I should like now, Mr. Chairman, to refer to an article that appeared in the Country Guide dealing with the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Charlottetown. The article states that in addressing the convention the federal minister, Hon. Harry Hays, said it was time to take the next big step in the field of farm policy. He recognized this fact, but he indicated that the government planned over the next two years to introduce new provisions in the field of farm credit, crop insurance and a new plan to alleviate the capital cost of machinery. The minister refers to two years, Mr. Chairman, but the time is now. We must have a policy now. How can we plan for the future of Canadian agriculture if we do not know what the policy is going to be.
We are now going into the second year of this government's term of office, and yet not a single piece of legislation, with one exception, has been placed on the order paper. This one piece of legislation dealt with having two ministers of agriculture, one for eastern Canada and one for western Canada. This seems to have been a trial balloon, because the government has not even ascertained what the house thought about it. They have withdrawn it from the order paper. Since then we have not had one single piece of legislation introduced. The government promised the farmers of Quebec an eastern minister of agriculture who would be from Quebec. The government gave them one, but they brought him in by the back door. They had to divide the Department of Agriculture. They talk about the eastern farmer, who is the most trained technician, who has to farm under the most complicated conditions and with the greatest amount of investment. What did they do? They put his problem under the Minister of Forestry.

Supply-Agriculture
The farmers of this country have asked for direction and they got two ministers of agriculture. They asked for action in agriculture, and what did they get? They got a split-up in the Department of Agriculture. In referring to the split in agriculture, I should like to say we have one of the greatest departments of agriculture in the world. However, as a result of the actions of this government the senior officials of the Department of Agriculture did not even know what minister they were under for 30 days, and I call this the ultimate in confusion. Knowing all the complicated problems of the eastern farmer, they put those problems under the Minister of Forestry. The farmers asked for legislation, but as yet they have not seen a single piece of legislation brought forward.
After almost 14 months in office you would think that this government, which promised the farmers of this country so much, would be able to bring forward one piece of legislation of a constructive nature. We have been very proud of the fact that this government has carried out the policies laid down by the former government. This has been their policy in agriculture. There has been some moderation, but every time our policy was moderated it was done for one specific purpose only, and that was to reduce the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture regardless of what it did to disrupt the Canadian farmers' ability to earn a livelihood. I never thought I would be in a position to criticize the farm policy of my own party, but I do it to this extent; the farm policy laid down by the previous Conservative government was not the end, it was only the beginning. If the opposition does nothing else during this debate but arouse this government to some action on behalf of the farmers, the debate will have served its purpose and served it well. The activities of this government in regard to agriculture have made Napoleon's retreat from Moscow look like a Sunday school picnic.


Mr. Temple:: I should like to speak for a few minutes this evening on the matter of agricultural chemicals, pesticides and insecticides and what seems to be happening in various parts of the world. As a result of the perhaps indiscriminate use of certain of these pesticides and insecticides in the United States, Sweden and Great Britain millions of wildlife in all forms have been destroyed. There are instances where all the young fish, the fry, have not come along and the fish population has been declining.
An intensive survey was made from Maine to Maryland in the United States concerning

ducks, blacks and mallards, and the significantly lower mating rate for these birds feeding on lands that have been treated with certain of these insecticides and pesticides was noted. In Great Britain pesticides are reported to be responsible for the failure of the golden eagle to produce its young. In California pheasant eggs taken from pesticide treated land have produced considerably fewer chicks than eggs taken from land not treated. In the state of Maine the landlocked salmon from Sebago lake have contained d.d.t., and this has increased appreciably their mortality rates.
In New York state, the secretary of the interior of the United States, Stuart Udall, has stated that studies have "demonstrated conclusively" that failure of lake trout in lake George to reproduce has been caused by the presence of d.d.t. In New Hampshire again d.d.t. is linked to the high mortality of lake trout fry.
In Illinois the pesticide known as aldrin was used to treat 80,000 acres in an attempt to wipe out Japanese beetles. It wiped them out, but it also wiped out meadowlarks, robins, brown thrushes, starlings, grackles, and ringed necked pheasants, and substantially reduced the number of moles, shrews, cats and muskrats.
In Alabama the pesticide known as dieldrin was used to dust an area, with the result that 15 coveys of quail disappeared and 187 animals of 51 species were found dead in the area. Again, in another area in Illinois, dieldrin was used to wipe out Japanese beetles, and the same thing happened. Many species of wild life have virtually disappeared, and in some cases they have completely disappeared.
In Michigan and certain areas of Wisconsin d.d.t. was used against the Dutch elm tree disease, with the same result. The robin population in one Wisconsin town was reduced by 86 per cent.
This problem is considered so widespread and urgent in Sweden that scientists there have asked for substantial funds to devise a simple method of diagnosis and removal. We are perhaps rather fortunate that this has not happened in Canada to such a large extent, but I would like some assurance from the minister that funds will be made available for research on the question of these pesticides and insecticides.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am more than pleased to follow the hon. member for Hastings-South because it gives me an opportunity to remind him that some 30 years ago I was in his riding, where I learned something about farming, and also something about English. I spent three years in his riding, and following him tonight brings back

memories of names such as Dempsey, Johnny Babcock, Pecks and many others which I am sure he knows. Having said that I may now turn to my mother language and make a few remarks with regard to agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to miss this occasion of dealing with the farming industry and to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) what our farmers at home think of him, of his program and of this government.
Mr. Chairman, it would be no news to you if I said that our eastern farmers, and more particularly those of the riding of St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot, are most disappointed and confused, because the federal government seems to have completely forgotten them.
What a difference there is between the speeches of those hon. gentlemen when they were sitting in the opposition and their present actions. When they were in the opposition, and more particularly during the elections of 1962 and 1963, hon. members who are now sitting on the treasury benches stated that they had an answer for every problem and promised that, if their government came into power, it would be paradise on earth, and our farming industry would know an unparalleled prosperity.
Speaking of farming, Mr. Chairman, I want to put officially on record some statements which were made during the 1962 session.
For instance, on October 4, 1962, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin), who was for a time a candidate for the position of minister of agriculture for the east, but who was left in the lurch and remained an ordinary member in spite of his ambitions, was always making sweeping statements. For instance, according to page 195 of Hansard of that date, he said:
I shall point out the unconcern of the present government as regards any farming policy, and then I shall mention the solutions, or at least some of the solutions advocated by the Liberal party to meet those problems.
And a little further on, he stated:
Our farmers are at the mercy of a trust shamefully constituted to exploit them to the fullest.
He was more particularly thinking of the dairy producers, and added:
As a matter of fact, the farmers from the economic area of Montreal cannot reach the consumers' market of the metropolis without going through some big dairies, which subject our dairy producers to a sort of unilateral contract called "quota".
And still further on, the hon. member repeated:
It is time our eastern farmers had someone to represent them and look after their interests in the cabinet.
Supply-Agriculture
Further on, he said:
We, Liberals, also propose to change the Crop Insurance Act so as to make it really available to the farmers.
It is not only in the west that crops are subject to weather conditions.
And further on again, he said:
We will also succeed in securing new markets for our dairy products by financing, after an agreement with the school boards and through the provincial governments, free distribution of milk in all the Canadian schools.
That is what a member of this government had to say when he was on the opposition side. And the member for Beauharnois-Sala-berry (Mr. Laniel), in turn, stated, as is recorded on page 2687 of Hansard of the House of Commons:
During the debate on that bill, it was suggested that grain elevators be built along the St. Lawrence river to enable western farmers to sell their feed grain directly to eastern farmers. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not overlook these suggestions.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) did his bit, saying:
Let us encourage and let us try, by every advertising means at our disposal, to promote consumption of our dairy products in their various forms.
How many children, for instance, even the most fortunate, do not drink enough milk, when attending school?
And urged the government to distribute milk in schools.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the influence which the members of the province of Quebec have in the Liberal government amounts to very little, for we have seen nothing in the present government policy to make us hope that, shortly, the present Minister of Agriculture will implement the suggestion made to him by his colleagues in the province of Quebec.
But you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that it was fashionable at the time to make promises to obtain votes. Then came the election campaign during which these same people invaded more particularly the province of Quebec, but also the province of Ontario, promising the moon.
Mr. Chairman, I have here several copies of various election programs of the Liberal party in which it was said, for instance, that a Liberal government would appoint a separate Minister of Agriculture for eastern Canada. It is well known that such promise was made in order to win votes, especially in the province of Quebec. At the time it was known there was no unity of thinking in the Liberal party, but the promise was made just the same, because it was felt that the votes of the eastern farmers would be obtained if they were promised one of their own would represent them. As soon as the

Supply-Agriculture
elections were over, a member residing in Outremont having very little knowledge, 1 believe, in agriculture, was chosen to be appointed Minister of Forestry; more particularly he will be responsible for administering the ARDA program, which, as is well known, Mr. Chairman, is a joint program which was initiated by the Tories and is specifically administered by the provincial government.
It is merely a wee bit of satisfaction which they sought to provide for a member from the province of Quebec in an attempt to keep the other ones quiet; it was with this mite of satisfaction that the Liberal cabinet hope to answer the purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that the farmers of the province of Quebec are keenly disappointed, for they are surely the first ones to feel the adverse effects of a lying and hypocritical campaign which was waged for the sole purpose of garnering votes.
Besides, let me point out that I have had the honour of defeating someone who was being hailed as the coming minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, in Mr. Pearson's cabinet.
It was Mr. Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne who had campaigned for a number of years among members of the Catholic farmers' union, before coming out in the open in the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, where farmers settled his case by defeating him with a 3,600 vote majority in the very first year of the appearance of the Social Credit phenomenon.
The other day, on hearing the great statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, a very genial man, I recalled the days of my childhood; and I think you must have had the same impression. Back home we used to have two auctioneers. Auctioneers are very genial and persuasive people. I remember, in particular, Pit Leclerc, who was an auctioneer at St. Guillaume, and also old Charles Arpin. Just like the hon. Minister of Agriculture, those two auctioneers could sell a piano to a man who had wanted to buy a boat.
It seems to me that in the way he deals with the farm problem the Minister of Agriculture would like to use the same system as auctioneers to lead the farmers to believe he is giving them something, when in fact he does absolutely nothing for the farming class.
A few days ago, Mr. Chairman, in introducing his estimates the Minister of Agriculture depicted a most enthusiastic and alluring picture of agriculture and especially of eastern Canada farming. According to him, everything was fine, dairy farmers were making more money than ever before.
But if you take a good look at the facts, you will realize, for instance, that in the

province of Quebec the farmers' income, for the year 1963 alone, was $12 million less than during the years the Conservative government was in office.
If we take a closer look at the prospects concerning the farmers, we see, according to a pamphlet entitled "Farm prospects in Canada-Spring 1964", a picture which is quite different from the one painted by the minister. I will not go as far as saying that he knowingly misrepresented the facts or misled the house, but I sincerely think that he is letting himself be carried away by his enthusiasm. Undoubtedly, because of his lack of knowledge of the situation, he gave information completely contrary to the facts.
According to the pamphlet I have in hand, you read, for instance, under the heading of "eggs and chicken":
A larger production at lower prices is expected this spring and this summer, in comparison with last spring and last summer.
Those are the actual facts. Yet, the minister said that eggs commanded a higher price than before. But the facts put on record by farming experts say absolutely the contrary.
Further on it is said:
In February the average price paid to producers in Toronto for class A large was 35.6 cents per dozen, as compared to 41 cents in February 1963.
In February 1963, a Conservative government was in office. I feel that the minister, before making his statements, should consider the facts and reflect on what he is going to say.
As far as chickens are concerned, again according to this pamphlet-
An increase in the number of barbecue chickens and a decrease in prices can be expected in spring or at the beginning of summer as compared to 1963.
Instead of improving, the situation is worsening. Here again, I feel it is my duty, since the farmers in my riding entrusted me with this responsibility, to tell the Minister of Agriculture to check the facts carefully before making statements which tend to mislead the people.
As far as heavy turkeys are concerned, it is said that:
In February, the average price paid to producers in London was 18.5 cents a pound, that is 1 cent less than last year.
Everything is fine. Prices are going down all the time, but we believe the Minister of Agriculture who says that everything is fine. Look at the facts: prices are going down, but the minister says that everything is all right.
As for the price of pork, here is what the pamphlet I have here says:
Pork prices have been $2 or $3 lower per 100 pounds as compared to last year-Prices will go

up during the summer but they will not be as
high as last year.
Here again, we have evidence that prices are going down. And the pamphlet goes on to say:
The national average price for class A pork was $25.48 at the beginning of March as compared to $26.77 in January and February.
Prices are going down, but everything is all right; the Minister of Agriculture tells us that everything is fine.
Now, here is what I read for sheep and lamb:
Following the small seasonal arrivals of lamb this spring, prices should increase until July, but will reach a level $2 less per 100 pounds as compared to those of last year.
Last year prices reflected the policy of a Conservative government.
About cattle:
Feeder steer exports have gone down to about 35 per cent of those of last year, but they should increase slightly next spring and summer.
In eastern Canada, veal calf sales have increased by 6 per cent and the very large seasonal arrivals should keep up until the end of May. Arrivals decreased a bit in the west and little change is expected. Prices will go down until June, but probably not more than $2 per cwt. lower than the price of $31.60 received on March 14.
There is good news for you. The farmers will merely lose $2 per hundredweight on their cattle.
Now, if you wish, Mr. Chairman, let us have a very quick look at the Conservative program at the time we were in office.
The minister would probably be interested to know that, in my constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot alone, because they elected a Conservative government in 1957 and brought it back in office in 1958, the farmers received, through the 25 cent subsidy per 100 pounds of milk, the sum of $1,516,221. With respect to the 12 cent consumer subsidy paid to dairy factories in my constituency, the Conservative government paid an amount of $867,246. In addition, it paid $306,536 and some odd cents in subsidies to sugar beet growers. Those amounts total about $2,690,000.
Therefore, looking at those figures, one finds that farmers in my constituency lost more than $2.5 million by electing a Liberal government in 1963.
I do not exaggerate, Mr. Chairman, when I say that the farmers of my riding deeply regret that the Conservative party was defeated in 1963.
Under the Conservative government, what was the net income per farm in the province of Quebec compared with what it was in 1954?
For 1954, the income was $1,671 and. in 1961, it reached $1,946 under a Conservative government.
When the gentlemen opposite claim that we did nothing for farmers I ask them to consider the facts and also to imitate us. If 20220-193
Supply-Agriculture
they adopt the policy which we followed when we were in power the farmers' lot will improve.
Now, what was the value of the sales of farm properties in the province of Quebec for 1954, 1955 and 1961? It increased from $11,166 million to $18,606 million under a Conservative government.
I would have many other facts to point out to the house, Mr. Chairman, but as other members wish to speak this evening, I will restrict myself and touch on only a few matters which I wanted to discuss.
After having heard the Minister of Agriculture on several occasions say and repeat that farmers had obtained more money than previously for their milk since he became Minister of Agriculture, I take the liberty of putting on the record figures given by the dominion bureau of statistics.
As for the price of milk, in the province of Quebec, for the years 1953 to 1963: in August 1953, the price of milk varied from $2.34 to $2.56. When we came to power in 1957, the price of milk used to make milk powder, ranged from $2.42 to $2.62 and under the Conservative government in 1962 it went up from $2.75 to $3 per hundredweight.
As for the price of milk for cheese production, it went from $2.45 to $2.76 for 100 lbs. in 1956, to $2.85 to $3.05 in 1962.
These official figures tell eloquently what the Conservative party did while it had the responsibilities of government. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to take those facts into account.
Now, just a few words, Mr. Chairman, to tell the house that the present policy followed by the Minister of Agriculture, as far as dairy products are concerned, has certainly been detrimental to the farm people who, as usual, are going to pay the costs.
It will be remembered that last year when he announced his new policy a few days prior to May 1, the minister said this new policy would result in a saving of $6 million per year. This year, when he announced his new policy, he said that it would result in a further saving of $3.5 million per year. This makes a total amount of close to $10 million, more exactly a saving of $9.5 million at the expense of farmers.
I would ask the minister to explain how he can save $9.5 million at the expense of the farming class, while claiming at the same time to protect their best interests.
I should like to deal in more detail with this policy which I consider disastrous for the farmers. It must be noted that the price of a pound of butter fat has dropped from 14J cents to 13.3 cents, which will surely result in a loss for farmers.

Supply-Agriculture
The 30 cents premium for milk used in the manufacture of Cheddar is also removed, being replaced by a payment of 3.6 cents a pound for Canadian cheddar of first quality. This can only cause serious disadvantages to the farming classes.
What will happen, for instance, to farmers who make every effort to produce a prime quality product but are unable to produce cheese of premium quality owing to dirty milk cans or unsatisfactory handling?
You realize that the farmer while offering a quality product will be penalized for an error of which he is innocent.
It is especially unfair for the dairy producers in my riding, because all of them really try to produce a better quality product.
I am of the opinion that the minister should revise his policy so as not to subject the farmers to an unjust treatment which might befall them on account of this new policy.
I ask the minister what would happen if a cheese maker ventured not to hand down to his producers the equivalent of 3.6 cents a pound the government pays.
Would the government take some disciplinary measures so that the farmers may not be deprived of their due or would the whole question be at the discretion of the manufacturer? I feel that this policy-like all the others which the government has put forward since it has been in power-was badly conceived and does not show any desire to act in the best interests of farmers. It should be revised and thought out again to render justice to our farmers.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Laverdiere:: Mr. Chairman, I must commend the previous speaker, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Hicard), for the interest he has just shown for the farmers of eastern Canada.
I commend him for this interest, because we now need every person of goodwill in order to provide the farmers of eastern Canada, and more particularly those of the province of Quebec, with the income to which they are entitled.
At this stage of the debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I would like to make a few remarks concerning the economic situation of farmers in this country, and particularly concerning the deplorable situation which faces the farmers of eastern Canada.
As a matter of fact, the farm people in eastern Canada are clearly the most neglected members of the working class. For a very large number of eastern farmers, if not most of them, the situation is worse than

for the unemployed who get unemployment insurance benefits, because those farmers who work at least 15 hours a day, get an income which is sometimes lower than the benefits paid to people out of work.
In the light of that situation, in view of the almost exasperating slowness to introduce legislation to help those farmers, and in particular those in the riding of Bellechasse, who are among the most neglected, as I will prove later on, it is my duty to draw the attention of the house to the need for closer co-operation by all hon. members to alleviate such obvious human misery.
I should like first of all, Mr. Chairman, to give a brief outline of the agricultural situation in my riding on the basis of the 1961 census. It will be noted that the situation has worsened instead of improving since then.
There are in the riding of Bellechasse 2,002 farms, 1,373 of which are considered as commercial farms, that is farms with a gross agricultural income of at least $1,200, which means that 629 farms have a gross income of less than $1,200. In this latter group, however, 156 farms should at least provide a sufficient income to the farmer since, for the 1,373 commercial farms, the gross income amounts as follows: Three of these yield a gross income of more than $25,000; 16 only show an income of $15,000 to $25,000; there are 58 with an income between $10,000 and $15,000; 268 yield an income of $5,000 to $10,000; 186 have an income of $3,750 to $5,000; 289 show an income of $2,500 to $3,570. But most of them, that is 553, have a yearly income of $1,200 to $2,500.
Mr. Chairman, we must come to the conclusion that 42 per cent of the farmers in my riding have a yearly income of less than $2,500. These are farms considered as marginal since obviously such an income is far from being sufficient to cover the cost of administering the farm, paying school and municipal taxes, purchasing seeds, maintaining buildings and farm machinery, purchasing equipment, etc. and providing for the essential needs of the family, including the education of the children, a point which concerns me more particularly.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud that there should be, in the riding of Bellechasse as in the rest of the province, an elite of farmers, people who are fairly well off because many of them settled on the better farms and had the technical and agricultural know-how which enabled them to adapt themselves faster to the development of that industry.
When one speaks of marginal farms in Canada, one immediately thinks of farmland in the maritime provinces. I should like to point out that approximately 38 per cent of

the farmers in those provinces have a gross income of less than $2,500 while, as I said, 42 per cent of the farmers in my riding are in a similar situation as compared with 37 per cent for the whole of Quebec.
And there again, I do not even take into account the 629 farms whose gross operating income is less than $1,200 a year.
Mr. Chairman, looking at this situation it is easy to understand why the farmers in my riding are complaining. You must admit that they have every reason to. That is why I am as impatient as all the farmers in Bellechasse to see beneficial and logical farm legislation introduced in the house. I must stress also how urgent it is to recognize without delay the riding of Bellechasse as a designated area under ARDA and also as an economically weak area.
Other details must also be given to give a clear picture of the situation. I do not want to take too much time, but I would like to underline a point which I feel has some importance.
In our province, an average of six people derive their living from each farm, and the figures are the same for my constituency. The average is 4.6 in New Brunswick, four in Ontario and three only in Saskatchewan, that is just half the average for Quebec.
The 1961 census statistics reveal many other handicaps, especially as far as farm machinery is concerned.
All provinces considered as poor as far as agriculture is concerned suffer from a lack of mechanization. In those provinces-Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia-the number of tractors, for instance, is lower than the number of farms, while in the other provinces, it is greater than the number of farms. A parallel similar to this one would be easy to establish for other farm machinery necessary these days, such as threshers, combines, hay binders and harvesters, etc.
Furthermore, a number of farmers have difficulty in meeting their payments on machinery bought on terms from regional agents. Unfortunately, several farmers pay on this essential machinery an interest reaching 15 per cent and more.
I believe this situation is due mainly to too strict an enforcement of the law when the farmers are trying to get loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. On account of the endless red tape and the constant uncertainty connected with getting reasonable loans, too many unfortunately, conclude arrangements with companies whose craving for profits knows no bounds.
It is, therefore, easy to understand that the dissatisfaction of a large number of farmers
20220-193i
Supply-Agriculture
from the Bellechasse riding, as well as from others, is based on real facts. I do not want, therefore, to go counter in any way to their legitimate claims.
One could produce many other facts that would obviously show the unfortunate position of the majority of eastern farmers; hence my interest in everything that concerns agriculture in Canada.
I deem it my duty to give an account of the agricultural problem as regards my province as well as my constituency. I suggest that such a way of dealing with the problem pertains to sound democracy, providing that I take care not to lean to narrow-minded regionalism. A democratic society must listen to those for whom the elected government has to legislate in the interests of the population as a whole without prejudice as well as without favouritism towards any social class whatsoever and without settled prejudice as regards one area or another.
That is the reason why I wished to tell my colleagues and the government about some of our farmers' problems in the light of official statistics, although they go back to 1961.
All of the Quebec farmers are not poor or backwards in farm techniques. My province has its elite farmers; they are progressive and well-off. Unfortunately, eastern farmers established on naturally rich land are an exception.
Furthermore, farm techniques have been developed so quickly over the past few years that many farmers could not keep up with progress, either because of lack of knowledge, capital, equipment, guidance or other causes.
I would like here to express my greatest admiration to the eastern farmers who have succeeded in making both ends meet, for not all of them are well located or organized as far as various advantages are concerned: their success is primarily due to very hard work, to their unflinching ambition and to their love for the soil they till. The love of those farmers for their work is a constant inspiration to all Canadians who have a sense of responsibilities and who do not shy away from hard work.
It is imperative that this government, throughout logical and sound farm legislation, help all eastern farmers as soon as possible, especially in creating markets and stable prices for agricultural products; that would be in the interest of the general economy of the country. It must be borne in mind that a higher standard of living for the eastern farmer means a higher standard of living for the whole of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, about ten years ago, a Liberal government set up a Senate committee to inquire into the whole problem of agriculture and into the means of making better use of farm land.

Supply-Agriculture
If my information is correct, that inquiry led to the passing of one of the most interesting piece of legislation by the previous government: the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, known as ARDA.
This government intends to give as much scope as possible to ARDA. That is why this important service comes under the Department of Forestry, which has less to do and is less diversified than the Department of Agriculture.
The responsibilities regarding the needs for eastern feed grains will also be transferred to that department.
Eastern farmers are badly in need of ARDA. It is also very urgent for them that the western grain policy be revised and greatly improved.
As a matter of fact, it is absolutely essential that drastic steps be taken to eliminate completely and as soon as possible all speculation on that grain which eastern farmers cannot do without.
Mr. Chairman, I could not help but be deeply touched by the sympathy expressed by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), during the brilliant statement he made when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were brought before us. I also remember very well the statement he made last fall, on December 12, on the quite painful situation in which eastern farmers found themselves. He had every reason to maintain that it was a real shame for the Canadian population that the standard of living of one fourth of the farm people of eastern Canada should be so -low.
Mr. Chairman, you can be sure that I am convinced of the deep sincerity of the hon. member; there is no reason why I should suspect him on that point. However, I must say that his belated sincerity bewilders me since, to my knowledge, during the years he headed the very important department of agriculture, not a single major piece of legislation was adopted to help marginal farms which are so numerous in Quebec, for instance. Perhaps he meant well but what good are intentions without deeds?
On April 24 last the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said amongst other things:
Last December during my remarks on the estimates I asked the minister whether he had knowledge of the farm survey we conducted in 22 districts of eastern Canada in January. 1963.
I presume that the hon. member has drawn from this inquiry a great deal of material to build up his argument showing the sad situation of the eastern farmers for the speech he delivered last autumn. I have not read the report of this inquiry. However,
[Mr. Laverdiere.l
I looked into it and found, on page 46, a really surprising excerpt, I would say "shocking" to repeat the term used by my hon. colleague; this excerpt is as follows:

Comparing the same two provinces, Saskatchewan and Quebec, in the last year of record, 1961, the average net income of farmers in the province of Saskatchewan exceeded that of the Quebec farmers by 315 per cent. On the average of the past three years, which included a disastrous drought year in Saskatchewan, the net income of Saskatchewan farmers exceeded that of their compatriots in Quebec by almost 200 per cent.

And yet, faced with such a situation, the then minister of agriculture had the government pass direct assistance subsidies, I repeat, direct assistance subsidies, for prairie farmers.
Here are the details: In the main estimates for 1958-59, $41.3 million, in the main estimates for 1960-61, $40.5 million, in the main estimates for 1961-62, $40.5 million. However, I find no reference on the same page to the effect that such subsidies that were surely much needed, were paid to eastern farmers whose income was 315 per cent less than that of prairie farmers.
Moreover, in the same document, on page 64 of the main estimates for 1962, I find the following items under the Department of Agriculture out of $289.3 million in agricultural estimates:	"Assistance to grain
storage in western Canada": $49 million; "board of grain commissioners": $6.5 million; "Prairie Farm Emergency Fund": (deficit) $49.5 million; "Payments to western grain producers" (direct assistance): $40.5 million; "Redevelopment and rehabilitation projects": $26.6 million; that is a total of $172.1 million.
Therefore, out of a total of $289.3 million, $172.1 million were paid exclusively to western farmers, leaving only $117.2 million for the administration of a department of vital importance and for assistance provided to the whole country and moreover, here again, western Canada got its share like other areas of the country. It must be recognized that for eastern farmers, the milk was rather thin and not very nourishing.


Mr. Cyr:: It was buttermilk.


Herman E. Laverdière: It seems to me that it would have been appropriate to show a little sympathy at that time; we might have today a policy of assistance to the eastern provinces which would be in full force and we would be now in a better position to carry on the work which would have been prepared.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Herman E. Laverdière: Mr. Chairman, it would take me just a couple of minutes more to conclude my remarks, and with the unanimous consent of the house I would be able to do so.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman E. Laverdière: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank all the hon. members because they have allowed me to continue. I feel that I must thank them.
Under the circumstances, I shall add only a few words to my remarks. I want especially to mention this: I do not want people to think by the remarks I just made that there is any opposition from those I represent, namely the eastern farmers in general, to the assistance given to and received by the western farmers, because otherwise, it would only widen the gap which has often existed between the east and the west. However, we have to recognize the facts as they are.
For the good of the country, of confederation and of agriculture also, there must be an understanding between eastern and western Canada. One region can help the other and each can complete the other, especially in the production of feed grain which is so urgently needed for our eastern cattle.
I insist, however, that justice be rendered to those poor eastern farmers who have a right to all the advantages that the Department of Agriculture can offer.
I urge all my colleagues in opposition to get the government to be generous in all the policies that might help the economic recovery of our marginal farms, much too numerous in eastern Canada. The owners of those farms have shown extraordinary courage until now, otherwise the situation would be even worse than it is today.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I heard a while ago about the appointment to an important post in the Department of Agriculture of a bilingual employee, Mr. Robert Thomas. French speaking farmers are not spoiled when it comes to getting services from employees who can understand their language in that department. I think it is the first time that a bilingual employee has been appointed to an important post within the last few years.
As a French Canadian, I hope that is only a beginning. Today's farmers, thanks to easier means of transportation and more active farm organizations, come here to discuss their problems with the officials of the departments
Supply-Agriculture
which have the duty to guide them and offer them the necessary leadership.
They come to Ottawa more often than before. On the other hand, I would like to see that farmers who come to Ottawa as a delegation in the next few years to meet with officials of the Department of Agriculture get more-as one farmer put it a few months ago [DOT]-than an English lesson.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of making a few comments on this first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I would like to direct my thoughts specifically to the problem of rail line abandonment. We from western Canada are particularly concerned about it, and when I say that I am also thinking of the ciitzens in eastern Canada. But because the problem has become more pronounced and apparent in western Canada I would like to concentrate on that area because I am more familiar with the problem there.
When the government came into office with the fanfare of 60 days of decision we looked forward to its carrying on some of our good agricultural policies, and to its putting something into effect so far as rail line abandonment was concerned. Instead of having 60 days of decision we had 60 days of indecision and indiscretion. In fact, it has stretched out now to 385 days of indecision. Responsibility, originally invested in the former minister of transport, now President of the Privy Council, was transferred to the present Minister of Transport and is now placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. We are wondering what this will-o'-the-wisp policy really means.
I should like to put some background information on record and in order to do this I cannot do better, I feel, than quote part of a message directed to the Saskatchewan farmers' union on December 6 of last year by the former minister of agriculture, my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle. I should like to read some of this information into the record because I think it is pertinent and that it may help the present minister when he does decide to take some action regarding this problem:
We sometimes tend to forget that up until a few years ago westerners were deeply and constantly concerned over the steady spiralling of freight rate charges. Since the war the cumulative effect of freight rate increases in percentage form was staggering. This was one of the major problems faced by the new government elected in 1957.
To gain time to find a fundamental solution to our difficulties we put a stop to freight increases by paying a national subsidy to the railways. Meanwhile the royal commission under the direction of M. A. MacPherson of Regina set about the task of getting at the fundamental problems facing the railway industry. You will recall that Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture
M. A. MacPherson for many years had been the acknowledged spokesman for western Canada, I think it is correct to say that he had the confidence of prairie governments regardless of political affiliation.
The chief western complaint was that freight rate increases were loaded on the captive market of the prairie provinces, the maritimes, and our northern areas. Competition kept the rates down in the heavily populated areas of Quebec and Ontario.
The royal commission saw this problem very clearly. On page 34 of volume 1 of their report these words can be found:
"The commission is convinced that consideration can only effectively be given to these and many other special problems in the light of the wider context dealt with in this volume of its report. First, there are basic and broad correctives to be applied through changes in public policy which are necessary to help the railways find their proper place in the increasingly competitive transportation environment.
The recommendations we will make in this volume will be designed to remove from rail shippers, particularly from those whose opportunity of using alternative forms of transport is limited or non-existent, the heavy burden of obligations left on the railways as a legacy from another day. By the same token these recommendations should allow the railways as business corporations to take their rightful place in the Canadian transportation scene."
To make the position of the railways viable and keep them operating, the report, in general, recommended the elimination of passenger service in those areas where the people were not using these services. Second, that the railways should be allowed to abandon certain light density lines or that the government pay a subsidy on those individual lines where it was in the national interest to maintain operation. There was no recommendation that the Crowsnest pass agreement be abolished, but a recommendation was made where the railways could prove loss that a variable subsidy should be paid to make up the difference. As I understand it, this recommendation means that in years when there is heavy grain movement on a certain line and no losses resulted the government would not have to pay any subsidy, but in years when there was light traffic the railways could claim for subsidy up to the amount of loss.
Now I should like to put on record at this point something which I believe is very interesting in view of the fact that the railways have made so many applications for branch line abandonment in western Canada. I will quote from the Globe and Mail of March 10, 1964. The heading reads: "Rail Revenue 4-Year High, C.P.R. Says".
The highest railway revenue since 1959 was reported yesterday by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co., in its 1963 annual report. Railway revenue was $477,197,937, compared with $453,169,224 the previous year and $477,806,000 in 1959.
This reflects the result, in a large measure, of the heavy volume of grain shipments from western Canada. The Winnipeg Tribune, dealing with the same news report in an editorial published on April 3, had this to say under the heading "Odd Increase":
The Canadian Pacific Railway seems to have had a pretty good year in 1963 judging from the annual report made public this week. Railway revenues-that is, the part of C.P.R. income

coming directly from railway operations-amounted to more than $477 million, an increase of more than $24 million over 1962.
Freight revenue accounted for $419 million of the total take. This represented an increase of $25.8 million over the preceding year or 7 per cent. Freight traffic volume increased by 12 per cent and, according to the report, grain shipments resulting from the Chinese, Russian and other wheat sales contributed heavily to the increase. But it was not only revenues that increased, profits increased as well. The net earnings actually rose by more than $6.2 million over 1962.
It's rather odd that C.P.R. freight profits increased at a time when grain shipments increased.
Now, this is the pertinent part:
The railways have long and vigorously contended that they were losing money on the Crowsnest pass rates charges for hauling grain. If this contention is valid, the railways should have shown a marked decline in revenues when they hauled record shipments of grain to seaboard.
Maybe the railway accountants should take another look. Or better still, maybe some outside accountants should sharpen their pencils in a definitive examination of the Crowsnest rates.
I think this is a very important and practical thought in relation to the applications which are now before the board of transport commissioners for permission to abandon large mileages of railway track.
I should like to continue by giving a little more background and then to deal specifically with the situation in Saskatchewan. First, I wish to discuss some of the factors which affect our thinking, and the courses of action now to be taken-I am quoting, now, from the address by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle which I previously mentioned.
In the first place the previous government worked long and hard on a bill to put our views of the royal commission recommendations into legislative form. That bill was finally ready for introduction in the parliament that met first in September 1962. Being of such vital importance to the economy of Canada as a whole and to the grain areas of the prairies in particular, considerable effort was put into consultation with various groups that had heavy financial interest in our projected proposals. If took some months to arrange, but we finally were successful in bringing the railway companies and the grain handling companies of western Canada together in a meeting. There were extremely frank views expressed at this meeting, but the most important fact was the recognition of their mutual interests.
In layman's language everybody recognized the fundamental place of railways in our economy. The railways recognized the tremendous financial investments by the great grain co-operatives and private companies and thereby the need for a high level of co-ordination between the railways and grain companies in any plans for abandonment. Therefore this conference achieved the understanding that was necessary before any solutions could be expected. I believe I am reasonably fair in saying that there has been relative peace between these two groups even though by sheer economic interest there tends to be some continuing suspicion.
In addition to the pure economic interests there is the far greater problem of the public interest both social and economic. For this reason, in January 1963 the government called into con-

ference the three premiers of the prairie provinces. It outlined in general the principle of the federal government's legislation and the several methods in the act that protected the public interest. Then the discussion went on into the field that was not covered by the proposed bill and which could only be met by the utmost co-operation between the provincial governments and the federal government representing the public interest. This was the impact on communities, if railway abandonment took place. Certain types of compromises based on the circumstances in any particular locality were discussed. The pledge was given by the federal government that after the bill was introduced and its terms were known future joint discussion should take place that would lead to a co-operative solution of any difficulties that might arise. Once again I believe I am fair in saying there was general agreement on the method of working together to resolve difficulties.
I believe I am also correct in saying that from a consensus of opinion that before any abandonment took place there should be a study of western Canada, region by region, to see that any dislocations were kept to a minimum. For example in a purely hypothetical case, suppose that three or four lines in one area were operating at a loss the railways would put in requests that each of these lines might be abandoned. However, a study of the region might indicate that if one of these lines were abandoned the other two or three might become economic; therefore it follows that any decision to abandon should be made with the economic future in mind.
The above description of happenings in the fall of 1962 up to January, 1963 puts the events of the last 11 months into clearer perspective. The government changed in April, 1963. Naturally the new government would want time to decide on its course of action.
I think I have put enough on the record, Mr. Chairman, as far as the policy of the former government is concerned, to put this problem into perspective and to indicate that the groundwork was thoroughly laid by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and his capable minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. As a result of this, we felt, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that action would have been taken by the present government, but so far it has been a matter of great concern to western people in particular, and I think to all Canadians, that this very vital problem has not been attacked.
To put this matter into more particular perspective as far as Saskatchewan is concerned, I have in my hand a table which gives figures up to November 6, 1963. It deals with approximately 1,392 miles of railroad. That is a considerable amount of railway line, and it does not include a lot of the applications that we thought might have come in, because when I was a member last fall of the sessional committee on railways, shipping and air lines I asked the president of the C.N.R. how his figures compared with those of the C.P.R., and he intimated to the committee that the C.P.R. had been reluctant to date to bring in applications for rail line abandonment. I think this is rather unfair, for the simple reason that it does create a little difficulty in getting the
Supply-Agriculture
whole picture into perspective. I inquired of the witness why he thought this was the case, and he suggested that, possibly because the C.P.R. was a free enterprise company, they did not want to divulge personal information to their competitors. Nevertheless this table points up just how serious is this matter to the people of Saskatchewan.
The table deals with 31 subdivisions. I am just going to run over them briefly: Avonlea, Amiens, Aborfield, Bengough, Blewett, Bodo, Bolney, Beechy, Corning, Cudworth, Colony, Cutknife, Carlton, Chelan, Central Butte, Dodsland, Gravelbourg, Goodwater, Kisby, Mantario, Main Centre, Porter, Rhein, River-hurst, Stewart Valley, White Bear, Weyburn and Avonlea, Tonkin (Yorkton-Parkview), Tonkin (Yorkton-MacNutt), and St. Brieux. Going back, Mr. Chairman, and being a little more definitive, in the subdivision of Avonlea, which takes in Radville-Avonlea, there are five towns or villages, with six elevators affected. There are 217 permit holders in this particular subdivision. The six elevators have a capacity of 282,500 bushels, with an average turnover of 796,907 bushels; and 165 residents are affected. That just gives an example.
Coming to my constituency of Moose Mountain, we have the Blewett-Luxton subdivision, where there are three villages or hamlets, with three elevators, the total capacity of which is 77,000 bushels. There are 76 permit holders and approximately the same number of families. Going down to Corning on this list, which is the Peebles-Handsworth subdivision, there are three villages or towns, seven elevators are affected, with a total capacity of 289,000 bushels. The annual turnover is 975,304 bushels. The total population affected is 345 people.
Then dealing with the Goodwater-Radville subdivision, there are two villages, with five elevators affected and 164 permit holders. There are 193 residents involved. The total capacity of the elevators is 289,200 bushels. Going to Kisby, the Weyburn-Stoughton subdivision, there are four villages or towns, seven elevators and 198 permit holders. To put these figures of permit holders into perspective, Mr. Chairman, we have, under the quota system in western Canada, roughly
225,000	or 226,000 permit holders. Approximately half of these permit holders are in the province of Saskatchewan. Therefore when I say there are 198 permit holders in one area, you can see how adversely affected is agriculture in this particular subdivision when there are so many permit holders.
To crystallize this a little better I will give the total figures of the Saskatchewan applications to date under the C.P.R. and C.N.R. The total number of towns and villages affected

Supply-Agriculture
in the 1,392 miles of proposed rail line abandonment are 187. Just picture that, Mr. Chairman. There are a total of 426 elevators and 14,850 permit holders. These are people adjoining the proposed railway line abandonments. The total elevator capacity of these 426 elevators is 26,987,700 bushels, and the average turnover per year over the last 10 years was 49,556,124. This figure refers to the 426 elevators. The total population affected-this is the number of people who live adjoining these lines-is 22,588. So it becomes apparent that the social and economic life of a great many people will be seriously affected by whatever policy is adopted with respect to rail line abandonment. This is why it becomes so serious in the minds of the people of western Canada.
It is true that I, the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Lisgar and the hon. member for Rosthern-and I could name a dozen other hon. members in the house-have been putting questions to the Minister of Transport over the past year as to when action was going to be taken. He always fielded these questions by saying, "We have adopted the policy of the previous government. We have declared a moratorium on rail line abandonment". The government figured this answered the question. But it did not answer the question, because this haze of uncertainty has been hanging over the heads of these people.
One might say: "Leave that well alone; why worry?" But let us take the elevator companies. They have invested a large amount of money in these 426 elevators. From time to time it is customary to repair them, and occasionally they have to be moved or even torn down. There is a pall of uncertainty hanging over their heads. They do not know whether to repair them or to move them. In some of these small towns and villages people have carried on a family business for years. Their forefathers opened a small business in the town which has been handed down from father to son for several generations. Their life savings are tied up in it. They may also have the post office as a sideline and other businesses tied in too. If it is a large town they may have several businesses in that town.
These people will be adversely affected if the rail line is wrapped up and their trading centre disappears, and they would like to know whether to take advantage of the small loans legislation introduced by the former government and modernize their plant, or whether they should try and open up a business some other place and re-establish themselves. Some of the oil companies which
[Mr. Southam.l
are developing in certain areas of Saskatchewan are using the railroads to a large extent for the transportation of oil. If the rail lines serving these people are going to be wrapped up, then should they develop trucking systems or a gathering system through the use of pipe lines? These are matters which will have to be planned for by the oil companies.
Another major problem concerns the municipalities themselves who might be affected by rail line abandonment. They have a co-operative or reciprocal agreement with their provincial government to develop transportation facilities, and this planning has been in force for a matter of ten years or more. If rail lines are to be abandoned and roads provided as an alternative to enable farmers to be able to market their grain, it will take several years of budgeting at large expense to the taxpayers in order to provide these facilities so that these people will not be too adversely affected by sudden change. These are some of the problems arising in connection with the procrastination and apparent indifference of the present government in dealing with this matter.
I do not want to labour this point, but I should like to say that No. 31 on the list of public bills is a bill standing in my name, Bill No. C-57, dealing with another aspect of rail line abandonment. I would urge the minister to bring in legislation to solve this problem and to give very serious consideration to the principles outlined in my proposed Bill No. C-57. I think that here is a concept or a principle which, if it is incorporated into government legislation, will help ease the blow when rail line abandonment becomes effective. I would ask the minister and his department to give special attention to this matter. I refer to my bill tonight because I do not think I will have the opportunity to do so later, due to the fact that my bill is so far down the list. Therefore, I again urge the government to take immediate, effective and active steps to develop this legislation. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, the groundwork has been developed. The government do not have to do a lot of missionary work which the former government had to do. It is only a question of taking the bill which the former government prepared and perhaps with a few adjustments or amendments bring it before the house and pass it through. When this is done this heavy cloud of apprehension which is hanging over the people in western Canada will disperse.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I feel duty bound to express my views on this subject which concerns the

greater part of the people of the riding of Lotbiniere. It is a fact that my constituency is essentially agricultural and does constitute one of the most typical of rural regions, where it is of the utmost importance to apply a well-defined agricultural policy.
Mr. Chairman, I have hardly been here a year, but I have found to my great disappointment that, when our Conservative friends criticize the agricultural policy of the present government-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have none.


Auguste Choquette: -the automatic reply from the lips of government members is this one: What prevented you from doing that during the five years you were in office?
Mr. Chairman, this is becoming childish and we sometimes hear people belonging to new parties say: We are under the impression that Conservatives and Liberals are anything but different. That is exactly the impression we should avoid.
As for farm policy, drastic reforms are imperative. Of course, a great deal of improvement has been made and I will have the opportunity, later on, to refute the authenticity of the figures quoted by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) when he criticized the policy recently announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays).
Mr. Chairman, I feel that a drastic reform of agriculture is imperative and more particularly as far as eastern agriculture is concerned.
A few minutes ago I heard the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Laverdiere) quoting some figures-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader what is the business for Friday, and Monday and Tuesday if he can give that to us.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the second reading of Bill No. C-91, to amend the Income Tax Act. When this is concluded we will consider the resolution to set up the special committee to continue the consideration of matters relating to defence.
Then we will take up second reading of Bill C-90, an act to amend the National De-
7. 1964
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fence Act. Then we will consider the resolution preceding a bill to authorize certain crown corporations to pay certain provincial fees and taxes. If that is concluded we will consider the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that for Friday, Monday and Tuesday?


John Watson MacNaught: Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, until they are finished and in that order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is quite a change from what we had in mind. I understood that the committee on defence and the bill to amend the National Defence Act were to come up tomorrow.


John Watson MacNaught: I announced those too. They were the second and third items.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said the first item is the Income Tax Act.


John Watson MacNaught: An act to amend the Income Tax Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which is a very lengthy act. [Later:]


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a slight change in the order of business which I announced at ten o'clock. After consultation with my colleagues and the house leaders opposite, it has been decided not to proceed with the second reading of the Income Tax Act amendments. With that change, the order of business will be as I outlined it at ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with provisional standing order 39A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I put the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin): Could the minister tell the house what progress has been made by the boundary waters
3052	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion commission concerning the deepening of the Richelieu river? As I did not receive any answer, I asked the Speaker to transfer this question for debate.
I am most astonished to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is absent and he must surely have a major reason for not being here tonight. But I cannot see why his parliamentary secretary is not here either.
I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if I do not obtain a satisfactory answer, because I know the kind of answer often given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), to wit what progress has been made in the surveys of this international commission on the deepening of the Richelieu river, we will have to revert to the former system of questions, because we have not obtained full co-operation from the government.
I asked that question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because on January 22, 1960, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) had delivered a long speech in the house urging the government to undertake the study of the project. And as reported on page 248 of Hansard, he stated among other things:
The deepening of the Richelieu river is the logical step consequent on the St. Lawrence seaway achievement which has already proved itself so beneficial both to Canada and to the United States. The people of these two countries are almost unanimously in favour of the deepening of the river in the near future.
The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville even said that it would help to solve the unemployment problem.
Mr. Speaker, we want to know on this side of the house where that international commission stands with its studies. It seems to me the government refuses to take a stand and to carry out the positive promise made among others during the last election campaign by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville and some of his colleagues.
I want an accurate answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs or from his representative. I want to know exactly where the study of this commission stands to bring in a concrete project which is terribly important for the economy of the province of Quebec and by the same token, for the economy of Canada as a whole. I hope to have a rather precise answer; otherwise, we will be justified in saying that we lack government co-operation since there is no representative here tonight from the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope that a government representative will give me a satisfactory answer, fText]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that


the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) had a very pressing engagement which made it impossible for him to be here this evening.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What about the parliamentary secretary?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Haidasz), who is parliamentary secretary, was not able to be in the house today, but I was here when the question was asked and I have a certain familiarity with this matter. If it should be decided by the two governments after the studies are completed that this project, which could only be an international project or it would, of course, have no value whatever, should be proceeded with I presume it would be the responsibility of my department and whoever happens to be the minister at that time. I hope that I might be the minister because I expect to be here for quite a long time, particularly as long as certain hon. gentlemen continue to encourage the electors to draw the kind of contrast that they cannot help but draw.
I can tell the hon. gentleman that there has been a very active study indeed, which was of course undertaken by the government which he supported in the first instance, in collaboration with the government of the United States through the medium of the international joint commission. I know from reports that have been given to me by members of the commission, that the commission has not been content merely to study papers but has actually visited the whole waterway. This is a matter to which both governments, through the medium of the international joint commission, are giving close attention. It would be impossible, of course, for either government, on its own, meaningfully to undertake any works until there was an agreement between the two governments, because there would be no use building part of the waterway if the whole of the waterway were not going to be built. This is, of course, the second most historic waterway situated in eastern North America. It is full of history and one hopes it may also, in time, be full of commerce.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Gerard I.aprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, May 6, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister if he had received from the Ontario chamber of commerce a resolution recommending to study the possibility of diverting the James bay waters into the great lakes, through the Harricanaw river, and if he intended to recommend that study. I

know that several other Canadian organizations are also interested in this matter. I want to ask him, tonight, and in his absence, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), if, in the light of new developments and techniques, and especially in view of the need that is getting more pressing for soft water supply for the use of residents living near the great lakes, and in order, also, to correct several navigation problems on the St. Lawrence river and the Ottawa river, in the light of these facts, I would like to know whether the government expects to have technical and economic surveys made in that connection and whether it considers consulting the governments concerned, especially those of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the government of the United States, and of six or seven American states, concerning the project known as Grand Canal.
It is reported that the water level in the great lakes is going down continually; this is causing problems and the prospects are quite alarming. Besides, navigation on the St. Lawrence is seriously hindered, and this takes a heavy toll on the Canadian economy. This spring the press reported that the first ocean liner to leave the Montreal harbour had to reduce considerably its cargo before leaving port, because the water level was too low.
In the same line of thought, we are told that the reason why the water level is so dangerously low is the dry weather of last fall and the low precipitation during the winter. It still remains that last summer the water level in the harbour of Montreal and in the great lakes was lower than normal before the dry season.
Mr. Speaker, the government is certainly aware of the fact that an engineer from Sudbury, Ontario, has been making extended studies for several years to find an acceptable solution. He suggests the diversion of the Har-ricanaw river which has its source in lakes Senneville, Montigny, Malartic and Lamothe, in Abitibi, and flows into James bay after passing through Amos in my riding.
According to his project those waters would be forced back and diverted into lake Timis-kaming through a series of canals, dams and pumps. From there, the dredging of a canal cutting the line of watershed at North Bay would allow for the diversion of those waters into lake Nipissing, and from there into Georgian bay and the great lakes.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I am interested in that project since it directly affects my riding, and if it were carried out, it would be a significant improvement for the economy of that area which has been too much neglected by the authorities in the past.
7, 1964	3053
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion That is why I insist on knowing whether the government are taking into serious consideration the problem of elevating the water levels of the great lakes, and if they are taking into consideration the various suggestions made, more particularly the suggestion from the Ontario chamber of commerce.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his inquiry and to tell him this is a matter that is being taken exceedingly seriously by the government at the present time.
The more obvious losses on the great lakes to those who are operating resorts or carrying out shipping on them, are known to most of the people of Canada, but probably the most serious losses of all are not known to the people of Canada. We are reliably informed that the additional amount of coal which Ontario hydro had to buy last year because of the low levels in the lakes, and hence a reduction in power from hydro, was not less than $12 million. This was coal brought in to burn in thermal plants as a result of the low levels on the lakes. In addition to that, one of the most serious damages occurred not on the water but on the land in southern Ontario, and a reliable estimate states that last year over $75 million was lost in canning crops alone, as a result of the drought.
It is the contention of our branch and our water department that the principal reason for this is that we are in a very dry spell. There is a cycle of drought in the area of Ontario that normally feeds the lakes. In
1962	the rainfall was two inches less than it had been in the previous year, and that was almost two inches less than the average. In
1963	it was another three inches less, so that in two years there were five inches less rainfall in the area that feeds the lakes than there had been two years previously.
In addition to that we have had some very high temperatures during the last two years. The loss of water comes from two sources, namely lack of rainfall, and evaporation from the water that does fall, and for the past two years evaporation has been exceedingly high.
We are fully aware of the situation and have made a study. We are fully aware of the proposal in respect to the grand canal which envisions the use of power on the Nottaway river lying in the province of Quebec, which can produce a great deal of power, probably 900,000 kilowatts or 1 million kilowatts, to lifting water into the Har-ricanaw river behind dams, and changing the direction of the Harricanaw from flowing north and having it flow south.
3054	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The concept would require water to be raised over a height of substantially 925 feet-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired.



SHIPPING


Stanley James Korchinski: My question hinges upon something the minister of northern affairs has already touched upon, although it has an entirely different twang to it; it has a western flavour. I have raised this question because nobody heretofore has raised the question that, with the water levels low, it has affected the western economy.
My point of contention is that because of the low levels of the great lakes boats coming in for loading have had to fill to less than 100 per cent capacity. They have had to take on partial loads. This, in effect, has had the result that more boats have had to come in, and as a result of more boats having to come in this means that we, as western producers- and I speak as a western producer, a western farmer, myself-will have to pay the cost of more boats coming in. I think whether the government realizes this or not the western farmer is conscious of what is happening in central Canada. Whether central Canada is interested in western Canada or not, western Canada is interested in the economy of the central part of that area which is supposed to be immune to all our suggestions and so on.
What I am suggesting at the moment is that neither the minister nor the government has taken into consideration the problem that we have, namely that we are being charged for delivery of grain to foreign countries. It seems that we have a very good product, one that is saleable, and I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is presently out of the country is interested in selling our product. But he has not taken cognizance of the problem that we have in Canada. We have tried to promote sales abroad, yet we do not do anything about our problem right here in Canada.
How do we keep the cost of selling our product at such a level as to be competitive? By keeping our product competitive, I mean can we sell it to another country by utilizing the maximum of our shipping capacity? These are ways that will prove to the western producers that the government is interested in their welfare; these are ways that will prove to all, not necessarily to the western producer but to all Canadians, that the government is interested in doing something to re-
[Mr. Laing.l

move the balance of trade problem which has faced not only this government but the previous government; and I think this government should take a close look at the problem.
We are very much concerned over the fact that the port of Churchill, for example, has not been utilized to its maximum and I notice that out of 67 days, when we had a shipping season, 15 days were not used. It seems to me that this is the root of the problem. Are we making maximum use of efficiency? Are we placing our product on the world market in such a way that it is competitive? If we had used up the days at Churchill we could have saved 12 cents a bushel on every bushel that was exported out of Canada by using the maximum facilities we had. Even out of the terminals at the great lakes, we should have saved. But what do we do? We bring in two boats instead of one-intead of bringing in one boat and filling it to capacity. It is very easy: You bring in a boat, load it to half capacity. Oh, temporarily you give somebody work for the time being, but what do you do in the meantime? Do you protect the saleability of the product? Not only is wheat in question; the point is that every product we have in Canada is affected. Perhaps I could read this quotation from the Sun-Times of April 6:
Captain Bert Bazeley, fleet manager for Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd., Toronto, says each of the company's ten large carriers is shipping 1,000 tons light every trip.
That is because they have trouble getting into ports. It seems to me this is not only a question of shipping grain out of lake Superior or any of our other ports, but this problem applies to every product that we manufacture or produce. I think the question I have raised is important enough to be given serious consideration when we are trying to get into the world market. If we have a product to sell-and we have a great many good products to sell-I think the government should recognize the fact that they are not doing anything to promote the sale of these products or enable those who produce the products to sell them, because of the situation that exists.
I think the government should recognize this problem and do something to solve it, whether dredging is needed or whatever it is. I certainly do not agree with the theory that we should pray for rain, and I think now is the time for the government to come up with some sort of policy.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be suggesting that, first, the government is not aware of this problem. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) made it very clear-


Stanley James Korchinski: You haven't done anything.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -that he is very much concerned.


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes; pray for rain.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member also suggested that inadequate use has been made of the port of Churchill. I recollect some weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) pointing out, respecting the port of Churchill, that in the most recent crop year shipments through Churchill have been larger than at any other time in Churchill's history.


Stanley James Korchinski: Nonsense; for 15 days there was nothing shipped out of Churchill.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There have been very substantial shipments out of Churchill.


Stanley James Korchinski: Look at the question I put on the order paper.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would limit himself to seven minutes and allow me my three minutes.
7, 1964	3055
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley James Korchinski: Then just give the facts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Shipments out of Churchill will be even greater this year. Further, with respect to the condition of the great lakes, the fact of the matter is that water is low this year, arising out of conditions which perhaps might have been foreseen and acted on three years ago; but it is too late to do anything about it now and cure it this year. The time for action was three or four years ago. However, Mr. Speaker, what can be done this year is being done, and I think some indication has been given to the house of the substantial dredging operations which are being carried out and are to be carried out in the great lakes with a view to allowing access to these piers for the movement of wheat. The government is acutely conscious of the importance of moving substantial quantities of wheat, and the recent change in administrative policy is further evidence of this fact, to assist as much as possible. Extensive dredging operations are being undertaken.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

		Ti:
		
		
		
		

	
	
	
	
	
	
	





Friday, May 8, 1964