1964-05-27

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the house will have heard with regret of the death of the Prime Minister of India, a sister member of the commonwealth of nations. The death of Mr. Nehru is a loss not only to India and her people, who knew him best, but a loss to all mankind. Among the leaders of this century no one had made a greater impact on his time. No one has been more dedicated to the proposition that peace should prevail among nations and freedom should exist among men than the Prime Minister of India.
His talents and his energies were long devoted to the cause of India's independence, and when that was achieved he became a strong supporter of India's association in the commonwealth of nations. As the leader of his country his aim was to bring social justice and dignity to India's common man. He inspired respect amongst his adversaries, affection in his friends and confidence in his followers and admiration of all men.
Our sympathy, Mr. Speaker, goes out to his countrymen in their loss, to his colleagues in the government of India, and especially to his family.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, Jawaharlal Nehru belonged to that select group of men who, in any day and generation, leave their imprint upon mankind. He was a man who was educated in the British tradition. He attended Harrow, graduated from Cambridge and became a member of the bar of the inner temple. Orator, political philosopher and scholar, Nehru was a man immortal while still living. The Prime Minister will find when he attends the meeting of the prime ministers of commonwealth countries a few weeks hence that sitting around the table there will be five or six representatives of various commonwealth countries who at one time or another served
terms in jails or penitentiaries for their activities on behalf of what they believed to be right.
Nehru fought for independence, as the Prime Minister has said, and having done so he then became a strong, powerful and devoted servant of the commonwealth as a whole. He gave to India or continued in India the British tradition of parliamentary government, the rule of law and above all the principles of freedom based on British justice. A man of commanding personality, a mystic, a political philosopher and a practical politician, he combined in himself the unusual number of ingredients necessary for political and national greatness. He had a sense of humour and at all times, as the Prime Minister has said, was devoted to the welfare of the average man.
India has lost its greatest. When I say that I am not unmindful of the tremendous contribution of Mahatma Gandhi. The commonwealth has lost a devoted friend and counsellor without whose dedication, following the achievement of India's independence, India would not have continued in the commonwealth of nations.
The world has lost a great figure, and I associate myself with the Prime Minister in extending our sympathy to the president and people of India, to the members of the immediate family and to his sister Madame Pandit, who for so many years strengthened his hand and stood with him amidst all the trials and tribulations that were his.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, all lovers of democracy will be saddened at the death of Prime Minister Pandit Nehru. I think history will record him as one of the half dozen great statesmen of our century.
Pandit Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were the architects of India's independence, and it is a tribute to their powers of leadership, as well as to British statesmanship, that India was able to move from colonial status to nationhood with a minimum of rancour and bitterness. It was typical of the man that he was able to say, after India had attained her independence, "I spent 11 years in a British jail but I have the highest regard for British

Tributes to Nehru
traditions," and he carried that regard into building a parliamentary democracy in the country whose freedom he had helped to bring about.
Today, in Asia, India is like a light upon a hill, a demonstration that it is possible without any diminution of democratic principles, to bring about economic advancement and social justice. It is significant that the last public speech Prime Minister Nehru made was a plea for better relations between India and Pakistan, a plea directed not to Pakistan but to his own people to show the tolerance and forebearance which alone could establish a new basis for discussion.
Mr. Speaker, democracy has lost a great champion. India has lost a great leader. I am sure all hon. members of the house will extend to the government and the people of India their deepest sympathy in this sad hour in their nation's history.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, India and the world have lost a truly great man. The late Prime Minister Nehru was not only one of the outstanding statesmen in this post-world war II era but also the champion of democratic parliamentary government, leading India from colonialism to independence to become the largest democratic country in the world.
Certainly it was no small achievement to have built this former colony into a democratic nation, giving the right of the free vote to more than 400 million people. His selfless dedication and courageous determination were directed to all mankind and to the peaceful development of his country and the world.
We in this party join with the Prime Minister, with all hon. members of the house and I am sure with all Canadians in extending our sympathy and regrets to the government of India, to the people of that great country, and to the Nehru family.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the beloved leader of a friendly country is no more.
Mr. Nehru was the beloved leader of a friendly government. He was also the supporter and champion of all worthy causes, the defender of the weak, the friend of oppressed countries and a relentless worker on behalf of peace in the world.
Without being a narrow minded nationalist, Mr. Nehru espoused the cause of any

oppressed country, the same way he undertook to fight for freedom in his own country.
As he said himself:
We do not seek to dominate any country and we do not want to meddle in other people's affairs. Our main task in world affairs is to maintain peace and ensure that the equality of all races is recognized and that all people under foreign domination become free.
He believed in democracy, not the simple democracy that results from the free exercise of the right to vote.
Democracy, he said, means tolerance, not only of those who share our views but also and especially of those who do not.
His concept of freedom was not limited to political rights alone but it covered everything that contributes to the welfare of man.
True freedom, he said, is not purely political, it must also be economic and spiritual.
Mr. Nehru was the friend of the masses. He said one day:
Our main problem today is to raise the living standard of the masses, enable them to satisfy their needs, enable them to live decently and help them not only to enjoy material things but also cultural and spiritual values.
Not only the Indians, not only the people from Asia but all the men of the world, all freedom and justice loving men lose a defender and a friend.
So we join with the Prime Minister of our country (Mr. Pearson) in extending to the Indian people our deepest sympathy.


Mr. Speaker:: Out of respect for the memory of the late Prime Minister Nehru of India may I invite all hon. members and all those in the galleries to stand for one minute in silent tribute.
Whereupon members of the house rose and stood in silence.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ITALIAN FOREIGN TRADE MINISTER

Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the presence in the diplomatic gallery of a very distinguished guest, Signor Ministre Bernardo Mattarella, who is the minister of foreign trade of Italy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
My remarks are based on the Votes and Proceedings of the house dated May 26, 1964, and on the answers given to the house by the Prime Minister in the past two weeks concerning a Canadian flag, and particularly on the reply which he gave to the question I put to him yesterday and which appears on page 3581 of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, the answers given in the house by the Prime Minister in the past two weeks clearly suggested that the government would submit a resolution for the adoption of a Canadian flag and a Canadian anthem.
However, the resolution appearing in the Votes and Proceedings of May 26, 1964 asks, for various reasons, recognition by Canada of two flags and two anthems.
Mr. Speaker, in view of that resolution and the answers given in this house by the Prime Minister, I maintain that, by his wiliness and weakness, the Prime Minister has derided the Canadian people and, both by what he said and left unsaid, has misled the hon. members of this house.
That is why I want to express all the humiliation I feel as a result of such trickery and I am not afraid to say, at this stage of our proceedings, that such behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister could very well destroy mutual trust and respect, and spread confusion and dissension across Canada.


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minister without Portfolio):: Insignificant, as usual.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, once again on a question of privilege. I ask the Minister without Portfolio to take back his words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I said that it was insignificant as usual.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I listened with a great deal of attention to the words of the hon. member, but they impress me as a grievance more than a question of privilege.
Question of Privilege [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I was very polite in this house when I rose on a question of privilege, and I cannot allow the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), to show a lack of education and courtesy in this house. I hope that the Prime Minister will teach him a lesson one of these days, as the governor general himself has already done.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the previous remarks of the hon. member for Joliette were insignificant but those he just made are impertinent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You ill-mannered lout.



MR. CHRETIEN-REMARKS OF C.B.C. COMMENTATOR

Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise on a question of privilege which, I feel, is much more important for Canadian unity than the one which has just been raised.
Following the comments made last night during the program "Viewpoint" on the English network of the C.B.C., French speaking members on this side of the house want to dissociate themselves from the arrogance shown by the commentator, Mr. Dubuc, who may be a humorist when he expresses himself in French but is certainly not so when he speaks in English.



MR. ORLIKOW  PROCEDURES RESPECTING SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Monday last the Prime Minister replied to my question dealing with the government's security investigations policy, to the effect that the government's policy had been approved and "formally communicated to all government departments and organizations", but that "It is not customary to send directives such as this to employees or associations, nor are administrative directives normally tabled in the House of Commons".
On October 25 last year the Prime Minister, in dealing with the many questions on this matter, announced that new procedures would be adopted. Apparently this has now been done. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely

Question of Privilege
necessary that the government's policy should be given the widest publicity. The rights of Canadian citizens and government employees are more important than the privacy of a few government ministers or top civil servants. In the light of what has happened and what became apparent last week in Toronto, as exemplified in the Hooper case, we ail have a right to question whether top government civil servants are always concerned about the rights of ordinary people.
If the statement which the Prime Minister made during the last session had any meaning, we and the people of Canada have a right to know the policy with regard to security which has been evolved by the government, and this will not be done by keeping it secret except for a few high government officials. This policy should be given to this house publicly.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the viewpoint as expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North has been heard with interest by the responsible officials.


Mr. Fisher:: How about a reply?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I speak further to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. I believe every member of this house is from time to time concerned with protecting the rights of those who feel that their rights have been infringed in respect of some of these security matters. A great many questions of this sort come before this house. It seems to me that we should have, as a matter of privilege in this parliament, a clear indication of what are the security regulations which the Prime Minister promised the house would be brought into effect as a result of the discussions in this house during the last session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be an occasion to debate this matter on the estimates of the department, when the government will be very pleased indeed to make a full statement on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty once more, and I hope it is the last time today, to call on the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who has a question of privilege.


Mr. Starr:: No, Mr. Speaker; I shall wait until the question period before orders of the day.



PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of special committee on procedure and organization-Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	What firms in Cumberland are invited to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles for the R.C.M.P. detachment at Amherst. Pugwash. Spring-hill and Parrsboro. and what dealerships do these firms represent?
2.	What firms are invited to tender by the above-mentioned detachments for the overhaul and repair
of their motor vehicles?
3.	From what firms in Cumberland may these detachments purchase oil and gasoline?
4.	Are any firms in Cumberland excluded from the opportunity to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles, repair and overhaul of motor vehicles, and on the sales of oil and gasoline, for these detachments and, if so, what firms?


Mr. Favreau:: 1. All bona fide dealers representing General Motor Products of Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., and Chrysler (Canada) Ltd. are invited to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles for the four R.C.M. Police detachments in question.
2.	Normally mechanical repairs to the police vehicles are performed in compliance with the manufacturer's warranty by the firm supplying the force with the vehicle.
3.	Oil and gasoline may be purchased from any reliable service stations in the detachment areas.
4.	Yes. The only motor vehicles which meet the requirements of the government motor vehicle committee specifications for police work are General Motors, Ford Motors and Chrysler products. As a result, all other firms representing Rambler, Studebaker, etc., are not presently given an opportunity to tender on the replacement of motor vehicles for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
No firms are excluded from tendering on the repair and overhaul of vehicles, or from supplying oil and gasoline.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From May 1, 1963 to March 1, 1964 how many motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of Justice (a) manufactured or assembled

In Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States
(d)	imported from other countries?


Guy Favreau: (a) Nil; (b) 652; (c) four motorcycles; (d) Nil.


B.C. PENITENTIARY ROUTINE
Mr. Howard: 1.	With respect to the British Columbia penitentiary, for the days of the week Monday to Friday, at what time are inmates (a) let out of their cells to pick up breakfast (b) returned to their cells to eat breakfast (c) let out of their cells to return breakfast trays and proceed to work (d) returned to their cells for noon meal
(e)	let out of their cells to return noon meal trays and proceed to work (f) returned to their cells for evening meal (g) let out of their cells for evening recreation program (h) returned to their cells for lock up for night?
2.	Of what does the evening recreation program consist, when was it reinstituted, and how many inmates are permitted to participate in it?
3.	For Monday to Friday inclusive, what total number of hours per day does an inmate spend at (a) work, and (b) locked in his cell?
4.	For Saturday, at what time are inmates (a) let out of their cells to pick up breakfast (b) returned to cells to eat breakfast (c) let out of their cells to return breakfast trays and proceed to what sort of activity outside of cells (if any) (d) returned to cells (e) let out of cells to pick up noon meal (f) returned to cells to eat noon meal (g) let out of cells to return noon meal trays and proceed to what sort of activity outside of cells (if any) (h) returned to cells (i) let out of cells to pick up evening meal (j) returned to cells to eat evening meal (k) let out of cells for evening recreation program (1) returned to cells for lock up for night?
5.	For Saturday, what total number of hours does an inmate spend (a) in his cell and (b) out of his cell?
6.	For Sunday, at what time are Inmates (a) let out of their cells to pick up breakfast (b) returned to cells to eat breakfast (c) let out of their cells to return breakfast trays and proceed to what sort of activity outside of cells (if any) (d) returned to cells (e) let out of cells to pick up noon meal (f) returned to cells to eat noon meal (g) let out of cells to return noon meal trays and proceed to what sort of activity outside of cells (if any) (h) returned to cells (i) let out of cells to pick up evening meal (J) returned to cells to eat evening meal (k) let out of cells for evening recreation program (1) returned to ceils for lock up for night?
7.	For Sunday, what total number of hours does an inmate spend (a) in his cell, and (b) out of his cell?


Guy Favreau: 1. (a) 0645 to 0720 hours; (b) 0650 to 0725 hours; (c) 0750 to 0815 hours; (d) 1110 to 1145 hours; (e) 1300 to 1330 hours;
(f)	1555 to 1635 hours; (g) No evening recreation program in effect at the present time; (h) Not applicable.
2.	Following the riot of April 19-20, 1963, the evening recreation program was discontinued because of inadequate security in the
Questions
institution. A partial night recreation program of night exercise periods, from Monday to Thursday, was reinstituted July 22, 1963 after steps had been taken to reinforce security. Night exercise was discontinued on October 10, 1963 due to shortening daylight hours, inclement weather, inadequate lighting in the prison and exercise yards. Night exercise has been reinstituted on April 27, 1964, and will be continued until approximately the end of September. Inmates are unlocked commencing at approximately 1645 hours for night exercise and locked up by 1845 hours. All inmates living in association are permitted to take part in night exercise but because of the large population only half of them are permitted exercise each night. All inmates employed on inside work are permitted a daily exercise period from 1100 to 1145 hours from Monday to Friday even though they also participate in night exercise. Night exercise consists of individual and team sports.
3.	(a) The number of hours per day that an inmate works, from Monday to Friday, varies with his work and cell location. In ranges from a minimum of 5J hours to a maximum of 7\ hours, (b) The number of hours an inmate is locked in his cell would also vary as above from a minimum of 16J hours to a maximum of 18J hours. When participating in night exercise an inmate would be out of his cell for approximately 2 additional hours.
4.	(a) 0750 to 0830 hours; (b) 0755 to 0835 hours; (c) 0850 to 0920 hours. Following the return of breakfast trays half the population is permitted to go to the exercise yard and the balance to the auditorium for recreation; (d) Not applicable; (e) Not applicable; (f) 1050 to 1130 hours; (g) 1245 to 1315 hours. In the afternoon half the population is permitted to go to the exercise yard and the other half is permitted to attend a movie in the auditorium or go to the exercise yard; (h) 1530 to 1545 hours; (i) 1545 to 1625 hours; (j) 1550 to 1630 hours; (k) No evening recreation program; (1) Not applicable.
5.	(a) On the average an inmate would be in his cell for 19 hours on Saturday. This varies with his cell location and does not take into account the time that he is out of his cell picking up meals, (b) On an average of 5 hours but this is qualified as in (a).
6.	(a) 0750 to 0830 hours, (b) 0755 to 0835 hours, (c) 0850 to 0920 hours. Inmates wishing to attend religious services are permitted to do so on Sunday mornings following the return of breakfast trays. No exercise periods are permitted while religious services are

Questions
being held, (d) 1030 to 1045 hours, (e) 1050 to 1130 hours, (f) 1055 to 1135 hours, (g) 1245 to 1315 hours. Halt the population is permitted to go to the exercise yard; and the other half to attend a movie in the auditorium or go to the exercise yard. The same movie is shown Saturday and Sunday and that half of the population permitted to attend is rotated, (h) 1530 to 1545 hours, (i) 1545 to 1625 hours, (j) 1550 to 1630 hours, (k) No evening recreation program. (D Not applicable.
7.	(a) On an average an inmate would be in his cell for 19 hours on Sunday. This varies with his cell location and does not take into account the time that he is out of his cell picking up meals, (b) On an average of 5 hours but this is qualified as in (a).


STUDY OF LOCK TWINNING, WELLAND CANAL
Mr. Smith: Has any study been made, or is any consideration being given to the possible effect of twinning the locks in the Welland canal on water, levels in the great lakes?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The twinning of the locks in the Welland canal will have no effect on water levels in the great lakes.


WINTER HOME CONSTRUCTION BONUS
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many applications were received for the $500 bonus under the winter home construction program?
2.	How many qualified for this bonus as of April 15, 1964, when this program ended?
3.	What is the total cost of this program in advertising, including all media?
4.	What is the total cost of this program, including the $500 bonus?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. 32,614.
2.	As the final tabulation of accepted applications has not been completed, the information is not yet available.
3.	$227,399.96.
4.	Since the final tabulation of accepted applications has not as yet been completed, this information is not available at this time.


C.N.R. CONTRACTS FOR MAIL BY TRUCK
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Is it the practice of the Canadian National Railways to give contracts for carrying mail by truck to salaried employees, thus allowing them to act as employees and contractors at the same time?
2.	If such is the case will the Minister of Transport review the situation?
3.	Could the Minister of Transport inquire as to whether Edmond Larouche of Jonquicre, a regular employee of the C.N.R. is acting in this

manner, using his father's and brother's names to disguise his activities as a contractor?
4.	Is the minister able to give the names of all the directors of the company which had undertaken these contracts, other than those of Adrien Larouche and Emile Larouche?

Answer: The management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	The awarding of contracts for the carriage of mail by truck is the sole responsibility of the Post Office Department and the company has no such contracts respecting mail service in the province of Quebec.
2.	See answer to part 1.
3 and 4. The requested information is not available within the company.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF JOINT INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) Special depreciation allowances should be allowed Indian commercial fishermen.
(b)	All existing liquor restrictions should be deleted from the Indian Act; and the same rights extended to non-Indian citizens of the various provinces be applicable to Indians, except that the right of possession and consumption on the reserve be granted only after approval by a majority vote of the band.
(c)	Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Act relating to the sale or barter of produce from reserves in the three prairie provinces should be deleted.
(d)	Provincial courts should have jurisdiction to deal with Indian estates."?


Mr. Badanai:: (a), (b) and (c) These recommendations would require legislation to implement with relevant changes in existing provisions of the Indian Act. A review of the Indian Act is proceeding as quickly as sound and thorough consideration will permit with the objective of submitting appropriate amendments, (d) Steps are being taken to implement this recommendation. Present practice is to consent or direct that the administration of Indian estates of substantial value be referred to the provincial courts pursuant to section 44 of the Indian Act. This will be gradually extended in scope as individual land holdings on reserves and other problems are resolved.


NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Madill: 1.	How many were unemployed in Ontario in the months of (a) January (b) February, and (c) March?

2.	How many were unemployed In the same months in the Dominion of Canada?
3.	What is the administration cost to the province and to the dominion for this period?
Answer: 1. and 2. The number of unemployed in Ontario and Canada for the first three months of 1964 were:
Ontario	Canada
January	120,000	466,000February	115,000	467,000March	105,000	456,0003.	The cost of administration of unemployment insurance during the same period is as follows:
January
February
March
Ontario

Canada

Questions
harm; two convicted of robbery with violence; one convicted of false pretences; one convicted of attempted break and enter.
3.	Two robberies with violence; no armed holdup; no sex crime; no murder.
4.	Were paroled to establish their residence in Montreal: W.M. 7319 after serving seven years, three months and 11 days; W.M. 7320 after serving seven years, three months and 11 days.


EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, QUEBEC
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Which municipalities in the county of Roberval have asked that the winter works program be extended beyond April 30, 1964?
2.	Have any representations been received from the municipal affairs department of the province of Quebec advocating an extension of the program for at least 30 days?


REVOCATION OF PAROLES, MONTREAL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Justice been drawn to a statement by Judge Claude Wagner concerning the revocation of 200 paroles in the city of Montreal last year?
2.	How many paroles have been revoked in the city of Montreal during the past year and in each case what was the reason for such revocation?
3.	How many, if any, of the paroles revoked in Montreal in the past year were because of crimes including robbery with violence, armed holdups, sex crimes and even murder?
4.	How many, if any, people released on parole sentenced to life "found themselves free after seven years in prison...?
Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	There were 40 cases with respect to parolees domiciled in the city of Montreal, including 18 cases of revocation ordered by the national parole board for the following reasons: Two further convictions (possess unregistered firearm; attempted theft); Two whereabouts unknown; Ten breach of abstinence clauses, plus and/or poor behaviour, poor associations, leave area without permission; One leave area without permission and failure to support family; Three poor behaviour, and/or failing to co-operate with supervisor; facing further charges.
Including also 22 cases of forfeiture by operation of the law in the following circumstances: six convicted of break, entry and theft; four convicted of theft of auto; three convicted of theft; one convicted of theft and receiving; one convicted of receiving; two convicted of possession of articles obtained by crime; one convicted of assault causing bodily


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The following municipalities in the county of Roberval have asked that the winter works program be extended beyond April 30, 1964: Dolbeau (town); Saint Felicien (town); Roberval (town); corporation of St. Francois de Sales.
2.	No specific endorsement received.


COMMUTATIONS OF DEATH SENTENCES
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	During the last five years how many death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment?
2.	Of such commutations how many persons condemned to life imprisonment were subsequently liberated for good conduct?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1. 37.
2.	None.


FISCAL AGREEMENT, CANADA-JAPAN
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance been approached by Mr. Tsunao Okumura, president of The Nu-mura Securities Co. Ltd., of Tokyo, concerning a future fiscal agreement between Japan and Canada and, if so, what requests were made by Mr. Okumura?
2.	Has the minister considered the possibility of entering such an agreement in the near future?
3.	In so far as Canada is concerned, what are the main obstacles of such an agreement between the two countries?
4.	Is it the government's intention to study the possibility of a Canada-Japan tax treaty?
5.	Has the government any information concerning the wishes of certain Japanese companies in investing in eastern Canada?


Mr. Benson:: 1. No.
2.	No.

Questions
3.	No agreement is contemplated except a tax treaty to avoid double taxation. No obstacles are contemplated.
4.	Yes. It was announced on May 4 that representatives of Canada and Japan will hold talks in Ottawa beginning on May 25, 1964, with a view to entering into an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation of income.
5.	No.


CHEESE EXPORTS TO TJ.S.
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Has the federal government asked the government of the United States for assistance in increasing the export of Canadian cheese to the United States and, if not, will consideration be given to taking such action?
2.	What amount of Canadian Cheddar cheese was exported to the United States for the past three years and what was its value?
3.	For each of the other types of cheese, what was the (a) quantity (b) total of exports to each country in the world?
4.	Is the Department of Trade and Commerce in communication with provincial departments in Quebec, Ontario and the other Canadian provinces with a view to promoting the export of Canadian cheese and, if so, in what manner, and who is acting on the federal government's behalf?
5.	Are there any negotiations presently going on with a view to promoting exports of cheese?

Answer:	1. The Canadian government
brought up the matter of the quotas of U.S. imports of Canadian cheddar cheese at the meeting of the U.S.-Canada joint committee on commercial and economic affairs held here in Ottawa on April 29 and 30. While the U.S. representatives did not undertake to increase or reduce such quotas, they are perfectly aware of the importance attached to that matter by Canada.
2. The exports of Cheddar to the United
States during the as follows:	years	1961 to	1963 wereYear	Cwt.	Value $ 273,623Category 51-30	1961	5,354	Cheddar cheese	1962	4,900	263,4351963	4,834	278,5983.	The other types of cheese were not entered separately in the statistics on Canadian exports. The total exports of Canadian cheese, other than cheddar, by country, during the years 1961 to 1963 can be found in the attached statement.4.	The Department of Trade and Commerce works in close co-operation with the provinces in view of the development of export markets and, as far as cheddar cheese is concerned, is in communication with the representatives of the Quebec provincial government and the Ontario cheese marketing board in order to promote exports. For some time now, that board has taken active participation in our department's exhibition program. In everything concerning the development of cheddar exports, the agriculture and fisheries branch of the trade and commerce department, working in close co-operation with the dairy products division of the Department of Agriculture keeps in communication with the provincial governments.5.	The Kennedy round of trade negotiations gets under way this year in Geneva. It was agreed that negotiations on farm products, including dairy products, would not be separated from those trade negotiations. On that matter, the Canadian delegation will especially keep in mind the advantages there would be for Canada to expand her export markets of cheddar cheese.

Questions
TOTAL EXPORTS OF CANADIAN CHEESE OTHER THAN CHEDDAR, BY COUNTRY, 1961-63 Cheese n.o.p. (Class 53-39)
1962
Hundred-	Hundred-	Hundred-	Country	weight	$	weight	$	weight	$United Kingdom	30	1,150	1,840	74,585Belgium and Luxemburg	... 56	1,980	90	2,700	4	211Denmark	. . . 	-	-	-	46	2,154Western Germany	. . . 	-	-	-	6	230Kowait	. . . 	-	-	-	6	350Lebanon	. . . 	-	-	-	45	2,216Nigeria	-	7	241	150	9,880Rhodesia and Nyassaland	. . 	-	2	65	-	-Hong Kong	. . . 	-	10	307	3	160Japan	-	-	-	4	212Australia	-	-	-	15	813Malaysia and Singapore	. . 	-	5	216	-	-British Guiana	... 140	6,809	124	5,660	67	3,487Venezuela	... 640	29,181	-	-	-	-Bahamas	... 503	19,771	520	20,319	706	29,454Bermuda	... 110	4,571	174	7,517	347	16,064British Honduras	... 155	5,803	137	5,044	80	3,645Barbados	... 96	5,103	197	9,495	67	3,763Jamaica	... 275	12,952	304	15,210	166	9,075Windward and Leeward Islands	... 210	10,383	508	22,808	244	12,259Trinidad and Tobago	... 482	24,071	432	21,328	360	17,149Salvador	. . . 	-	-	-	12	444Honduras	... 5	665	-	-	-	-Dutch East Indies	... 3	188	4	240	-	-Panama	... 115	3,700	302	10,624	468	18,445St. Pierre and Miquelon	.. 54	2,876	136	7,311	87	4,616United States of America	... 718	38,955	762	48,435	1,008	54,473Total	... 3,562	167,008	3,744	178,670	5,740	263,685TOTAL EXPORTS OF CHEDDAR CHEESE, BY COUNTRIES, FROM 1961 TO	1963Cheddar cheese (class 51-30)	1961	1962	1963	Country	100 lbs.	value	100 lbs.	value	100 lbs.	value$	$	$United Kingdom	... 183,216	5,790,611	260,576	8,310,028	243,938	8,338,366Belgium and Luxemburg	... 860	28,550	680	23,684	736	26,481Kowelt	, . , 	-	-	-	3	211Lebanon	-	-	6	259	34	2,448Nigeria	-	-	30	1,537	38	2,885Congo	... 398	10,348	-	-	-	-Hong Kong	-	-	-	-	1	50Japan	.. 1	100	-	-	-	-Australia	... 7	461	19	1,278	26	1,806British Guiana	-	-	82	3,052	-	Peru	-	-	-	-	4	290Bahamas	... 1,097	48,446	1,505	64,990	1,572	74,082Bermudas	.. 209	9,372	320	13,524	237	11,674Barbados	-	-	56	2,978	9	627Jamaica	. . 194	6,489	72	3,166	44	3,356Leeward Isles and Windward Isles....	.. 181	8,497	510	22,590	388	17,843Trinidad and Tobago	-	-	2	70	612	19,331St. Pierre et Miquelon	... 7	298	25	1,018	10	425United States	... 5,354	273,623	4,900	263,435	4,834	278,598Total	.. 191,524	6,176,795	268,783	8,711,609	252,486	8,778,473
Questions


CANADIAN AERONAUTICS INDUSTRY
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Has any Canadian trade mission left for Australia, New Zealand and Japan and, if so (a) what is the mission's objectives (b) who comprise it (c) what products of the Canadian aeronautics industry will the mission attempt to promote?
2.	To which countries did this industry export its products last year and what was the total value of such exports?
3.	What were the principal imports by the aeronautics industry last year and what was the total value of such imports?
4.	What is the number of persons employed in the Canadian aeronautics industry?
5.	What was the government's contribution last year, through the R.C.A.F., to this industry?

Answer: The Canadian trade mission for the aircraft industry left Vancouver on April 15, 1964, to spend a month in Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
(a)	The mission has the following objectives:
i.	sounding the Australian, New Zealand and Japanese needs as far as aircraft and related material are concerned, in respect of possible trade outlets for Canadian products.
ii.	discussion of programs under way or planned concerning every aspect of the aircraft industry, in view of selling Canadian products.
iii.	informing officials with regard to aircraft products made in Canada.
iv.	giving information with regard to the scope and possibilities of the Canadian aircraft industry.
v.	establishing good relations in view of future visits by selling teams or local representatives of Canadian companies.
(b)	Members of the Mission: Air Commodore
D.	S. Blaine (Retired), Assistant to president, Air Industries Association of Canada, Ottawa (Ont.)
Air Commodore R. H. Bray, assistant member, air council, technical services, Ottawa (Ont.)
Mr. Gordon C. Clarke (secretary of mission), Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa (Ont.)
Mr. C. H. Dickins, Vice President, Sales, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Downsview (Ont.)
Mr. J. W. R. Drummond, Vice President, Administration, United Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Longueuil (Que.)
Mr. A. J. Lilly, Assistant to President, Canadair Limited, Montreal (Que.)
Vice Air Marshall J. L. Plante (Retired), Vice President and General Manager, Collins Radio Company of Canada Ltd., Toronto (Ont.)
Mr. C. Douglas Reekie, Executive Vice President, Northwest Industries Limited (representing Canadian Aviation Electronics) Edmonton (Alta.)
Mr. James E. Smith, Vice President, Engineering and Marketing, Computing Devices of Canada Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. D. L. Thompson, Director, Aircraft Branch, Department of Defence Production, Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. G. R. Wooll, Vice President and Director-Manager, Genaire Ltd., St. Catharines, Ont.
(c)	The Canadian trade mission of the aeronautical industry was set up for sales promotion of products of all sectors of the Canadian aeronautical industry. The mission includes representatives of manufacturers of aircraft, aircraft motors, inboard communication systems, inboard navigation systems and their components.
Its activities are not limited to products manufactured by companies represented by the mission. The mission was set up for the benefit of the whole Canadian aeronautical industry.
2 and 3. Exports and imports figures are given by products rather than by industries. Exports and imports of aircraft, aircraft motors and aircraft parts for 1963 are shown in attached statements.
4.	In 1962, the aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturing industry employed 28,254 persons.
5.	In the fiscal year 1963-64, the R.C.A.F. paid the aeronautical industry $162.5 million. This is a preliminary figure to which year-end supplementary accounts have to be added.
[Mr. Latulippe.l

Questions
Aircraft, aircraft motors and aircraft parts exports in 1963
Aircraft together with motors (type 600-19)
Canadian Products	Re-exports
Countries	Number	Amount	Number	AmountFrance	2	$ 229,000	Kuweit	2	1,328,874	Saudi Arabia	1	64,933	Ghana	3	1,389,453	Nigeria	3	372,505	South African Republic	1	$ 45,000Congo	4	415,167	India	7	2,332,072	Pakistan	2	124,592	Japan	2	611,440Australia	4	151,675	New Zealand	1	49,955	British Guiana	1	20,000Brazil	14	130,800	1	52,611Columbia	2	111,170	United States	61	25,939,845	30	550,052Totals	106	$32,640,041	35	$1,279,103
Exports of aircraft, aircraft motors and parts in 1963 Aircraft motors and parts (class 600-39)
Canadian Products	Re-exportations
Country	Number	Amount Number AmountUnited Kingdom	1	$ 233,284	11	$ 1,671,402Ireland	644Belgium and Luxemburg	-	345,537	64,263Denmark	-	21,353	1	35,751Finland	-	147,595	114,146France	-	802,815	1	592,643Western Germany	-	1,410,058	87,685Greece	-	23,457	11,290Italy	-	104,986	41,188Netherlands	-	73,844	65,485Norway	-	839,928	-	589,389Portugal	-	409,627	102,260Spain	-	260,360	120,232Sweden	-	34,990	16,083Switzerland	-	333,488	241,758Yugoslavia	-	34,775	17,787Ethiopia	-	52,780	35,390Iran	-	832	2,372Israel	-	7,975	1,254Lebanon	-	12,200	104Saoudi Arabia	-	21,462	14,775Turkey	-	2,967	1,075United Arab Republic-Egypt	-	117	251Kenya	-	47,365	22,745Ghana	-	496Rhodesia and Nyasaland	-	61,112	33,287South African Republic	-	747,546	49,314Angola	-	214	Congo	-	97,903	33,545French Equatorial Africa	-	2,848	-	297
3638
Questions
Country
Mozambique
Portuguese Africa
Ceylon
Hong Kong
India
Pakistan
Burma
Indonesia
Japan
Philippines
Taiwan
Viet Nam
Australia
New Zealand
British Guiana (Guiana)
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Columbia
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Bermuda
Windward and Leeward Islands
Trinidad and Tobago
Cuba
Honduras
Mexico
Dutch West Indies Puerto Rico United States
Totals

Canadian Products Number	Amount
		33,112
-	484
	274,683
		74,877
		46,733
		11,629
		6,601
		291,891
		1,088
		5,608
		100
		138,709
		54,376
1	200
		34,231
		297,487
		80,559
		380,810
		129,669
		12,443
-	11,989
z	3,140
		138
-	100,490
-	109,063
	309
96	23,253,055
98	$31,484,892
Re-exports
Number Amount
-	21,547
-	279
-	864
-	72,793
-	97,489
-	15,613
-	3,173
-	7,404
-	157,173
_	4,828
_	86,593
-	31,389
-	1,040
_	13,462
-	106,443
-	25,794
-	101,354
-	51,414
-	18,031
-	8,670
-	735
-	395
_	448
_	77,530
-	617
_	73
109	15,374,232
122	$20,246,294
Export of aircrafts, aircraft motors and parts in 1963 Assemblies, material and parts, n.o.p. (class 600-99)
Country
United Kingdom
Ireland
Austria
Belgium and Luxemburg
Denmark
Finland
France
West Germany Greece Iceland Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Yugoslavia
Kuweit
Canadian Products	Re-exports
Number	Amount Number Amount
697,866	$ 681,500
	3,396
905	
2,167,142	857,891
1,555	
903	4,580
138,980	952,688
7,605,195	1,862,232
4,838	
2,630,066	594 828,854
2,154,833	62,858
8,777	4,198
1,559	
12,220	20,870
2,232	550
39,525	
52,677	145,228
[Mr. Latulippe.l

Country
Ethiopia
Iran
Israel
Libya
Saudi Arabia Somaliland Sudan Turkey
United Arab Republic-Egypt
Ghana
Kenya
Nigeria
Rhodesia and Nyasaland
Sierra Leone
South African Republic
Angola
Congo
Gabon Republic
Tunisia
Hong Kong
India
Malaysia
Pakistan
Burma
Indonesia
Japan
Philippines
Taiwan
Viet Nam
Australia
New Zealand
United States (Oceania)
British Guiana
Falkland
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Peru
Surinam
Uruguay
Venezuela
Bermuda
Barbados
J amaica
Leeward and Windward Islands
Trinity and Tobago
Costa Rica
Cuba
Mexico
Dutch West Indies
Panama
United States
Questions
Canadian Products	Re-exports
Number	Amount Number Amount
946	
5,008	29,969
197	
10,893	4,911
16,543	42,476
3,590	
248	1,688
3,092	
1,186	1,809
165,763	129,254
2,361	585
35,040	61,999
7,991	1,334
1,542	1,503
119,663	7,635
1,052	1,856 145
2,357 170	
350	613
157,298	116,676 785
14,534	33,876
3,706	3,835
14,509	43,395
233,053	19,194
18,147	4,619
27,118	20.414
600	
63,089	7,832
2,112	2,819
134	
6,000	8,889
4,614	1,005
3,641	620
6,421	2,142
1,698	188
75,985	6,765
1,826	4,817 196
11,156	285
7,528	2,904
100	
	2,485
691	231
7,530 188 101	
52,297	18,240
4,887	2,686
1,175	
162	442
27,549,398	6,105,192

Total
20220-231J


$44,167,563 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Aircraft, aircraft motors and aircraft parts imports in 1963 Aircraft together with motors, (class 9170, 9171, and 9172)
Countries United Kingdom France
Western Germany Sweden New Zealand United States
Totals
Aircraft motors and parts (class 9176, 9177, Countries United Kingdom Belgium and Luxemburg Denmark Western Germany Italy
Netherlands Hong Kong Australia English Guiana United States
Totals
Aircraft assemblies, material and parts n.o.p. Countries United Kingdom Belgium and Luxemburg Denmark France
Western Germany Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Switzerland
Japan
Australia
Venezuela
Bermuda
Wind Islands and Leeward Islands
Mexico
Puerto Rico
United States
Totals

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many farmers acquired loans under the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act during the past year?
[Mr. LatulippeJ
Number	Amount
5	$ 759,914
1	13,430
3	24,889
2	1,398
1	40,786
378	21,282,878
390	$22,123,295
9178 and 9179)	
Number	Amount
7	$18,290,341
		1,500
		1,859
		665
		108
		23,680
		4,581
		3,741
1	500
381	29,439,133
389	$47,766,108
(class 9180)	
Number	Amount
		$ 5,558,171
		4,214
		2,914
		88,342
		73,043
		1,018
		29,382
		10,116
		3,628
		531
		2,920
		1,255
-	2,631
		572
-	2,165
-	10,367
-	13,235
-	84,255,277
-	$90,059,781
2. How many farmers acquired loans in the following categories during the past year: less than $1,000; $1,000 to $2,000; $2,000 to $3,000; $3,000 to $4,000; $4,000 to $5,000; $5,000 to $6,000; and $6,000 to $7,500?


Edgar John Benson: 1. During the calendar year 1963, the number of farm improvement loans

made was 77,373. The number of borrowers may be somewhat less since some farmers may have taken out more than one loan. Separate statistics on the exact number of borrowers under the act are not available.
2.	Not available.


PASTURE CAPACITY UNDER P.P.R.A. AND ARDA
Mr. Korchinski: What is the present carrying capacity of all pastures operated under P.F.R.A. and ARDA in each of the provinces of Canada?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: In so far as the question relates to the Department of Agriculture: the estimated carrying capacity, for the 1964 grazing season, of all pastures operated under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in each province is as follows:
In terms of adult cattle, community
pastures in
Saskatchewan	98,450
Manitoba	32,750
Alberta	3,500
Total	134,700
Note: The carrying capacity, although described in terms of adult cattle, makes allowance for current year calves.
In so far as the question relates to the Department of Forestry since construction has just begun on many ARDA pastures approved to date, present carrying capacity is not available. However, the proposed ultimate carrying capacity (cow-calf units) of all ARDA pastures under construction when completed in each of the provinces is as follows:
cow-calf
units
Province	of	Saskatchewan	34,780Province	of	Alberta	38,310Province	of	Quebec	400Province	of	Ontario	2,400Province	of	British Columbia	4,200Province	of	Nova Scotia	3,305Province	of	New Brunswick	800


INVITATIONS TO SOLICITOR GENERAL, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Solicitor General been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


John Watson MacNaught: No.
Questions


INVITATIONS TO TRANSPORT MINISTER, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of Transport been invited to attend any function or visit any place in the electoral district of Skeena for 1964, and, if so, with respect to each such invitation, by whom was the invitation given, for what function or purpose, at what time or times, and has it been (a) accepted or (b) declined?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE PILOT'S LICENCE
Mr. Aiken: Is consideration being given to amendment of medical requirements permitting the granting of a private pilot's licence to persons with monocular vision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. Amendment of Canadian medical requirements along these lines on an unilateral basis would be inconsistent with our international undertaking to adhere to the minimum medical standards set up by the international civil aviation organization and which, in this respect, provide for a specific minimum of visual acuity in each eye separately and which consequently excludes a pilot with monocular vision.
The question of what privileges, if any, the pilot with monocular vision should have is highly controversial and, together with a number of other areas of difficulty in the application of the international personnel licensing requirements, we plan to seek an early review of these requirements by the international civil aviation organization.


CONTRACT BETWEEN T.C.A. AND TRANSAIR
Mr. Korchinski: Is the government satisfied that both parties have lived up to the agreement, signed by TransAir and Trans-Canada Air Lines, whereby TransAir was obliged to maintain passenger service for three years in return for certain aircraft and equipment being turned over to them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The agreement between TransAir Limited and Trans-Canada Air Lines was a private one and was only subject to air transport board scrutiny to the extent that its provisions were of assistance in determining whether the continued operation of the services in question was economically feasible.
Following public hearings, the board found in its decision dated March 18, 1964 that certain of the prairie services referred to in the agreement had occasioned TransAir Limited such substantial losses as to endanger the

Questions
continuation of the other prairie services operated by that carrier. The board, therefore, amended accordingly the route pattern set out in the licence of TransAir Limited.
Trans-Canada Air Lines has taken every required step to implement its part of the agreement. TransAir Limited is not in breach of the agreement, since it undertook "to operate on such route pattern as may be approved from time to time by the air transport board". In other words, TransAir has adjusted the route pattern of services referred to in the agreement with the approval of the air transport board as provided in the agreement.
Under the circumstances, the answer to the question is, yes.


SERVICE CENTRE, TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr, Douglas: With reference to the building of a $500,000 service centre at Toronto international airport which will be run by Shell of Canada Limited, what is the (a) amount of rent that Shell of Canada Limited will he paying to the Department of Transport (b) percentage share of revenues of Shell of Canada Limited which will be paid to the Department of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Shell of Canada Limited will pay the following rent: (a) $11,115 per annum during the currency of the lease for the exclusive privilege of operating the service centre; (b) $6,144.75 per annum land rental; (c) 2 per cent of gross revenue excluding gasoline sales; (d) 3 per cent of gross gasoline sales revenue excluding road tax.
Items (b), (c) and (d) are subject to review at the end of ten years.


DATES FOR MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO BLIND AND DISABLED
Mr. Laprise: Has the federal government any agreements with the provinces which fix the dates for the making of monthly payments under the provisions of the Disabled Persons and Blind Persons Acts and, if so, has consideration been given to arranging for the making of such payments prior to major holidays such as Christmas and Easter?


Miss LaMarsh:: Payments are made to recipients by the provinces under provincial law. In the agreements made by Canada with the provinces and territories under the authority of the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act, the provinces and territories agree to administer allowances to the persons and under the conditions specified in the federal acts and the regulations made under the acts. Both acts contain a provision which reads "The allowance in respect of which the government of Canada is authorized

by this act to make payments shall be payable monthly in arrears." Consideration has not been given to any change in this provision.


* CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 63-669
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Was there a civil service commission competition No. 63-669 (Chief of information services, $8,310-$9,750) and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the commission demand a knowledge of the two official languages as a required qualification?
3.	If the competition has been completed who obtained the position and, is the successful applicant bilingual?
4.	Were there other competent, bilingual applicants in this competition?
5.	Was a notice of the competition posted on the notice board at 444 Sussex street, Ottawa?


Mr. Siewarl:: I am informed by the civil service commission and the Department of National Revenue as follows:
1.	Yes. The advisory examining board was held on December 27, 1963; oral boards were held on January 27, 28, and 29, 1964.
2.	The competition poster contained the following statement concerning language qualifications-"A knowledge of both the French and English languages would be an asset".
3.	Mr. Norman Riddiough obtained the position. He is not bilingual.
4.	No other candidate met the qualifications.
5.	Yes.


CANADIAN EXPORT COUNTRIES
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): To which countries were Canadian goods exported during the last five years?

Answer: Canadian goods were exported during the last five years to the following countries:
United Kingdom, Ecuador, French Guiana, Tunisia, Jordan, Austria, Surinam, India, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Bahamas, British East Indies, Syria, Afghanistan, United Arab Republic-Egypt, Leeward Islands and Windward Islands, Kenya, Norway, Costa Rica, Iran, Gibraltar, Ireland, Paraguay, Ceylon, Lebanon, Belgium and Luxemburg, Uruguay, Malaysia and Singapore, Somalia, France, Bermuda, British Honduras, Barbados, Iceland, Italy, Communist China, Indonesia, Mauritius and dependencies, Spanish Africa, Togo, Israel, Malta and Gozo, Peru, Hong Kong, Libya, Denmark, Venezuela, Pakistan,

Sudan, Germany-Federal Republic, Turkey, Greece, Jamaica, Cambodia and Laos, Ghana, Netherlands, Trinidad and Tobago, Korea, Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Sweden, El Salvador, Taiwan (China Republic), Bulgaria, Haiti, Viet Nam, Algeria, Hungary, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Congo, U.S.S.R., United States, Virgin Islands, Gabon Republic, Cyprus, Kuweit, Argentina, Bolivia, Morocco, Chile, Colombia, Portugal, Cuba, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Switzerland, French West Indies, Uganda, South African Republic, Czechoslovakia, Honduras, Australia, Angola, Poland, Nicaragua, British Oceania, French Equatorial Africa, French Western Africa, Yugoslavia, Oceania (United States), British Guiana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Qatar, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Iraq, Japan, Nigeria, Spain, Dominican Republic, Portuguese Asia, Tanganyika, Albania, Guatemala, Thailand, British Africa, Eastern Germany, Mexico, Fiji, Cameroon, Rumania, Panama, Puerto Rico, French Oceania, French Africa, Bahrain, Greenland, Falkland Islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Liberia, British Middle East, Brazil, Portuguese Africa.


VETERANS LAND ACT LOANS
Mr. Chatterton: Is consideration being given to amending the Veterans Land Act so as to increase loans to fulltime farmers under the V.L.A. in line with the proposed increase in loans under the Farm Credit Act as indicated by a resolution on the order paper and, if so, is consideration being given to increasing the loans to small holders under the V.L.A. also?


Mr. Teillel:: Yes, consideration is being given as to which provisions of the Veterans Land Act, if any, warrant or require amendment.


* URANIUM PRODUCTION, GUNNAR MINES, SASK.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What part of the British contract for the sale of uranium was transferred from the Bancroft area to Gunnar mines, Saskatchewan?
2.	How many pounds of uranium were involved in the transfer?
3.	Has Gunnar mines produced sufficient uranium to meet this allocation and, if not, to what company or companies has this production been allocated?
4.	Will any part of the unfulfilled contracts be transferred to the Bancroft area?


Mr. Pepin:: 1. It is assumed that the term British contract refers to the 12,000 ton contract entered into between Eldorado and the U.K.A.E.A. on July 30, 1962. In this event, the answer is, none.
2, 3, 4. Answered by 1.
Questions


* WINTER HOUSE CONSTRUCTION BONUS
Mr. Ricard: As of April 15, 1964 (a) how many applications have been submitted (b) how many payments have been made, for the $500 incentive bonus for winter built houses?


Mr. Byrne:: (a) As of April 15, 32,575 applications had been submitted for certification of housing under the winter house building incentive program.
(b) April 15, 1964 was the date on which most final inspections on housing under the winter house building incentive program were carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Payments amounting to $778,000 had been made as of April 15, 1964 in respect of housing which had been completed and inspected by C.M.H.C. prior to the final inspection date.


* BUTTER AND BUTTER OIL
Mr. Marcoux: 1.	At what price was butter oil sold to iron curtain countries?
2.	How much butter oil is made from a pound of butter?
3.	How long is butter oil usually stored, and what is the yearly storage cost for a pound of butter?
4.	What price is paid on the Canadian market for butter earmarked for storage?


Mr. Beer:: 1. All butter sold for export has been sold at 27 cents per pound f.a.s. Canadian port.
2.	Approximately four fifths of a pound of butter oil is made from a pound of butter.
3.	Most of the butter oil in Canada has been stored from two to three years. The average yearly storage cost for a pound of butter is approximately two and three quarter cents.
4.	The agricultural stabilization board is paying 53 cents per pound for 40-93 score Canada first grade creamery butter, basis carlots delivered warehouse at main distribution centres in eastern Canada.


EGG PRICES IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Rapp: 1.	Has there been a recent drastic drop in the price of grade A eggs in the prairie provinces and, If so (a) by what amount, per dozen, have prices dropped (b) what steps are being taken to halt such a price decline (c) what steps will be taken to ensure the payment to farmers of a satisfactory price for eggs?
2.	Has any investigation been made to determine whether wholesalers are receiving more for grading and packaging than the egg producers receive for their product?

Questions


Mr. Hays:: 1. (a) The average weighted price to producers in the prairie provinces tor grade A large eggs over recent weeks has been as follows:
Week ending April 18 April 25 May 2 May 9 May 16
Price per dozen 23.3 cents 22.7 cents
20.9	cents
17.9	cents 18.2 cents
(b) and (c) The price decline is related to an increase in the volume of marketing which, to date this year, as compared to last year, is up 15.2 per cent in Alberta, 9.2 per cent in Saskatchewan and 30.8 per cent in Manitoba. Egg producers are protected by a deficiency payment program under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The support level is set at a national annual average of 34 cents per dozen for grade A large eggs. Producer eligibility is limited to 4,000 dozen grade A extra large, large and medium eggs.
2. During the same period weighted average prices, wholesaler to retailer, for grade A large eggs and the spread between this and the weighted average price received by producers in the three prairie provinces were as follows:
Week Weighted average ending price to retailers
April 18 38.6 cents per doz. April 25 38.0 cents per doz. May 2	'36.3 cents per doz.
May 9	33.3 cents per doz.
May 16	33.3 cents per doz.
Spread
15.3	cents per doz.
15.3	cents per doz.
15.4	cents per doz.
15.4	cents per doz. 15.1 cents per doz.


* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS
Mr. Ricard: From May 1, 1963 to April 30, 1964, what was, at the end of each month, the number of registered claimants for unemployment insurance benefits in Canada?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The number of active claimants at the end of each month, May 1963 to April 1964, was as follows:
1963, May, 270,892; June, 220,260; July, 218,974; August, 192,511; September, 186,261; October, 218,866; November, 303,353; December, 532,331; 1964, January, 598,561; February, 607,144; March, 597,250; April, 497,745.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would he tell the house whether the figure for April 30, 1964, in today's answer to the 
written question of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) represents an increase or a decrease in unemployment in comparison with April 30, 1963?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as this question obviously is, would the hon. member put it on the order paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I give notice at this time that I wish it to be debated at ten o'clock.


* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Ricard: What was the state of the unemployment insurance fund on April 30, 1964?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On April 30, 1964, the unemployment insurance fund showed a debit balance of $25,863,147.97.


ARNES, MAN.  HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	What plans has the government for Improving harbour facilities at Ames, Manitoba?
2.	What is the estimated cost and when will this work be carried out?


Mr. Deschalelets:: 1. There is no plan at this time to improve the harbour facilities at Arnes, Manitoba.
2. Not applicable.


JAMES M. MINIFIE
Mi. Gundlock: Is James M. Minifie, the C.B.C. commentator from Washington, a Canadian citizen and, if not, when did he cease to be?


Hubert Badanai: As Mr. Minifie has never applied for a certificate of Canadian citizenship nor requested a ruling on his status under the Canadian Citizenship Act, the department has no information on which to base an opinion.


*NEW INDUSTRIES ESTABLISHED
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many new industries have been established in high unemployment areas as a result of the special tax concessions granted to these areas?
2.	To how many persons is employment being provided as a result of these new industries?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Since this legislation was enacted on December 5, 1963, and up to date May 25, 1964, 60 new manufacturing and processing businesses have declared their intention to establish in such a manner as to benefit from the designated area tax incentive program.
2. The planned employment reported by the new businesses is 5,215.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to starred question No. 1,115, answered by the Minister of Industry today. The question I asked was, how many new industries have been established to date, and the second question I asked was, how many people have been employed to date? The answers given were 60 in the future and so many in planned employment. These are not the questions I asked, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will put this on the order paper. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has drawn attention to an incorrect answer to a written question. Putting it again on the order paper will not correct this at all. The hon. member asked how many new industries have been established, and the minister replied that 60 new industries "have declared their intention," which is not the same thing at all. I think putting it on the order paper, sir, will serve no purpose at all. Let the minister give a clear, precise, and accurate answer to a question already on the order paper.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that precise and clear question is that we have no statistics on industries-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the official opposition want an answer they might at least have the courtesy to listen to it. The answer to the question is that we have no statistics on industries already established because they are not required to furnish the government with notification of actual establishment until such time as they are in full commercial production and they intend to claim income tax benefits.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Supplementary to that, then I would take it from the minister's answer that no one has been employed to date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that is a completely incorrect assumption to make.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Then let us have the correct figure.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: How
is it that the minister's department has no
Questions
statistics on the industries already established but has statistics on those to be established?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just read the answer, it states that the government has been advised by some 60 new industries of their intention to establish in such a way as to avail themselves of the benefits of the Income Tax Act.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, does the minister not know exactly how many, or is he not interested in finding out how many industries have been established?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I said before, I do not know. I am interested-


Michael Starr: Are you interested?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am interested, but we have not the machinery for collecting this precise information at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would like to ask the minister-because there seems to be a multiplicity of officers around his department -what about the second portion of the question asked by the hon. member for Simcoe East:
To how many persons is employment being provided as a result of these new industries?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer is none.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the Leader of the Opposition will look at the answer, with respect to how many positions of employment are going to be provided, the information was given in the written answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Complete evasion.


* EMPLOYEES OF REPRESENTATION COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many persons have been employed, and are employed, in the representation commissioner's office, preparing data, mathematical exercises, and/or maps, in reference to electoral divisions in Canada, in accordance with section 8 of the Representation Commissioner Act, 1963?
2.	How long have these persons been performing their tasks, and what special training, if any, had these persons prior to their employment?
3.	What is the average age of these persons so employed, and who, if anyone, recommended them for their positions?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the representative commissioner:
1. Nine persons have been employed and eight are presently employed.

Orders for Returns
2.	These persons commenced their employment as follows: One person July 18, 1963; Three persons Sept. 16, 1963; Two persons Sept. 23, 1963; One person Dec. 3, 1963; One person Dec. 23, 1963; One person March 9, 1964.
Such persons had no special training prior to their employment.
3.	The average age is 33 years and no one made any recommendations to me regarding their positions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McCulcheon: What was the previous employment, experience and qualifications, as well as location, of those employees of the Montreal world fair In receipt of salaries in excess of $10,000 from that body?
Return tabled.


* GOVERNMENT ANNUITY AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	What is the present balance in the Canadian government annuity fund and what is the present number of annuitants?
2.	What is the balance in the civil service superannuation fund and, how many persons receive benefits?
3.	Where are these funds deposited?
4.	Are these funds used for investment and, If so, in what securities are they invested.
Return tabled.


*C.P.R. RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT APPLICATIONS, SASK.
Mr. Souiham: 1.	Since the present government took office In April, 1963, how many applications has the board of transport commissioners received for rail line abandonment from the Canadian Pacific Railway in the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Manitoba and the province of Alberta?
2.	What are the subdivision designations of such applications in each case, and the various mileages involved?
3.	What is the railway ten year gross revenue in each case, and the railway gross operating loss, if any, in each case?
4.	How many grain elevators, and their total capacity in the case of each subdivision, are involved?
Return tabled.


APPOINTMENT OF AIRPORT MANAGERS
Mr. Fisher: 1. What is the name and address of each person appointed since January 1, 1963, to the position of airport manager 1 level and higher at each respective site in Canada?

2.	Where was each such appointee located prior to the appointment referred to in part 1 and what was or will be the cost of transporting him, his dependents and belongings to the new location?
3.	Has any D.O.T. employee at the respective sites referred to in part 1 filled the position in a permanent or acting capacity during the last five years? If so, what are the names of each such person, the time the position was so filled and to what degree of satisfaction, and are any of the said persons still at the sites?
4.	Was any consideration given to filling the positions from among D.O.T. personnel in the regions concerned and, if so, were any such persons found to be qualified for the positions? What were the reasons for not making the appointments from such persons?
5.	At what levels are appointments normally open to residents from (a) local areas (b) regional areas, and (c) all across Canada?
6.	If area boundaries are established for applicants for positions and such boundaries are governed by the level of the positions, are such rules always adhered to? If not, in what instances since January 1, 1963, have the said rules not been adhered to, and what were the reasons for not following the said rules in each instance?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that notice No. 121 be allowed to stand.



MODELS FOR CANADIAN FLAG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Smallwood:
That an order of the house do issue for the production of all flag designs or models which have been received by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet or the government, as models for a Canadian flag.
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, notice No. 122 entails two difficulties. First, while some of the three thousand and more flag designs or models that have been received are on paper, many are on other kinds of material. Moreover, some are very large. Consequently the costs of reproduction would be extremely great. Besides, in the case of each of these designs the specific permission of the designer would have to be obtained before reproduction and publication. Second, if the originals were produced in the House of Commons they would not then be available to be returned to any of those who submitted them.
I suggest that the notice of motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances I would ask that you transfer this motion for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, now that we know the nature of the resolution regarding the two flags may I ask the Prime Minister when it is intended to go ahead with this resolution, and whether he can give us an indication which resolution will be proceeded with first, that providing for two flags or the second one providing for two anthems.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):
Mr. Speaker, it is intended to proceed with these resolutions in a few days, and I hope to be able at the beginning of next week to announce the exact day on which the first resolution will be called. That is the resolution dealing with a single national flag for Canada.
John George Diefenbaker: That resolution, Mr. Speaker, does not appear to be before us. If I may put another question, Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to have this resolution also presented in the other place as well?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a similar resolution will be introduced in the other place.


John George Diefenbaker: Will it be presented in the other place for discussion at the same time it is presented here, or will it only be presented in the other place after it has been presented here? In other words, is it going to be a joint resolution or will there be specific resolutions for the House of Commons and the Senate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The usual procedure will be followed. There will be a specific resolution for the House of Commons and a resolution in the other place. Whether the resolution in the other place will be called before or after the resolution in the House of Commons will depend, of course, on when this resolution, which is not yet on the order paper but which is in Votes and Proceedings, is called. When it gets on the order paper I hope my right hon. friend will read it very carefully and try to understand it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I thank the Prime Minister, because it will certainly take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the intricacies of the thinking of this government as represented by this resolution.
20220-232J
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government intends to move the adoption of a national flag for Canada and of the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the British crown and to the commonwealth, has the government the intention to move the adoption of the flag of the United Nations as a symbol of the allegiance of our country to the United Nations, and of the flag of NATO, as a symbol of the allegiance of our country to NATO, and also of the American flag, as a symbol of our allegiance to NORAD?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have already in this country, as recently as yesterday, honoured the flag of the United Nations and I hope we will continue to do so. I hope we will adopt soon a national flag for Canada.


An hon. Member:: Flags.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We also in this country owe allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen as Queen of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I hope that, while there can only be one national flag for Canada, we will continue to honour the symbol of our allegiance to Her Majesty and our association in the commonwealth.


Hon. Paul Marfineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can only take one member out of four. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the answer given by the Prime Minister, could he tell us whether it is necessary to pass legislation to show our affection for the crown?


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering what the Prime Minister stated, I should like to ask him whether English citizens are obliged to adopt
3648	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the Canadian flag which will also be the symbol of affection for the crown, since the Queen is also the Queen of Canada?


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the resolution on the Canadian flag will be followed by a bill or by an order in council7


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no bill is required. The house will be asked to take a decision on the resolution, and the resolution will be quite clear in that respect.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it will be necessary, in the case of the disruption of the commonwealth or, if you wish, of its member countries, that the Canadian parliament pass another act denying the existence or the official recognition of the union jack in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all respect I must rule this question out of order. [Translation]


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Prime Minister's motion concerning a Canadian flag suggests that the union jack be continued to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth and of our allegiance to the crown, does the government propose to submit, at an early date, a bill establishing the total independence of Canada, in which case Canadians would not have to fly two flags, that of England and that of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is obviously out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There cannot be a supplementary to a question that is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question will be in order. I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he intends to divide his resolution in two parts, so that the members of the house would be called to vote a first time on the distinctive national flag and a second time on the union jack, the flag of England. Then, the hon. members would not have to face a cruel dilemma:	either reject the
national distinctive flag and at the same time the union jack or vote for both, and this would not be more acceptable.
This is my question. Would the right hon. Prime Minister divide his resolution in two parts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The regular course will be followed. If the hon. gentleman will wait until the resolution is introduced it will be explained in detail.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. During his discussions yesterday with the maritime union trustees did he impress upon them the necessity of appearing before the industrial relations committee, particularly in view of the acknowledgement by the leader of the New Democratic party, in spite of his denials yesterday, that certain members of that party did meet with Mr. Millard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I discussed with the board of trustees yesterday the possibility of an appearance by the members of the board before the industrial relations committee. While I am sure that if parliament asked the board of trustees to appear they would do so and answer questions, it is still their considered and strong view that it would not be in the best interests of the responsibility assigned to them by the parliament of Canada for them to appear and discuss publicly their activities at the present time.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that one of the trustees has brought certain members of the House of Commons up to date on the activities of

the trustees, surely other members should not be deprived of the same opportunity. I think the committee would agree, if the trustees did not want to make the testimony public, to have the meetings held in camera.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a question of privilege.


Michael Starr: I wonder if the minister would agree with that suggestion. Will he tell us whether he will approach the trustees on that basis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will consider the proposal made by the hon. member for Ontario.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Ontario has just said I admitted meeting Mr. Millard, in spite of my denial yesterday. I think that could be some reflection on the statement I made yesterday and I reserve the right, therefore, to raise a question of privilege.
I referred yesterday to the report in the Globe and Mail in which it was stated that one of the trustees held a private conference with the New Democratic party-I am sorry; I have the wrong newspaper clipping. Yesterday's Globe and Mail stated:
Mr. Millard recently met the parliamentary caucus of the New Democratic party to explain the position of the trustees.
What I said yesterday, as reported at page 3579 of Hansard, was:
On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the statement just referred to by the hon. member for Ontario is completely inaccurate. Mr. Millard has never met with the caucus of the New Democratic party.
I say that statement is perfectly correct. Now, today's Globe and Mail makes a perfectly correct statement. I told the press that I personally had met Mr. Millard when he dropped into my office and met with myself and one or two members who were readily available and who were called in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This does not constitute a meeting with the caucus of the New Democratic party. I am certain that the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be somewhat amused, would hardly consider he had a meeting of a caucus of the Progressive Conservative party if he met with someone and two other members of his group.


John George Diefenbaker: We have not got a group, we have a political party.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You have a political hodgepodge; I would not call it a party.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the interjections from the official opposition, I want to say that I have known Mr. Millard for a quarter of a century. He is an old friend of mine. If Mr. Millard wants to come into my office and chat with me, he is at liberty to do so without any reflection being cast upon him or upon myself.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there was no official meeting with the caucus. Most of the members of the caucus did not know I had met Mr. Millard, because I did not think it was important. Mr. Millard was in Ottawa, he was going to catch a train and he dropped in to see me. I had a chat with him. There is no inconsistency between the statement I made in the house yesterday and the statement which I made to the press.
The hon. member for Ontario and the Conservative members seem to be exercised about this. I want to say to them that we have several times suggested in the house that the industrial relations committee ought to meet with the trustees. So far as meeting with any individual such as Mr. Millard is concerned, he would be glad to meet with the hon. member for Ontario or any other member. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member for Ontario, when he was minister of labour, had met with some of these people he probably would have done something about Hal Banks and the S.I.U. long before he did.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege. The leader of the New Democratic party has thought it wise to raise a question of privilege, so I think I should be accorded the same privilege. Yesterday I addressed the following question to the Minister of Labour:
Could not the minister be more specific, in view of the fact that one of those trustees, Mr. Millard, has appeared before certain members of the New Democratic party?
The hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam said Mr. Millard had never met with the caucus of the New Democratic party. He was splitting hairs. The hon. member for Vancouver East also said he had not met with any members of the New Democratic party, and he was speaking as its national vice president.


Mr. Winch:: I said he had not appeared before a caucus or any official organization of our party.


Michael Starr: In my question I did not refer to a caucus. I said he met with certain members of the New Democratic party. The

Inquiries of the Ministry leader of the New Democratic party stated in his question of privilege that the statement published in the Globe and Mail today is perfectly correct. The statement reads as follows, Mr. Speaker:
Mr. Douglas said he invited in three members of the party caucus labour committee:	David
Orlikow (Winnipeg North), the committee chairman who attended during the entire meeting, and Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)-
I do not know what his capacity is.
-and Andrew Brewin (Greenwood), who were there for part of the time.
Mr. Douglas said Mr. Millard, an old friend, called on him to explain the trustees' policies, some of which have been bitterly opposed by the N.D.P.
Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had something to say. He said this was an attempt among friends to clear the air.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I just draw the attention of the hon. member for Ontario to the exact words which he used yesterday, as recorded at page 3579 of Hansard:
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report in the Globe and Mail this morning by Mr. Wilfred List stating, among other things, that Mr. Millard recently met the parliamentary caucus of the New Democratic party to explain the position of the trustees, would the minister not consider that the other members of this house also have a right to meet with the trustees?
The hon. member for Ontario said "parliamentary caucus".


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I quoted what was said in the newspaper. My original question only referred to certain members of the New Democratic party.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if following his meeting with the maritime union trustees there now has been a decision with regard to the presidency of the S.I.U., and particularly if Mr. McLaughlin will be retained in that post.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Mr. McLaughlin is not president of the S.I.U., and no decision was reached or could be reached at such a meeting yesterday because that would be a decision for the trustees, to be made by them under their own authority.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the minister if there was any discussion about the status of Mr. McLaughlin within the S.I.U.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday my discussion with the board of trustees ranged over the whole spectrum of their activities with regard to the S.I.U., including the accession and present leadership of the S.I.U.
fMr. Starr.]


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that Mr. McLaughlin is acting as president and signing letters on behalf of the S.I.U. at the present time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, it is not a fact that Mr. McLaughlin is president.


Some hon. Members:: Acting as president.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He may be signing letters as executive vice president.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will he be retained in his present function, whatever that may be?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph  P.@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the longshoremen's strike in St. John's, Newfoundland. In view of the fact that the minister has stated that the federal government would intervene when the situation warranted it, will the minister now say how serious the situation must become before his department intervenes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, which is of great concern to the residents of the city of St. John's. The situation at present is that the resident mediator of the department is in the city and Mr. Pettigrove, the senior conciliation officer for the Atlantic region, is in touch with both parties in an effort to arrange further meetings. This situation will only be resolved when there is a greater willingness on the part of both parties to reach a settlement.



PROSPECTIVE LAY-OFFS AT POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the question put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East and the answer provided by the minister, does he not think that the condition where 400 men will be laid off very shortly in Cape Breton also deserves an answer from the government? Also, considering the fact that this question has been

allowed, does he not feel a similar question in respect to these men should be considered and not ruled out, as it had been previously?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the decision as to whether a question is in order or not should be left to the Chair. In view of the length of the strike, which I understand has been going on for some time, it seemed to me the question was urgent and important because it was dealing with humanity and a great many persons were concerned. I know that on many previous occasions the hon. member for Cape Breton South has raised a question about a certain district with which he is concerned, and if he has a very urgent question then in fairness I am quite prepared to allow it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would put a further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour; and considering the remarks made by you, sir, I would now ask the Minister of Labour if he does not consider that the layoffs at Point Edward naval base would be somewhat more permanent than the strike in St. John's, on which he saw fit to answer a question while denying a reply to me?


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: And does he not consider them human also?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I am wondering whether he would show evidence of his concern by requesting the provincial attorneys general to cause an immediate check to be made of inmates of all jails and other penal institutions within their jurisdictions, to ensure that no citizen is held illegally, as a result of administrative mix-ups? There were two such cases in the last month.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am presently considering the facts which gave rise to this particular question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: My
question is supplementary, or at least related, to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Royal with respect to the specific case of a person detained for a long period awaiting deportation. Perhaps I should address it to the Minister of Citizenship and
Inquiries of the Ministry Immigration. How many other cases are there of people who have been detained for long periods awaiting deportation? If the minister does not know, would he inquire into the matter and inform the house?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The case the hon. member mentioned is that of Mr. Hooper, and Mr. Hooper was deported last night.
While I am on my feet I should like to make a statement on these immigration cases which are before-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


René Tremblay: It is related to the same matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I did not hear the last few words the minister said. Would he mind telling the Chair what he wishes to do?


René Tremblay: It is a statement about cases before the courts.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not make my question clear to the minister. How many other cases are there within the minister's knowledge of people being detained in jail awaiting deportation for unspecified periods? If the hon. gentleman does not know, will he find out and inform the house?


René Tremblay: I will take the question as notice.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. On Friday last the right hon. gentleman indicated that he would be tabling details of emergency supplementary estimates to meet the low water situation on the great lakes. Can he tell us when these estimates will be tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; it is impossible to say on what date the estimates will be introduced.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will these estimates provide a method of assisting private operators to meet the situation?

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question now.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am not satisfied with the answer given. May I debate it after ten o'clock?



TERRITORIAL SEA AND FISHING ZONES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) for the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Last evening I started on the first leg of my cruise of Canada's territorial seas and today I hope to finish the voyage.
From the facts I placed on the record it is readily apparent that Canada's support of a 12 mile limit was officially launched in the international field in 1958. However, international agreement on this matter was not reached and we are now obliged to consider the alternatives open to us. The first question which comes to mind concerns those nations which have already applied a 12 mile limit. We know, for example, that Iceland was the first country to push out its territorial limits to 12 miles, followed by Norway, Denmark and then Russia. Africa and Britain have also decided on this course and, in all, some 25 nations have now adopted a 12 mile limit. There should be little objection from these countries to the Canadian proposal. But it would appear that when these decisions were made unilaterally, international incidents followed. Icelandic gunboats chased British trawlers from cod fishing grounds off the shores of Iceland. Norway is chasing Swedish fishermen from grounds which the Swedes have fished for hundreds of years. Irish corvettes have recently scattered Dutch and Belgian fishermen who were fishing in Irish herring grounds, and the Brazilian and French are disputing the ownership of Brittany lobsters caught in traditional Brazilian fishing waters.
This will give the government an idea of what happens when action is taken unilaterally, and I cannot help but wonder what steps are to be taken by the minister and his department to enforce these proposed regulations. What would happen, for example, if the Russians decided to test the new regulation by placing a factory ship within the nine mile limit off the coast of Cape Breton

in an area where in the spring of the year the fishing is prolific? I refer to the Scatari bank. It might be that the factory ship would not be fishing in these waters, but the supply draggers would be travelling back and forth and it would require constant patrolling on the part of Canadian vessels to determine whether they were fishing or simply travelling peacefully through these waters.
I would point out, too, that Canada has a very long coast line. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin)-and I may point out that he is not present while this bill, which comes under his authority, is being discussed-


Mr. Robichaud:: On a question of privilege; my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned that he had to go out for a few minutes to attend an urgent matter and indicated he would be right back.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Minister of Fisheries for that explanation.
The minister of external affairs stated in the course of his remarks as reported in Hansard at page 3411:
Pending this determination and an opportunity to carry forward our discussions with the countries concerned, we have decided to allow a short period of time to elapse before starting to enforce Canadian laws in the fishing zones of Canada.
My point is this: How will they be enforced? Does the government intend to use the patrol boats of the Department of Fisheries or will it use the patrol boats which are operated as a coastguard service under the Department of Transport? Perhaps it is intended to use the navy-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: On a question of privilege, I understand that the hon. gentleman complained a few moments ago about my being out of the house. I stepped out of the house for a few moments in order to attend to an urgent matter connected with my department and I am now back in my place. I regret that the hon. gentleman showed his sporting quality in this way.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I did not notice the minister leave the house, and when the Minister of Fisheries brought it to my attention that he had been called away I immediately apologized.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not know the hon. member had apologized and I am sorry I made my intervention. I did so because I was not aware of the apology.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has made an explanation of his absence and I accept that explanation.
To continue, I ask this question: How does the government hope to enforce this regulation? Obviously, enforcement will be one of the main problems to be dealt with if these proposals are to become effective. I cannot impress this point upon the government too strongly. I have said before, and I say again, that a gunboat policy for our fishing industry would be disastrous to our traditional fishing markets. The entire proposal raises the problem of historic fishing rights and today I will deal only with those rights on the Atlantic coast. France and the United States have historic fishing rights dated back to the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and the treaty of London in 1818.
I hold in my hand the brief submitted by the Fisheries Council of Canada on Canada's national and territorial waters under date January 28, 1963. In this brief they recommend negotiations between the United States and France to reach a mutual understanding, and that unilateral action be taken only after agreement with these two countries. The Fisheries Council of Canada is representative of the entire fishing industry. It meets annually and it makes recommendations to the government only after careful study of all the facts. I cannot help but wonder why these recommendations were ignored and why the government, despite their recommendations, decided to take unilateral action.
I think their suggestions are worth placing on the record. They suggest, for example, that Canada, as one of the pioneering nations in the field of international agreements for the conservation of fishery resources of the sea, should continue to provide international leadership and protection for our Canadian marine resources. They recommend that we declare certain bodies of water as Canadian national waters, and establish the straight base line to enclose the national waters. The breadth of the territorial seas and exclusive fishing zone would be measured seaward from the base line. We should recognize and negotiate historic treaty fishing rights and then make a unilateral declaration with regard to the decisions reached. Finally, we should enforce these progressive steps, thereby preventing all other foreign fishing, except the United States and France, from exploiting our marine resources. In my opinion it will be difficult to get some of these nations to give up and suddenly drop their historic fishing rights. The house therefore has a right to
27, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones know the government's plans on this important matter. Do they intend a phasing out of historic fishing rights over a five or ten year period; or, for example, will the Americans and the French continue fishing their traditional grounds within three miles of our shores in perpetuity? These are questions that require an answer.
Quite frankly, I am not satisfied that the present proposal as outlined by the minister will solve any of our major international fishing problems. In my opinion we will still have large Russian, Spanish and Japanese trawlers operating on the fishing banks of the Atlantic coast five, ten and 15 years from now in ever increasing numbers, using modern methods and equipped with electronic fish finding devices that can only be described as fantastic. I say this because the world population, according to statistics that were last prepared in the year 1960, I believe, was estimated at 2,900 million and it is increasing by 120,000 every day. The nations of the world must turn to the sea as a source of food in ever increasing quantities to feed their ever expanding populations, and as a result fishing operations will intensify in the years ahead. As a matter of fact, the world fisheries have doubled their production in the last ten years, and a further doubling in the next ten years is expected. This, of course, will only create further international competition on the high seas for our marine resources.
This is why I have stated that in my opinion further negotiation at the international level would have been preferable to the action that has been taken at this time by the government. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) of this government have decided in their collective wisdom to establish by unilateral action this 12 mile limit. Since the 12 mile limit is a conservation measure designed to assist our inshore fishermen as well as conserve our fisheries resources, it is therefore important that we take some definite steps at this time that will be of long term benefit to our fisheries.
In my opinion this measure is not definite enough at present to do what should be done for the Canadian fishing industry. However, it can be amended by the simple act of naming the co-ordinates or points of land to be used in establishing the base line. These co-ordinates are the key, the one important item in this entire proposal; but

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones according to the Secretary ot State tor External Affairs they have not been named. He stated, as is reported at page 3412 of Hansard, on May 20:
I am hopeful, however, that our discussions will soon be completed and that the governor in council will be in a position before the end of the year to proclaim a list of geographical co-ordinates of points for application of the straight base lines to at least a part of our coast line. If our optimism, here, proves unwarranted it will not be because this is not our present appreciation of the situation; it will be because of the nature of the negotiations themselves. It is unlikely that the governor in council will publish points covering our entire coast line in his first list. It is possible that, depending on how our discussions proceed, he will publish several lists and that, in the first, base lines will come into force only for those areas in respect of which we have completed our talks.
Mr. Speaker, no one likes travelling through uncharted seas. If we accept this bill as it is now written, we allow this government to take the entire fishing industry on a cruise in the sea of uncertainty. The whole bill, in so far as my reading of it leads me to believe, is surrounded by a fog of indecision. It reminds me somewhat of the Liberal government. They do not know where they started from; they do not know where they are, and they do not know where they are going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: For example, base lines can be drawn from the United States border along the coast of New Brunswick, past the harbour of Saint John, and then back again along the coast of Nova Scotia, thereby leaving the entire bay of Fundy outside the territorial seas of Canada. Conversely, a base line can be drawn from the United States border to cape Fourchu, completely sealing off the bay of Fundy and St. Mary's bay, thereby conserving the sardine and scallop industry in the bay of Fundy and the new scallop beds and the inshore fisheries of St. Mary's bay, as these waters would then become part of Canada's internal, or national waters.
I could give the house other examples, but I believe the most important co-ordinates with which we are concerned at this time are those to be used in the Newfoundland-Cape Breton area. I believe, and the Conservative party supports the principle, that the base line should be drawn from cape North to St. Paul island and then to cape Ray in Newfoundland. A base line should also be drawn from cape Freels, Newfoundland, to cape Bauld and then to Labrador. This action would seal off the valuable fisheries

resources around Bonavista-Twillingate-and this should be of considerable interest to another maritime member, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill)-


Mr. Priiiie:: Winnipeg.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -Notre Dame bay, and especially the fishing banks in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Bradell bank near the Magdalen islands, Orphan and Natashquin cod banks off Quebec, Centre bank off Labrador and the banks around Anticosti island, would all be protected. Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating that we draw an iron curtain between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but I sincerely believe that, if the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence are classed as Canada's national inland waters, it will be the greatest forward step taken toward conservation of our fisheries resources in the history of this nation. This action would provide a giant spawning ground for all types of fish, and it would come entirely under the control of the Canadian government.
Since most of the sealing operations are also conducted in this area, it would also give the Canadian government complete control over this industry, which has been very much in the limelight during the past few months as a result of the methods used to catch the seals. There should be little objection raised by other nations to these changes, because they would indirectly benefit from our conservation measures. At present any conservation measures carried out on the high seas are completely under the control of the international commission for the north Atlantic fisheries. When we consider the pressure placed upon the ships operating on our offshore banks to bring back suitable catches, it is questionable whether they are following the recommendations of the commission. We must remember that some of these countries fish for food while we fish for profit.
Some evidence has been submitted that would indicate that fishing nets have been used with a mesh so small a sardine could not escape. We cannot, as Canadians, enforce regulations governing the methods to be used for catching fish on the high seas. However, if we seal off the gulf of St. Lawrence as a giant spawning area, and classify this large body of water as Canada's national waters, the offshore banks will eventually benefit from our conservation measures.
As I stated earlier, the co-ordinates to be used when implementing this measure are of vital importance, not only to the future

of our fishing industry but also to about nine international air lines which are concerned at the immense powers granted to this government or to future governments by this bill. As clause 5 of Bill No. S-17 now reads, the government could by order in council establish geographical co-ordinates which are far out in the ocean. This, of course, would cause international repercussions and would be difficult to enforce, but in the meantime great damage would be done. As this bill is now worded, notwithstanding the fact that its prime purpose is to assist the Canadian fishing industry, it could have a very serious effect on the operation of foreign international air lines flying across the north Atlantic ocean outside of the present territorial jurisdiction of Canada.
Canadian law on the subject of the operation and control of aircraft is set forth in the federal Aeronautics Act. The extent of this Canadian law is defined in the key operative sections of the act, which are sections 3 and 4. In each of these sections, in so far as foreign aircraft are concerned, the extent of the Canadian control is limited to flights over Canada and the territorial waters of Canada. This is consistent with international law and international conventions that have been entered into and to which Canada has been a signatory. Also under international law the territorial waters of a state-for the purposes of aeronautical law have been restricted to the customary three miles from the shore line. While the width of the territorial sea will still remain three nautical miles under this bill, I would point out that the inward point of measurement has been altered. The new definition of a territorial sea adopts the straight base line system for the purpose of measuring the width of the territorial sea at any given point on the coast line of Canada.
But where are these base lines to be drawn? This is what the bill states in clause 5 (1), (2) and (3), and I should like to place it on record:
(1)	The governor in council may, by order in council, issue one or more lists of geographical co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined and may, as he deems necessary, amend such lists.
(2)	In respect of any area for which geographical co-ordinates of points have been listed in a list issued pursuant to subsection (1) and subject to any exceptions in the list for the use of the low water line along the coast as the base line between given points, base lines are straight lines joining the consecutive geographical co-ordinates of points so listed.
27, 1964	3655
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
(3)	In respect of any other area and until such time as geographical co-ordinates of points have, for such other area, been listed in a list issued pursuant to subsection (1), base lines remain those applicable immediately before the coming into force of this section.
It is in the method of determining the geographical co-ordination of points as outlined in clause 5 that the problem will arise in so far as its applicability to the Aeronautics Act is concerned.
These co-ordinates, Mr. Speaker, are to be determined by the government by order in council. As I read the bill, there are no restrictions setting forth any method to be followed in selecting these points; in fact, a particular point could be a fixed location on water.
The minister of external affairs has stated that it was not possible to divulge the geographical co-ordinates that will be chosen in order to establish the location of the straight base line because of pending negotiations between the Canadian government and the governments of other affected countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend not agree with that?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: But he says: "Have patience. I am optimistic that everything will work out right, even though we have not yet been able to settle all outstanding questions, and in certain areas our points of view do not coincide".
This bill, Mr. Speaker, tells us nothing about the future territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada. The government has to date made no commitment, and they can fix the geographical co-ordinates wherever they see fit, whenever they see fit. This bill is as indefinite as the pensions bill. It is as indefinite as the redistribution bill to fix the boundaries of our constituencies. It is as indefinite as the flag issue. It is as indefinite as everything which this government has brought before the house.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask my hon.
friend, having in mind that he represents fishermen, whether he disagrees with the course the government is following? Would he answer that question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer any question as soon as I have finished my remarks. My time is limited and I gave the minister a few minutes of my time last evening. Clause 5 as presently worded-

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; in order to keep the debate in order is it according to the rules of the house to discuss a bill clause by clause on second reading?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not my understanding that the hon. member is discussing the bill clause by clause. I understood he was discussing the general principle of the bill, although I concede it is very difficult to do this without referring sometimes to specifics in the bill. I do not feel that the hon. member was out of order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As section 5 is presently worded, one geographical co-ordinate could be taken on Sable island. Sable island is Canadian territory and is located approximately 100 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia. If this was done, an area approximately 100 miles wide off a great part of the Nova Scotia coast would be considered to be Canadian territorial seas for the purpose of the Aeronautics Act, and would make foreign aeroplanes flying over this area subject to Canadian jurisdiction. It is important to note that at present many foreign aeroplanes flying between the eastern United States and Europe pass through the air space lying between Halifax and Sable island. As the minister is no doubt aware, these aeroplanes leaving New York fly above the coast of Nova Scotia near a point in Newfoundland, and thence across the Atlantic to European destinations.
The present government might quite properly deny that they had any intention of using Sable island as a geographical coordinate. However, as clause 5 is now worded, any future government could make such a choice by order in council without having to come back to parliament for amending legislation. If this came to pass, it can readily be seen how this could cause international complications; and I believe the naming of these co-ordinates at present would assist the government-and this is the answer to the question put to me a moment ago by the minister of external affairs-rather than delay the negotiations as suggested by the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not studied this matter carefully.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope these suggestions will be given careful consideration by the minister and that he will spell out the geographical co-ordinates in order to provide a clearcut picture of the benefits of this bill to the Canadian fishing industry and the aeronautics industry; and
[Mr. Crouse.l
by removing the veil of secrecy, improve the international relations between Canada and other countries.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse). He has referred to the recommendations made by the Fisheries Council of Canada, an organization which represents the Canadian fishing industry from coast to coast. As was stated by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he introduced the bill, the discussions which have taken place so far with the ten countries interested in fishing in Canadian waters or in proximity to the Canadian shore, were based on the representations which were made to the government on January 28, 1963 by the council.
On April 20 of this year, while the Fisheries Council of Canada was having its annual meeting in Charlottetown, I had the opportunity of meeting the executive of this council. I want to state to the house that I received unanimous approval from the Fisheries Council of Canada of the action being taken by the government with regard to the 12 mile limit.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has made reference to Russian, Spanish and Portuguese vessels which will be fishing in proximity to the Canadian shore even though the 12 mile limit is introduced. It is true that they will have the right to fish outside of the 12 mile limit, and there are a number of fishing banks located outside of the 12 mile limit which are being frequented not only by Canadian fishermen but by fishermen from a number of foreign countries.
But the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who is familiar with the fishing industry and has a personal interest, also knows that the 13 countries represented on the international commission of the north Atlantic fisheries, including all the countries operating on these banks which have been referred to by the hon. member, are subject to certain regulations and conventions for the conservation and preservation of our fisheries. This year the annual meeting of the international commission of the north Atlantic fisheries will take place in Hamburg during the month of June.
The hon. member has referred to the seal operation. As I have stated in the house before, and we have given notice already to this effect, we want the seal fishery of the north Atlantic outside of the 12 mile limit to

come under the protocol to ICNAF in order that we can have regulations which will be observed for the preservation and conservation of the seal herds which mean so much to a large number of fishermen of the Atlantic coast.
When this bill was before the other place a representative of the Fisheries Council of Canada answered a number of questions asked him by members of the other place and he stated that they were satisfied with the action taken by the government. In one breath the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg says that we are going too far. He is afraid of retaliation by our friends and neighbours, the Americans. In the next breath he says we should define immediately all the coordinates. The fact is that we have been negotiating on a 12 mile limit for the last seven or eight months. We have had a number of meetings with different countries, and it was generally agreed by the Canadian representative and the representatives of the other countries involved that it would not be proper to take a unilateral position now by defining specifically what the co-ordinates should be.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced in the house on June 4 last that it was the intention of the government to take action, he made it very clear that such unilateral action would be taken after discussions with the countries involved. I should like to quote part of the last paragraph of his remarks, as found on page 621 of Hansard, in which he said:
He also called attention to the "historic" and treaty fishing rights of the U.S.A., and I assured him-
He is referring to his meeting with the late President Kennedy at Hyannis Port:
-that these rights would be taken into account. Discussions will be held with the United States with a view to determining the nature and extent of the U.S.A. rights and interests which may be affected by the action which Canada is taking. Discussions will also be opened as soon as possible with other countries affected, and it is our hope and belief that we will be able to reach agreement with such countries on mutually satisfactory arrangements.
This is the position that Canada has taken after having been unsuccessful in obtaining a multilateral agreement on the law of the sea. I am not complaining because the previous government could not succeed in obtaining such agreement. They were not alone in this regard. There were a number of other counfries in the same boat. But when we saw it was impossible to come to such an agreement,
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones in order to prevent powerful foreign countries such as the U.S.S.R., Japan and others establishing historic rights which are recognized internationally and then having to deal with those countries as we are dealing today with other countries that really do have such historic rights, we decided that the time had come for Canada to take action, and we have notified the countries involved accordingly.
Negotiations are now under way. We have completed the first phase of negotiations and we are convinced that we will arrive at a satisfactory agreement. In order to do this it was important that the government should not only make known its intention to proceed with the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone but that it should be given proper, enabling legislation which would provide the government of the country with the power to proceed with the establishment of such a zone.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister permit a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Certainly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He mentioned a moment ago that the resolution was being brought in in accordance with the recommendation of the Fisheries Council of Canada. In checking their brief I note that on page 7 of the proposal by the fisheries council they urge the government of Canada, having reached an understanding with the United States and France and having determined a policy with regard to other nations not having historic rights with Canada, to then make a unilateral declaration. In view of that recommendation would the minister tell the house why the legislation was brought in before these negotiations were completed?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Council of Canada made it very clear that it was their intention that Canada should make a unilateral declaration with regard to Canadian national waters and a straight base line, once an understanding had been reached with France and the United States, and they also refer in another part of the brief to other countries. This is exactly what we have been doing. We have met here with representatives of these countries. We have met with them on different occasions and we have made known to them what our intentions are. We have made known to them that it is our intention to arrive at some mutual understanding on these matters. Later in my remarks I will answer more directly the question just asked by the hon. member.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones
I will not attempt in my reply to deal specifically with all the points which have been raised so far in the debate. Most of these questions were answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he introduced the bill for second reading. Furthermore, as the bill will be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries there will be further opportunity to go into a detailed examination of its provisions.
Although there are objections from the other side of the house, there seems to be support in principle at least for the action of the government, and the differences that have arisen have to do chiefly with the means of achieving the objectives sought by the bill now under discussion.
One of the main objections, which has been raised by several hon. members, refers to the fact that authority is given to the governor in council to determine the points from which straight base lines may be drawn, without any indication having been given as to how the government proposes to exercise this authority. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has already indicated that the recommendations of the Fisheries Council of Canada, which are very explicit on this point, are being used as a basis for current negotiations. Our only aim, our main aim, is to arrive at an agreement which will assure our own fishermen of the best protection possible while respecting international understanding and the good relations which Canada has with all countries in the world, particularly with our neighbours to the south.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would he agree that the house would be in a better position to pass this legislation if the actual co-ordinates were known so we would know that the minister's statement had been carried out and that the lines drawn actually did safeguard the interests of our fishermen, rather than leaving it to legislation by order in council?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I tried to make it clear earlier that although the co-ordinates are not specified in detail, I am sure every member of this house who is interested in this legislation has read the brief presented by the Fisheries Council of Canada and has seen the maps which were attached to that brief. As I said earlier, these are the lines that we are using as a basis for our negotiations.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the Prime Minister stated that we intended to take this unilateral position after discussions with the countries involved. If we have met with some objections, some of these objections might be based exactly on certain of these co-ordinates. But I want to assure hon. members of this house that we have taken a definite stand on this matter, and this might be one of the reasons our negotiations are taking so much time. We are endeavouring to come to a mutual understanding which we all agree will facilitate the implemenia-tion of this legislation.
I should like at this time to refer to the report of the federal-provincial conference on fisheries development which was held last January here in Ottawa, and at which the ministers responsible for fisheries development in all the provinces participated. The report states, and I quote:
The provincial representatives unanimously support the action of the government of Canada to protect our fisheries through the establishment of a 12 mile exclusive fishing zone measured from a straight base line from headland to headland and inclusion of such waters as the bay of Fundy, the gulf of St. Lawrence, Dixon's entrance, Queen Charlotte sound and Hecate strait as Canadian territorial waters.
How much clearer can I be at this time?


Mr. Howard:: May I ask the minister a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


Frank Howard: May I ask him whether those waters to which he referred in his quotation from the report of the federal-provincial conference on fisheries, the bay of Fundy, the gulf of St. Lawrence, Dixon's entrance, Queen Charlotte sound, and Hecate strait, will be contained within the 12 mile fishing zone?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I just want to repeat what I have said earlier. This is the position that Canada is taking. This is the basis of our discussions with the countries involved.


Frank Howard: But the minister is not at this time saying that these waters will be contained within our fishing zone?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am not in a position to determine at this time what action will be taken two months or three months from now when the negotiations have been completed. The government will then be in a position to take a definite stand. As has been stated by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as soon as this legislation is passed, as soon as we are able to come to

an agreement tor certain areas, it is the intention of the government to proceed immediately.
I am sure every hon. member will understand that there could be some international problems created in certain areas. I cannot determine now exactly what position will be taken before negotiations are completed. But I want to assure the house that the position that we are taking now, the position we have placed before the other countries, is based on the statement I have just read from the report of the federal-provincial fisheries conference. I want to repeat that these recommendations of the fisheries council and of the provinces are the basis of negotiations with the countries whose fishing interests would be affected by the Canadian action.


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


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wonder if after this question further questions could be delayed until I conclude my remarks?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Can the minister indicate how long the government is going to continue these negotiations with other countries who are interested before Canada does take the unilateral action he says is going to be taken?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I want to make it clear, as has been made known, that we are proceeding immediately to complete negotiations with these countries. We expect to meet with them as soon as possible. The fishing zones will be applied immediately after proclamation, but in so far as Canada taking action towards those interested countries is concerned, we have made it clear that this will be done after our negotiations are completed.
I cannot determine now exactly what the results of such negotiations will be. As I have said, some countries may have stronger objections than others. Some countries may not agree to the proposals that we have placed before them. But I have every reason to believe that the final negotiations, the final agreement will be satisfactory to all interested in the fishing industry. There are some hon. members who have taken the position that negotiations with other countries should have been completed before the introduction of this bill.
In this connection, I would point out that this would be normal procedure if conventions were being negotiated with these
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones countries. I could give as an example the Columbia treaty. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already pointed out, this method has been tried by successive Canadian governments since about 1956 and it has not been possible to get an agreement on a multilateral basis. We are now proceeding, therefore, on a different basis. We have a unilateral approach coupled-I want to clarify this-with arrangements of agreements with countries being affected by our action. This unilateral approach would be ineffective without having the appropriate legislation to carry it out. A delay in this legislation would weaken our position and make our negotiations much more difficult. It would do nothing else but result in an indefinite delay. We are, therefore, trying to avoid as much delay as possible so that we can have the 12 mile limit implemented as soon as possible.


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


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I would prefer when I am through with my remarks, but I will allow this one now.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the minister say how the passage of this bill will assist in the negotiations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is what I have been trying to explain for the last five minutes. We want to show that this government has the power, as authorized by the parliament of Canada, to proceed with this unilaterally, which it is our intention to do. This is what this bill will do, and at the same time it will take care of certain other acts which have been mentioned, and which are included in the second part of the bill.
It will also establish a different approach so far as the territorial sea is concerned. It is true the territorial sea will be limited to three miles, but instead of following the sinuosity of the coast the territorial sea will be based on a three mile area, on a line drawn from headland to headland, and this alone would be of tremendous protection to our inshore fisheries.


Mr. Barnett:: The minister has been arguing that the passage of this bill at this time would strengthen the position of the government in negotiations. I would like to ask him why he considers that it would not further strengthen our negotiations if the bill specifically set out the demarcation lines?

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because you would be giving your whole case away.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If the bill were specific on every co-ordinate how could we deal with countries that are interested? It would mean nothing else but that we were taking a unilateral position notwithstanding what the results would be, and we have to deal with many countries, some of which have treaty rights, others have historic rights, and others again claim historic rights, which we may not agree they have.
This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to come to mutual agreement with those countries on those points which are being raised in the negotiations.
There is another point I should like to deal with, and which has been raised by some hon. members. It is to the effect that certain factions of the industry, particularly the united fishermen and allied workers union of British Columbia, have been denied the opportunity of making their views known on the subject. To this I can say that as far as the government is concerned the views of the united fishermen and allied workers union have been made known on several occasions.
We had representations on this subject by mail, and a brief was submitted by the union to the federal-provincial conference last January. I am also certain that most of the members of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and particularly those representing the British Columbia constituencies, have been duly informed about the British Columbia fishermens unions position.
Furthermore, there will be an opportunity of hearing any group interested in presenting its views when the bill is referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries following the second reading. I want to assure the house that if this particular group so desires, it will be made possible for them, subject to a decision of the committee, to appear and express their views on the matter.
Again I want to refer to the concern expressed earlier by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) in relation to our traditional fisheries markets, particularly in the United States. Seeing that the interests of the United States fishermen in the areas affected by the establishment of the 12 mile fishing zone and straight base lines are being fully recognized, and I would hope my hon. friend agrees with me on this position, it is difficult to see how the question of retaliation by the United States should even arise.

At this point I may add that in many areas on both coasts, on the Pacific coast and on the Atlantic coast, our own Canadian fishermen are also concerned about certain privileges which they would like to retain in United States waters.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the minister to have that assurance on the record. I hope that in my remarks I made it quite clear my concern was for the east coast fishing industry where 70 per cent of the catch must be sold in the United States. I am very grateful to the minister for his indication that concurrence has been reached with the United States, that they will continue to fish in the traditional waters in which they have always fished, and that there is no possible chance of retaliation from the United States over this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am pleased to hear the minister agree with me on this subject.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: National interest and international good will are to be considered in establishing new extended limits along our Canadian coast lines. While Canada is spending what it does for conservation, for the propagation of species, the extension of the limits to 12 miles and the establishment of a fishing zone seem to me to be sound business. It is, in fact, the kind of action which can be expected by other countries in similar positions. Under these circumstances the more amicable road of negotiation seems desirable and preferable. What we are doing now is to introduce by unilateral action what it has been impossible to achieve, as I said earlier, by international or multilateral convention.
I should now like to refer to the treaty rights which certain countries have in certain of our waters, and to the historic rights which are claimed by others. As has already been stated on several occasions by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and myself, United States fishermen will be permitted to engage in their traditional fishing operations on both coasts.
On the Atlantic coast the United States has treaty rights in addition to claims of historic fishing, and for this reason alone is entitled to special consideration in any arrangements on fishing within areas that will become either internal waters or the contiguous fishing zone.
On the Pacific coast, where Canada and the United States are the only two countries whose fishermen operate in the areas off the Canadian coast line, we have a long history of

co-operation with the United States in the development of fisheries of principal concern to the two countries, such as salmon and halibut.
These fisheries have been brought up to a sustained yield level and are being maintained, and in one case, that of salmon, increased by co-operative measures of the two countries and by the restrictions accepted by the fishermen of Canada and the United States for a number of years. Because of this historic intermingling of fishing operations, as well as the intermingling of the stocks of fish concerned, and the long established history of joint conservation measures, it is only fair that the interests of United States fishermen be recognized, and this applies on both coasts.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that this recognition would be contingent on United States recognition of reciprocal treatment to be accorded to our fishermen by the United States, should it decide to assume jurisdiction over areas off the United States coasts beyond the three mile limit, where our fishermen would be exploiting any stocks of fish. It is not our intention to tell our neighbours that we want them outside the 12 mile limit when we know-and I repeat what I have already said-that a number of our own fishermen on both coasts are also interested in fishing in United States waters. Had Canada been successful in its attempts during the past ten years to establish a 12 mile fishing zone by way of a multilateral convention, the normal procedure would have been for the government to seek from parliament implementing legislation following the signing of the convention. As this was not possible, the alternative of proceeding by way of unilateral action, coupled with negotiations with countries having fishing interests and this requires legislative authority. A mere declaration by Canada would not suffice. It would amount only to a declaration of intent and such a declaration on behalf of the government has already been made by the Prime Minister. I refer hon. members to the statement made on June 4, 1963. Legislation has now been introduced to give effect to that declaration, to show the countries interested that not only is it the intention of Canada to proceed with legislation establishing a 12 mile limit but that Canada has taken a decision on the matter and passed enabling legislation to establish a territorial sea and fishing zone. Enactment by parliament of this enabling legislation will be an indication of the national will expressed through parlia-
27, 1964
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones ment. At the same time, the bill provides the necessary flexibility to enable the government to take account of the final arrangements with the countries with which we are negotiating.
Reference has been made to the difficulty of enforcing such regulations. I might say to the hon. member that the adoption of the 12 mile fishing zone and the straight base line system will not add materially to the difficulties of enforcement. In some cases enforcement will be rendered easier. With the publication of charts delineating base lines it will be easier both for foreign fishing vessels and for our patrol vessels to get their bearings. Some difficulties of enforcement may be encountered but I may say we are prepared to meet such difficulties. Under the existing law it is almost impossible for Canada to enforce such regulations. We have had experience in recent months of cases where foreign vessels have been apprehended by Canadian patrols. The matter has come before the courts and we have found that we have difficulties in referring to specific legislation which determines whether such vessels were operating inside or outside the three mile limit.
At the present time we have a fleet of some 26 vessels which could be used to patrol both coasts. We have three large vessels on the Atlantic coast-the Cape Freels, the Cygnus, and the Arctica in addition to 11 vessels of medium capacity. On the Pacific coast we have four larger vessels-the Laurier, the Howie, the Kitimat and the Hunter besides eight vessels of medium capacity. We also employ air patrols on both coasts, and have exclusive use of two Beavers at all times during the fishing season on the west coast. On the east coast the use of helicopter S-55 plus a fixed wing aircraft is available as and when required. Again, I wish to assure the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) that the matter he has raised in connection with air lines will not be a problem when the 12 mile limit is brought into effect.
I hope hon. members will realize the position in which the fishing industry of this country finds itself. I hope they will agree that it is time for Canada to go ahead and to take this unilateral position for the protection of our fishing industry.


Mr, Winch:: I should like to ask the minister if he can tell the house something about a technical aspect of this subject either from his own knowledge or from information which I presume he has received from his colleague the Secretary of State for External

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Affairs (Mr. Martin). Can he tell us whether or not the extension of the territorial water to 12 miles includes control and authority over the continental shelf, as well as, possibly, ownership?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No. It has been made very clear-and this has been recognized by international law-that the territorial area will not be changed. It will still be limited to three miles, lines being drawn from headland to headland. This bill is to establish territorial sea and fishing zones only. It does not affect the continental shelf. It establishes a fishing zone which will be nine miles from the outer line of the territorial sea.


An hon. Member:: But that covers the shelf.


Harold Edward Winch: That is my very point. I do not wish to get into a debate about this, and if I can have this information it might save me the necessity of making a speech. Can the minister tell us why the territorial sea does not cover the continental shelf? According to this bill it is an extension of the territorial sea.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have made it clear that there will be no change in the definition of the territorial shelf. The area from the outer line of the territorial sea to the outer line of the 12 mile fishing zone, a distance of nine miles, will not involve the continental shelf, but will establish a fishing zone.


Harold Edward Winch: But the first three miles does.


Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: As
the sponsor of Bill No. C-27, a bill to establish a 12 mile fishing limit which was put forward by the New Democratic party in this house- and, incidentally, I might say it was talked out at that time-I should like to say a few words on the legislation proposed by the government. Like several other members who have already spoken, I rise to take part in this debate as a member from the west coast, one who is concerned, just as the minister is concerned, with the welfare of the fishing industry and of its workers.
Both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone has long been sought as a means of conserving and harvesting our fishing resources. The measure before us in my view will not accomplish these objects. It is even true to say there are many in British Columbia connected with the industry who believe it may have an opposite effect. My study of the bill and my understanding of the explanations offered

to us so far prompt me to make the following brief criticism of the clauses of this measure.
In clause 2 it is declared that any other act of parliament or any order or regulation made shall have a preferred legislative position and shall not be interfered with by the provisions of Bill No. S-17 unless Bill No. S-17 so states. This means that under the provisions of this legislation at present the United States, for example, will continue to have fishing rights in Canadian waters and nothing is being done in the legislation before us to phase out those rights or change them. Further, nations which claim historic fishing rights may also have that privilege protected, because section 4 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act states that the governor in council may issue permits for foreign vessels to fish in Canadian waters whether as a result of a treaty or for any other reason. This means, it seems to me, that our American friends, for example, on the Pacific coast will have continued freedom to troll or drag for fish right up to the three mile limit. In effect, their ability to do so will be decided in practice by whatever pressure is exercised upon our cabinet. This bill further determines that the territorial sea and the fishing zones will be drawn on the headland to headland principle. However, clause 5 leaves these arrangements entirely in the hands of the government to proclaim by order in council. In other words, the government could, by order in council, change a fishing area or move it in or move it out just about the way the tide comes in or goes out.
This to me is a very wishy-washy piece of legislation and there are many people connected with the fishing industry in British Columbia particularly who are not satisfied with it in its present terms. On that point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record briefly an editorial which appeared earlier this month in the Columbian, the New Westminster newspaper, which is headed, "Fisheries bill gutless". The article says:
Canada's much vaunted 12 mile fisheries bill is becoming more denatured and gutless every day.
The article goes on to say:
As debated so far, both the U.S. and France claim historic rights to continue fishing to the three mile limit. Only a few European countries would be restricted. In the Pacific, it is not known if Japan and Russia will honour the 12 mile limit, if the U.S. doesn't.
Canada would be spineless if it did not enact the protective regulations it wants off its own shores.
This means Canada would exclude everybody, including the U.S. and France, from fishing within

the 12 mile limit, subject to a modest transition period. Exceptions would be separate, mutual localized agreements, as for sharing the Fraser river fisheries.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Barry Mather: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In view of the newspaper article which the hon. member has quoted, is he in favour of Canadian fishermen fishing in American waters being given the same treatment and being excluded altogether?


Barry Mather: My answer is that if the minister and his department would take a more courageous stand in negotiating this treaty, there would be no danger of Canadians being excluded there. I think the minister should proceed in a much more courageous way than he has in the past on this question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the hon. member any foundation for making that statement?


An hon. Member:: Yes, you have no
courage; that is the foundation.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You have not seen the treaty.


Barry Mather: The New Democratic party cannot accept the legislation as presently proposed; consequently we have moved to have it referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries for detailed consideration. I think this would be an excellent thing; I believe it would strengthen the minister's position if it were done. I think the minister is a very nice fellow, but he is far too easy a man to negotiate with the type of people concerned in this question. If this matter were referred to the standing committee of the house it could be studied in detail. We want to see a stronger stand and stronger measures taken which would help Canada and her fishing industry.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And end with nothing.


Barry Mather: I urge members of the house to seriously consider this motion for the benefit of the fishing industry of Canada, and to vote for the motion to refer the matter to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, I have only four or five minutes left. In that time I wish to indicate to the house the gist of my argument, and I will follow up my contentions with positive statements at a later date when the debate is resumed. With regard to this bill, Mr. Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat quoted a New Westminster newspaper as saying it is gutless. I would like to go one step further and say that this bill is a hoax; it is a gross deception. It is designed to accomplish two purposes: First, to make it appear that a promise made by the Liberal party in the last election campaign, and a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on June 4 last, are being kept; and second it is intended to make people believe that this government is in fact establishing a 12 mile fishing limit. That is going to be the gist of my argument.
On June 4 last the Prime Minister, as reported at page 621 of Hansard, said:
-the Canadian government has decided to establish a 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone along the whole of Canada's coast line as of mid-May, 1964, and to implement the straight base line system at the same time as the basis from which Canada's territorial sea and exclusive fisheries zone shall be measured.
In the first place this bill, according to clause 13, will come into force only when it has been proclaimed by governor in council, so that whatever might be in the bill will never become the law of Canada until it is proclaimed. That may never be. But in any case, even if it were proclaimed tomorrow, what does this bill provide for? Absolutely nothing of any consequence, except by way of statements and promises made in various places by members on the other side of the chamber and in the other place. If this bill were proclaimed tomorrow there would exist a 12 mile fishing zone measured from a base line; but there is no indication in the bill as to how this base line will be established. So that even proclamation of the bill would mean absolutely nothing whatsoever in so far as this 12 mile limit is concerned.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when we come to historic rights and traditional rights there is no indication whatsoever in the bill as to the extent to which these rights will be recognized. I asked the minister how this bill would help the negotiation of this matter, and the reply did not convince me in any event. I maintain that this bill is designed for two purposes only; that is, to make it appear that members on the other side of the chamber are fulfilling a promise they made and which obtained for them a great many votes in the last election, and second

Agricultural Stabilization Act in order to hide the general failure of the government to produce what they have promised.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


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 notices of motions, public bills.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Gr&ce)-That a special committee be appointed to consider matters relating to the constitutional structure of Canada, desirable changes thereto and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the proper division of legislative functions between levels of government:	that the
committee have power to send for persons and papers; that it report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house; that standing order No. 67 be suspended in relation to the committee; and that it consist of 24 members to be designated at a later date.
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, if I could have unanimous consent I would move that this notice of motion stand and retain its place on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If we do not have unanimous consent, this motion drops from the order paper. I understand there is not unanimous consent; therefore this motion drops from the order paper.



AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Agricultural Stabilization Act to:
(1)	provide deficiency payments for eggs, hogs, etc., on a cumulated regional price basis rather than on a national weighted average price;
(2)	have these deficiency payments made semiannually instead of annually as at the present time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to introduce this resolution for

debate. This is not the first time I have placed this resolution on the order paper. I placed it on the order paper in the last two or three sessions, but it never reached the debating stage, although it is of great importance to the egg producers and hog producers of Canada.
As you will see from the motion, it provides deficiency payments for eggs and hogs on a cumulated regional price basis rather than on a national weighted price. Second, it suggests that these deficiency payments be made semi-annually or quarterly, instead of annually as at the present time. This is very important to the egg producers, because when the weighted average price in Canada is calculated the producers on the prairies never receive a deficiency payment.
For the record I should like to point out that in 1962 the average price in Canada was 34 cents per dozen. At that time there was a deficiency payment allowance of one cent per dozen. One cent per dozen for grade A large was received across the country. In Saskatchewan the average price over the year was 28J cents per dozen, and if the price had been calculated on a regional basis the producers would have received 5J cents to bring them up to the 34 cents. Instead of that they received only one cent because the average national price was 33 cents.
It is very important that these averages be calculated on a regional basis because there are times when the price of eggs goes down quite a bit. I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) on this matter and received an answer today. As we all know, producers of eggs in Saskatchewan at the present time get as low as 17 J cents per dozen for their eggs. If the national average were 34 cents and deficiency payments were based on 34 cents, the farmer would be entitled to at least 13 to 15 cents per dozen. When the national average is taken across Canada and the price over the year in British Columbia and the west, or in Ontario, Montreal and the east, is 33 cents average, deficiency payments will amount to only one cent per dozen.
My argument is that we should pay the price calculated on a regional basis. Whether the regions are defined as the prairies, central Canada and then eastern Canada, or whether province by province, it is all the same. These deficiency payments should also be made, as I said, on a quarterly basis. Although my motion calls for a semi-annual basis, I should like to see them made quarterly. During the

last two campaigns the Liberals, realizing that this was a problem, promised a quarterly payment made on a regional basis if they were put in power. So as not to deceive anyone about this, these statements were made on May 3. Therefore all parties seem to be in favour of making deficiency payments on a regional basis instead of on a national weighted average price.
As far as hogs are concerned the matter is much more important. Everyone knows that in the fall when the farmers bring their hogs to the market prices are usually down. The farmers who are able to market their hogs in the spring always get a little better price. If deficiency payments are made on an annual basis it would mean that whatever deficiency payments were paid to the farmers who received low prices for their hogs in the fall they would be cancelled out by the payments received by the other farmers in the spring. This is an important issue. Promises were made by all parties during both election campaigns; this proposal has been advocated by farm organizations across the country; and I think that this is the time to pay attention to the question and to change the act. Actually, the stabilization board makes these payments from October 1 to September 30. That is the year for the calculation of these deficiency payments, and that is the year within which prices are averaged.
I am sure many other hon. members are interested in this very important proposal, Mr. Speaker, so I will not take up any more time in speaking to the matter. I conclude by urging on the Minister of Agriculture, under whose jurisdiction falls the stabilization board, to give consideration to this question; and in view of the fact that promises have been made by his party along the line I have suggested and the matter has been brought to his attention by members of other parties, I ask him to give serious consideration to making these payments on a quarterly basis.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much attention to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) on the motion we are called upon to discuss today. 1 must admit that I found this motion very interesting and, at first sight, I thought it would greatly help the farm people in my riding. However, after studying it closely, and especially after making some inquiries, I had to change my mind for the following reasons. The motion reads as follows:
Agricultural Stabilization Act
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Agricultural Stabilization Act to:
(1)	provide deficiency payments for eggs, hogs, etc., on a cumulated regional price basis rather than on a national weighted average price;
(2)	have these deficiency payments made semiannually instead of annually as at the present time.
At present, the act provides that support prices will be established with respect to the nine following named commodities: hogs, cattle, sheep, eggs, butter, cheese, wheat, oats and barley not produced in the designated areas set up by the Canadian wheat board.
Under the act, the support prices are to be no less than 80 per cent of the average price for the ten previous years. The exact level, in terms of a percentage of the average for the ten previous years, may be set by the governor in council anywhere above 80 per cent but, as far as the named commodities are concerned, it must never be under 80 per cent.

May I point out here, Mr. Speaker, that support is not limited to the nine named commodities. The act permits the governor in council to provide price support on any other agricultural products. At the present time there is a total of 18 commodities being supported under the act. In the case of products other than the nine named ones, the support can be set at any level which the governor in council determines.
The act also authorizes the governor in council to designate the grades of any product to which support will apply. In the administration of the act there are three methods of providing price support. One is known as the purchase method. Under this method the stabilization board is authorized to buy any products of the approved grades offered to it at the support price. Since the board, under this method of support, is an open buyer of all products offered to it, that is indeed, in my opinion, an effective way of maintaining the price of the product at not below the support level.
This method of support, however, has certain very serious difficulties attached to it which are referred to later. It has therefore been discarded gradually for most commodities and the stabilization board now supports the price of only two commodities by the purchase method, these being butter and cheese.
A second method of support, which has been used in a few instances, is by compensatory payments. There are direct payments

Agricultural Stabilization Act on a unit of product. An illustration of this is the payment of 3.6 cents per pound which is made on first grade Cheddar cheese under the dairy support program for the current year announced a few weeks ago.
The third method of price support, and now by far the most common one, is the deficiency payment method. Under this method, if the average price to producers over the support year falls below the support price a direct payment is made to producers for the difference between the two. In applying the deficiency payment method the support price is established on the basis of an average price for the whole area in which the commodity is produced. Thus, for products produced all over Canada the support price is a national one based on the average national price over the 10 year period. Similarly, the price which producers receive, and which is used for determining whether a deficiency payment is necessary, is calculated on the basis of a weighted average national price received by producers. If at the end of the support year that weighted average national price is less than the national support price a deficiency payment is made.

This motion would change this method of computation of deficiency payments and would also change the length of time provided for those payments. It would change the method of computation in the sense that it would replace the present national price basis by a regional price basis. In addition, payments would be made semi-annually ininstead of annually as at the present time.
I have already mentioned that the stabilization board has now discarded the system of price support through the purchase method, except for butter and cheese. The reason for that is, that serious difficulties were experienced with most commodities where the formula was applied. That method led to surpluses very hard to dispose of, put the government in the position of buyer and seller of farm products and upset the normal process of production and marketing.
That method is still applied in the case of butter and cheese, because up to now we have not found any satisfactory alternative. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the motion refers specifically to pork and eggs. Those two commodities actually provided striking examples of the complete impracticability of the price support system through the purchase method I have just mentioned. About four 
years ago, the board stopped buying eggs and pork and since then, support has been provided through deficiency payments.
One of the main difficulties involved in the purchase method to support prices was, as I said earlier, the problem of marketing huge production surpluses. As long as the government remained an open buyer of all commodities offered, there was no restriction, no check on production. Finally, when the government suspended the application of the abovementioned method, it discovered that it had in stock over a hundred million pounds of tinned pork, and it has just found the necessary outlets for the final disposal of that considerable stock.
A second difficulty of the so-called purchase method, and this applies to the motion now under consideration, was that it removed all incentive to the sale of farm products to any other outlet than the government even at a fraction of a cent below the support price of the government. If the government offered to buy pork in Manitoba, for example, at a fixed price of 22 cents per pound for pork, grade A, it is evident that nobody would sell pork at 21.5 cents per pound, even if there was a demand. Therefore, that represented a very serious restriction to what I would call the normal flow of trade, and that restriction was removed by the program of deficiency payments.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) and other interested members may I say that any consideration of applying deficiency payments on a regional basis would have to be certain to have to avoid at the same time that same difficulty of interfering with the normal flow of trade, as I mentioned in French a moment ago. In most agricultural products there is a normal pattern and flow of trade. There are areas which produce more than they can consume, and others which are deficient naturally. Even these surplus and deficiency areas are by no means static. They change, and an area which is in a surplus position at one time may be short at another time. Any action by government which interferes with this normal flow of trade could lead to difficulties.
I should like to point out that a regional price support, even under deficiency payment, could remove the incentive from the people in that area to get the best possible price for their product in any market open to them.

They would know that regardless of how low the price was the government would make up the difference.
I will agree with many hon. members that the present method of price support may not be perfect. In fact, no country has yet found a perfect method of supporting the price of farm products. The present method of providing deficiency payments on an annual basis and on a national average price certainly may not protect fully against temporary difficulties in some regions. But it does prevent distortions in the normal flow of trade, permits production patterns to adjust themselves to changing circumstances and, finally, ensures that producers on the average will be compensated if the average national price over the year falls below the national support level.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that it would certainly be premature to comply with the hon. member's wishes and change over to a regional basis, unless and until a method can be found to guarantee that such a basis would not create more difficulties than it could remove.
In closing, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for having introduced this motion which, even if it is not accepted by the house, will at least have allowed us to clarify certain points and become better informed about the numerous difficulties facing the farmers. That will enable the government to continue its progressive work in the field of agriculture to the greatest advantage of the Canadian nation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a measure of support to the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) with regard to his notice of motion which we are discussing this afternoon. I think his contention that support prices should be established on a regional basis rather than on the basis of a national weighted average is a good one. However, I will have to disagree with the contention that has been put forward by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) that there is a possibility of severe interference with the normal exchange of these commodities between regions. I think it is fair to say that, for the most part, what commodities are produced in a region, that is eggs, hogs and so on, are consumed in that region. I am not trying to confine this statement to a province or anything like that.
I remember back in the days when they had a floor price on hogs and they used the
Agricultural Stabilization Act purchasing method to support the price of hogs. The Calgary market is the one with which I am most familiar. At that time the support price for hogs in the Calgary market was based on the Toronto price less the freight. Almost all of the hogs that were coming into Calgary, and I think this applies to Edmonton as well, were either consumed in Calgary or they went to the west coast. The price of hogs in Toronto had nothing to do with the situation at all. There was very little, if any, of that pork that went from the western region to Toronto, but this was the basis of the support price that was paid in that market.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same argument applies to a large extent to eggs and a number of other things. I am not going so far as to say that every egg or every pound of pork produced in a region is also consumed there. I feel, however, that the amount of these products exchanged between regions is so small in relation to the total volume it would not present a problem at all. I want to say that I believe it would be far more fair to have these prices established on the basis of regional prices than national ones.
I am wondering if the sponsor of this notice of motion has not inadvertently made a mistake in the wording of the second part of this resolution. It reads in part as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Agricultural Stabilization Act to:...
(2) Have these deficiency payments made semiannually instead of annually at the present time.
It would appear that the sponsor actually wants these cheques to be mailed twice a year, and I do not believe that is what he wants. I believe he wants to have the calculation made-


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, the intention was that the calculation should be made semiannually or quarterly and the cheques could be issued at the end of the year, as was suggested during the campaign.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I thank the hon. member for clarifying that because, having heard his remarks, I believed that was what he intended. However, I believe he will have to agree that the wording of the paragraph does not lead one to believe the calculation should be made on the average prices that were in effect during the semi-annual period. The wording is that the payments should be made semiannually. I believe there is some merit to this suggestion. We know that there are some wide fluctuations in prices, particularly of eggs. I think we could have a more uniform

Agricultural Stabilization Act price base and provide more stability to the egg producing industry if we were to make these deficiency payments on the basis of prices calculated every six months or, as has been suggested, quarterly.
I do not want to go into a lot more detail on this matter this afternoon because I know there are a large number of members who want to speak on the subject. I do believe there is merit in the suggestion the hon. member has made. Furthermore, in answer to the previous speaker, I think that the additional benefits that would flow from this resolution would far outweigh the difficulties that the adoption of it may bring.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for bringing forward this resolution at this particular time. This problem has been with us for a number of years, going back almost to the time when the stabilization act was first passed by the Diefenbaker government. There have been repeated efforts on behalf of the producers of eggs to bring to the attention of the cabinet and the Department of Agriculture the problems of producers in various areas of Canada under certain circumstances.
Last week I was in my riding and eggs were selling at the wholesale level at about 16 cents to 17 cents per dozen. Many of the country stores were paying only 12 cents or 13 cents per dozen for eggs, and most of these were going into local consumption. I was very interested in the remarks made by the last speaker from the opposite side. I was rather surprised when he took a stand that was somewhat different from that taken by his party leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), during the last two election campaigns. He went from one end of this country to the other pledging something would be done to solve this problem.
I would remind members on the other side of the house that during the period when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, some of the members who now occupy the front benches pointed out to us the need for the kind of legislation that is being proposed today by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale. We wonder whether or not this was one of those things which the Prime Minister has described on one or two occasions as statements made during the heat of the election campaign. This matter may not seem to be very important to the Liberal party, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) or to the Prime


Minister, but it is important to those who are trying to make a living from the production of eggs in western Canada. I know of no part of western Canada that is feeling to a greater extent the full effect of the discrimination caused by the present regulations than the province of Saskatchewan.
I really believe the Minister of Agriculture would like to do something about this matter. I hope that he will try to stir those who are near him on the treasury benches to make this minor change in the regulations that could give hope to a number of people who presently do not enjoy hope. What has been said about hogs, of course, is equally true. At the moment it does not apply because prices are not in that particular relationship. All we are asking is that this government do some of the things they said they would do when they were in opposition, some of the things many of us felt would be done as soon as this legislation had reached a stage where those in charge could realize that a change from the original regulations was necessary and vital to the success of the act.


Mr. Patrick Tobin Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for the initiative he has taken in presenting this motion.
I have done some research on the regional versus the national basis of providing deficiency payments on egg and hog prices, and with the help and co-operation of the stabilization board. I have come to the following conclusions. Since the deficiency payment method of supporting egg and hog prices was introduced, representations have been made to the stabilization board to the effect that the deficiency payments should be made on a regional rather than on a national basis. It has been claimed that producers in certain parts of the country would have received considerably larger amounts if the payments had been made on a regional basis.
In view of these representations the board has undertaken to calculate and compare the results of using both bases in the case of the egg support program. In this study separate calculations have been made for each of the nine provinces, and for Canada as a whole. This makes it possible to see what the results would have been if the payments had been made on a provincial as well as on a national basis.
In investigating this matter the first thing to remember is that, regardless of which

basis of administration we wish to consider, it is necessary to calculate two particular prices. In every case it is necessary to determine the prescribed or support price and the weighted average market price. Thus, in order to provide deficiency payments on a provincial basis, we must calculate the support price and the weighted average market price for each province. Any deficiency payment that would be paid to the producers of a certain province would be the difference between the support price and the weighted average market price of that particular province.
The following two tables show the base price, the support price, the weighted average market price, and the deficiency payment for each of nine provinces, and for Canada considered as a national unit, for the egg marketing years 1961-62 and 1962-63. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask permission of the house to have these figures accepted as read, as I do not want to take all the time of the house on this matter. These are figures supplied to me by the stabilization board, comparing the prices and the results of their tests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Maybe the hon. member would be good enough to give me the source of his figures?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: These are the comparisons of the amount of deficiency payable to producers of grade A large eggs in 1961-62, using regional and national bases of calculation, and they show the same thing for the year 1962-63.
Agricultural Stabilization Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to have them printed in Hansard,'!


Reynold Rapp: Are they too long to read into the record, because we are interested to know this while the motion is before the house for debate?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: If the hon.
member does not wish to have his motion passed, because this is going to take extra time, I shall read the table, but I was trying to help him.


Reynold Rapp: I am not objecting to it.


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: I am just referring to the figures prepared by the stabilization board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house agree that these figures be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member name the person who did the calculating?


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: These are statistics that have come from the stabilization board and it would save a lot of time if I did not read them in the house but had them printed in Hansard.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
TABLE 1.-Comparison of amount of deficiency payable to producers of grade A large eggs in 1961-62, using regional
and national bases of calculation
	Weighted ave. producer price 1951-60 (base price)	Prescribed or support price (87.09 per cent of base price)	Weighted ave. market price Oct. 1/61 to Sept. 30/62	Deficiency payment payable for the year Oct. 1/61 to Sept. 30/62	
				Regional basis	National basis
			-cents per dozen-		
British Columbia	35.6	34.7	0.9	1 0Alberta	30.0	28.4	1 6	Saskatchewan	
33.9	29.5	28.0	1.5	1 0Manitoba	
33.2	28.9	27.6	1.3	10Ontario	34.7	34.2	0.5	10Quebec	
41.6	36.2	33.2	3.0	1 0New Brunswick	
42.8	37.3	38.2	o	1 0Nova Scotia	
42.5	37.0	36.6	0.4	1 0Prince Edward Island	
38.6	33.6	32.0	1.6	1.0Canada	
39.0	34.0	33.0	1.0	1.0
3670

Agricultural Stabilization Act TABLE 2.-Comparison of amount of deficiency payable to producers of grade A large eggs in 1962-63 using
regional and national bases of calculation
	Weighted average producer price 1952-61 (base price)	Prescribed or support price (90.7 per cent of base price)	Weighted average market price Oct. 1/62 to Sept. 30/63	Deficiency payment payable for the year Oct. 1/62 to Sept. 30/63 Regional National basis basis	
			cents per dozen-		
British Columbia	.... 39.5	35.8	37.4	0	0Alberta	.... 32.8	29.7	30.8	0	0Saskatchewan	.... 32.2	29.2	29.8	0	0Manitoba	.... 31.6	28.7	31.1	0	0Ontario	.... 38.4	34.8	38.6	0	0Quebec	.... 40.2	36.5	37.5	0	0New Brunswick	.... 41.7	37.8	41.2	0	0Nova Scotia	.... 41.1	37.3	37.8	0	0Prince Edward Island	.... 36.7	33.3	34.5	0	0Canada	.... 37.5	34.0	36.8	0	0
An examination of table I shows several things. In the first place it indicates that if the deficiency payments had been made on a provincial basis, farmers in the three prairie provinces and Prince Edward Island would have received a fraction of a cent per dozen more than they actually did; that farmers in Quebec would have received two cents per dozen more, and that those in the remaining four provinces would have received from a fraction of a cent to a cent a dozen less.
It is also evident that payment on this basis would have meant that producers in Quebec would have received a payment of three cents a dozen, whereas those in New Brunswick would not have received any payment at all. It may also be noted that, if payment had been made on a provincial basis, the amount would have been different in every province. This is in contrast to the complete uniformity of payment which exists when payments are made on a national basis.
Again it can be seen that if payments had been made on a provincial basis no producer in any part of the prairie provinces could possibly have received more than $24 extra income. This could only have happened in Alberta where a producer could have obtained .6 cents a dozen on a maximum of
4,000	dozens.
Finally, it is clear from an examination of the table that the mere act of shifting from

a national to a regional basis cannot possibly remove more than part of any inequality or unfairness that may exist in the distribution of deficiency payments. Moreover, this must be the case, regardless of the size or number of regions that might be chosen. While a division into nine regions corresponding with nine provinces might result in a slightly more equitable distribution, it certainly could not ensure anything like complete equity. The truth is that in order to get complete justice or equity in this matter, the calculations would have to be made on an individual farm basis, rather than on either a national or regional basis.
It is obvious, of course, that any program which involved the calculation of a separate payment for every individal farm would be hopelessly unwieldy, extremely expensive, and virtually impossible from the administrative standpoint. This last statement points to a very important reason for not using any regional basis of payment, namely the fact that it would greatly increase the complexity, the cost and the general difficulty of administration. Moreover, these difficulties would multiply as the number of administrative regions increased.
On the basis of ordinary logic, as well as the data shown in table I, I submit that a truly remarkable degree of justice can be obtained without resorting to anything more

complex, and from an administrative point of view, more difficult and expensive, than the national basis of payment.
However, regardless of which basis is or should be used, it seems desirable to try to explain precisely why the payments tend to be distributed differently when a regional basis of payment is used than when the national basis is used. For example, why would the use of the regional basis have increased the payment going to producers in each prairie province by a fraction of a cent a dozen, as indicated in table I? In order to explain this it is necessary to remember that the national weighted average market price is a price which reflects the quantity sold as well as the price received in each and every section of the country. It is especially important to realize that the variation in the quantity marketed in the different sections of the country played a very important part in determining the actual level of this national average price. In order to realize the real significance of this factor, it should be noted that there are approximately twice as many grade A large eggs marketed in eastern as in western Canada.
So, not only are eggs normally sold at a higher price in the east than in the prairies, but far more eggs are sold in the east than in the west. Therefore, in determining the national weighted average market price, the price-raising effect of the larger eastern marketings is considerably greater than the price-reducing effect of the smaller western marketings. The net result is that the national average price is raised a little, simply because more eggs are marketed in the east. And, to the extent that this price is raised, the amount of the deficiency payment is reduced.
In connection with table 2, it will be noted that the relationship between the support and market prices in the year 1962-63 was such that no deficiency payment was called for- and this whether the regional or national basis of administration had been used. Of course, this is because the average market price for the year is higher than the support price in every province, as well as in Canada as a whole. In addition to all the other reasons for not making the payments on a regional basis, there is the very practical difficulty of deciding how many regions there should be, and where a region should begin and end. If the regional basis were adopted, rational procedure would probably result in dividing the country into at least four or five regions. Apart from the fact that any such division would add greatly to the administra-
Agricultural Stabilization Act tive difficulties, it should be realized that it would undoubtedly lead to serious confusion on the part of producers themselves.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) for bringing this matter before the house once again. Before I go further, I might say I challenge the statistics used by the hon. member who has just spoken. He spoke of $24. Well, 4,000 dozen eggs at 6 cents a dozen, comes to $240, if my mental arithmetic is correct, not $24, and $240 represents a considerable sum to most of my farmers. I may say I am sceptical about the rest of the hon. member's statistics too, and I am sorry we allowed him to put the two tables on the record without challenge.
Frankly, I think that when we ask for regional and quarterly payments we are putting forward a demand which is only fair. Let us divide the country into these regions- British Columbia, the prairies, central Canada and the maritimes. We do not ask that it be done on a provincial basis. It must be borne in mind that all the feed grain subsidies which are now going east are not helping the western farmer. The federal government is paying them in order to help the eastern feeder to produce eggs and hogs. Then there is the other problem which has been mentioned a good deal in this chamber lately- the low water level on the great lakes as a result of which boats are travelling a thousand bushels short. All right. My friends from central Canada tell me the world is bright and rosy; yet they squabble over half a cent a pound on cheese.
Let us be fair to all parts of the country. We feel that the regional basis as a means of making deficiency payments is a fair basis. We feel, too, that our request that payment be made quarterly is a fair and reasonable one. Consider this situation: One man markets a thousand hogs in July and a thousand in February. Another, due to circumstances, has to come in on that last quarter. I do not believe for one minute that opposition speakers can go back to their ridings and say, honestly, that the government is doing its job in this connection, and I think this point has been well made by others who have spoken from this side.


Reynold Rapp: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must advise the house that if the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale speaks he will close the debate.
20220-233i

Agricultural Stabilization Act


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: The motion before us suggests that the stabilization act be amended so as to provide for regional price support and semi-annual deficiency payments. The hon. member who put it forward stated that there had been a misunderstanding of some sort in connection with this whole idea. But the argument I wish to advance is directed to the impracticability of making semi-annual payments.
The legislation, of course, does not have to be changed to provide for these features. They can be introduced under the act as it now stands. To amend the act to provide for regional supports or for semi-annual deficiency payments would be meaningful only if it was intended to have the law require that price supports be on a regional basis and that deficiency payments be made semiannually. If that is the intent of the motion, it could present some very serious difficulties.
While the motion mentions eggs and hogs it also adds the word "et cetera", and presumably the intention would be to apply it to all products which are on a deficiency payment basis of support.


Reynold Rapp: I point out that the stabilization board already has authority to authorize payments on a regional basis or on a semi-annual basis. I do not think the act would have to be changed.


Eugene Whelan: That is what I said. But it would be quite impractical to do this. It would be altogether impractical to make semi-annual deficiency payments for such seasonal crops as sugar beets, or soybeans, or Ontario wheat, or tobacco, to mention a few products which are under deficiency payments and are produced only once each year. After the marketing year for such crops is over, the average returns to producers are calculated and if these are below the support level a deficiency payment is made. There would be no practical way in which these payments could be made semi-annually.
There are some other questionable features of the motion, even if it were intended to apply specifically to eggs and hogs. It suggests that deficiency payments be "on a cumulated regional price basis rather than on a national weighted average price".
There are two components of a deficiency payment. One is the support level. The other is the average price which producers receive. If the average price received by producers is less than the support price, a deficiency payment is made for the amount of the difference. At present, for example, the support
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
level is 34 cents per dozen for grade A large eggs and 23.65 cents per pound for grade A hogs. These are national average support prices. If the weighted national average price received by producers during the year is below those support prices there is a deficiency payment.
The motion, though, appears to deal with only one of the components of the deficiency payment calculation. It seems to deal only with the price received by producers, and suggests that this should be calculated on a cumulated regional price basis. This appears to assume that if Saskatchewan, for example, were established as a region for eggs, the amount of the deficiency payment would be the difference between the 34 cent support price and the cumulated price received by producers in Saskatchewan. This would not be so. The 34 cent support price is a national average price. It is an averaging of prices in the higher priced regions, such as Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, with those in lower priced regions, such as Saskatchewan. If we were to have regional price supports, then both the support price and the price paid to producers would have to be based on prices in that region. The support price for Saskatchewan under that arrangement would be much lower than the present 34 cent national support price.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: How could our price be lower than it is today? The hon. member said it would be lower on a regional basis. The price is 17 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs now. How could it be any lower?


Eugene Whelan: If you work it out on a regional average price as compared with the national price, it will be lower. In general, changing both the support level and the calculation of producers' returns to a regional basis would not change the situation in different areas very much from what it is now on a national basis. Then, of course, there is the problem of deciding how to define a region. This is one of the real difficulties in working out a regional basis of support. It would hardly be practicable to rely on provincial boundaries. A great many Saskatchewan hogs, for example, are marketed in Manitoba. If the principle was extended to cattle, where would a region begin and end anywhere in the west or, for that matter, anywhere other than nationally? It has to end nationally.
The same difficulty exists with the proposal for semi-annual deficiency payments, even for commodities like eggs and hogs which are marketed throughout the year. Here it seems

to be generally assumed that deficiency payments would be based on the annual support price. But this could not be so. Just as there are areas where eggs and hogs prices are normally lower than in other areas, so with both eggs and hogs there are seasons when prices are higher or lower than in other seasons. If there were to be semi-annual deficiency payments, the support price would have to be calculated on a 10-year average price for those six months, and not for the full year.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? There is a limit on the number of hogs or the number of dozen eggs you can market and claim deficiency prices for, and it does not matter what time of the year you market them. The hon. member sounds as though he is reading from something written by the stabilization board. I have heard these arguments before.


Eugene Whelan: I did not think I sounded that professional, Mr. Speaker, because I am only a farmer who has had a great deal of experience with deficiency payments. I can say honestly and sincerely that a great many farmers in Canada believed that deficiency payments on this 10-year, so-called average were going to be the saviour of agriculture, and I can tell the house that today, and this has been the case most of the time in the past, the farmers in my area dread the day the announcement is made. They knew it would have this effect. Certain statements have been made today that those on the front benches on this side of the house ran up and down the country proposing the same things as the hon. member is proposing in his motion.


Reynold Rapp: That is right.


Eugene Whelan: I would say this, and I have said it before, that when I campaigned-I don't care how those on the front benches campaigned; I am in the Liberal party and we can campaign any way we like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugene Whelan: -I maintained that when the country had good management and industry and everything else was booming, agriculture would go along with it. In my own area, on a 10-year average the price of soybeans and other commodities would be much lower if the price was announced, and it would not be of any benefit to anybody in the area now.
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would answer a question. Do you have a different agricultural policy, then, for each constituency?


Eugene Whelan: I am in a free and democratic country, and I would like to remind the hon. member and everyone else in the house, as a farmer who is familiar with these things but who is not a professional, as one hon. member suggested, that my experience of deficiency payments and their effect on agriculture is that if the economy of the nation is booming, as it is at the present time, agriculture in general will benefit from that situation. We can remember well that the former minister of agriculture said, with regard to agricultural policy, "Your turn is coming. Be patient and wait; your ship is coming in". It never came in during all the time he was minister of agriculture.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) permit a question?


Eugene Whelan: I haven't much time.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is a very short question.


Eugene Whelan: I would like to tell the hon. member, with regard to deficiency prices on sugar beets, that when the Minister of Agriculture was in Chatham-


Harold Warren Danforth: Will the hon. member now answer a question on sugar beets?


Eugene Whelan: Sure, as long as you do not take up all my time.


Harold Warren Danforth: I ask the hon. member this question for clarification only, since he did mention sugar beets, and to follow his argument. Is he against a regional payment under the stabilization act for Ontario sugar beets?


Eugene Whelan: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this country has never had a sugar beet policy that was definite. Even what was stated by the former prime minister of this country to the sugar beet growers of western Ontario was refuted the very next day by the chairman of the sugar beet board. We need a policy that will produce sugar for our nation, and such a policy is being worked on by the members of our party right now.


Harold Warren Danforth: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: This motion does not indicate how these very serious difficulties associated with regional supports and semi-annual deficiency payments would be overcome, and in

Business of the House
the absence of these problems being resolved it would be premature to require that those features be introduced into the act.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the house leader about the business for Thursday and Friday. Will we be having estimates on both days?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the order of business will be as announced yesterday; that is, we shall continue the debate on second reading of the bill respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada. Then we will proceed with the resolution preceding a bill
to amend the National Housing Act, 1954. After that we will probably deal with a third bill, concerning the building of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the city of Ste Foy and the municipality of St. Nicolas. The following item of business will be the present order No. 13, which is the resolution preceding a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act, which will be followed by the present order No. 12 on the order paper, the resolution preceding a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act. On Friday we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 28, 1964